Modern Old Testament interpretation arose in an intellectual environment marked by interest in specific historical contexts of the Bible, attention to its literary matters, and, most significantly, the suspension of belief. A vast array of scholars contributed to the large, developing complex of ideas and trends that now serves as the foundation of contemporary discussions on interpretation. In A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism, Mark Gignilliat brings representative figures—such as Baruch Spinoza, W.M.L. de Wette, Julius Wellhausen, Hermann Gunkel, and others—and their theories together to serve as windows into the critical trends of Old Testament interpretation in the modern period. This concise overview is ideal for classroom use. It lays a foundation and provides a working knowledge of the major critical interpreters of the Old Testament, their approaches to the Bible, and the philosophical background of their positions. Each chapter concludes with a section For Further Reading, directing students to additional resources on specific theologians and theories.
|Edition description:||New Edition|
|Product dimensions:||5.90(w) x 8.90(h) x 0.60(d)|
|Age Range:||18 Years|
About the Author
Mark Gignilliat (Ph D, University of St. Andrews) is assistant professor of divinity at Beeson Divinity School in Alabama, where he has taught Hebrew, Old Testament Exegesis, and Biblical Theology since 2005. Before coming to Beeson Divinity School, he taught at Wycliffe Hall, University of Oxford. Gignilliat is the author of Paul and Isaiah’s Servants and Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel: Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah. He has articles published in Scottish Journal of Theology, Horizons in Biblical Theology, Westminster Theological Journal, Biblica, and The Journal for Theological Interpretation. In his pre-doctoral days, he served as youth director at North Hills Community Church in Greenville, South Carolina. Gignilliat and his wife, Naomi, have two sons.
Read an Excerpt
A Brief History of Old Testament CriticismFrom Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs
By Mark S. Gignilliat
ZONDERVANCopyright © 2012 Mark S. Gignilliat
All right reserved.
Chapter OneBenedict Spinoza (1632–1677)
Modernity's Changing Tide and the Dislocation of Scripture from Revelation
Benedict de Spinoza is a watershed figure in the history of biblical interpretation. His approach to biblical studies was not born in a vacuum. Nor was his approach to biblical studies the first to raise critical questions about the Bible. Nevertheless, Spinoza is a significant figure because of his bold and bald articulation of the matter. Others before him had taken a critical approach to the historical character of Scripture and its claims—Thomas Hobbes and Isaac La Peyrre, for example. Spinoza, however, speaks directly without much clearing of his throat. The Swiss-Calvinist theologian Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633–1698) recognized the erosion initiated by Hobbes and La Peyrre, "but no one," he writes, "struck at the foundations of the entire Pentateuch more shamelessly than Spinoza." In essence, Spinoza's approach to biblical interpretation brought together the following assumptions: (1) The Bible is a product of human history and evolution and is to be read in the light of its natural history, and (2) philosophy and theology must be understood as two distinct disciplines. The former discipline has to do with truth, and the latter with morality. For Spinoza, "the natural light of reason" became the primary lens for reading the Bible and negotiating its claims.
When Spinoza first published his work advancing these ideas, he did so anonymously. The book's innocuous title was Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670). The book's content was not so benign. The Tractatus met with immediate hostility and was formally banned in 1674. Even before then, it was an illegal text whose publication was hindered. In 1670, for example, the government ordered a raid on the bookshops of Leiden in a search-and-destroy mission against the Tractatus. Before the publication of the Tractatus, his local Jewish community expelled him because of the kind of ideas presented in this volume. It is an understatement, therefore, to say that Spinoza's ideas and work created a stir.
It is important to come to terms with Spinoza because his work sets a trajectory for the modern-critical approach to Old Testament exegesis. With Spinoza, the search for the text's meaning becomes equated with the search for the text's ostensive historical referent, setting, and immediate intention. Moreover, his Old Testament interpretation is set within the framework of Cartesian modes of knowing, rejection of miracles, and denial of the supernatural. As one can imagine, these modern intellectual instincts changed the rules of the interpretive game. Before turning our attention to Spinoza's work, we will explore a brief account of his life and intellectual/social context.
Crossing the Rubicon: Spinoza's Cultural and Intellectual Setting
Spinoza was born on November 24, 1632, in Amsterdam, "the most beautiful city of Europe." His parents, Michael de Espinoza and Hanna Debora, were Portuguese Jews who likely resettled in Amsterdam because of the Portuguese Inquisition. The Jewish community in Amsterdam during this time was composed of three subgroups, each with its own synagogue and governing board. In 1639 these three independent boards became one and were called the Talmud Torah. Before this unification, however, both Benedict's father, Michael, and his uncle, Abraham, served on the governing board of their particular community (Beth Jacob). It is worth mentioning that only five people at a time served on these governing boards; it was an elite group. After the union of the three groups, Michael served on the Talmud Torah's board from 1649–1650. The Espinoza family was respected and valued in Amsterdam's Jewish community. In time, Spinoza's rejection of the ideas and values of his community would bring shame on the Spinoza name.
There is debate among the sources regarding Spinoza's formal education and how he came into conflict with his Jewish community. He is often portrayed as a young scholar who debated with his rabbi on the finer points of biblical and Talmudic interpretation in the higher level medrassim (classes) of his rabbinic school. This is doubtful. Spinoza's name does not appear on the class rolls kept during this time. This indicates a situation common to many young men of Spinoza's era. He probably joined his father's business while still an adolescent, precluding further education. In any case, it is unlikely Spinoza pursued formal, rabbinic education past the age of fourteen. These events in no way cast aspersions on his gifted intellect. He had a masterful knowledge of the Hebrew language, along with specialized knowledge of the Scriptures and rabbinical sources. Still, Spinoza's intellectual curiosity was left nearly unfettered once his formal, rabbinic training ceased.
