What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture
What if the Hebrew Bible wasn't meant to be read as "revelation"? What if it's not really about miracles or the afterlife - but about how to lead our lives in this world? The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture proposes a new framework for reading the Bible. It shows how biblical authors used narrative and prophetic oratory to advance universal arguments about ethics, political philosophy, and metaphysics. It offers bold new studies of biblical narratives and prophetic poetry, transforming forever our understanding of what the stories of Abel, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David, and the speeches of Isaiah and Jeremiah, were meant to teach. The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture assumes no belief in God or other religious commitment. It assumes no previous background in Bible. It is free of disciplinary jargon. Open the door to a book you never knew existed. You'll never read the Bible the same way again.
Kindle Edition
First published July 16, 2012
62 people are currently reading
535 people want to read
About the author
Yoram Hazony
17 books114 followersYoram Hazony is an Israeli philosopher, Bible scholar, and political theorist. He is president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem and serves as the chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation. His books include The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, The Virtue of Nationalism, and Conservatism: A Rediscovery.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
December 31, 2013
My rabbi recommended this book to me with the caveat that while he respected Hazony as a scholar, "I really hate this guy." Hazony has developed a reputation for his right-wing political views, which I cannot say that I agree with. He is, however, a reputable scholar, and along with Daniel Gordis (whose political views also at times rub me the wrong way), recently helped to found Shalem College, Israel's first attempt at an American-style liberal arts college. At any rate, this is a book analyzing religious texts, so there's nothing here to offend sensibilities--provided that you're not a biblical literalist, that is.
Hazony's central argument is that the Hebrew bible is intended to be read as a work of philosophy and can and should be interpreted as an ancient book of reason. The notion of the Bible as exclusively a work of divine revelation at odds with the philosophical reasoning championed by the Greeks is due to the fact that its interpretation has for much of the past 2,000 years been primarily focused through a Christian lens, with assumptions based on the interpretation of the New Testament retroactively applied to the Old Testament (i.e., the Hebrew Bible in reshuffled form). Hazony points out that God's role in the Bible should not discredit it as a book of ancient philosophical reasoning; most pre-Socratic philosophers such as Parmenides claimed that their insights came from the gods, yet their works are still considered part of the canon of Western philosophy today, while the Bible is largely dismissed as an irrational work of superstition. Hazony aims to change that perception with this book.
On his central aim, I don't think that he is all that successful. For a start, Hazony's definition of philosophy is not really like any other that I've read. (I'm no expert, but I shared the book with my dad, who has a PhD in philosophy, and he agreed.) Having said that, much of what he writes along the way is utterly fascinating to read. His arguments concerning the connection between the ancient Israelites' concept of ethics and their nomadic lifestyle as shepherds are particularly enlightening. He also suggests that the books of the Bible from Genesis through Kings are intended to be read as a single quasi-historical narrative and cites numerous fascinating parallels between the beginning of the narrative and its end to bear this out. Coming from a Christian background where I had only ingested the Bible in bite-sized chunks that were rarely presented in any chronological order, reading this section felt somewhat like watching someone assemble a puzzle. I had always been aware of the individual pieces but hadn't previously made some of the connections that Hazony plausibly makes.
I'd recommend this book if you are someone with background in Jewish learning who is looking for new perspectives, someone who is relatively (though not entirely) new to Jewish learning and studying the Hebrew Bible, or someone with a Christian background interested in viewing the Bible in its socio-historical context. If you enjoy the works of people like Bart Ehrman and Karen Armstrong, you might find some of Hazony's supporting points interesting, even if, like me, you come away unconvinced of his central argument.
Hazony's central argument is that the Hebrew bible is intended to be read as a work of philosophy and can and should be interpreted as an ancient book of reason. The notion of the Bible as exclusively a work of divine revelation at odds with the philosophical reasoning championed by the Greeks is due to the fact that its interpretation has for much of the past 2,000 years been primarily focused through a Christian lens, with assumptions based on the interpretation of the New Testament retroactively applied to the Old Testament (i.e., the Hebrew Bible in reshuffled form). Hazony points out that God's role in the Bible should not discredit it as a book of ancient philosophical reasoning; most pre-Socratic philosophers such as Parmenides claimed that their insights came from the gods, yet their works are still considered part of the canon of Western philosophy today, while the Bible is largely dismissed as an irrational work of superstition. Hazony aims to change that perception with this book.
On his central aim, I don't think that he is all that successful. For a start, Hazony's definition of philosophy is not really like any other that I've read. (I'm no expert, but I shared the book with my dad, who has a PhD in philosophy, and he agreed.) Having said that, much of what he writes along the way is utterly fascinating to read. His arguments concerning the connection between the ancient Israelites' concept of ethics and their nomadic lifestyle as shepherds are particularly enlightening. He also suggests that the books of the Bible from Genesis through Kings are intended to be read as a single quasi-historical narrative and cites numerous fascinating parallels between the beginning of the narrative and its end to bear this out. Coming from a Christian background where I had only ingested the Bible in bite-sized chunks that were rarely presented in any chronological order, reading this section felt somewhat like watching someone assemble a puzzle. I had always been aware of the individual pieces but hadn't previously made some of the connections that Hazony plausibly makes.
I'd recommend this book if you are someone with background in Jewish learning who is looking for new perspectives, someone who is relatively (though not entirely) new to Jewish learning and studying the Hebrew Bible, or someone with a Christian background interested in viewing the Bible in its socio-historical context. If you enjoy the works of people like Bart Ehrman and Karen Armstrong, you might find some of Hazony's supporting points interesting, even if, like me, you come away unconvinced of his central argument.
June 26, 2019
I really did enjoy this and leant a great deal. Hazony poses the question how the Hebrew OT might be read in the light of the question of faith and reason and reason and revelation. Of course, for a Christian, there is a lot to disagree with, not least where the author lacks a NT perspective on the OT.
But here are some highlights:-
1. Narrative approach. Hazony contends that narrative repetition guides us towards moral conclusions. For example, when Jacob deceives Isaac, it’s not clear from the text what moral stance we ought to take toward Isaac and Jacob , but as Jacob is deceived by Laban et al the text leads us to the moral conclusion through its narrative process. This is a great insight.
