Robert Carroll in his The Bible as a Problem for Christianity, writes, “Bibles. . . are a money-generating enterprise, and the monopolies on printing the Bible held by ancient firms are a testimony not to spirituality but to commercial values. Hence the large number of new translations of the Bible as every publisher attempts to corner part of the market for one of the world’s outstanding bestsellers (the Bible as commodity). Printing Bibles is as much a political and commercial activity as it is anything else.” [Robert P. Carroll, The Bible as a Problem for Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 125]

The commercialization of the Bible and Bible translations have moved far beyond the printed page. The fact that Bible software in general tends to be costly reflects this very problem. The rationalization that the “book” costs a lot because of the printing, etc. is not applicable for the digital versions. However the royalties that are often demanded may exceed a leather bound edition.

Furthermore, when I am working on my own translation of interested passages, I refer from time to time to some of these translations, only to be disappointed. Many are quite doctrinaire and the editors or translators have used a heavy hand. Others show so little originality that one wonders why the translation was necessary in the first place.

It is a shame that we are not able to at least change the situation with the digital versions. . . . Maybe newer translation attempts should take on the “open source” ideology.

Moral or psychological harassment is a growing concern in the U.S.A., Europe and throughout Asia. In Europe it is being defined as: “any repeated behaviour having a negative effect on human, inter-relational or material conditions at the workplace for one or more persons, infringing their rights and dignity and potentially seriously affecting their health and career constitutes moral harassment at work.” (French Labour Code Council)

In many countries, laws are being developed to penalize abusers with the same penalties as sexual harassment. My heart was grieved to hear that such charges are being made at a Bible College that I have taught at in the past by students who have been allegedly abused in such manner by a faculty member. Although the vast majority of moral or psychological harassment charges have occurred in the workplace, the walls of academia are not impervious to this cowardly affront on those that we have been given charge over.

Moral or psychological harassment is especially insidious in religion based educational institutions. The abuse of our sacred ministerial trust, in which scriptures are used to demonize and oppress those who do not fall in line with our policies is cult-like. Pastors, teachers and administrators are warned in most denominations not to take a “dictatorial” attitude over their flock. Penalties could range from loss of ecclesiastical office to defrockment.

Perpetrators of this type of harassment cloak themselves in a delusion that they are “strong” leaders. When in fact they are “weak” and incompetent, not able to lead others to a positive transformation in Christ. A positive, but strong leadership should lead to a healthy respect of the leader and not fear or loathing. We as teachers and administrators, in a Christian setting need to ask ourselves daily if we are causing a “little one” to stumble by bullying and harassment.

Frederick Buechner put it best when he said that the most important thing in ministry is: “to be kind, to be kind, to be kind.” Instead of bullying, a deep respect of each individual, staff, student, faculty and administrator which uphold that one’s personal dignity is the humane and Christian thing to do.

My heart grieves and I do not feel a reprieve, yet, concerning my former colleagues at the aforementioned Bible College as they go through this dark valley. At the same time I believe that we that teach at any Bible College or Seminary must ask ourselves the serious question . . . are we also guilty in one way or another?

Second, narratologists do not solely focus on the modern novel when attempt to establish narratological theories. Although you may find very little biblical material in Genette, the works of Northrop Frye, Robert Alter, and Mieke Bal are three literary scholars that show that there has been a healthy cross fertilization. Both Frye and Alter have written that the Bible has influenced western literature. For Frye it provided a “creative imagination”¹ Alter in his 1999 Rosenzweig Lectures at Yale University proposed a “double canonicity of the Hebrew Bible,” i.e., a “doctrinal canonicity” and a “literary canonicity,” in which beginning with linguistic sensitivity of the postbiblical Hebrew literature ultimately influenced the works of a Kafka, Bialik and a Joyce.² So the western literary tradition itself has been strongly influenced by the Bible and to argue that they do not have major points of contact lacks knowledge in the field.

Third, most scholars who deal with narratology in the Hebrew scriptures realize that there are unique aspects to the style and structure of biblical narratives. Alter relying on and developing analytical tools proffered by the likes of Buber & Rosenzweig in the form of Leitwort and then in a similar vein motifs, themes, sequence of actions, and type-scene are significant.³ The fact that an Aristotelian plot structure could be altered by symmetrical/asymmetrical structural system is another import area of research. Although Shimon Bar-Efrat is aware and these issues, Jerome Walsh who has provided a thorough introduction to the scope of these structural issues.⁴ All in all the narratological analysis that is being used is not an either/or collapsing to the modern novel.

1 Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (San Diego, New York & London: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1983 originally 1981), xii, xxi.

2 See Robert Alter, Canon and Creativity: Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2000).

3 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95-6.

4 See Jerome T. Walsh, Style * Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narratives (Collegevile: The Liturgical Press, 2001).

A colleague brought to mind that narratology may be flawed as a methodology for biblical exegesis since the principles were derived from the modern novel. I have been considering this objection for a little while and would like to present some arguments for the use of narratology in at least studying Old Testament passages.

First, several practitioners have argued for a conscientious use of potential universal components, while putting aside those propositions that may not be readily applicable. For example Adele Berlin has chosen to utilize Boris Uspensky’s levels of point of view. [Boris Uspensky, A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form, trans. Valentina Zavarin and Susan Wittig (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 8-100. It is interesting to note that Licht, Storytelling in the Bible, 147, categorically denies that use of point of view in analyzing the biblical narratives. He writes, “there is no need for us to go into the ‘point of view’ set of problems, because the Biblical narrators do not play around with this aspect of storytelling.”] She justifies her choice in the following statement, “Many of Uspensky’s insights may be profitably applied to the analysis of biblical narrative. . . . Since his analyses are based largely on Russian novels one might not expect much specific correlation with biblical Hebrew, but, as it turns out, many of the same compositional features are present in both.” [Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 57.] Pamela Milne has chosen to utilize the theories of Valdimir Propp to analyze Daniel 1-6. She explains, “Even if Propp’s fairy-tale model proves not to be completely or totally applicable to the stories in Daniel, it does seem likely that it would, at least, be a useful heuristic tool. No other extant model appears to be as closely related to these biblical tales as Propp’s fairy-tale model.” [Pamela J. Milne, Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 15.]

This year several outstanding scholars in the fields of Biblical and Theological studies have died. With each passing, I am reminded of my own mortality and ask myself whether the life I am living as a teacher and researcher of the Bible was and is the best way to spend my life. Even those who attained the highest status that our field offers are downed by the inevitable. . . . death, death in ignominy. Whether you were the saintly, gentlemanly scholar of the stature of Bruce Metzger or the brilliant critic like James Barr, it will only be at an SBL that you are remembered. Brevard Childs, of the canonical analysis fame died this year too and like others left both written and unwritten words.

But it is the passing of John Strugnell on November 30th that challenges me the most. Strugnell was a gifted scholar, teacher and academic-diplomatic. His role as editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls for a time and years of service as Professor of Christian Origins at Harvard Divinity School should be what we remember of his 77 years of life. Except for one bad interview in 1990 with the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz! Although he was not an antisemitic and his bringing Elisha Qimron and Emanuel Tov on board to the stalled Dead Sea Scrolls publications should have spoken to his defense. Yet, the inappropriate comments were said and recorded. It just does not seem to be fair.

The lesson I am trying to understand is how our actions and/or words can have devastating effects on those around us, to say nothing about our own reputations. As a Christian and missionary-teacher, I have begun to ask myself whether what I say and do adversely effect the gospel message of God’s love. I love open debate and having opposing views on even crucial issues, but I do not believe that these are what damages “the message.” It is instead when actions are taken and words spoken that cut across the grains of God’s love. It is when the words and actions are not redemptive.

I do not believe that this was the situation with Strugnell, and yet the slip brought pain to his life. When, on the other hand, actions and words are specifically non-redemptive, the effect is worse, we bring shame on the gospel.

