Blue Cord

In a previous post, I noted that it would be interesting to see how my paper on Deuteronomy and Joshua would be received at the European Association of Biblical Studies in August, due to the differences between American and European scholarship. One of my former students asked me to explain these differences, so I thought I would give a brief summary. My comments will be confined mostly to Pentateuchal studies, since that is my area of specialization.

The current differences between them began in the 1970s with the breakdown of the consensus concerning the Documentary Hypothesis. One of the causes of this breakdown was the work of Rolf Rendtorff, one of Gerhard von Rad’s students. Rendtorff argued that there was a big difference between source criticism on the one hand and form and tradition criticism on the other. Although von Rad and Noth had worked with both, Rendtorff thought that they were at odds with each other. He said that too often, tradition critics stopped their analysis too soon and jumped straight to the sources. Instead, he wanted to see the oral transmission process as being much more responsible for the shape of the Pentateuch as we have it now. In the oral stage, blocks of traditions began to take shape around the primeval history, the patriarchs, the exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, Sinai, and the conquest. Only at a late period did authors step in an stich these tradition blocks together.

Much of the work on the Pentateuch in Europe has continued to follow these lines. Europeans are much more likely than Americans to follow a strictly form and tradition critical approach. There are exceptions, of course, including (ironically) Erhard Blum, who was Rendtorff’s student.

Americans, on the other hand, are more likely to follow the source critical method and see the authors as much more important in shaping the Pentateuch. Some, such as Richard E. Friedman, still follow the Documentary Hypothesis, while others have moved to more of a supplementary hypothesis. Chief among these would be John van Seters, who views J as a very creative author who brought together much of the Pentateuchal material for the first time. (The approaches of Van Seters and Blum have a good deal in common.)

Another area of difference, although one not limited to the Pentateuch, is the current debate between maximalists and minimalists (terms which ignore those of us in the middle). Simply put, maximalists tend to give a good deal of credence to the Old Testament record when reconstructing history, while minimalists see little historical value in the texts of the Bible. In broad strokes, American’s tend to be maximalists, while Europeans are minimalists, although there are certainly large numbers who do not fit that pattern. Influential in the minimalist camp is the so-called ‘Scandinavian School’ or ‘Copenhagen School,’ with scholars such as Thomas Thompson (the man so nice they named him twice) and Niels Peter Lemche. The influential work of W.F. Albright (of blessed memory) and Frank Moore Cross has led Americans to be more maximalists. The truth, of course, probably lies somewhere in between, which is also where you will find most of the scholars on this issue. The maximalist-minimalist debate has gotten quite a bit of play, however, because those on the ends of the spectrum tend to speak the loudest.

The Biblical Studies Blog Carnival for April will be hosted here on the Blue Cord. This post is the call for submissions to the carnival.

To quote from Tyler F. Williams, the grand poobah of the Biblical Studies Blog Carnival:

The goal of the Biblical Studies Carnival is to showcase the best of weblog posts in the area of academic biblical studies. By “academic biblical studies” we mean:

• Academic: Posts must represent an academic approach to the discipline of biblical studies rather than, for instance, a devotional approach. This does not mean that posts have to be written by an academic, PhD, or professor — amateurs are more than welcome! Nor does it mean that posts must take a historical critical approach — methodological variety is also encouraged.
• Biblical Studies: Broadly focused on discipline of biblical studies and cognate disciplines, including Ancient Near East, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Christian Origins/New Testament, Intertestamental/Second Temple literature (e.g., LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, etc.), Patristics, Biblical Criticisms and Hermeneutics, Biblical Studies and popular culture, among other things.

I encourage you to submit your nominations from April. You may do so either by going to the Blog Carnival home page and using their form or by e-mailing the following information to blogcarnival@bluecord.org:

• The title and permalink URL of the blog post you wish to nominate and the author’s name or pseudonym.
• A short (two or three sentence) summary of the blog post.
• The title and URL of the blog on which it appears (please note if it is a group blog).
• Include “Biblical Studies Carnival V” in the subject line of your email.
• Your own name and email address.

Please note that you may nominate your own posts or those of another blogger. You do not have to be a biblioblogger to submit a post. Those who read the blogs are also encouraged to submit nominations.

Biblical Studies Blog Carnival V will be posted the first week of May.

Welcome to the Blue Cord, a new biblioblog dedicated to the academic study of the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, although I will feel free to post on just about any topic related to the Bible that interests me.

While the Blue Cord is a new biblioblog, it is a continuation of my previous blog called Karamat. Karamat was hosted on Xanga, which was too restrictive for what I wanted to do. So, I got myself my own domain and moved my blog here. Eventually, I hope to move all my Bible-related posts from Karamat to the Blue Cord, but as of now only posts from April have been moved. Posts concerning my work in Lithuania and my family’s travels will continue to be hosted on Karamat for now, while the Blue Cord will be devoted exclusively to biblical studies.

As you can see, the blog is a bit bare bones right now. As time goes by, more bells and whistles will be added. I also want to change the layout slightly, as I don’t like the font or the spacing in the posts. Given my html knowledge, that might take a little while.

As can be seen from the box in the upper right hand corner, the name of this site is taken from Numbers 15:37-41, which required the Israelites to make tassels of blue cord on the corners of their gaments. The tassels were to remind them to follow the commandments of the Lord. It is to be hoped that this blog will help people (including me!) understand the Bible better as well as allowing me better to participate in the stimuating discussions that have been fostered by the phenomenon of biblioblogging.

Let the conversations continue!

I just got word that my paper on Deuteronomy and Joshua as a combined document has been accepted for presentation at the European Association of Biblical Studies meeting in Budapest, Hungary, this coming August. I have delivered papers at Society of Biblical Literature meetings in America before, but this is my first European conference. Given the difference between European and American scholarship on the Pentateuch, it will be interesting to see how my paper is received.

An idea occurred to me this past weekend as I was reading over the galley for my forthcoming book on the legal sections of the Pentateuch. I wanted to share this with fellow biblical scholars to see if it sounded plausible or simply old hat. I could not find this idea discussed in any of the commentaries here, but my personal collection of books plus the college library hardly amounts to a research collection.

The candelabra in the tabernacle is described as a seven branched lamp stand. It has often been connected with the tree of life, a motif that is common in ancient Near Eastern iconography, especially in temples. The biblical text never calls it a tree of life, however. The only two places that the tree of life occurs in the Old Testament is in Proverbs, where wisdom is called the “tree of life,” and of course in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3.

It occurred to me that there might be a connection between the Garden of Eden and the temple. There are several points of contact between them.

• Both contain the tree of life.
• Both are guarded by cherubim. Cherubim are placed at the Garden of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen.3:24) while the curtains in the tabernacle have cherubim woven into them (Exod.26:1).
• Both are places where people cannot go. No one may enter the Garden of Eden, while only priests are allowed in the tabernacle.
• The entrance to the Garden of Eden is on the east side (Gen.3:24). The entrance to the tabernacle and temple are on the east as well.
• The garden is the place where God dwelled, or at least came for a walk in the evening (Gen.3:8). God also lives in the temple, enthroned on the ark of the covenant.

If this idea is true, then the tabernacle and later the temple could have been envisioned as a recreation of the Garden of Eden. Humans were driven out of the original garden, but now through God’s grace the Israelites have been granted a limited access to the garden and the tree of life.