2. Hazony then turns to specific narratives: I found his take on Joseph with consideration for this reason: at the end of Genesis Joseph has helped create an Egyptian super-State with power concentrated in pharaoh. I’ve never found a good explanation for this. But Hazony offers this: maybe a Joseph is not such a “good guy” at the end- he compromises and served Pharaoh’s ends , rather than the Lord’s, even though providentially this is Israel’s deliverance from famine, BUT it also sets up the story of oppression under Pharaoh and the Exodus.
There’s lots more to say.
But here are some highlights:-
1. Narrative approach. Hazony contends that narrative repetition guides us towards moral conclusions. For example, when Jacob deceives Isaac, it’s not clear from the text what moral stance we ought to take toward Isaac and Jacob , but as Jacob is deceived by Laban et al the text leads us to the moral conclusion through its narrative process. This is a great insight.
2. Hazony then turns to specific narratives: I found his take on Joseph with consideration for this reason: at the end of Genesis Joseph has helped create an Egyptian super-State with power concentrated in pharaoh. I’ve never found a good explanation for this. But Hazony offers this: maybe a Joseph is not such a “good guy” at the end- he compromises and served Pharaoh’s ends , rather than the Lord’s, even though providentially this is Israel’s deliverance from famine, BUT it also sets up the story of oppression under Pharaoh and the Exodus.
There’s lots more to say.
October 13, 2012
Before starting to read this book, I remember finding the title somewhat banal. Having finished it, I was certainly convinced otherwise. I found Hazony's work a bold, challenging and inspiring reading of the whole Hebrew Bible. I've seen meaningful interpretations of stories or series of stories from the Bible, but I don't remember ever seeing an attempt to interpret such a large part of it at with a unifying idea. Of course the Bible was carefully edited and composed, so it does invite speculation as to what purpose it's authors had in mind, but it I think takes a lot of deep knowledge of the social, historic and religious backdrop of the period to be able to offer the compelling theories Hazony has.
Also it's very well written and accessible, though knowledge of Hebrew could be a factor.
Some interpretations seemed to me to gift the biblical author with a very modern, advanced perspective, which may be Hazony reading a little too much into the words of the Bible.
Also, throughout the book Hazony advances the idea of "outsider" or "shepherd" ethics, which value taking the law into one's own hands as opposed to blind disobedience. I felt he chose not to ignore many passages in the Bible that would argue against such a view- I would liked to have seen how he would incorporate them.
All in all though, I definitely recommend this book to readers interested in a fresh new look at one of the oldest and most influential books in the history of mankind. Hopefully we will see this used as a textbook as well!
Also it's very well written and accessible, though knowledge of Hebrew could be a factor.
Some interpretations seemed to me to gift the biblical author with a very modern, advanced perspective, which may be Hazony reading a little too much into the words of the Bible.
Also, throughout the book Hazony advances the idea of "outsider" or "shepherd" ethics, which value taking the law into one's own hands as opposed to blind disobedience. I felt he chose not to ignore many passages in the Bible that would argue against such a view- I would liked to have seen how he would incorporate them.
All in all though, I definitely recommend this book to readers interested in a fresh new look at one of the oldest and most influential books in the history of mankind. Hopefully we will see this used as a textbook as well!
December 31, 2016
The premise has much good to it, but Hazony is too much of a modern to persuasively interpret all the way through. He's right that the Hebrew Bible needs to be taken seriously as containing reasonable ideas. Rather than being a chronicle only of the miraculous or a set of incomprehensible commands from God, there is a real ethic and political philosophy in the texts. It can be distilled and discussed alongside other philosophical approaches. And it is systematically worked out through the edited compilation as a whole - the Hebrew Bible is not just a series of one-off works begging for critical dissolution from each other.
There are times when Hazony's reading is quite strong. His chapter on the morality of the shepherd pulls together a lot of different strings into an impressive reading (one ready-made for dialogue with James C. Scott, the political anthropologist). His sensitivity to the differences, sometimes drastic ones, among biblical authors is welcome, and should be developed more in the future.
But there are two significant flaws here. The first is theological. Hazony has opted to save working out a theology of the Hebrew Bible for a later book. God is functionally sidelined here into being a mere preface for independent thought, a mere encapsulation of human ideals, or a mere ambiguity. The Hebrew Bible's grappling with God as the co-agent of history, and its promised Fulfiller? Divine punishment as more than just the long-term consequences of human action? God as the chooser of Israel from among all nations? These themes - and so, the Hebrew Bible's co-protagonist - are all absent.
Hazony spends a lot of time arguing that ancient Hebrew philosophy should be understood on its own terms, even though it is embedded within religious faith. But the Hebrew Bible's own terms set philosophical reasoning and religious faith in tandem with each other. Why try to distill one aspect instead of explaining the mechanism by which the two are integrated?
The answer is likely historical. Hazony, for all his rejection of modern Western allergies to religious-ish philosophy, is thoroughly steeped in modern secularity. His read of old-school Hebrew philosophy boils down to individual morality, rational autonomy, and religion entirely located within these. The Prophet Jeremiah ends up sounding a lot like John Stuart Mill, prizing the individual who rationally experiments his way into the ethical life. (Even if he thinks the right answer ends up being the Mosaic Law.)
We're all partly products of our historical milieu. But to get at the real meaning intended by the Hebrew authors of yore, Hazony would need to transcend ours a bit with more God and more communalism - mutually adjusting the modern mindset and the Hebrew Bible to each other, rather than letting modernity's hand alone control the thermostat.
There are times when Hazony's reading is quite strong. His chapter on the morality of the shepherd pulls together a lot of different strings into an impressive reading (one ready-made for dialogue with James C. Scott, the political anthropologist). His sensitivity to the differences, sometimes drastic ones, among biblical authors is welcome, and should be developed more in the future.
But there are two significant flaws here. The first is theological. Hazony has opted to save working out a theology of the Hebrew Bible for a later book. God is functionally sidelined here into being a mere preface for independent thought, a mere encapsulation of human ideals, or a mere ambiguity. The Hebrew Bible's grappling with God as the co-agent of history, and its promised Fulfiller? Divine punishment as more than just the long-term consequences of human action? God as the chooser of Israel from among all nations? These themes - and so, the Hebrew Bible's co-protagonist - are all absent.