Although the supposed proclamation that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens by the Delphi Oracle has many historical and logical problems, the idea that he was wise because he was aware of his own ignorance is a fascinating story. A story worthy of retelling from time-to-time. I think of it as a true-myth with many valuable real-life lessons.

The story goes something like this . . . . Chaerophon, a friend of Socrates, makes a trip to the Oracle of Delphi and asks if anyone was wiser than Socrates among the Athenians. The Oracle affirmed that Socrates was the wisest! Socrates then dedicates a considerable effort to try to understand the statement, in fact it becomes his “mission” in life. He proceeds by interview many people from different walks of life, especially those that are thought to be wise. Socrates find however that in most cases the people really did not know what they were talking about. They were filled with “vain ignorance and false claims to knowledge.” Those that scored the highest were artisan, that did best when they would respond within their limited field of expertise. This supposedly led Socrates to the conclusion that the Oracle was right, but she was right because he was the only one who knew that he did not know.

Plato’s Apology lists several statements about his knowledge that he did not know. For example: “I recognize in myself that I am not wise in either a small or a large thing,” (Apol. 21b4); “I seem to be wiser than this man in so far as I do not think I know what I do not know,” (Apol. 21d6); I recognize myself, so to speak, as knowing nothing,” (Apol. 22d1); “. . . anyone who, like Socrates, knows that he is in truth nothing in respect of knowledge,” (Apol. 23b3). [See MacKenzie, Mary Margaret, “The Virtues of Socratic Ignorance,” The Classical Quarterly, 38, no. 2 (1988): 331]

In academic communities, especially in a residential campus with both faculty and students living in a relatively confined space, the message of the Oracle and Socrates’ mission is “spot-on.” The faculty with their expertise in specific and narrow areas of life-time study are respected and doted on by their students. The scholar-teacher, probably deserves a certain amount of respect in their field of study, but the students rarely understands the subject sufficiently to know the true qualitative and quantitative degree that he/she has achievement or not. Still the student/s praise the teacher. The sad thing is that the teachers begin to believe the accolades. They begin to broaden their comments in lectures and general conversations, maintaining the same confidence that he/she appropriately/inappropriately used in the specialization. Before long, he/she has become an expert in all things in their own eyes.

It seems to me that the true-myth, the Oracles’ observation as supposedly interpreted through the life experience of Socrates needs to be applied. As an artisan of a sort, the scholar/teacher has his/her field of expertise, but even there, in the larger world outside of the local academic community, a gross lack may be evident. However when it comes to other areas it is even more important to realize that we are all ignorant, especially if we have not even bothered to research that territory with the same vigor as our own.

I was reading William C. Williams, ed. They Spoke from God: A Survey of the Old Testament, hoping to do a review. In a box in chapter 1, Williams writes, “. . . most scholars regard our modern text as a text that is generally superior to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why? Although the DSS are chronologically much older and thus closer to the autographs, the Leningrad Codex was copied with such care that it has preserved order forms of many words than have the Qumran texts.” (p. 32)

I have just finished working through many articles by Talmon, Tov and Ulrich and have not found any hint that “most scholars” would consider the Codex Leningrad superior as such. The evidence indicates that between the years 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. the biblical text was pluriform, if the DSS were typical of the period in general.

I am afraid the comments are a blatant distortion of evidence. But why would anyone do that?

Monday I presented a faculty forum on Technology, Internet and Teaching. The site is here.
Maybe others will find it helpful.

I feel that I have much to learn. My Web-enhanced style of teaching needs a lot more time and care. The interactivity is the key, I know, but that is where I seem to fail. The face-to-face has been easier for me.

I finished working my way through Emanuel Tov’s Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, the other day. This work is a summary of many of his detailed studies on his so-called Qumran scribal practices. I realize that it is his way of supporting his fivefold textual groupings that he identifies as being extant at Qumran and other Judean desert sites.

The problem over the years has been that Tov’s identification of characteristic orthographic and morphological features have not been overwhelming received by the scholarly community. The “baroque style” (Cross) may not have been limited to the Qumran community and the features are not consistently found in the non-biblical sectarian texts (Ulrich and many others). In fact 4Q174 (Florilegium) was the only manuscript with all of the features. However, viewed as a cluster of orthographic/morphological traits, it was better than blind guess work.

