In this large work, Kugel goes through the Hebrew bible and contrast the ancient interpretations of the scriptures, with those of modern biblical scholars.
The ancients who gathered the text and made it canonical, seemed to interpret their scripture through the following assumptions. Firstly, the bible was considered to be cryptic, when it said A, it often meant B. This of course, assumed the Divine source that hid these truths beneath the surface message. Next, they assumed that though the scriptures do speak about history, it all contained authoritative and God given lessons, and instructions that were relevant in their own day. And finally, they believed the text was perfectly consistent and harmonious, containing no contradictions or mistakes.
This approach to scripture resulted in interpretations that to many of us moderns, seem forced, stretched, out of context and to diverge from the original meaning of the biblical authors.
The modern assumptions of critical scholars couldn't be more different. Every interpretation found in this book that references the contemporary guide to scripture seemed to flow from the following assumptions. 1. God never spoke or acted within history, so all claims of such must have a naturalistic explanation. 2. A biblical book was never written by the one whom tradition claimed to have written it. 3. Historical events in the bible either did not happen, or didn't happen as describe in the text, and all biblical characters are to be considered fictional unless irrefutable extra-biblical evidence suggest otherwise. The ruling assumption here is that the scriptures never can count as a historical source or evidence for any of the claims it makes. 4. The motives of the biblical authors for making up fictitious history and mythical characters was either solely etiological, political propaganda and spin, or were derive for some other nefarious end. 5. The actual biblical authors never had an original idea, but much of what they wrote was plagiarism, stolen from the surrounding nations.
How did such a shift occur?
First, I'll mention how within Judaism, though they embrace the interpretations that resulted from the ancient assumptions that the bible is cryptic, divinely inspired, consistent, and presently relevant, they didn't allow everyone to freely interpret the bible according to these assumptions for themselves, instead tradition was supreme. Christians interestingly held the same ancient assumptions, but their interpretative lens was Christ and Him crucified and their present religious context. Eventually, the church father's interpretations became what the bible meant for future Christians. And kind of like within Judiasm, everyone didn't have the privilege to approach the bible as individuals, instead the tradition of the church fathers carried the highest authority.
But then with the reformation, the questioning of church authority and the cry of “sola scriptura”, modern biblical criticism begin.
As Charles Augustus Briggs expressed so well “Holy Scripture, as given by divine inspiration to holy prophets, lies buried beneath the rubbish of centuries. It is covered over with the debris of traditional interpretation of the multitudinous schools and sects.... Historical criticism is digging through this mass of rubbish. Historical criticism is searching for the rock-bed of the Divine word, in order to recover the real Bible.”
Initially, these Christians still held the ancient assumptions, except for the first, for Enlightenment thinking undermined the belief that the bible was cryptic. They believed that they as individuals, using the historical-grammatical method could dig down and discover the original, clear and literal meaning of the author, which alone was the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. Tragically, this close inspection of scripture, ultimately undermined the other assumptions they held that the bible was consistent and perfect, historically sound, that it had relevant lessons and instructions for us today, and that God had any direct involvement in its creation. Many then, their faith shattered, swung to the opposite extreme, resulting in the modern assumptions that many biblical scholars now bring to the text.
After going through the Torah and sharing the evidence for the hyper-critical modern interpretation of the text, Kugel ask “Why should anyone seeking to worship God devote himself or herself to reading the etiological narratives and political self-puffery of civilizations long dead, the guerrilla tactics and court shenanigans of various ancient kings, law codes endorsing herem and the stoning of a rebellious child, or statues forbidding Molech worship and similarly outdated concerns, psalms specifically designed to accompany the sacrificing of animals at a cultic site, or erotic love poetry? All of these texts underwent a radical change in meaning when they began to be interpreted in the somewhat quirky, highly creative, and altogether God-centered approach of the ancient scholars in the late biblical period. The original meaning of these text disappeared. In a sense, ancient interpreters rewrote every one of them, even though they did not change a word. The question that poses itself to today's reader is: can we still read the Bible with the approach and assumptions that these ancient interpreters brought to it, even though modern biblical scholarship has now convinced many people that that way of reading is quite out of keeping with the original meaning of the text? Or (to refine the question a bit), if you and I now know a little too much to espouse the old way of reading naively and unquestioningly, can we somehow nevertheless mange to espouse it as what the bible (as distinguished from its original, constituent parts) means?”
Surprisingly, James Kugel who unlike conservative scholars, fully affirms this critical scholarship without any skepticism, does at the same time, as an orthodox Jew, sides with the ancient interpreters. Not in the sense, that we read and interpret the bible as individuals from these ancient assumptions, but rather that the proper way to read the bible, is to accept the traditional interpretations of it. I'll quote Kugel at length on this:
“The text that make up the Bible were originally composed under whatever circumstances they were composed. What made them the Bible, however, was their definitive reinterpretation, along the lines of the Four Assumptions of the ancient interpreters—way of reading that was established in Judaism in the form of the Oral Torah. Read the Bible in this way and you are reading it properly, that is, in keeping with the understanding of those who made and canonized the Bible. Read it any other way and you have drastically misconstrued the intentions of the Bible's framers.”