Hazony spends a lot of time arguing that ancient Hebrew philosophy should be understood on its own terms, even though it is embedded within religious faith. But the Hebrew Bible's own terms set philosophical reasoning and religious faith in tandem with each other. Why try to distill one aspect instead of explaining the mechanism by which the two are integrated?
The answer is likely historical. Hazony, for all his rejection of modern Western allergies to religious-ish philosophy, is thoroughly steeped in modern secularity. His read of old-school Hebrew philosophy boils down to individual morality, rational autonomy, and religion entirely located within these. The Prophet Jeremiah ends up sounding a lot like John Stuart Mill, prizing the individual who rationally experiments his way into the ethical life. (Even if he thinks the right answer ends up being the Mosaic Law.)
We're all partly products of our historical milieu. But to get at the real meaning intended by the Hebrew authors of yore, Hazony would need to transcend ours a bit with more God and more communalism - mutually adjusting the modern mindset and the Hebrew Bible to each other, rather than letting modernity's hand alone control the thermostat.
November 27, 2014
Yoram Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture offers a fascinating and refreshing approach to the Hebrew Bible. Hazony argues that Hebrew scripture is frequently mischaracterized and misread due to the fact that it is too often received as simply a work of revelation rather than a work of reason. What would happen, he asks, if we were to approach it, instead, in a manner more similar to that we would take toward, say, the work of Socrates or Aristotle?
But, Hazony is not merely arguing that we approach Tanakh as a work of reason rather than revelation. Instead, he makes a case that this distinction, originating in Greek thought as filtered through early Christian philosophers, is actually foreign to Hebrew scripture. The reason-revelation dichotomy then, which has been crucial to the bulk of Christian exegesis and theology, inevitably results in readings of the books of the Hebrew Bible which often miss much of what it is that the author's of those works originally intended to be core elements of their arguments.
At least a good third of this book is given over to case studies of the Hebrew scripture, revealing that, much like the philosophical works of the Greeks, these works are concerned not only with conveying a set of laws, but also with teaching and encouraging its audience to take upon themselves a reasoned approach to finding the best path toward a good life for both the individual and the society.
Ultimately, Hazony argues that any comprehensive approach to Hebrew scripture must involve a collapsing of the reason-revelation dichotomy (an approach that is not inconsistent with that taken by the sages of the Talmud who, while undeniably concerned with such things as the afterlife and eschatology, ultimately understood Torah and Tanakh to be instruction to living in and for the here and now). The result is a work which is intellectually rigorous, but accessible to a spectrum of readers that goes well beyond academics and Biblical scholars. Religious Jews will find a whole new, fruitful avenue for their exploration of Torah, and others will find an enlightening work that will provide a window through which to view and understand Hebrew scripture unfiltered by the Western philosophical and religious conventions that are frequently foreign to it.
But, Hazony is not merely arguing that we approach Tanakh as a work of reason rather than revelation. Instead, he makes a case that this distinction, originating in Greek thought as filtered through early Christian philosophers, is actually foreign to Hebrew scripture. The reason-revelation dichotomy then, which has been crucial to the bulk of Christian exegesis and theology, inevitably results in readings of the books of the Hebrew Bible which often miss much of what it is that the author's of those works originally intended to be core elements of their arguments.
At least a good third of this book is given over to case studies of the Hebrew scripture, revealing that, much like the philosophical works of the Greeks, these works are concerned not only with conveying a set of laws, but also with teaching and encouraging its audience to take upon themselves a reasoned approach to finding the best path toward a good life for both the individual and the society.
Ultimately, Hazony argues that any comprehensive approach to Hebrew scripture must involve a collapsing of the reason-revelation dichotomy (an approach that is not inconsistent with that taken by the sages of the Talmud who, while undeniably concerned with such things as the afterlife and eschatology, ultimately understood Torah and Tanakh to be instruction to living in and for the here and now). The result is a work which is intellectually rigorous, but accessible to a spectrum of readers that goes well beyond academics and Biblical scholars. Religious Jews will find a whole new, fruitful avenue for their exploration of Torah, and others will find an enlightening work that will provide a window through which to view and understand Hebrew scripture unfiltered by the Western philosophical and religious conventions that are frequently foreign to it.
August 4, 2019
I have my differences with the author's conservative politics, but when it comes to biblical philosophy, he's written a fascinating, if uneven, book. He starts out more strongly than he finishes, but the result is worth considering by anyone interested in the history of philosophy.
I've read several books on the Hebrew Bible, but I was still taken aback by the cogency of Hazony's initial argument. It does indeed seem to be the case that the common wisdom about the Hebrew Scriptures as a work of "faith" as opposed to "reason" doesn't hold up. That interpretation is a cultural artifact of Christian Patristics and Age of Enlightenment polemics, with not a little antisemitism thrown in. Even its authorship under divine inspiration doesn't disqualify it from a "reason" category, as the seminal Greek philosophical works of Parmenides, Plato, etc, are similarly in touch with a divine source. If we want to clear the decks of presuppositions, we need a framework of analysis, which is what Hazony endeavors to provide.
The framework posits an instruction narrative. The universe, it seems to claim, is governed by natural law, which the initial part of the Bible (i.e., the "History") gets at by presenting us with patterns of unfolding events and typologies of character types. The "Orations" of the Prophets clarify these patterns and typologies further through the use of metaphor. The result is a tradition of inquiry, in which readers gradually obtain knowledge through an encounter with Scripture as a whole, not particular parts of it in isolation. As such, the Hebrew Bible is a tradition of inquiry, which speaks in multiple voices.
Hazony proceeds to use this framework in examining what the Hebrew Bible has to say about the different concerns of philosophy. In political philosophy<
I've read several books on the Hebrew Bible, but I was still taken aback by the cogency of Hazony's initial argument. It does indeed seem to be the case that the common wisdom about the Hebrew Scriptures as a work of "faith" as opposed to "reason" doesn't hold up. That interpretation is a cultural artifact of Christian Patristics and Age of Enlightenment polemics, with not a little antisemitism thrown in. Even its authorship under divine inspiration doesn't disqualify it from a "reason" category, as the seminal Greek philosophical works of Parmenides, Plato, etc, are similarly in touch with a divine source. If we want to clear the decks of presuppositions, we need a framework of analysis, which is what Hazony endeavors to provide.
