Cutting edge reflections on biblical text formation Empirical models based on ancient Near Eastern literature and variations between different textual traditions have been used to lend credibility to the identification of the sources behind biblical literature and the different editorial layers. In this volume, empirical models are used to critique the exaggerated results of identifying sources and editorial layers by demonstrating that, even though much of ancient literature had such complex literary histories, our methods are often inadequate for the task of precisely identifying sources and editorial layers. The contributors are Maxine L. Grossman, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, Alan Lenzi, Sara J. Milstein, Raymond F. Person Jr., Robert Rezetko, Stefan Schorch, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Ian Young, and Joseph A. Weaks. Features: Evidence that many ancient texts are composite texts with complex literary histories Ten essays and an introduction cover texts from Mesopotamia, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Modern critical scholarship has concluded that the books of the Hebrew Bible have not reached us in their original form but are the products of lengthy evolution. Many of these books are thought to combine the works of more than one author or age and to have undergone considerable revision. Tigay and the other contributors use comparisons of various texts from ancient Mesopotamia and post-exilic Israel. Such comparisons show that the sort of development of biblical literature that nineteenth-century critics were led to postulate from close study of the texts alone is characteristic of many ancient Near Eastern texts. 'Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism' is of value to scholars interested in the Old Testament, as well as religion, theology, Jewish studies, Near Eastern studies, and comparative literature.

Biblical criticism faces increasing hostility on two fronts: from biblical conservatives, who claim it is inherently positivistic and religiously skeptical, and from postmodernists, who see it as driven by the falsities of objectivity and neutrality. In this magisterial overview of the key factors and developments in biblical studies, John Barton demonstrates that these evaluations of biblical criticism fail to do justice to the work that has been done by critical scholars over many generations. Traditional biblical criticism has had as its central concern a semantic interest: a desire to establish the "plain sense" of the biblical text, which in itself requires sensitivity to many literary aspects of texts. Therefore, he argues, biblical criticism already includes many of the methodological approaches now being recommended as alternatives to it and, further, the agenda of biblical studies is far less fragmented than often thought.

What were ancient scribes doing when they copied a manuscript of a literary work? This question is especially problematic when we realize that ancient scribes preserved different versions of the same literary texts. In Scribal Memory and Word Selection: Text Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Raymond F. Person Jr. draws from studies of how words are selected in everyday conversation to illustrate that the same word-selection mechanisms were at work in scribal memory. Using examples from manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, Person provides new ways of understanding the cognitive-linguistic mechanisms at work during the composition/transmission of texts. Person reveals that, while our modern perspective may consider textual variants to be different literary texts, from the perspective of the ancient scribes and their audiences, these variants could still be understood as the same literary text.

This definitive study looks at the task of interpreting Scripture by exploring four broad models for understanding Scripture, namely, “witnessing tradition,” “authoritative canon,” “inspired word,” and “experienced revelation.” The diversity of interpretive approaches implied by the use of these four models is carried further by a methodological openness within each of the four major divisions of the book. For instance, in dealing with the interpretation of scriptural narrative, Goldingay carefully explains how literary approaches to Scripture and a concern for the history in the Bible’s stories can be held together with other interpretive focuses. In his discussion of differing approaches and focuses in interpretation, Goldingay is impressively clear and informative and demonstrates a sophisticated ability to respond to and challenge what other scholars have written. Throughout this volume, Goldingay continually moves toward the interpreter’s final task – communication to others of what has been gained in interpretation. He asks, for example, what are the implications of the different interpretive strategies for Christian life, human liberation, preaching and Christian community life. He demonstrates his conclusions with numerous examples of interpretation – his own and others – of specific Bible passages.

Inconsistency in the Torah

The study deals with the theological message and composition of the Book of Isaiah and promotes a thesis that an early Jewish reception history helps us to find perspectives to understand them. This study treats the following themes among others: 1 Hezekiah as Immanuel was an important theme in the reception as can be seen in Chronicles and Ben Sira as well as in rabbinical writings. The central event which makes Hezekiah such an important figure, was the annihilation of the Assyrian army as recounted in Isaiah 36-37. 2 The Book of Isaiah was interpreted in apocalyptic milieu as the Animal Apocalypse and Daniel show. Even though the Qumran writings do not provide any coherent way to interpret Isaianic passages its textual evidence shows how the community has found from the Book of Isaiah different concepts to characterize the division of the Jewish community to the righteous and sinful ones (cf. Isa 65-66). 3 Ezra and Nehemiah received inspiration from the theological themes of Isaianic texts of Levitical singers which were later edited in the Book of Isaiah by scribes. The formation of the Book of Isaiah then went in its own way and its theology became different from that in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah.