Blue Cord

In preparing for my classes this semester, one of the classes I am looking forward to teaching is Biblical Interpretation. This is a class I have taught every fall since I have been here, but I have been unsatisfied with it each time. This is not to say that the students did not learn, but I have not felt that the class has ‘clicked’ the way I have wanted it to.

Part of this is due to the textbook I have been using, Gordon and Fee’s How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Due to the financial situation of our students here in Eastern Europe, we check out their text books to them at the beginning of the semester. This means that we have to keep a supply of textbooks on hand, so they get reused year after year. To keep our costs down, we can only afford to replace a certain percentage of these each year. When I arrived, this was the textbook that someone several years before had selected, so I was stuck with it. Unfortunately, it is a perfectly horrendous book for teaching exegesis.

This year, however, I have finally gotten the book replaced. I will be using Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Michael J. Gorman. It was recommended to me by another professor who had used it. Reading through it as I am preparing the course, I am impressed with both the simplicity and thoroughness with which the subject is covered.

Gorman begins with a methodological chapter talking about all the various approaches to the text. He divides them into three categories: synchronic, diachronic, and existential. Into this final he places approaches in which the text is to be engaged in order to affect life. In this, he includes such approaches as canonical criticism, theological exegesis, and liberation theology. Gorman, however, focuses primarily on synchronic approaches, although he does include some diachronic elements. This is in contrast to How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth, which taught one approach and viewed all others as flawed.

Gorman also notes repeatedly that interpretation is as much an art as it is a science. Again, this contrasts with How to Read . . . which seemed to tell students that if you follow their method you will automatically come out at the correct interpretation.

This has renewed my interest in teaching this class. I am much more optomistic about it this year than I have been in the past. That is a plus, because I felt bad that such an important subject was getting mediocre treatment at my hands.

According to Pravda, the source of all Mesopotamian apocalyptic stories has been found. A large meteor crater, made about 10,000 years ago, has been discovered in the Jordanian desert. The report suggests that the impact gave rise to stories of destruction such as that found in Gilgamesh and perhaps even the Old Testament.

Supposing that the ancient people were observing the unfolding catastrophe (the explosion was visible thousands of kilometers away), it would doubtless leave a lasting impression on their curious minds and would most certainly inspire all kinds of creative outbursts.

It is interesting to note that the scientist who is suggesting all this is a geologist. While I don’t doubt that he is competent to judge whether the crater was caused by a meteor, I am not sure how sound his judgment is on ancient texts. For example, the story of the destruction by the Anunnaki that he quotes is not necessarily a description of a meteor. Sure, it might fit that event, but it could fit lots of other events as well. To suggest that this one event, which predates the stories as we know them by at least 8,000 years, is responsible for all of the apocalyptic stories in the ancient Near East seems a little far fetched.

For those of you who might have missed it, Tyler Williams has put up the latest post in one of my favorite series: Jesus Junk and Christian Kitch.  Its the series that shows the latest tacky religious items that people are trying to sell.  I think Tyler has outdone himself by finding the nail through the hand coat hangers.

Just remember, if any of this is blasphemy to you, it was a blast for me too.

In addition to the links I mentioned a few days ago, Blue Cord is also a place for other resources.  One of these is the collection of syllabi, handouts, and Power Point presentations I am trying to build up.  A number of scholars have places on their site where they keep their course materials.  But instead of me just having my materials, I hope to have resources from several scholars, so people can see approaches other than mine.  I would also like this to be a place where scholars can see how other people approach the same courses they are teaching and perhaps pick up some pointers and new ideas.

As Tyler Williams has pointed out, we are all currently in the middle of gearing up for the fall semester, which means writing new syllabi.  While we are doing this and it is fresh on our minds, I would like to take this opportunity to invite scholars to upload their syllabi to Blue Cord.  All you need to do is create an account (free!), log in, and upload your material.  While you are there, you can also check out the other materials that are available and perhaps get some ideas for courses you will be teaching.  Right now, most of the material is mine with one offering by Steve Cook, but I hope that will soon change.

I look forward to seeing your syllabi (and not just because it will help me write my own!).

The first word of this post was originally “qw2MKJ,” which our new kitten typed by walking across the keyboard. But as she seems too dogmatic (ironically!), I am not going to let her blog anymore. I will give her credit, however, for spelling “qw2MKJ” correctly.

Van Seters has commented on Rendtorff’s comments on the Yahwist in a letter to the SBL Forum. Although it is a nice summary of the disagreements between them, it is nothing new to those who follow source criticism. Rendtorff basically wants to see the formation of the Pentateuch as being due to redactors, while van Seters sees various authors (D, J, and P in that order) adding supplements to the Pentateuch until it reaches its final form.

I think van Seters is more on target here. I find it hard to imagine the Pentateuch coming together without the work of creative authors. Neither communities nor the transmission of traditions produce documents; individuals do (whether working alone [J] or in groups [P]). While I think van Seters is on the right track, I think he also needs to deal with the separation between PT and HS proposed by Knohl. So far, I have yet to hear him comment on this.

I am looking forward to van Seters’s new book, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. I hope to pick it up at the SBL annual meeting in November.