Our notion of God today all-powerful, invisible, and omnipresent is not the same as the God of the Hebrew Bible. So who is this "God of Old?" And what is His place in the modern spiritual world?
James Kugel is renowned for his investigations into the history of the biblical era, a time beginning more than three thousand years ago, when the Bible's earliest parts first took shape. With The God of Old, Kugel goes even deeper, attempting to enter the pages of the Old Testament and see God as the Israelites first encountered him.
The God of Old appeared to people unexpectedly; He was not sought out. Often He was not even recognized, at first mistaken for an ordinary human being. The realm of the divine was not as it is today a spiritual dimension set off from the material world. The spiritual and the material overlapped, and the realm of the dead was a real domain just beyond the world of the living. Ordinary reality was in constant danger of sliding into something else, something stark but oddly familiar. And God was always standing just behind the curtain of the everyday world.
In this groundbreaking study, Kugel suggests that this alternative spirituality is not simply an archaic relic, replaced by a "better" understanding. Kugel's picture of the God of Old has much to tell us about God's very nature, and about the encounter between Him and human beings in today's world.
A book to treasure side by side with the Bible, The God of Old is sure to engage scholars and spiritual seekers alike for years to come.
|Product dimensions:||5.50(w) x 8.43(h) x 0.70(d)|
About the Author
James L. Kugel served as the Starr Professor of Hebrew at Harvard from 1982 to 2003, where his course on the Bible was regularly one of the most popular on campus, enrolling more than nine hundred students. A specialist in the Hebrew Bible and its interpretation, he now lives in Jerusalem. His recent books include The God of Old, In the Valley of the Shadow and the forthcoming The Great Change.
Read an Excerpt
Chapter One: The Project
My field is the study of ancient texts. I have spent the better part of my life working on them, mostly texts from the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other writings of the ancient Near East, but also Hebrew texts from the middle ages. One thing I have learned through my years of studying is that authors, although they are writing on some specific topic and for some definite purpose, often end up telling more than they set out to. Especially if a text is of any length or substance, it can open a window onto the inner world of the person who wrote it, revealing something crucial about how that person saw and understood things in general. Such information is often far more valuable than whatever it was the author had consciously set out to write about. The reason is that the author himself, and all the things he thought were obvious or took for granted, are by now long gone. The text is the only thing we have that will allow us to enter that lost world and, with some effort, restore its way of understanding, of seeing. The trick, of course, is to know how to allow a text to tell everything it knows about its author and his world.
This afternoon, I was in the library studying a poem written by a Hebrew poet of the middle ages. It is a poem about the soul, and reading it, I thought again of the Project. People in medieval times had such a vivid sense of their own souls! We often accuse ourselves nowadays of self-absorption, self-obsession, and there is more than a little truth to this. But in medieval times, even though the self in which they were absorbed was quite different, people were as aware as we are today, perhaps even more so, of what was going on deep inside themselves. They sometimes said that they felt their soul was "sick" and needed tender caring. They said they felt it, felt it, crying out in distress. Like a lovesick maiden (though, one might add, with the intensity of a dog chained to a stake), it was sobbing and moaning in its frantic desire to be reunited with its Creator. Some of this may have been literary convention, poetic boilerplate, but behind that must have been a certain reality in their world that has disappeared from our own. I thought of the dusty treatises I had once consulted, with their prescriptions for the soul's care and betterment, a diet of devotion and medicinal herbs, proper readings, and a path of penitence to bring the soul back to its native strength.
Outside the library, one comes to one's senses: the traffic, the brightly lit stores. But still, always lurking, is the Project. What is the Project? It is not mine in particular; many people have worked at it. Perhaps it began for me at the time of the Vietnam War, or perhaps even before that. Events conspire to put you on the spot, to cause you to make some fateful decision. And just then, facing life's ugly, jagged teeth, you suddenly feel a certain calm and a sense of the realness of things that isn't there most of the time, the realness of yourself as one distinct person, and certain ideas go through your head. A few years pass, perhaps. Then, on a day that you have set aside, sitting alone on a park bench above some municipal lake, you try to smooth things out in your mind, until the surface of the lake subtly starts to seem like an image of your mind, and once again you have a different sense of things. It is then that the Project can present itself most forcefully, reemerging from wherever it may have been waiting. The Project is: to get to the bottom of this, to see how far it goes; not to deceive oneself, not to be sentimental or weak, but to see how far one can go.
