The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies

by Jon D. Levenson

Writing from a Jewish perspective, Jon Levenson reviews many often neglected theoretical questions. He focuses on the relationship between two interpretive communities--the community of scholars who are committed to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation and the community responsible for the canonization and preservation of the Bible.

Genres: Religion, Theology, Christianity, Biblical Studies, Old Testament, Judaism

212 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1993

About the author

Jon D. Levenson is the Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the Harvard Divinity School.

He is a scholar of the Bible and of the rabbinic midrash, with an interest in the philosophical and theological issues involved in biblical studies. He studies the relationship between traditional modes of Biblical interpretation and modern historical criticism. He also studies the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

Levenson's foci include: Theological traditions in ancient Israel (biblical and rabbinic periods); Literary Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible; Midrash; History of Jewish biblical interpretation; Modern Jewish theology; Jewish-Christian relations.

Reviews

[Anna Erickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Levenson is a genius. Everyone should read this book.

Not convinced??? Prepare yourselves for a stunning and thoughtful takedown of liberation theology. I’m SHOOK.

[Glenn Wishnew III · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tantalizing.

[Brandon Hawk · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this collection of essays--revisions of articles printed elsewhere--Levenson's main project is to discuss, juxtapose, and critique to modes of biblical study: 1) "Traditional," based on religious "fundamentalism"; and 2) "Historical-critical," based on "modern rationalism." Thus, he raises problems of oppositions, the recasting of traditional interpretations by historical-critical scholarship, and the trap of source criticism in/for itself. In doing so, he claims that scholarship has denied many facets of ongoing traditions (Jewish and Christian), ideological bases of criticism, and normative judgments that need reassessed. Throughout these essays, Levenson also questions the ways in which Jewish and Christian perspectives may be reconciled, and how all facets of biblical criticism may find common ground for ecumenical discussion.

Overall, this book certainly raises questions that need addressed in biblical scholarship, and Levenson rightly calls for more assessment and honesty from critics of all backgrounds (Jewish, Christian, secular, etc.)--and for more ecumenical discussions that encompass a variety of perspectives. Yet at no point does he present positive possibilities for going about changing the problems he levels at critics. Unfortunately, this is the nature of a disjointed project, since this volume is put together from a series of essays that often overlap in content, but do not necessarily talk to each other. A more coherent assemblage of these works, with a clearer introduction and conclusion to frame the overall project, would have given a better sense of the directions that need taken next. In a sense, it seems to me that this book needed to be more of a monograph than a series of collected articles.

[Shawn Brace · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was Jon Levenson's fourth book that I have read and it was probably my favorite. He uses incredible irony and incisiveness, essentially noting that the "emperor has no clothes." It's a fantastic critique of the historical-critical method, pointing out its questionable antecedents and its ongoing closed-mindedness and inability to productively interact with other methods.

I was, however, tempted to give it four stars because of Levenson's willingness to still embrace the historical-critical method. He some how still sees merit in pursuing both literary and historical methods of interpretation, while also implying that even though a historical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible may contradict confessional/canonical conclusions, there are still grounds to embrace the confessional/canonical conclusions.

I find it hard to figure out how one can do this. It seems to be an incredible cognitive dissonance that will inevitably lead one to embrace one method and completely surrender the other. That is, if one's confessional commitments cannot stand up to history, why would one want to maintain his/her confessional commitments? Upon what ground do the confessional commitments stand - if not history? To quote one later Jewish interpreter, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables."

Of course, even aside from this issue, I still think it was a great book because of its unique and refreshing tone among critical biblical scholarship. I wish every scholar would read this book, and take it to heart.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely destroys historical criticism's pretensions to objectivity and brings biblical criticism firmly into the dialogical pluralism of post-modernity. An excellent, hard hitting look at the presuppositions of traditionalists (sometimes called fundamentalists by Levenson) and the presuppositions of the liberals (sometimes called historicists), Levenson is critical of Christians, Jews and Secularists, but manages to argue his point without strawmen and with a degree of respect for the value of all three groups (both their liberal and conservative proponents) that makes the book a real step forward.