Not a lot. And that is what disappointed me.
I’m reviewing Marvin A. Sweeney‘s TANAK: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible (Fortress, 2012) for BBR so my full reflection will appear there, however, there is an aspect of this book that I’d like to explore here.
I think Sweeney is a fantastic and insightful scholar and I always relish the opportunity to read his latest work. Naturally, I came out of my skin when I heard that he was producing an introduction to the Jewish Bible. There are few people more qualified than him to it and I thought that this book would make a tremendous addition to the reading list for my Old Testament classes.
The first chapter (Part I: Introduction) was classic Sweeney, that is, it blew my socks off. Particularly, the section “The Task of Jewish Biblical Theology” is one of the best reflections that I have ever read that outlines how to engage in constructing a biblical theology from within a particular faith tradition while staying in full conversation with other religious and non-religious communities. Sweeney then goes on to describe a distinctly Jewish approach. In defining what Jewish biblical theology is Sweeney helpfully demarcates it apart from the dominant Christian formulations:
Whereas the Christian Old Testament is read first in relation to the New Testament and then in relation to subsequent Christian tradition with an eye to defining the dogmatic or systematic theological principles that define Christian faith and practice, the Tanak is read in relation to the entirety of Jewish tradition with an eye to defining both the identity of Jews as a distinctive and holy people and the halakhic practices and religious perspectives that are pertinent to Judaism (25).
He goes on to further differentiate Jewish approaches from Christian ones:
Thus Judaism does not find itself based in dogmatic or systematic theological principles as Christianity attempts to do; instead, Judaism emerges as a religion of continuous dialog, both with the traditions and among contemporaries through time, as it seeks to understand the divine will as expressed in Torah and subsequent Jewish tradition (33).
Sweeney outlines many other things but I think these two quotes reflect Sweeney’s vision for Jewish biblical theology: study the text well according to contemporary critical standards and then bring these insights into conversation with Jewish tradition both ancient and modern. My disappointment with the volume stems from the fact that Sweeney doesn’t seem to follow his own advice. He does the former (critical study of the text) very well but the latter (conversation with Jewish tradition) hardly at all. After the introduction the entire balance of the book (save 2 pages of summary conclusion at the very end) is a detailed discussion of the content of Hebrew Bible that works sequentially, and in some cases, textual unit to textual unit, from Gen to Chron.
Looking through this discussion of the content of the biblical text it seems like it could have been the product of pretty much any critical scholar like, say, a Joseph Blenkinsopp (9 entries in the index). Sure, there is a little sprinkling of references to Jewish tradition here and there but practically no more than one would expect from a responsible Protestant, Catholic, or agnostic scholar. For example, Tremper Longman is cited more often than Martin Buber, Anthony Campbell, S.J. makes more appearances than Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Ronald Clements is quoted more than Michael Fishbane. Maimonides and Rabbi Akiba appear one time in the index, RaDaK twice, and Rashi not at all. “Systematic Theology” has three references, the same as ibn Ezra and “Heilsgeschichte” appears just as often (2x) as “Pardes.”
What is missing from this book is a deep and sustained conversation between contemporary critical consensus and Jewish tradition. Sweeney never seems to get very deep into the theological part of this introduction, much less the distincitvely Jewish part. But this is what I deeply wanted. I wanted a deeply critical *and* Jewish approach to the Hebrew Bible. I think that people who engage in biblical and theological studies must remain in conversation–real deep and substantive conversation–with perspectives different than their own. These perspectives should cross all boundaries: ideological, temporal, areas of specialization, etc. Among many other benefits, this stimulates creativity, deepens an understanding of the strengths and weakness of one’s own perspective, and it fosters mutual respect and civil dialog with those that we may disagree with.
Sweeney has produced a great critical introduction to the Hebrew Bible but I am less sure that it is an introduction to the Jewish Bible. Yet, this is what I think Sweeney was in the perfection position to provide and it would have been something that we all would have benefited greatly from.
What are your thoughts on this book in particular or on the bigger topic of inter-religious scholarly study?
