Book Review: How to Read the Bible

Review of James L. Kugel's, How to Read the Bible:

This book carefully goes through the entire Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible, or Semitic Bible, or whatever you'd like to call it) gently juxtaposing both ancient and modern (aka, academic) interpretations. I say that he does it "gently" because this book is full of his own questions about the nature of the Bible and how we ought to read it or conceive of it in light of what we know now. James Kugel, an Orthodox Jew, is extremely sensitive to what this means to not only the practicing Jew, but also to the Christian as he or she tries to understand the inter-testamental relationship. He asks many of the questions that have been churning about in my own head, though does not propose solutions. He is after all, not a theologian...

His thesis is that the modern and ancient interpretations are irreconciliable. They cannot be forced into the same categorical box. This is undeniably true. The OT was never meant to be a historical document (aside from the problem of what good historiography should look like in the first place) and there is no way to divorce Genesis 1 & 2 from the Ancient Near Eastern myths (or for that matter, the Deuteronomic laws, the Temple, Wisdom literature, Prophethood, the names of God, and many other similarities with surrounding ancient myths). In fact, many arguments that try to uphold the "historicity" (again, what does this mean?) of the text fall flat on their face or are simply laughable.

As for the actual content of the book, it is really an introduction to the various theories or scholarly opinions (really, consensuses) of the Old Testament. Document Hypothesis (and all its modifications), Source criticism, Etiological narratives, Archaeological refutations, etc., are all things that have thoroughly trounced the modern lay perspective that the OT is somehow more "divine" then "human." (So far, Enns does addres this with his concept of Incarnational Theology, but I'm not fully convinced that is the way to go...) In fact, the OT is a very human document full of human fingerprints; of course, this does not in any way preclude that the hands were not God's.

So, the questions still remain. However, after this book and as I read Enns, I am increasingly doubtful about the concept of the "canon" more than anything else. Canon as an authoritative, closed book I can accept, but its natural reflex, which is the inter-testamental, "scripture reading scripture" hermeneutics immediately becomes suspect. Regardless, scripture must be a written from someone's perspective. Something must change in the way I (we?) understand scripture, though I'm just not sure what.

Verdict: Sensitive, Captivating, Enormous erudition behind the enormous book (what else to expect from a Harvard prof?); Guaranteed to make you think twice about the way you look at the OT and its relationship to the NT, especially if you have not been exposed to OT studies. There is room for Jewish-Christian dialogue in this book. Also stresses the point that we don't necessarily simply believe in the Bible, but we believe in an interpretation of the Bible. Read it, if you have the time, or if you want to risk being bit by the bible bug. :)

Next Book to be reviewed: Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament

Following: John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus