Category Archives: Bible

Fractures in Genesis: Karamat on Carr

Posted on by

Kevin Wilson over at Karamat has a good review of David Carr‘s book, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996; Buy from Amazon.ca or Buy from Amazon.com).

While it has been a few years since I read Carr, I can say that this is an excellent work on contemporary source criticism of the book of Genesis. Carr takes an approach that tries to balance traditional source criticism and synchronic approaches (or at least take them into consideration). At any rate, if you are interested in source criticism of the book of Genesis, take a look at Kevin’s review and then take a look at Carr for your self.


The Editing of the Book of Psalms: A Tribute to Gerald H. Wilson

Posted on by

GWilson.jpgI was shocked and saddened to read of Dr. Gerald H. Wilson‘s passing in today’s up-date to the SBL Forum (I was also surprised that it took so long to hear the news since he died in November; but perhaps it was a consequence of not attending the SBL Annual Meeting). While I did not know Gerald really well, we did have lunch together on a number of occasions at SBL meetings to talk shop and interacted via email on a number of topics surrounding the study of the book of Psalms. He was an able scholar, a man of integrity, and a great guy — and he will be sorely missed.

Here is an excerpt from the obituary posted in the SBL forum:

Dr. Gerald Wilson, Professor of Biblical Studies at Azusa Pacific University since fall 1999, died on 11 November 2005, immediately after suffering a heart attack. He was deeply respected by his students and colleagues. In 2002 he was awarded the Faculty Outstanding Scholarship Achievement Award.

Professor Wilson was a graduate of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Afterwards he took an M.Div. and an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. There he was inspired in the study of biblical Hebrew by Prof. William S. LaSor. He continued his studies at Yale University, under the direction of Professors Robert R. Wilson and Brevard S. Childs. There he earned an M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. On the basis of his work at Yale, he established himself as a pioneering scholar in the study of the Psalms as he undertook examination of the canonical shape of the Psalter.

Wilson’s Pioneering Work on the Psalms

Professor Wilson was truly a “pioneering scholar” in the study of the Psalter. Some of the most exciting — and theologically fruitful — work being done on the Psalter in the last quarter-century has been by those employing “canonical” or “synchronic” methods — and Wilson’s ground-breaking study of the editing of the book of Psalms led the way. In fact, his 1981 Yale thesis, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Scholars Press, 1985; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) was one of the first comprehensive English-language works on the shape of the book of Psalms. This volume, as well as Wilson’s numerous articles and essays (see bibliography below), have served as the foundation for much of the research done in this area.

ShapePsalterChart.jpgUsing a number of ancient collections of hymnic material as a comparative “control group,” Wilson sought to demonstrate that the Hebrew Psalter has an overall shape or structure that was brought about by purposeful editorial activity. From his study of the comparative material and the book of Psalms itself, Wilson isolated a number of indicators that helped identify the editorial pattern behind the canonical form of the book of Psalms. Indicators such as author and genre categories from the psalm headings; thematic grouping of psalms; the placement of previous collections; the function of the first psalm as an introduction to the Psalter as a whole; and the Psalter’s fivefold division were understood by Wilson to have editorial significance (Click on the image to the right to see a handout I developed that graphically displays Wilson’s understanding of the editorial structure of the Psalter).

Because of the different methods used in putting together psalms in Books I-III and IV-V, Wilson suggested that the Psalter underwent two (likely distinct) editings, one for Psalms 1-89 and another for Psalms 90-150. The first segment (Psalms 1-89) is organized principally by author and genre distinctions, with royal psalms used as buffers between the collections (e.g., Psalms 2, 72, 89). According to Wilson, these royal psalms give the collection a Davidic framework that traces the events of the Davidic monarchy from its inception (Psalm 2) to its failure and exile (Psalm 89). The second grouping (Psalms 90-150) is dominated by smaller collections organized by common themes or catchwords. In particular, book four (Psalms 90-106) functions as the editorial centre of the book of Psalms and answers the lament over the demise of the monarchy expressed in Psalm 89. Wilson argues that these psalms point back to the Mosaic era (cf. the heading to Psalm 90) when Yahweh alone served as Israel’s king and refuge, and promise that Yahweh will continue to be such in the future. Book five (Psalms 107-150), like book four, answers the lament of the first three books by encouraging Israel to trust in Yahweh alone through obedience to the Torah (cf. the overwhelming effect of the placement of Psalm 119). Finally, Wilson argues the placement of Psalm 1 at the beginning of the Psalter indicates that “the Psalter is a book to be read rather than be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from.” For Wilson, the message that the shape of the book of Psalms declares implicitly is that kingship and the Davidic monarchy are false hopes. Yahweh is the only true king and refuge for Israel, and in him alone should they trust.