The framework posits an instruction narrative. The universe, it seems to claim, is governed by natural law, which the initial part of the Bible (i.e., the "History") gets at by presenting us with patterns of unfolding events and typologies of character types. The "Orations" of the Prophets clarify these patterns and typologies further through the use of metaphor. The result is a tradition of inquiry, in which readers gradually obtain knowledge through an encounter with Scripture as a whole, not particular parts of it in isolation. As such, the Hebrew Bible is a tradition of inquiry, which speaks in multiple voices.
Hazony proceeds to use this framework in examining what the Hebrew Bible has to say about the different concerns of philosophy. In political philosophy<
December 29, 2013
The only reason that this is four stars and not five is that I'm not an academic, a philosopher, or a theologan. And as a result a good portion of the book, on methodology, I found a bit boring and tedious. However, since the main point of the author was to develop a methodology and a framework for considering the Hebrew scripture in a different light than current academics, philosphers or theologans, I can hardly fault him for my lack of interest in the raison d'etre of the book. The meat of the book, though, in the second section is absolutely fabulous in its analysis of the Hebrew bible as a radical and universal guide to humans and their relationship to God. It opened my eyes to a whole new perspective of reading Tanach and made me realize how awesome it is.
July 11, 2018
One of the main purposes of this book is to make the case for the Hebrew Scriptures as a work of philosophy, although it's not entirely clear what that's supposed to mean (or even if Hazony is clear on it). In order to do this, Hazony responds to a number of arguments against the idea (some more convincingly than others) and then dives into various readings of the Hebrew Bible which purport to show various philosophical positions present in the biblical texts. Regarding the former, I think Hazony does some of his best work here, even if he leaves out various rejoinders that could be offered against his objections. Regarding the latter, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some of his readings are creative and fairly persuasive, others seem fairly forced and fanciful (his reading of the binding of Isaac I found particularly implausible, for instance). He tends to ignore a lot of contrary textual evidence (and potential problems and questions) with his interpretations, which can be tiresome. He also doesn't seem as conversant with (or in dialogue with) contemporary philosophy as one would want with a project like this. Sometimes this gets him into trouble and is compounded by various kinds of logical or philosophical mistakes that pop up time and again in his argumentation. For instance, a lot of the time he will find A and B connected in some way in a bunch of verses then will declare that the biblical position is that A is DEFINED as B - a logical leap if ever there was one. For instance, maybe B is invoked often as evidence for (or an important example of) A and then Hazony will conclude that A is simply B, which doesn't follow at all. Another is to go from 'The Bible does not carefully distinguish C and D' to 'According to the Bible, there is no real distinction between C and D'. The latter clearly does not follow from the former. The section on truth and the word davar are particularly bad in all of these ways and more. For instance, he doesn't seem to understand that the truth of a sentence S being dependent on reality T doesn't show that the correspondence theory is wrong - rather, that is PART of the theory! (Hazony seems to confuse S being independent of T with T being independent of S) He also illegitimately jumps from 'Hebrew word 'H', which is often translated with English word 'E', is connected with B' to 'In the Bible, E is defined as B' (so he goes from 'davar is connected with reliability' to 'truth is defined as reliability', which of course begs the question as to whether davar and truth are the same thing in the first place, despite our usual translations). Another annoying thing is the constant attempts to make stark contrasts between the views of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament or Christian thought. These tend to be vastly overblown - for instance, in many of these supposed contrasts the Hebrew Bible is either much closer to what he ascribes to the New Testament, or the New Testament is much closer to what he ascribes to the Hebrew Bible, or both. The readings supporting such contrasts are definitely arguable, but little to no argumentation is actually given, at least on the non-Hebrew Bible side.
Overall, however, I found this an enjoyable read, even if it could have been better. The ethical and political sections, even if I did not always find them fully convincing, were the most interesting and had the most insight in them in comparison with later sections.
Overall, however, I found this an enjoyable read, even if it could have been better. The ethical and political sections, even if I did not always find them fully convincing, were the most interesting and had the most insight in them in comparison with later sections.
November 27, 2020
Yoram Hazony's philosophical treatment is an important book for those interested in Dru Johnson's writings on Christian epistemology. Hazony's major thesis is to argue that philosophers (in particular Christian philosophers) should disregard the dichotomy of faith and reason first articulated through Tertullian. I am not convinced of Hazony's interpretation of Tertullian but I think the Faith and Reason dichotomy is more of the fruit of Modernism.
Hazony is interested is arguing that the Tanak is more in-lines with wisdom than revelation. I enjoyed his structuring of the Hebraic text with Deuteronomy as the cornerstone of the Hebrew scriptures (p. 35), thus the entire Tanak is an exposition of Covenant and Exile. Hazony does not view the Tanak as a cohesive text but instead a Canonical text with diverse views (this echoes New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays approach to the ethics of the New Testament). Because of this thesis, Hazony starts with history as the central aspect of understanding the Tanak. This goes back also to the central thesis that the Tanak should be taken with seriousness as also a Historical document witnessing the acts of the God of Creation not merely a claim to revelation, thus it has far reaching implications and relevance for today (as promised in the Abrahamic covenant). Jewish History is witness to a God that is brining the whole cosmos out of exile back to Himself. Within the account of History, the Hebrew authors use arguments from nature such as using the story of Cain and Abel to critic the state, that is shown also within the exodus of Israel leaving the Egyptians. Even the Mosaic Law deals with wisdom or case laws in regards to how to live before God.
Another important argument for Hazony is dealing with epistemology within the Hebrew scriptures. Hazony looks towards Jeremiah using both the wisdom of the Torah but also the observations of Israel's idolatry as the reason for their failure in containing proper epistemological understanding. Within the Torah, knowledge is not merely about truth corresponding to reality, but instead the faithfulness of an object. To know if something is true is to test if its truth claims stand up. Speech is then a means to guide someone through test to learn what is truth. In returning than to the division of faith and reason, the Hebrew scriptures deny such dichotomy but instead see reason participating in faith (using the terminology of the Radical Orthodoxy, reason is a sacrament of faith). To have faith is to participate in God's plan. Hazony quote Nicholas Wolterstorff's summery of his positions in a positive light, which is why perhaps Dru Johnson's work that builds on Hazony's work is in support of Reformed Epistemology. Although as coming from the Radical Orthodoxy school of thought would not agree with all of Hazony's conclusions, I enjoyed this read and was challenged to learn more about reason and revelation.
