Why on earth should people who are interested in reading the Bible spend so much time studying extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern material?

Alessandro Scafi produced an extremely fascinating book titled, Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth, in which he charted the history of map-making in the western world.  He particularly focused upon the representation of the garden of Eden within medieval maps of the world, mappae mundi, and showed how maps changed through the ages.  I think there are some valuable applications to studying biblical genres that we can make from observing the changes in map-making.

Mappa Mundi from Evesham Abbey, ca. 1390-1415

Notice several features in the map above which are different from modern maps:

• As was typical for mappae mundi, this map is oriented to the East instead of the North
• Paradise was usually located at the far corner of the world, however, (various maps represented Paradise differently but) this map presents “Earthly Paradise” in an inset box that distinguishes it somewhat from the rest of the map.  The map maker wanted to convey the theological message that Paradise was on earth yet humans no longer had access to it.
• Relative distances and shapes of land masses are not accurately represented
• Jerusalem is the center of the world
• Many major cities and other features are not included

So, how do we assess this map?  Is it worthless because it does not accurately represent the geography of the world?

When we interpret and assess mappae mundi we need to understand their genre which includes their intended purpose.  The purpose of these maps was not to guide travelers, in fact, when sailors started using maps as aids for navigation maps changed dramatically (it was at this point that maps changed their orientation to the North, represented geographic features more accurately, etc.).  Instead, these maps were intended to convey theological messages–the relationship between earth and paradise, the effects of the Fall and the exiles to the East, the theological importance of Jerusalem, etc.  If we judged a mappa mundi on the basis of how accurately it represented the actual geography of the world we would be missing its entire point, the reason why it was made in the first place.  It is like this with biblical genres.  Before we interpret a text, any text for that matter, we need to understand its genre and concomitantly the reading expectations that we should bring to it.

Here is another analogy.  This is an old map of the London tube system:

Topological London Tube Map

This map was actually not the first that was produced as a guide for the Tube.  Here is an earlier map:

"Accurate" Tube Map

The latter map provides more accurate relative distances between stops and the actual pathways of the tracks.  However, for a tube rider this map is somewhat confusing.  This is why the former map was produced–it does not represent the relative distances between stops and the lines are drawn in only three ways: horizontally, vertically, and with 45 degree angles.  So, is the topological tube map wrong?  Not really, you see, tube riders only use a map to discern about four bits of data:

• Whether they are on the right line
• Whether they are going in the proper direction
• How many stops until their destination
• Where can they switch lines

A topological map provides all of this data in a clear and easily accessible manner at the expense of an “accurate” geographic representation.  Accordingly, a topological map is perfectly suited for a tube rider, however, if someone were trying make a mashup that overlaid the path of the tube with a Google street map of London a topological map just wouldn’t work.

It is like this with biblical texts–you have to properly understand the purpose and genre of a text or else you will misunderstand or misapply it.  We know this intuitively as we encounter Jesus’ statement, “I am the vine” (John 15:5)–we understand that he was giving a theological statement not a comment on his physical makeup, in other words, this is like a mappa mundi.

But, not all parts of the Bible are as easy to sort out as John 15:5 and that is why looking at cognate texts helps us better understand ancient genre expectations.  Reading cognate texts helps us better understand the purposes and intentions of certain ancient genres, since, like what we see in the difference between medieval and modern maps, ancient conventions can often be quite different from modern ones.  If we apply our modern expectations upon a mappa mundi we make a genre mistake.  Similarly, in many cases, if we apply our modern expectations upon biblical texts we might misapprehend them.  If something as seemingly simple as understanding 600 year old maps is more complicated than we might expect, then how much more complicated is the task of interpreting the Hebrew Bible?

I have enjoyed reading an ongoing discussion on Kevin Wilson’s blog, bluecord, in which his posts have recently explored the topics of the relevance of biblical studies in higher education and the use of the historical critical method. Up to now I haven’t joined in, but I thought I might offer some thoughts from Jon Levensen upon these matters.

Let me say at the outset that I characterize myself as a faithful, critical scholar. I have a commitment to the Christian faith which I do not hide, but I also study the bible and other ancient documents using (not uncritically) certain aspects of historical critical methodology. Having said that, here is an insightful quote from Levenson:

Indeed, a historicism afraid to acknowledge normative judgments about suprahistorical truth eventually deteriorates into historical relativism and experiences mounting difficulty articulating the transhistorical value of historical study itself. This is the dead end to which, in my judgment, the secularization of biblical studies has delivered too many of its practitioners. Ironically, those eager to adapt biblical studies to the modern university now find their own discipline plunging into the crisis that has engulfed the entire university. At the heart of that crisis lie the loss of a transcendent goal for learning and the weakening of the communities and practices that can sustain the faith and belief upon which all learning–and not only biblical studies–depends.¹

In light of this observation, is it any wonder that discussions that fight for the ongoing relevance of biblical studies in higher education and the historical critical method go hand in hand?

1. Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993, xiv. [back]

The New York Times reports on a topic that has been circulating among archaeologists for the past two years and that appears in BAR.  Here is a quote from the article that explains the debate:

Chronology is at the crux of the debate. Exactly when did the nomadic tribes of Edom become an organized society with the might to threaten Israel? Were David and Solomon really kings of a state with growing power in the 10th century B.C.? Had writers of the Bible magnified the stature of the two societies at such an early time in history?

An international team of archaeologists has recorded radiocarbon dates that they say show the tribes of Edom may have indeed come together in a cohesive society as early as the 12th century B.C., certainly by the 10th. The evidence was found in the ruins of a large copper-processing center and fortress at Khirbat en-Nahas, in the lowlands of what was Edom and is now part of Jordan.

What do you think about this debate?  Do you think high and low chronology discussions are worthwile?  Does this discovery add something significant to this debate?

For an interesting discussion concerning the lmlk jar, see G.M. Grena’s blog. I must confess that I am near the top of this discussion since I brought up the question of the authenticity of the jar since it mysteriously slipped out of Israel and to my knowledge was not found in a scientific excavation. While I do believe that we should use artifacts that appear legitimate but that were not found in excavations in our research, we should still view them with a certain amount of skepticism. Especially those objects that mysteriously appear in places in ways that might be dubious. I am not casting accusations since I do not know the full history of this particular object; I am merely making a general observation.

Though scholars are united in their lack of confidence in Scripture and supremely confident in their own theories, they are higly critical of each other’s views.

NPR has had two recent segments that are of interest to Bible and ancient Near East devotees:

1. Today Talk of the Nation entered the unprovenance artifact debate by interviewing the director of the Art Institute in Chicago and Peter Watson who is author of a recent book on looting and museums.
2. On Monday Fresh Air interviewed Neil Asher Silberman who authored a recent book with Israel Finkelstein concerning the historical quest for the real (if even at all) David and Solomon. Apart from a few uninsightful comments, such as stating that finding David’s palace balcony (if there was a David) won’t really prove the Bathsheba encounter, this interview is a good introduction to their views on this subject as well as their approach to history and the Bible in general.

Kevin Wilson keeps churning out the great posts by bucking the system(s) and creating a “hybrid theory” of source criticism. It’s not the Documentary Hypothesis and it’s not quite the Supplementary Hypothesis–but it is the best of both in a nice, beautiful package. Check out this link, it’s only a quick snapshot of his views, but it’s a good summary. Kevin has a bright future ahead of him and I can’t wait to see a forthcoming monograph on this topic (hey, I asked him to write a post about it and he obliged, let’s see if I can get a full book length treatment out of him!).

The Kevins and I have had a wonderful discussion concerning aspects of higher criticism.  One article that might be of interest to all parties is that by Stephen Kaufman, my professor, here is the bibliographic info: The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism, Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982), 29-43.
Here is the abstract of this article:

The compositional techniques used by the author of the Temple Scroll constitute an almost perfect parallel to the composition of the Pentateuch as envisaged by higher criticism–a parallel, moreover, from the same literary tradition.  Although the sources of the Pentateuch are only hypothetical reconstructins, the major source of the Temple Scroll is known to us–the Pentateuch itself.  This provides us the opportunity to test the methods of higher criticism empirically by performing such critical analysis on the Temple Scroll without recourse to its sources and subsequently comparing the results of our analysis with the known sources.

Six major compositional patterns are identified in the Temple Scroll and each is examined to determine its character and characteristics, the possibilities of identifying that character through blind literary criticism, and the possibilities of reconstructing the biblcal sources used therin.  It is shown that although the Temple Scroll demonstrates the feasibility, indeed perhaps even the high probablility, that the Torah, too, was coposed primarily of earlier, written sources, it also demonstrates that the attempt to identify and reconstruct those sources in other than their broadest outlines is a consummately fruitless endeavor.

This should give us pause as we attempt to delineate clear divisions between particular phrases and sometimes words to hypothetical authors.  As Kaufman demonstrates, if we did not have the source material that the Temple Scroll used, we would be very hard pressed to reconstruct the sources they used.  As Kaufman concludes, without the actual sources, we can only make very general remarks concerning the original materials that were edited together.  In fact, in most cases, we are completely unable to recover the textual history at all.

I really like digital communication. It lets scholars communicate with each other with ease. In my last post (written from Cincinnati, Ohio) I referred to a post (written in Berkeley, California) on the subject of higher criticism. I was wanting to get Kevin Wilson’s take on it since he has done extensive work in this area and he graciously obliged (writing from Lithuania). Thanks for the insightful response!

If I might be so bold as to dip my toe into the discussion. I agree with Kevin Wilson, there is a constant re-evaluation of theories in light of new evidence. One might argue that the re-evaluations have not gone far enough, fair enough. But, we see similar methodology in examining sources of documents in other ANE literature–it’s not like the Old Testament is the only ancient document that undergoes this sort of analysis. For instance, see Jeffrey Tigay’s book: The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic in which he tries to trace the text history of that document. Keep up the great work guys, discussions like these make us all better.

P.S. I hope that Jim West is encouraged that there are still rousing discussions happening in the blogosphere!

Kevin Wilson has an interesting post on assumptions concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch.  This is Kevin’s particular area of interest so his comments are all the more worthy of note.