SUGGESTION: The Bible As It Was

David Paul

I would like to see this book by James Kugel in Logos format. I suspect there may be a few more Kugel books that Logos should offer, although I'm not sure I want them all bundled together. Frankly, I am surprised Logos doesn't appear to have anything by him at present. He used to be at Harvard and is now at Bar Ilan U. in Israel.

David Paul

I would also like to see this Kugel book in Logos.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/714467#Comment_714467

Yes. MOAR KUGEL PLEASE!

Was that clear?

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/714474#Comment_714474

[Y] EDIT: After reading MJS comment I am not so sure anymore whether it would be valuable in the Logos library, although I still might read it once in the book form

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/714517#Comment_714517

from a previous thread Ben and I participated in:

MJ. Smith said:

Ben said:

That's a theological interpretation, not a linguistic one. It seems fairly ignorant of the actual linguistic reason.

The real reason aleph-tav isn't translated is because it marks definite direct objects in Hebrew, and English has no formal equivalent.

Given the turn that my post made this thread go, I want to state that I agree with you.

Rosie Perera said:

Really? That's the first time I've heard that. How do we know what language -- if indeed it was a human language -- God spoke when he brought everything into being?

Yes, really. While I certainly can get things wrong, I wouldn't make this kind of assertion regarding rabbinic interpretation lightly.

From Shai Cherry, a historian of interpretation of the Torah who taught at Vanderbilt: (Note this is not the only source in which I have read this - it is merely a source close at hand because a friend and I are reading and discussing the book)

"The process of interpreting the Torah is influenced by how one understands the nature of Hebrew. Among the legacies of the scribes is that the Rabbis of the post-second Temple era (1st-7th c. CE) held that Hebrew, unlike other languages, captured the essence of the thing described. In other words, Hebrew is not a language of conventions whereby we agree that the word book will indicate this thing you happen to be reading right now. For the Rabbis, "God spoke and the world came into being." Because the world was created by the Divine language of Hebrew, language participates in the very essence of reality. The biblical word davar means both word and thing; this means that the word and the thing share an essence according to such an understanding of Hebrew. Many scholars of Rabbinic literature have observed that the Rabbis were inveterate punsters in large part because of the aural nature of their teachings. Although true, such a description belittles the seriousness with which the Rabbis felt Hebrew informed us about the nature of reality. For them, if two words sound alike or share certain root letters, it may well be because there is an underlying commonality that links the essences of those things."

Although I am missing one title, this is a list of non-technical, enjoyable books that have shaped my understanding of Jewish interpretation:

• God Was in This Place and I, I Did Not Know by Lawrence Kushner 
• The Ten Journeys of Life: Walking the Path of Abraham by Michael Gold
• How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel
• The Bible As It Was by James Kugel
• Torah Through Time: Understanding Bible Commentary, from The Rabbinic Period to Modern Times by Shai Cherry (see http://www.logos.com/products/details/5316

The book I can't find the title of is on a group of people meeting regularly in NYC to discuss the book of Genesis; the author's name begins with a V. Someone know what I'm thinking of?

Logos does have a couple of books on the history of Biblical interpretation, but I would love to see more. I personally like to see whose shoulders I'm standing on. I'm not impressed with interpretative methods that fail to acknowledge their assumptions and history although I am as fascinated by post-modern as by ancient interpretative techniques.

Alex Scott said:

Have we as a culture totally lost the ability and courage to label nonsense, nonsense, lest we upset someone's sensibilities?  Most of us on the forums seem to be involved in ministry at one level or another.  Is there a single reputable scholar out there that has taken this position?  If it's fruitcake, label it fruitcake.  If those in leadership would deal with these issues as they come up instead of pussyfooting around them, we'd have a lot less silliness going on in the Christian community.

I would put this another way (language chosen to match Alex's). Have we as a culture become so smug that we are unable to empathize with previous (or future) patterns of thought? Must we label the thought of those whose shoulders we stand on as fools and fruitcakes because they don't think like us? Will we become the supercilious fruitcakes of tomorrow? (I suspect we will.)

Yes, I do not agree with the assumption/assertion that God speaks Hebrew; nor do I agree with the logical consequences of that assumption. However, I do believe that it is important to understand the rules of Biblical interpretation which Paul as an educated Pharisee would have been taught. It also should inform our study of the use of the Old Testament in the New.

The issue, in this case, is not upsetting someone's sensibilities. It is a matter of not treating the New Testament as a document from the West after the "Age of Reason". The reason for my original post was simply to take advantage of a teachable moment to point out a that a technique that is odd to us was not odd at a critical point in the salvation history.

Anyway, I believe I am guilty of bending this thread into a theological discussion which was not my intention. I formally apologize for the breach of guidelines.

An aside: Cherry's book uses a template that I find very useful (of course the fact that it bolsters my opinion that Logos ought to support templates has no influence ). It contains the following columns for summarizing interpretations:

1. Interpretative problem
2. Resolution
3. Textual mechanism (technique)
4. Historical circumstances