Wilson_Psalms1.jpgIn the years following the publication of his thesis, Wilson produced a whole series of articles that refined his views (see below). His most significant publication since his thesis, however, is clearly his Psalms Volume 1 (The NIV Application Commentary; Zondervan, 2002; Buy from Amazon.ca or Buy from Amazon.com. This commentary on Psalms 1-72 is written for a more popular audience in mind, yet is based on a careful analysis of the Hebrew text. What is more, Wilson does not just deal with the psalms individually, but explores the connections between the psalms in a way that is both academically sound and theologically relevant. I highly recommend it for all students of the Bible.

When all is said and done, Gerald Wilson’s research on editing of the book of Psalms has been an inspiration — whether directly or indirectly — to countless scholars. And with his passing, biblical scholarship has lost an able scholar. I extend my condolences to his family, friends, and students.

A Bibliography of Gerald Wilson’s Work on the Psalter

  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377-88.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Editiorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34 (1984): 337-52.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624-42.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 404-13.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35 (1986): 85-94.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” In Haim M. I. Gevarjahu Memorial Volume. English-French-German Section, edited by J. J. Adler, 136-43. Jerusalem: World Jewish Bible Center, 1990.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 129-42.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 72-82. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 42-51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448-64.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 28 (2000): 102-10.
    Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms Volume 1, NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, 391-406. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Faith-Based Wissenschaft: An Oxymoron?

Posted on by

Michael V. Fox has a thought provoking essay at the most recent SBL Forum entitled, “Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View.” While I have the utmost respect for Fox as a scholar (his various works on the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible are absolutely second to none), I am not sure I agree with his bold statement “faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship” (see Danny Zacharias’s reflections at Deinde, as well as James Crossley’s posts here and here).

On the one hand, I’m not sure I like the implication that “faith-based scholarship” (or Wissenschaft) is an oxymoron. While I would agree that any scholarship that presumes its conclusions is methodologically problematic (and borders on disingenuous), faith-based scholarship does not necessarily have to fall in this category (though some certainly does). Furthermore, I would think that secular Wissenschaft could learn a lot from a lot of faith-based scholarship as well as other ideological approaches. As Peter Donovan has recently noted, “the scientific study of religion can ill afford to insulate itself from the thinking of others interested in the same subject-matter, merely because they may hold very different views about theory and method” (“Neutrality in Religious Studies,” in The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader [ed. Russell T. McCutcheon; New York: Cassell, 1999], 245). What is perhaps most important for any approach to biblical studies is that the approach is academically sound, methodologically rigorous, and up front about any and all presuppositions.

On the other hand, Fox’s point has some validity in that he is not dismissing the “scholarship of persons who hold a personal faith.” In fact, he notes that “there are many religious individuals whose scholarship is secular and who introduce their faith only in distinctly religious forums.” Basically what I understand Fox as saying is that “Wissenschaft” employs a “secular, academic, religiously-neutral hermeneutic” and any scholars who want to engage in biblical Wissenschaft needs to play by the agreed upon rules. Thus, Wissenschaft becomes a “middle discourse” by which people of different faiths and/or no faith can engage in scholarly discourse.

This debate within biblical studies is paralleled by a larger debate within the discipline of religious studies. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the discipline of religious studies has typically been understood to be the “value-neutral” and “objective” study of religions, while theology is the confessional or particularistic study of one religion (see, for example, Donald Wiebe, “The Politics of Religious Studies,” CSSR Bulletin 27/4 [November 1998] 95-98). This distinction played an important part in the establishment of religious studies departments in a number of universities in Europe and North America — and especially Canadian public universities (interestingly, not all educational institutions thought that the distinction was necessary). This traditional demarcation has been challenged on some fronts in light of the postmodern recognition that there is no real objective, value-neutral study of religion (or any other subject for that matter), and thus the only differences between the disciplines are the rules agreed upon by those working within them — the rules of the game, so to speak.