Tov’s scribal practices was intended to provide a series of various features that would be used, separate from the orthographic/morphological indicators to prove that a manuscript belonged to the Qumran originated group. The features include: “paragraphos signs, cancellation dots, crossing out of letters and words with a line, parenthesis signs, writing of the divine names with palaeo-Hebrew characters, single letters in the Cryptic A script written mainly in the margin, single palaeo-Hebrew letters, Tetrapunta designating the Tetragrammaton, the X-sign, Separation dots between words, nonfinal letters used in the final position and final letters used in nonfinal position, Guide dots/strokes, scribal cooperation?, Tefillin, Ruling with ink, final handle sheets.” (263-4) The orthography and morphology was then part of this larger cluster.

Although Tov’s work is detailed and I learned much about the manuscripts, I was left with a sense of “incompleteness.” Many of the aforementioned scribal practices, like the Orthography and Morphology were found in a limited number of the manuscripts. The bottom line is that there is no 100% litmus test to identify the scrolls that he has isolated as Qumran practice. At the same time, Schniedewind’s acceptance of the inconsistencies as a proof of the Qumran practices counter-cultural stand and the expression of some-sort-of ideology of the community is a little much.

Would it not be better to just allow for a general fluidity in scribal practices in and out of Qumran?

Tov identifies two other scribal groups. One is the paleo-Hebrew group that he “cautiously” identifies with the Sadducean script. Here Tov speculates with several leading theorists on paleography: Cross, Naveh, Diringer. L. Schiffman’s Sadducean offshoot theory could even be muster to support his cause, but once again the paleo-script may have been a lot more common during the Qumran heyday (McLean) to support even a tentative hypothesis of such (Ulrich).

Working on the proto-Masoretic material at Qumran may be the next step. Tov’s description is far to enigmatic. I can’t believe that with the large cache of texts supposedly from this text group that nothing more than precision, minimal scribal intervention and de luxe format of some of the manuscript outside of Qumran (273) can be identified. For that matter, may be the problem here is that the Rabbinic recension itself is a myth as a internally cohesive unit. Could it be that this witness is a unit only through time as a snapshot of a fluid text?

All-in-all, Tov has continued to labor, with scholarly excellence and yet the finally interpretative solution is still illusive.

I keep reading that the Wadi Murabba’at biblical scrolls along with those from several other locations, i.e., Nahal Hever and Masada indicate an important stage in the standarization of the MT. The fact that Khirbet Qumran was pluriform in textual witnesses, but by the second revolt (132-135) a uniformity becomes dominant??

My problems is that the Murabba’at Pentateuchal material is very small and it looks like it is from one scroll? I can’t imagine that is possible, but the similarity of the writing and the fact that the fragments have been cut . . . . Do scholars really have enough textual evidence to say that these fragments are representative of the overall textual development? I have not read anyone, yet who would argue that maybe those who left the scrolls behind may have had a specific agenda . . . an argument that was common among those scholars who did not want to see the Qumran scrolls as representative, but were “sectarian.” These arguments were stronger back in the later fifties through the seventies, but not in the nineties and following. Ulrich actually has an article against the idea of sectarian tendencies in the biblical material.
So, what am I asking? Are we over-rating the importance of the the Murabba’at, etc. texts in our analysis of the history of the Old Testament text?

How should we take the fact that Rabbinic literature records non-MT material? Is the Severus Scroll story and the Meir Scroll issue enough evidence to put a brake on the development train? See Ginsburg, Intro to the Massoretic-Criticial . . . , 408-437ff. for a fuller picture.

Added Comment:

1) I worked my way through Flint, Peter W. & Andrea E. Alvarez. “Two Biblical Scrolls from Nahal Hever (XHev/Se Num-b and XHev/SeDeut).” Revue de Qumran 72 (1998): 531-540 and I have been convinced that these texts are of the textus receptus type. However does this prove the transition period?