Spinoza continued as a merchant in his father's business for many years. His business engagements with Protestant thinkers in the Netherlands may have exposed him to broader intellectual trends than the Talmud Torah community would have allowed. He also may have studied for a period at the University of Leiden (1656–1658), though the evidence for this is thin. At any rate, Spinoza began to find the dogma of Judaism problematic and pursued other intellectual options. He describes the immediate cause of his intellectual pursuit in his first published work, Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. He says his pursuits were born out of his experience that "all the things which regularly occur in ordinary life are empty and futile ..." One can suppose Spinoza's business life left him intellectually bored while the traditional teachings of his rabbinic community became increasingly provincial and outdated. By his early twenties, his philosophical interests had turned decidedly secular. His most influential tutor in this newfound intellectual freedom was René Descartes.
Spinoza's continued repudiation of rabbinic teaching and authority led to an inevitable conflict. Israel describes the situation: "Ruined financially, Spinoza had now definitively made up his mind to cross the Rubicon—discarding respectability, social standing, and commerce and devoting himself wholeheartedly to philosophy." The perfect storm came together in July 1656 as Spinoza's financial difficulties, which left him unable to pay a promissory tax, coincided with his adoption of new and offensive ideas. A ban or cherem was placed against Spinoza and read out loud in the synagogue before the community. Nadler writes, "There is no other excommunication document of the period marked by the vitriol directed at Spinoza when he was expelled from the congregation." The cause of this hostility was most likely the controversial ideas Spinoza was embracing. As soon as four years after the ban, Spinoza's controversial ideas began to appear in published form. Some of the notions his religious community found most offensive were the mortality of the soul, the denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the rejection of the revelatory character of the Torah, and the dismissal of Israel's status as the elect of God. Though religious apathy may have been tolerated in the Talmud Torah community, such heretical ideas as Spinoza's were a threat to the very fabric of their existence. After the ban, Baruch took the Christian name Benedictus. He no longer identified with his Jewish roots.
Our engagement with Spinoza is not meant to give a full biographical treatment. To do so would take us too far afield. Our interest in Spinoza has to do primarily with his ideas and how they influenced biblical studies. But it is important to understand, even if somewhat minimally, the community values Spinoza was reacting against and the intellectual currents of the day that influenced his thought. Modernity's most cherished claims —autonomous intellectual pursuits, dismissal of dogmatic tradition, naturalism, and affirmation of the Cartesian "I" (I think therefore I am)—were advanced by Spinoza's philosophical and hermeneutical outlook. Because of these intellectual commitments, Spinoza inevitably clashed with his religious community, which valued divine revelation as the highest source of metaphysical and ethical knowledge.
Wood Stoves and the Autonomous I: Descartes's Early Influence on Spinoza
As mentioned above, Descartes was Spinoza's early teacher par excellence. As an aside, it is worth noting that Spinoza's philosophical system, "Spinozism," was the product of his own first-rate mind and should not be understood as "Descartes regurgitated." Jonathan Israel's disciplinedefining work Radical Enlightenment identifies Spinoza as the major figure in the making of modernity. Nevertheless, Descartes's lasting influence on Spinoza is not questioned. Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Principles of Philosophy (1644), and the well-known Discourse on Method (1637) provided for Spinoza the philosophical grammar he needed to engage the dogmatism of his Jewish community and the larger Calvinist world he inhabited. In many ways, Spinoza was more radical than Descartes because of his application of a Cartesian epistemology to the study of the Bible. A brief overview of Descartes's theory of knowledge will help situate Spinoza's epistemological instincts.
From a "stove-heated room" in Germany, as the story goes, a twenty-three-year-old Descartes decided to rework the entirety of the Aristotelian philosophical tradition handed down to him in the schools—a system of thought already castigated by the medieval nominalists who preceded him. Descartes's philosophical efforts were ambitious as he attempted to provide a secure foundation for knowledge. Where does authority reside in the sciences, and how is knowledge received? When everything else can be called into question, what is the unquestionable premise or foundation of reality and knowledge (e.g., metaphysics)? The unambiguous answer Descartes gives to this question is as follows: Whatever reality is or whatever I am, I can be certain that I am a thinking self. Our thinking, our ordering of knowledge—whether it corresponds to reality or not—is the foundation for metaphysical claims about reality and knowledge. This philosophical idea lead to Descartes's famous Cogito: I think therefore I am (cogito ergo sum).
Excerpted from A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism by Mark S. Gignilliat Copyright © 2012 by Mark S. Gignilliat. Excerpted by permission of ZONDERVAN. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
1 Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677): Modernity's Changing Tide and the Dislocation of Scripture from Revelation 15
2 W. M. L. De Wette (1780-1849): History Becomes Religion 37
3 Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918): Israel's History and Literary Sources 57
4 Herman Gunkel (1862-1932): The Search for Israel's Religious Expression 79
5 Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971): The Old Testament's Living Traditions 101
6 William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971): Digging Deeply into Israel's History 123
7 Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007): Confessional and Critical 145
Conclusion: More a Postscript than Conclusion 169
Name Index 177
Subject Index 181