(For an interesting discussion of postmodern theories of religious studies, see the interaction between Garrett Green, “Challenging the Religious Studies Canon: Karl Barth’s Theory of Religion,” Journal of Religion 75 [1995] 473-86; Russell T. McCutcheon, “My Theory of the Brontosaurus: Postmodernism and ‘Theory’ of Religion,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 26/1 [1997] 3-23, and William E. Arnal, “What if I Don’t Want to Play Tennis?: A Rejoinder to Russell McCutcheon on Postmodernism and Theory of Religion,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 27/1 [1998] 61-68; see also McCutcheon’s response, “Returning the Volley to William E. Arnal” on pp. 67-68 of the same issue).

In practice, religious studies (and biblical studies) in the Canadian public university context tends to be the scientific study of religion which does not privilege one religious discourse above another. Theology, on the other hand, is typically defined as the study of one religion from a confessional standpoint. So in this sense, I agree with Fox that there is a valid difference between faith-based scholarship and secular scholarship. But the question remains “what rules are we going to play by?” While I appreciate Fox’s point, I am skeptical about whether there is any scholarship that is truly “objective” and “value-neutral.” And any scholar who suggests that their work is “objective” and “value-neutral” would perhaps be more at home in the 19th century! I for one live in both worlds and produce scholarship for a variety of contexts. Some of my research is for the broader academy and employs methods appropriate for such work, while some of my study is for the community of faith to which I belong and employs a slightly different approach. I hope, however, that all of my research may stand up under the scrutiny of scholars who take different approaches and have different presuppositions than I.

Let me end with the final exchange between David and his Rebbe from Chaim Potok’s masterful book In the Beginning (Ballantine, 1997; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).

  • Rebbe: “… Are you telling me you will not be an observer of the commandments?”
  • David: “I am not telling the Rebbe that.”
  • Rebbe: “What are you telling me?”
  • David: “I will go wherever the truth leads me. It is secular scholarship, Rebbe; it is not the scholarship of tradition. In secular scholarship there are no boundaries and no permanently fixed views.”
  • Rebbe: “Lurie, if the Torah cannont go out into your world of scholarship and return stronger, then we are all fools and charlatans. I have faith in the Torah. I am not afraid of truth.”

Bulkeley’s Amos: Hypertext Bible Commentary Launched

Posted on by

I want to join the virtual crowd of bibliobloggers congratulating Tim Bulkeley for the launch of the electronic stand-alone version of his commentary entitled, Amos: Hypertext Bible Commentary. I wish Tim all the best with this release!

While I have not had the opportunity to take a look at this electronic release of his commentary, I have had the chance to peruse his online version and I have listed it in my OT Commentary Survey for quite a while. I encourage you to spend some time looking at Tim’s commentary. It is very well done and makes excellent use of hypertext delivery– you have multiple panes that provide different information and you can also hear the passage read in English or Hebrew, among other things.

All in all it is a great commentary on a facinating biblical book!

Love Poetry for Biblical Literalists

Posted on by

Since Valentine’s Day is fast approaching, I figured I would provide some biblical love poetry for any young men who may be out there (I also figured since Jim West showed a picture of his ideal woman, I would too!). Whisper these words into the ears of your Valentine’s Day date and you will be guaranteed a second date! … Really!


(Image from an old Wittenburg Door)

How beautiful you are, my love,
how very beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
behind your veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats,
moving down the slopes of Gilead.
Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes
that have come up from the washing,
all of which bear twins,
and not one among them is bereaved.
Your lips are like a crimson thread,
and your mouth is lovely.
Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate
behind your veil.
Your neck is like the tower of David,
built in courses;
on it hang a thousand bucklers,
all of them shields of warriors.
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle,
that feed among the lilies….
Your lips distill nectar, my bride;
honey and milk are under your tongue;
the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon
Your belly is a heap of wheat…
Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon,
overlooking Damascus (Song 4:1-5, 11; 7:2, 4)

(OK, most of the metaphors are understandable, though it is interesting that more dynamic translations like the NLT unpack many of the metaphors in these verses, but they leave the breasts alone. Hmmm… so just how are breasts like fawns feeding among the lilies?)