It can take you very far, even fill up a lifetime. Oddly, for me, it led eventually to (among other places) a most unlikely setting, the library. The reason is implied in what I have already said. I did not invent the idea of the soul, or of God, I was not the first to write about Him. Those who were, and those who followed them, lived long ago, and now all that remains of their world is those texts that they left behind. At first they seem so dry and dead, but if they are read in the right way with sympathy and imagination, no condescension, only a relentless desire to enter they can indeed come back to life, and their world, their way of seeing, can let us in to take the measure of things that are strange.
Copyright © 2003 by James Kugel
About This Book
The Hebrew Bible was composed over an extended period. More than a thousand years separate its earliest and latest parts. During this long period, people's understanding of God naturally changed.
We know a great deal about how God was conceived toward the end of the biblical period, since that way of thinking is in many ways still with us. This is the God inherited by later Judaism and emergent Christianity, and thus, in many ways, is the God of our religions today. But what of earlier times, what of the God of Old?
Archaeology, ancient Near Eastern history, and biblical scholarship have filled in some of the background of those early times. Scholars nowadays are well aware that the God of ancient Israel first existed in a world of many gods; it was only after a long process of development that the idea of monotheism -- that there is only one divine power in the universe -- came to be widely accepted. Along with this, scholars have also noted that some of our most basic assumptions about God -- that He has no body but exists everywhere simultaneously, that He is all-knowing and all-powerful -- are not articulated in the most ancient parts of the Bible.
But if that is so, what did it mean to believe in the God of Old? What did ancient Israelites actually understand Him to be, and how did they conceive of His interaction with them?
Such questions can be disturbing. We like to think that what our religions say nowadays about God is what people have always believed. Even biblical scholars sometimes shy away from the implications of their scholarship when it comes to these basic questions. "We really cannot know much," some say, "about what ancient prophets or ordinary Israelites thought they perceived about God -- God as they knew Him." Along with this goes an unspoken second objection: what good would it do if we could? Surely biblical faith, at its earliest stages, was a primitive thing; much of what people believed then would only embarrass us now.
I have undertaken to write this book because I believe that what ancient Israelites perceived can indeed be discovered: the evidence may be found within the Bible itself. As for the second objection, I think that it is likewise in error. The things that are examined in this book are not all of one piece. The ancient narratives in which angels appear to various biblical figures are very different from the "starkness" passages characteristic of certain psalms and prophecies, and these passages are themselves quite distant from legal texts that forbid the making of divine images or invoke the odd concept of the "cry of the victim." Taken together, however, these different texts seem to share a common theme, about the interpenetration of the domains we like to separate under the headings of "spiritual" and "material." It is not that ancient Israelites could not conceive of such a separation, but rather that it did not appear to them absolute and inviolable -- on the contrary, ordinary reality was constantly in danger of sliding into something else entirely, something stark and eerie and nonetheless familiar. This is a theme that, considered in its fullness, could hardly be described as primitive. On the contrary, the God of Old has something to tell us not only about where our faith came from, but about its most basic reality today.
Copyright © 2003 by James Kugel
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
This book is for the reader whose notion of God is one being omniscient and omnipotent. The author uses the Hebrew Bible to show that this is not the only face of God. So, if you have not been reading the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, then you might want to read this book. I downgraded the book because of the Bibliographic and Notes section and scripture. I know a book about God needs scripture. But these two areas take up 25-45% of the book. I also did not like the Notes being listed by page alone. The problem is that while one is reading a page, the reader has no idea that there might be a note or bibliography for that page.