How the Bible Is Written

by Gary A. Rendsburg

This book focuses on the nexus between language and literature in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, with specific attention to how the former is used to create the latter; topics include wordplay, wordplay with proper names, alliteration, repetition with variation, dialect representation, intentionally confused language, marking closure, and more.

Readers typically approach the Bible (and specifically, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) primarily for its moral teachings, theological insights, historical information, and the like, without giving much or even any consideration to the literary aspects of the text. The result is that while the Bible’s contents are well known, the careful and often sophisticated manner in which those contents have been crafted is usually poorly understood. As a result, readers frequently miss out on a great deal of the richness the Bible has to offer. The goal of How the Bible Is Written is to bring interested readers―scholars and laypeople alike―closer to the original text of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and to provide them with a greater appreciation of its literary artistry and linguistic virtuosity. In short, this book focuses not so much on what the Bible says as how the Bible says it.

Specific topics treated in this book include wordplay, wordplay with proper names, alliteration, repetition with variation, dialect representation, intentionally confused language, marking closure, and more. Readers of this book will gain a profound appreciation for the artistry and genius of the biblical authors and will better appreciate how understanding the way in which the Bible is written contributes to a deeper and fuller understanding of what it says.

Gary A. Rendsburg is the Blanche and Irving Laurie Professor of Jewish History at Rutgers University. He is the author of six books, including The Redaction of Genesis and The Bible and the Ancient Near East (co-authored with Cyrus Gordon), and more than 170 articles.

Genres: History

675 pages, Hardcover

Published April 1, 2019

Reviews

[Jon-Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should be qualified to give a good review of this book given my background as a former college prof of religious studies, and degrees in Jewish Studies and Philosophy. The problem is, I don't think I can really claim enough subject matter expertise either on the issues of Hebrew language to really sift through what is, to be fair, a very interesting book, and decide whether it's just really interesting or actually drawing good conclusions.

And the reason that's a problem is because I think Rendsburg may be overconfident about some of his takes, if I'm charitable, and if I'm not then I think "hand-wavy" might be more fitting. But I'm not sure I can really get there. About what?

Well, here's an example. Bear with me.

So, who was this Zadok? A complete presentation of the data would require a major excursus at this point, so suffice it to state that I accept the conclusion of those scholars who posit that Zadok was the former king and high priest of Jebusite Jerusalem.

(p. 447)

If this had been about Maimonides or Newton, who I did in depth doctorate-level research on, I would have known better. I know my Tanakh and I read Hebrew, but something like that sounds perfectly plausible to me, and within the right and left of current scholarship. But it gnawed on me.

It's not that I'm inclined to reject Rendsburg's view that the Bible is "more or less historical." (p. 446, n. 3.) The problem is, it's not settled and is ambiguous in some places. So while it's fine to agree or not agree with one dating or the other, I think the reader is owed an explanation about what would happen to the broader points of the book if the other side of the debate was closer to correct. Otherwise a lot of what Rendsburg wants to say about the intended audience and historicity gets caught up in circular reasoning, I'm afraid.

The message for someone in tenth-century b.c.e. Israel is clear: do not object to tithing to the new Canaanite king-priest who supervises the cult in Jerusalem, namely, Zadok, for it is something that father Abraham did in the distant past already. And note that the names of these two Jerusalemite figures include the same root, ṣ-d-q ‘righteous’, thereby further solidifying the connection.

Is that the message? Or is the message to the am haarets in the Persian period not to object to the Zadokite priests that came back from Babylon and rebuilt this temple and started running the show locally? That's a plausible reading as well and it would have good, perhaps stronger, archaeological evidence supporting it.

And, ok, so? Well, throughout this book, I had this feeling that a lot of what Rendsburg was arguing was tendentious, even though I accept his broader points. Again, I think archaeology has shown the Bible has been underrated as a historical document, where it intends to be one. Which is, ironically, why I wouldn't presume to argue something as consequential as Zadok's identity as a Jebusite king without more—since that's not what the Bible says. And without that more, I sure wouldn't want to use it to further my own argument without some stronger evidence it was true.

Since the Bible is the only historical record we have of the Jebusites, shouldn't we ... take it seriously, if not literally, when it identifies these people as different individuals? Here, Rendsburg seems to accept the vaguely antisemitic-in-origin critical theories about the Bible so much of his other work refutes. And here, I think the promotion of Zadok strengthens a later dating, not a contemporary one, especially if we're allowed to look that much behind the text.

In other cases, I would like to see some kind of statistical data beyond just identifying a word as an hapax legomenon before concluding it is an intentional usage, even though I accept Rendsburg's broader point that the orality of the Bible cannot be underestimated or forgotten. Again, I just don't have the expertise here to know what is conclusive evidence and what is contended, but since we've been denied that information elsewhere, it's hard to make the call.

In a nutshell, I see nothing wrong here just a few things suspiciously argued and perhaps a few overly hand-waved contentions that, ironically, I don't think would be made void by the so-called "Low Chronology" at all, or of a much later date of authorship. I think Rendsburg's greater point about the literary unity of the Bible stands regardless of which dating we choose.

Regardless of all of this, this is a delightful read, a great voyage through the beauty of the Hebrew language and the possibilities of both the spoken and written word.

[Banbury · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book explicates some of the literary techniques underpinning the Hebrew Bible (loosely speaking, the Old Testament), and thus shows how the stories have deeper meanings and reverberations than may be apparent to the average reader. How the Bible is Written is a book of literary criticism; not a book about theology. Mr. Rendsburg provides the verses in Hebrew, but also translates to English each passage, and transliterates the Hebrew where necessary so that the reader can know the sounds. There are compelling discussions of the alliteration and assonance in the Bible, along with how such word play works to connect different passages and ideas to one another. There are several other literary techniques of the Bible analyzed. Mr. Rendsburg makes convincing (at least to me) arguments against the "Documentary Hypothesis." As scholarly as this book is, it is also completely understandable to a layperson. Knowing Hebrew is absolutely not necessary to read and understand this book; however I wish I could read Hebrew in order to read the entire Bible with Mr. Rendsburg's lessons in mind.