And later he wrote:
“Yet here is the most interesting point: the words of that Torah were evidently not sacrosanct. On the contrary, as we have seen throughout this study, their apparent meaning was frequently modified or supplemented by ancient interpreters—sometimes expanded or limited in scope, very often concretized through specific applications of homey examples, sometimes (as with “an eye for an eye”) actually overthrown. An Obvious question arises; if the law and the stories of the Pentateuch were deemed to come from God, how dare mere humans fiddle with them, adding to them, taking them out of context, changing their meaning, or even getting them to say the opposite of what they said?... this is, I believe the question to ask, since it reveals the very idea of Scripture at its essence. The answer is that there was something considered even more important, more powerful, than the words of the text themselves. That something was precisely the “standing up close” mentioned above: the supreme mission of serving God, of being God's familiar servants. Scripture was sacred, but more sacred still was the purpose underlying the very idea of Scripture. How else to explain that the Torah's laws could be treated as they were, modified even within the Bible itself, and then lavishly, unashamedly expanded and reinterpreted and applied to the concrete situations of daily life by the ancient interpreters? Indeed, this same tendency has carried through clearly even into modern times.
View from this perspective, the sometimes disturbing insights of modern scholarship must necessarily take on a different aspect. In Judaism, Scripture is ultimately valued not as history, nor as theology, nor even as the great, self-sufficient corpus of divine utterances—all that God had ever wished to say to man.,,,What scripture is, and always has been, in Judaism is the beginning of a manual entitled to Serve God, a manual whose trajectory has always led from the prophet to the interpreter from the divine to the merely human. To put the matter in, I admit, rather shocking terms: since in Judaism it is not the words of Scripture themselves that are ultimately supreme, but the service of God that they enjoin, then to suggest that everything hangs on Scripture might well be described as a form of... idolatry, that is, mistaking of the message for its Sender and the turning of its words into idols of wood and stone.”
It is extremely clear to me that biblical authors in the New Testament interpreted their own scriptures according to the ancient assumptions, they would all, including Jesus, get an F in a seminary course, due to their little interest in the historical, cultural and grammatical context of the text and lack of regard for the original meaning of the text. Of course, it is the same for the church fathers who came after them establishing orthodoxy, they clearly didn't use the historical-grammatical method. Sadly, I personally don't feel comfortable with using such an approach when I come to scripture and it is hard for me, to see how their interpretations are legit and authoritative, for the interpretive method they used can make the bible mean just about anything.
Many Christians today find comfort in just embracing tradition and accepting the church father's interpretation as authoritative and final. It still seems only legit to embrace the ancient interpretations of scripture, if they are, creatively built upon something somewhat solid.
I don't know how Kugel does it, to on the one hand accept the radical conclusions of modern scholarship that there is practically no historical basis for any of it; no Abraham, no Moses, no exodus, no David, no God acting or speaking in history, and yet to somehow be happy with the ancient interpreters who appeared to be utterly deluded about the foundation of their faith, and built upon this sandy makeshift foundation fanciful speculations.
I personally think Kugel created a false dilemma for his readers, for he presents the ancient interpretations which seem dubious and absurd to many of us modern readers, and then he only shares the claims from biblical scholars which utterly dismantle the original text. But what if there is a middle way? It seems even if one wants to accept the ancient interpreters as the authoritative meaning of the bible, it is easier to do so, if there was something, a tiny something concrete to their faith, believing that maybe perhaps God actually did reveal himself to Abraham for example. Sure, maybe there is legendary material, and a messy compiling of it, but it seems other more conservative scholars can make a decent case that there is reason to believe there is some historical basis to the faith.
My main problem with Kugel was that he hardly ever mentioned any objections to the biblical minimalist claims . For example, I've heard what sounded like strong arguments for the early dating of the exodus and conquest narrative, which results in a lot (though admittedly not everything) lining up with archaeological evidence. The late date doesn't seem to have anything going for it, other than the fact in giving it a late date, none of the biblical claims line up with the current archaeological data which is precisely what current scholarship is trying to prove. But now, if I said the American Civil War actually happened in the 1950's, I could then point out how there is no archaeological evidence for this war and that thus the American Civil War never happened. This is what it seems some scholars are doing. I'd appreciate if the author would have simply mention how some-scholars challenge the now fashionable late dating of the exodus for reasons x,y and z, even if he disagreed for reasons a,b and c. Instead he simply stated the late dating which implies there is no historical basis to any of it.
Maybe an already big book would be made too hefty if he shared a more balance view of the current state of biblical scholarship.