Hazony is interested is arguing that the Tanak is more in-lines with wisdom than revelation. I enjoyed his structuring of the Hebraic text with Deuteronomy as the cornerstone of the Hebrew scriptures (p. 35), thus the entire Tanak is an exposition of Covenant and Exile. Hazony does not view the Tanak as a cohesive text but instead a Canonical text with diverse views (this echoes New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays approach to the ethics of the New Testament). Because of this thesis, Hazony starts with history as the central aspect of understanding the Tanak. This goes back also to the central thesis that the Tanak should be taken with seriousness as also a Historical document witnessing the acts of the God of Creation not merely a claim to revelation, thus it has far reaching implications and relevance for today (as promised in the Abrahamic covenant). Jewish History is witness to a God that is brining the whole cosmos out of exile back to Himself. Within the account of History, the Hebrew authors use arguments from nature such as using the story of Cain and Abel to critic the state, that is shown also within the exodus of Israel leaving the Egyptians. Even the Mosaic Law deals with wisdom or case laws in regards to how to live before God.
Another important argument for Hazony is dealing with epistemology within the Hebrew scriptures. Hazony looks towards Jeremiah using both the wisdom of the Torah but also the observations of Israel's idolatry as the reason for their failure in containing proper epistemological understanding. Within the Torah, knowledge is not merely about truth corresponding to reality, but instead the faithfulness of an object. To know if something is true is to test if its truth claims stand up. Speech is then a means to guide someone through test to learn what is truth. In returning than to the division of faith and reason, the Hebrew scriptures deny such dichotomy but instead see reason participating in faith (using the terminology of the Radical Orthodoxy, reason is a sacrament of faith). To have faith is to participate in God's plan. Hazony quote Nicholas Wolterstorff's summery of his positions in a positive light, which is why perhaps Dru Johnson's work that builds on Hazony's work is in support of Reformed Epistemology. Although as coming from the Radical Orthodoxy school of thought would not agree with all of Hazony's conclusions, I enjoyed this read and was challenged to learn more about reason and revelation.
January 28, 2022
This book's value lies in its presentation of a radical way of viewing Biblical literature. It suggests that there truly is nothing particularly different about the Biblical narratives and the Greek works of philosophy. Both engage in the usage of spiritual elements such as non-physical beings communicating with the characters in their books. As Moses speaks to God at the burning bush so does Aristotle speak to a "prophetic voice." In this manner, the so-called mystical elements of the Bible are simply means to express philosophical statements, just as Plato did himself.
At first, as someone who is fond of the Kierkegaard and viewing the works of religion as expressions of the irrational, I was thrown off by Hazony's insistence on reading the Bible as a work of reason alone. However, Hazony does a superb job of defining reason as something that arises not only as a result of our logical ability, but from the affects too. Hazony discards the dualistic view of seeing reason separate from emotion and thus, ironically, lumps the two into the definition of reason (he even suggests that the writers of the Bible would not have seen "mind" and "heart" seperate. Furthermore, Hazony suggests that metaphor and narratives are forms of reasoning that may even excel propositional statements and Newtonian reasoning because of their ability to adapt to differing contexts. This is a highly nuanced and even cognitively sound take that I am becoming more and more fond of.
The only downside of Hazony's book is his insistence that the new testament cannot be viewed as a work of philosophy. Granted, he does provide good evidence to suggest that the new testament could only be read as a work of revelation from God, divorced from reason, but I find it silly and even confined to suggest that the reason-revelation dichotomy should be thrown away for the old testament (as he adamantly argues) but should remain for the new. There seems to be a hard-set bias against the new testament as being a work of philosophy.
Overall, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture is a well argued and even obvious take to see the Bible as a work of philosophy. Still, though, there is something deeply radical about the argument presented (despite public figures such as Jordan Peterson making this view more popular) suggesting that it may be a long time before the public consensus is to read the Exodus narrative like Plato's Republic.
At first, as someone who is fond of the Kierkegaard and viewing the works of religion as expressions of the irrational, I was thrown off by Hazony's insistence on reading the Bible as a work of reason alone. However, Hazony does a superb job of defining reason as something that arises not only as a result of our logical ability, but from the affects too. Hazony discards the dualistic view of seeing reason separate from emotion and thus, ironically, lumps the two into the definition of reason (he even suggests that the writers of the Bible would not have seen "mind" and "heart" seperate. Furthermore, Hazony suggests that metaphor and narratives are forms of reasoning that may even excel propositional statements and Newtonian reasoning because of their ability to adapt to differing contexts. This is a highly nuanced and even cognitively sound take that I am becoming more and more fond of.
The only downside of Hazony's book is his insistence that the new testament cannot be viewed as a work of philosophy. Granted, he does provide good evidence to suggest that the new testament could only be read as a work of revelation from God, divorced from reason, but I find it silly and even confined to suggest that the reason-revelation dichotomy should be thrown away for the old testament (as he adamantly argues) but should remain for the new. There seems to be a hard-set bias against the new testament as being a work of philosophy.
Overall, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture is a well argued and even obvious take to see the Bible as a work of philosophy. Still, though, there is something deeply radical about the argument presented (despite public figures such as Jordan Peterson making this view more popular) suggesting that it may be a long time before the public consensus is to read the Exodus narrative like Plato's Republic.
July 28, 2022
This book's value lies in its presentation of a radical way of viewing Biblical literature. It suggests that there truly is nothing particularly different about the Biblical narratives and the Greek works of philosophy. Both engage in the usage of spiritual elements such as non-physical beings communicating with the characters in their books. As Moses speaks to God at the burning bush so does Aristotle speak to a "prophetic voice." In this manner, the so-called mystical elements of the Bible are simply means to express philosophical statements, just as Plato did himself.