Charles,
Thanks for this. You highlight a few of my same questions and perplexities with the volume. While I cannot confess to having read it all, what I have peeked at has been, in a word, disappointing. It is little more than an introduction, a survey, and to my eye–and seemingly also to yours–does little to truly distinguish itself from other critical intros. I had hoped, in seeing the press for the piece, that he would be doing something very much like what Ben Sommer did, excellently in my view, in the Perdue/Sommer edited ‘Biblical Theology’ book published by Abingdon. There Sommer outlines Jewish biblical theology in a way identical to what Sweeney articulates; Sommer, however, seems to actually follow through in his essay. Are you familiar with this book? If not, do check it out.
On the one hand, I think the *attempt* to do a Jewish Biblical Theology leads to interesting work. Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil being the one that really stands as a major work of bible scholarship and a theological reflection.
On the other hand, I doubt Jewish Biblical Theology is a good idea. Liturgy, Halakha and Midrash are at the theological heart of Judaism, and these are all pointedly and aggressively post-biblical. It was Bilhah Nitzan who demonstrated that there is not even evidence of statutory prayer until the Second Temple period. Ben Sommer and James Kugel, in their radically different ways, deal thoughtfully with this tension. But any in-depth treatment of the Hebrew Bible in its Iron Age, Babylonian, and Persian-period contexts will have less limited room for the powerful rethinking that happens in the Second Temple and later periods.
In that last sentence, one school reads “less room” while a minority opinion reads “limited room,” so I have let them both stand together since each are the words of the living…oh never mind.
Charles,
I see your point. But Prof. Sweeney’s book intends, as I see it, to provide a (much needed!) introduction to the Jewish Bible, i.e. Tanakh or Hebrew Bible or just plain Bible (for Jews). His product demonstrates that many of the works in the Introduction-genre are really works on the *Old Testament*–that is, they are fundamentally Christian in orientation, even if not explicitly so. In other words, Marv attempted to write not “a Jewish theology of the Hebrew Bible,” but rather an Introduction that is critical and that treats some questions of theology, without adopting the Christian assumptions and prejudices that have long informed the Intros which purport to be critical and neutral. He seeks to achieve this by adopting a deliberately Jewish perspective.
Seth, I agree with your assessment and Sweeney takes this head on–he discusses Levenson’s essay about the relative absence of theology within Judaism but then Sweeney lists many recent contributions to theology done by Jewish scholars.
Jacob, I take your points but an intro to the Hebrew Bible that does not explicitly adopt Christian assumptions is not a particularly unique thing. Many have done this, Brettler and Kugel come immediately to mind but also scholars from a Christian background have attempted intro to the Hebrew Bible (which, although not an entirely accurate term, attempts to be ideologically neutral) in which they at least try to have the HB stand on its own two feet and not import the NT into it.
Furthermore, Sweeney (or the publisher) titled this book as an intro to the “Jewish Bible” which is a religiously charged term–the counterpoint to the “Christian Bible.” Additionally, in his introductory material Sweeney has substantial sections on “Jewish Biblical Theology” and “The Task of Jewish Biblical Theology” in which he outlines his own view of it. But, then he essentially doesn’t integrate this into the rest of the book. Maybe he intended to introduce readers to these concepts and then let them draw their own conclusions after his discussion of the biblical text (which in fact may have been his intention since the conclusion is so brief) but personally I would have liked to see him build out his vision more fully.
Charles,
Sweeney’s book is unique inasmuch as it a full critical introduction that is written from a self-consciously Jewish perspective. Kugel and Brettler wrote books to lay people and undergrads on How to Read the Bible. Sweeney’s book could be used as the standard textbook in yearlong Introduction to the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible courses in many schools of theology.
In response to your question, What’s Jewish about Sweeney’s Intro to the Jewish Bible?, my point is that Marv intended to write a Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible not a Jewish Introduction to the Jewish Bible. “Jewish Bible” is, once again, another way of saying Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. It is not supposed to be a “religiously charged term.” I am not sure what the alternative to “Christian Scriptures” or “Jewish Scriptures” would be. One might be able to make a case for the existence of some form of secular Bible that has now emerged within the academy. But historically there has only been the two: Christian and Jewish.