At first, as someone who is fond of the Kierkegaard and viewing the works of religion as expressions of the irrational, I was thrown off by Hazony's insistence on reading the Bible as a work of reason alone. However, Hazony does a superb job of defining reason as something that arises not only as a result of our logical ability, but from the affects too. Hazony discards the dualistic view of seeing reason separate from emotion and thus, ironically, lumps the two into the definition of reason (he even suggests that the writers of the Bible would not have seen "mind" and "heart" seperate. Furthermore, Hazony suggests that metaphor and narratives are forms of reasoning that may even excel propositional statements and Newtonian reasoning because of their ability to adapt to differing contexts. This is a highly nuanced and even cognitively sound take that I am becoming more and more fond of.
The only downside of Hazony's book is his insistence that the new testament cannot be viewed as a work of philosophy. Granted, he does provide good evidence to suggest that the new testament could only be read as a work of revelation from God, divorced from reason, but I find it silly and even confined to suggest that the reason-revelation dichotomy should be thrown away for the old testament (as he adamantly argues) but should remain for the new. There seems to be a hard-set bias against the new testament as being a work of philosophy.
Overall, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture is a well argued and even obvious take to see the Bible as a work of philosophy. Still, though, there is something deeply radical about the argument presented (despite public figures such as Jordan Peterson making this view more popular) suggesting that it may be a long time before the public consensus is to read the Exodus narrative like Plato's Republic.
At first, as someone who is fond of the Kierkegaard and viewing the works of religion as expressions of the irrational, I was thrown off by Hazony's insistence on reading the Bible as a work of reason alone. However, Hazony does a superb job of defining reason as something that arises not only as a result of our logical ability, but from the affects too. Hazony discards the dualistic view of seeing reason separate from emotion and thus, ironically, lumps the two into the definition of reason (he even suggests that the writers of the Bible would not have seen "mind" and "heart" seperate. Furthermore, Hazony suggests that metaphor and narratives are forms of reasoning that may even excel propositional statements and Newtonian reasoning because of their ability to adapt to differing contexts. This is a highly nuanced and even cognitively sound take that I am becoming more and more fond of.
The only downside of Hazony's book is his insistence that the new testament cannot be viewed as a work of philosophy. Granted, he does provide good evidence to suggest that the new testament could only be read as a work of revelation from God, divorced from reason, but I find it silly and even confined to suggest that the reason-revelation dichotomy should be thrown away for the old testament (as he adamantly argues) but should remain for the new. There seems to be a hard-set bias against the new testament as being a work of philosophy.
Overall, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture is a well argued and even obvious take to see the Bible as a work of philosophy. Still, though, there is something deeply radical about the argument presented (despite public figures such as Jordan Peterson making this view more popular) suggesting that it may be a long time before the public consensus is to read the Exodus narrative like Plato's Republic.
April 14, 2023
The basic purpose of this book is to show that the Bible is not primarily a book of arbitrary Divine commands; rather, it is full of philosophical ideas.
In fact, the Bible shows that there is a natural law that existed before revelation. If revelation was the only source of ethics, there would be no reason to condemn anyone who existed before the giving of the Torah (or at least who lives without the various revelations God gives to Abraham and his descendants). But the Bible praises Abel and Noah, and condemns Sodom.
Often, the Bible taken as a whole shows trade-offs between two contending ideas, rather than taking a simple position on one side or the other. For example, the Bible tends to praise nomadic shepherds like Abraham, Moses, David and Abel but is critical of farming-dominated societies such as Egypt. Does that mean the Bible thinks farming is bad? Not quite- famine forces Abraham and Jacob's family to go to Egypt to get food, because even though the life of a shepherd may be virtuous in some ways, it isn't really sustainable when the sheep have nothing to eat.
Similarly, the Bible shows how the tribal republic of the judges becomes corrupted, leading to anarchy and civil war. Does that mean monarchy is good? Not necessarily; the Bible also shows how monarchy becomes corrupted under Solomon and his successors. Hazony suggests that the ideal form of government is a limited monarchy of a not-too-powerful nation- but the small monarchies of Israel and Judah (the successor states to Solomon's united monarchy) get crushed by Assyria and Babylon.
Similarly, the Bible's description of the sons of Jacob is nuanced. Joseph's ability to accommodate the interests of the Egyptian empire causes his family to be saved from famine (good) but also causes them to be stuck in Egypt (not so good). Levi at first seems evil and fanatical (becuase of his participation in a massacre of Shechem and his clan) but his descendants' zeal causes them to be rewarded with religious leadership. However, this leadership is controlled- they may have leadership but they aren't allowed to have control over armies or land.
In fact, the Bible shows that there is a natural law that existed before revelation. If revelation was the only source of ethics, there would be no reason to condemn anyone who existed before the giving of the Torah (or at least who lives without the various revelations God gives to Abraham and his descendants). But the Bible praises Abel and Noah, and condemns Sodom.
Often, the Bible taken as a whole shows trade-offs between two contending ideas, rather than taking a simple position on one side or the other. For example, the Bible tends to praise nomadic shepherds like Abraham, Moses, David and Abel but is critical of farming-dominated societies such as Egypt. Does that mean the Bible thinks farming is bad? Not quite- famine forces Abraham and Jacob's family to go to Egypt to get food, because even though the life of a shepherd may be virtuous in some ways, it isn't really sustainable when the sheep have nothing to eat.
Similarly, the Bible shows how the tribal republic of the judges becomes corrupted, leading to anarchy and civil war. Does that mean monarchy is good? Not necessarily; the Bible also shows how monarchy becomes corrupted under Solomon and his successors. Hazony suggests that the ideal form of government is a limited monarchy of a not-too-powerful nation- but the small monarchies of Israel and Judah (the successor states to Solomon's united monarchy) get crushed by Assyria and Babylon.
Similarly, the Bible's description of the sons of Jacob is nuanced. Joseph's ability to accommodate the interests of the Egyptian empire causes his family to be saved from famine (good) but also causes them to be stuck in Egypt (not so good). Levi at first seems evil and fanatical (becuase of his participation in a massacre of Shechem and his clan) but his descendants' zeal causes them to be rewarded with religious leadership. However, this leadership is controlled- they may have leadership but they aren't allowed to have control over armies or land.