If Sweeney keeps the theological part of his work separate from the discussion of the literature itself, it is to respect the integrity of the text and not to interpret it through later concerns. What you are asking him to have done is to write a biblical theology instead of a critical introduction. I think the book would be better judged in terms of its own objectives.
A similar critical introduction to the Jewish Bible is Alexander Rofé’s ???? ?????? ?????, in Hebrew and appearing soon in English:
http://www.magnespress.co.il/website_en/index.asp?id=2760
Rofé’s introduction is very good, actually, it already exists in English translation (Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible; Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9; SIMOR, 2009). But, I think there are significant difference between Rofé and Sweeney that provide different expectations for the reader. Rofé’s title is Intro to the Literature of the HB and this is what he does. There is no discussion of theology Jewish or otherwise, he just begins with literary genres and goes from there.
Sweeney, on the other hand, subtitled his book A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible. I guess in a way he did this–he just provided an intro to Jewish theology, full stop, and a critical introduction to the Bible, full stop, and hardly bridged the two. However, I guess my expectation was that he would since this is what he outlined in his discussion of the Task of Biblical Theology and from my perspective at least I would have benefited from it.
Also, there have been introductions that have attempted to present an intro to the Bible merely as a piece of literature and not in a religious or theological way. For instance, Michael Dick’s intro (even though he titles it Reading the Old Testament).
I think there exists an alternative to “Old Testament” and “Jewish Bible” in “Hebrew Bible” (even though it is not perfect) yet I don’t know if there is a non-ideological term for “New Testament” since “Greek Bible” would include a lot more than that but I grant that maybe I was reading too much into Sweeney’s use of “Jewish Bible.”
I came to the book with similar expectations, and upon seeing nothing more than something in the critical introduction genre, I passed it by. I, too, wanted to see Sweeney do Jewish theology. That being said, I talked to Dr. Garrett about it (he’s reading it himself), and he agreed that the intro was really stimulating.
I agree about Rofé. It is is not the kind of introduction Sweeney provides.
“Hebrew Bible” is a ecumenical academic neologism that is really not a suitable alternative nomenclature for “Mikra,” “Tanakh,” or “Jewish Bible,” because it suggests that there is another Bible for Jews that is not Hebrew.
Those introductions that treat the Bible as literature in an academic manner often (unknowingly) reflect either Christian or Jewish assumptions. Sweeney avoids this problem by writing from an explicitly Jewish stance.
I remain confused as to how theological this book is supposed to be–if it’s actually a “critical introduction” then Walter Bruggeman is wrong to call it “an important move beyond critical study to Jewish sources and modes of interpretation.” OTOH the only sections explicitly devoted to theology are quite brisk and general, to say the least.
Also, what on earth is the idea in calling him “G-d”? To show that he’s a different being from the Christian or Muslim one? As far as I know the Halakhic foundations of this are shaky. And everyone knows his real name is Elokim.
I grew up with Jehovah, which is a risk one runs as a Christian.
I have my doubts however about the move to “Yahweh” in some strands of contemporary Christian liturgy.
But John, Bono uses it, so it must be ok, right?
You’re right, Michael. I really need to get with the program.
On a more substantive note, the best models of Jewish biblical theology informed by historical critical interpretation I can think of derive from Nahum Sarna and Moshe Greenberg in days of old; neither of course wrote monographs dedicated to speaking Jewishly about God based first and foremost on Miqra understood apart from traditional exegesis, but they commentary and essays in which they did precisely that (I’m thinking of a number of seminal essays by Greenberg; the series Understanding Genesis, Exodus, broken off). Since then the JPS Torah and Bible commentary series move in the same direction; Michael Fishbane’s Haftarot volume is indeed, as Benjamin Sommer called it, a great example of “canonical exegesis” of the kind Brevard Childs advocated.
Jon Levenson is another example of someone endeavoring to do both historical critical interpretation and Jewish biblical theology (Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The JEWISH Drama of Divine Omnipotence), despite protestations to the contrary (“Why Jews Are Not Interested In Biblical Theology”).
Pingback: Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology « ???????
Pingback: Book Notes: Old Testament Introductions | ?timothy michael law?