February 5, 2019
I found Hazony's basic premise, that applying a philosopy-based reading to the Hebrew scriptures as opposed to just a revelation-based reading, was one I found to be sound. I really enjoyed reading how this could be applied and how it could change one's perception of what they were reading. I would argue that what we're really getting at is a religious philosophy since it is so hard to separate Judaism from any form of religion (and Hazony isn't attempting to state it should be separated from religion), so it's still not quite what I would generally think of as plain philosophy but it is fascinating and there are some great ideas and teachings to be found.
There's a definite slant to Hazony's book at times but for the most part this didn't get in the way of the book. Chapters 4-6 were the most interesting to me. I had never thought of of the shepherd-farmer dynamic before; it's definitely something that leaves you thinking. I also liked the exploration of names and language throughout the book such as Jacob becoming Israel, Moses's attempts at learning God's "name," and what this actually implies. The linguistics exploration was one of my favorite aspects and I would love to research this a lot more.
There are definitely some things I didn't agree with, some things with the author but others simply with the scriptures themselves (or at least this particular interpretation?) but that didn't get in the way of what was a very well researched book and I enjoyed reading it.
There's a definite slant to Hazony's book at times but for the most part this didn't get in the way of the book. Chapters 4-6 were the most interesting to me. I had never thought of of the shepherd-farmer dynamic before; it's definitely something that leaves you thinking. I also liked the exploration of names and language throughout the book such as Jacob becoming Israel, Moses's attempts at learning God's "name," and what this actually implies. The linguistics exploration was one of my favorite aspects and I would love to research this a lot more.
There are definitely some things I didn't agree with, some things with the author but others simply with the scriptures themselves (or at least this particular interpretation?) but that didn't get in the way of what was a very well researched book and I enjoyed reading it.
January 29, 2018
This was certainly a disappointing read, especially given the attractive title. Three points are the main problems here: audience, agenda and epistemology. His audience is unclear in that he strikes an apologetic tone as if writing mostly for western readers, as the language indicates, too. At the same time, in the execution of his study, he adresses by choice of his topics and how they are executed a specialized readership who should be familiar with the background and has no need for apologetics. But then he doesn't really adress, let alone solve the problem of "reason vs. revelation" in any way, just by neglecting revelation completely. This wasn't the historical, biblical reality which he is nevertheless so fond to portrait as such. For Hazony, Gods law is natural law and accordingly, he makes his leap of faith without adressing it, as well as the epistmological questions coming with it, which should be core and key for the philosophical debate implied in the book title and the opening apologetics. This leads to the third point, agenda: Both the quite political, "historizising" reading of the text and his ommition of matters of epistemology hint at his rather questionable political views, which he doesn't adress openly. As so many other things...
Dear reader, go back reding Maimonides. At least he knew how to speak about philosophy.
Dear reader, go back reding Maimonides. At least he knew how to speak about philosophy.
January 29, 2018
I really admire what Hazony does with this book. He proposes several provocative ideas about how to read the Hebrew Scripture and I think that most of this is great for anyone interested in biblical studies. The draw back is that Haozny seems to straw-man the ideas and positions outside of his area of expertise. He often makes broad generalizations, ignoring specific schools of thought or examples that highlight agreement with his position in order to make the enterprise of western thought seem less rigorous than it has been. I highly recommend this, but please take with a grain of salt some of his assertions about Aristotle and general Greek thought. Though to be fair, he’s right that Tertullian is a major twat.
February 21, 2022
This book changed the way I read and teach the Bible. It makes excellent specific points that shed new light on individual stories, but more importantly, it shows how one can read the Hebrew Bible as a philosophy book - as a book that makes an argument, instead of only telling tales. To show this Hazoni digs into subtle storytelling techniques such as repetitions (of plot lines and character types), and awakens his readers to a whole other layer of meaning-making that takes place underneath the surface of the text. While some of his specific ideas are not original (the emphasis on literary devices and repetitions is a staple of Robert Alter's work, for example) the way he combines different fields of knowledge is thought provoking, ambitious, and gives a new perspective all of his own.
March 10, 2020
Excellent
Not an easy book to read, but an excellent one. Hazony shows that the Christian view of the Bible as ‘revelation’ is inapplicable to the Hebrew Scripture; and that the dichotomy between ‘reason’ and ‘revelation’ is erroneous. Instead he outlines the principles underlying Judaism and the Hebrew Bible.
Not an easy book to read, but an excellent one. Hazony shows that the Christian view of the Bible as ‘revelation’ is inapplicable to the Hebrew Scripture; and that the dichotomy between ‘reason’ and ‘revelation’ is erroneous. Instead he outlines the principles underlying Judaism and the Hebrew Bible.
January 24, 2015
The Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh, represents different things to different people. To the pious, it is revelation. To halakhists, it is legislation. To the secular, it is simply myth. In "The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture," Yoram Hazony makes a cogent argument that Tanakh may also be understood as coherent philosophy.
For example, Hazony argues that the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, as criticized and elucidated by the Prophets, presents a model of political philosophy that is as sophisticated as any presented by Hobbes or Locke. Hazony points out that scripture shows the failure of both the totalitarian state, such as Egypt and Babylon, and the chaos of no central authority, as occurred during the era of the Judges. A balanced approach in which the people must obey the King, but the King himself is limited by God's revealed law, offers the best hope for both safety and justice. Someone raised in the tradition of the checks and balances and divided authority of the U.S. Constitution cannot help but hear echoes, or perhaps foreshadowing, of the American system in this divided authority presented in Tanakh.
The Hebrew Scriptures also present a sophisticated philosophy of knowledge and its correlate, truth. The Hebrew translation for truth is "emet," and Hazony explains that there are subtle but important differences between the concepts embedded in the English versus the Hebrew words. In Tanakh, emet can apply to objects as well as to statements. Thus, a road may be emet. In Hebrew, the attribute of reliability, to be what a thng or person ought to be over time, is embedded in the concept emet.
Hazony also takes on Tertullian's famous contrast between Athens and Jerusalem, especially Tertullian's having characterized the latter as representative of faith even in the face of—or because of!— absurdity. Hazony slices through Tertullian's characterization, showing how misrepresentative it is of Hebrew Scripture. In the end, Hazony says that the greater gulf is between Athens and Carthage, where Tertullian lived and taught his philosophy of unquestioning faith. Contra Tertullian, questioning is an essential part of the philosophy of the Hebrew Bible.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who seeks a deeper understanding of the Hebrew Bible, which remains the bedrock of Western Civilization.
For example, Hazony argues that the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, as criticized and elucidated by the Prophets, presents a model of political philosophy that is as sophisticated as any presented by Hobbes or Locke. Hazony points out that scripture shows the failure of both the totalitarian state, such as Egypt and Babylon, and the chaos of no central authority, as occurred during the era of the Judges. A balanced approach in which the people must obey the King, but the King himself is limited by God's revealed law, offers the best hope for both safety and justice. Someone raised in the tradition of the checks and balances and divided authority of the U.S. Constitution cannot help but hear echoes, or perhaps foreshadowing, of the American system in this divided authority presented in Tanakh.
The Hebrew Scriptures also present a sophisticated philosophy of knowledge and its correlate, truth. The Hebrew translation for truth is "emet," and Hazony explains that there are subtle but important differences between the concepts embedded in the English versus the Hebrew words. In Tanakh, emet can apply to objects as well as to statements. Thus, a road may be emet. In Hebrew, the attribute of reliability, to be what a thng or person ought to be over time, is embedded in the concept emet.
Hazony also takes on Tertullian's famous contrast between Athens and Jerusalem, especially Tertullian's having characterized the latter as representative of faith even in the face of—or because of!— absurdity. Hazony slices through Tertullian's characterization, showing how misrepresentative it is of Hebrew Scripture. In the end, Hazony says that the greater gulf is between Athens and Carthage, where Tertullian lived and taught his philosophy of unquestioning faith. Contra Tertullian, questioning is an essential part of the philosophy of the Hebrew Bible.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who seeks a deeper understanding of the Hebrew Bible, which remains the bedrock of Western Civilization.
December 1, 2016
A paradigm-shifting work, especially for those of us who grew up in Evangelical/Reformed traditions of Christianity. Hazony brilliantly makes the case for the Hebrew Scriptures to stand alongside works of philosophy from the Greek tradition (Plato, Socrates, Parmenides, etc.), and he manages to deftly maneuver through concepts as diverse as: political theory, truth and knowing, faith and reason.
Overall, the sheer brilliance of the Jewish scriptures stood out to new in a profound new way after putting this book down. I am disappointed in my own tradition's inability to see/teach the ways that the narrative of scriptural history, but I'm so thrilled that scholars like Yoram Hazony exist to help us re-discover it! If you are a Christian, but at all befuddled by the so-called 'Old Testament,' then you absolutely owe it to yourself to read Hazony.
Overall, the sheer brilliance of the Jewish scriptures stood out to new in a profound new way after putting this book down. I am disappointed in my own tradition's inability to see/teach the ways that the narrative of scriptural history, but I'm so thrilled that scholars like Yoram Hazony exist to help us re-discover it! If you are a Christian, but at all befuddled by the so-called 'Old Testament,' then you absolutely owe it to yourself to read Hazony.
October 22, 2012
I liked many parts of this book, but I don't believe the parts added up to more than their sum. The book worked for me when it engaged in standard Biblical exegesis, such as Hazony's detailing of the trap Joseph got himself and his family into in Egypt, or his dissection of Jeremiah's views on how to discover truth. More general and philosophical chapters failed to impress me. For instance, despite Hazony's copious manipulations of the concepts of truth and reliability, his description of how one reaches the truth comes down to the usual method of comparing what was said to what one learns about the world. And his appendix comes out in favor of Newton's familiar reductionist approach to reasoning.
March 2, 2015
This book simply does not work as a work of philosophy, nor does it attempt to on the whole. It's part sermon, part apology, part diatribe, part literary criticism and only now and then takes up its theme. At times it's interesting. It's reading of the Hebrew Scriptures as a coherent piece of literature (Hazony will not use that term for it, but that's what it amounts to) can be provocative and even enlightening. It convinced me there is nothing to compare to Greek philosophy in the Hebrew Scriptures. A disappointment.
October 21, 2012
Hozony opened my eyes to a new way of reading the Old Testament. By providing a framework for understanding the work as a whole--and not just a disparate collection of loosely connected works--he challenges us to interpret each verse with the seriousness deserving of authors who wrote with purpose. More than even that, he shows how early Christian philosophy might have corrupted our ability to extract its salient truths.
March 28, 2013
A book one would need to read over and over to get it all. It was written to answer the question of whether the Hebrew Scriptures can be profitable read as works of reason rather than revelation and basically suggests thea this reason-revelation distinction shoudl be done away with to allow us to read the scriptures as they were meant by the authors.
January 31, 2016
Magisterial. The vistas open to the reader after working through this book go far beyond the ordinary. It takes an effort of true love to produce a volume like this one, and I am thankful for the result. Anyone examining the Bible (which is becoming far more frequent these days), should also add Mr. Hazony's marvelous work alongside it.
March 7, 2020
I wrote a lengthy review of this book, and posted that downloadable pdf to my academia page. It is also linked in the blog, ThisExplainsMore.com , and found in the ‘Theological Essays” menu tab
A direct link to the review paper is here (copy and paste):
https://www.academia.edu/41535009/And...
A direct link to the review paper is here (copy and paste):
https://www.academia.edu/41535009/And...
May 17, 2023
Actually read this years ago and have been revisiting it only to find it had a major influence on how I teach biblical studies to a diverse classroom where my students are either of different religions or no religion at all. The philosophical approach advocated here allows the Bible to participate in public discourse in a way that it can be a shared resource and a common arena for reflection.
February 22, 2013
Hazony writes accessibly and engagingly about a host of extremely important topics for those of us who are interested in answers to the question: What is Torah? Highly recommended - turns on their heads many of the unquestioned beliefs about what the most sacred text in Judaism is.
December 27, 2020
Hazony convincingly justifies what I have suspected was true about the Bible. That if the Hebrew Bible is dogmatic about anything, it's that we ought to adhere to epistemic humility. The Bible is a book about methodology, not dogma.
Want to read
September 4, 2012Heard the author interviewed on All Things Considered on 9/4/12.
April 3, 2013
Reading right now. Very insightful analysis and description. Well written, too!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews