CHAPTER 1

THE BIBLE AS A LITERARY DOCUMENT

This book is designed to call attention to and to deconstruct the colonizing elements in Scripture.  Mention will be made to the fact that the Bible, for the most part, was not only written by people who experienced colonization (usurpation of their land and uprooting), but that these colonized people, in time, became colonizers themselves.  As part of their colonizing activities, they engaged in what we call today “ethnic cleansing.”  They justified their colonization and ethnic cleansing by writing that their God, Yahweh, mandated them to do so.  So, they resorted to theological rationales in order to justify their colonizing enterprise.

For us to observe the colonizing elements of Scripture, we must study its history.  This study would include the history of how we obtained the Bible, who the “key players” were in the writing of Scripture, and how the Scriptures eventually came to be a document of faith in the Jewish and Christian communities.

This study would entail looking at the Bible in its literary composition.  In other words, studying the Bible as a literary document would help us to understand the issues at hand in this book.  It would be intellectually dishonest for one to see the Bible as a document of faith while at the same time denying, disregarding, and overlooking the very human elements of  its literary composition and contents.

Having said all the above, I submit that the Bible as a literary document challenges us to examine the same elements found in other literature, be it religious or secular.  As with any other piece of literature, when we read the Bible, we must ask the same questions asked when reading any other document.  It is inevitable that we raise questions about the following:

 

1.  Authorship- Who wrote the particular books that we read in Scripture?  Does it matter?  I submit that if the Bible is going to be considered authoritative and normative in the life of the faith community, that the authors must have some type of commitment to that community and its beliefs and practices.  Otherwise, I believe, we would have to assume that the authors of Scripture had an ulterior motive in writing, i.e. to discredit and defame the faith, and undermine the mission of the community.  There is nothing in the content of Scripture that suggests that the writers had any such sinister motives in writing.

We would also have to ask if the authors named in the books were the actual authors, or were the books attributed to certain authors in order to give them more credibility and weight.  For example, were the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) written by Moses or were they written just before, during, or after the Babylonian Captivity and attributed to Moses in order to give these documents legitimacy and authoritative status?

A related question would be whether we subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis, i.e. the theory that there are multiple authors of the Pentateuch, or not, each one representing different political and theological interests.  Some of us would be more inclined to believe that there was one author who wrote the first five books of the Bible, while others, based on the contents of the Pentateuch, believe that there were multiple authors.  The same goes for the book of Isaiah, in that some authors believe that there was one person named Isaiah who wrote the entire book and covering not only the events taking place in his time, but also what would happen in the future.   On the other hand, there are other biblical scholars, who, on the basis of both content and style, believe in a “Deutero-Isaiah,” who unlike the first one, only covered events of the period of the Babylonian Captivity.

2. Date of Writing- Since the Bible is not an ahistorical book, we must examine its publications and writings in the context of history.  In other words, we must ask at what point in history were the books of the Bible written.  The date of writing will reveal the relevance or non-relevance of what the authors say.  We would have to examine whether the writings were contemporaneous with the events and issues that the authors speak about or whether the writings came about much later in history.  For example, we would ask if the Gospel accounts were written during or shortly after Jesus’s earthly ministry, or were they written much later, therefore, requiring the writers to resort to different sources of information in order to compose their writings?

3.  Motive- The reading of any book or other literary document calls for us to examine the motives and intention of the writers.  No one writes in a vacuum.  There are always reasons behind the writings.  Every writer has a specific reason or intention for composing her/his writing.  So, we may ask for example “What was Paul’s reason for writing his Corinthian correspondence?”  Was he in a bad mood?  Were there things in the Corinthian church that were annoying and bothering him?  Did he have a personal grudge with someone there or perhaps a score to settle?  Did the Psalm writer just want to vent and therefore wrote a prayer asking God to avenge his personal enemies?  Did the writer or writers of the books of Chronicles and Kings write as one prison resident said to me “to earn royalties?”

4.  Audience- Writers of all types (book writers, newspaper journalists, poets, etc.) always have someone in mind that they believe should be the recipients of their writings.  In other words, all writings are addressed with a particular audience in mind. When we take a literary approach to the Bible, one of the questions asked is that of intended audience.  So, for example, we have four Gospel accounts in the New Testament and apparently each Gospel writer is addressing her/his account to a particular group of people. When I was a Visiting Scholar/Professor of Theology at the Tainan Theological College/Seminary in Taiwan, I wrote a book “The Sovereignty of Taiwan” A Theological Perspective.”  After the book was written and published, I had a discussion with the Academic Dean about the book.  Thinking that the book would be read by the general public in Taiwan, I asked him “Who do you think would be the readers of this book?” Hoping that he would confirm my hopes, he answered “The academic community, i.e. in this case, the faculty, students, and other engaged scholars.”  While I was happy that the “community of scholars” would be among my readers, I was somewhat disappointed that he didn’t think that my audience would be a much wider one.  We ask the same type of questions about the audience of the biblical writers.  How large was their audience?  What type of people were in this audience?  Would the audience be receptive to their message?  Was the select audience an exclusive audience, or did the writers think that whatever they said to one audience would be universally applicable in all times and in all places?  Did the author/authors of the epistles and letters believe that what they said to one person or particular church would be normative for the church universal?

5. Sources of information- As a student in graduate school, I learned the importance in identifying and quoting my sources of information. While this was also emphasized in my undergraduate studies, it was not done with the same degree of vehemence.  Relative to the biblical writers, we must inquire about their sources of information.  In other words, we must ask for example, “Where did the writer of Mark’s Gospel account get her/his information from in order to compose that Gospel account?”  Did the writer of the Pentateuch get her/ his information about the Creation and the Flood from a previously written document such as the Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood, i.e. the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh?  Did Ezra and Nehemiah “copy-cat” off

each other, or did they write separately?  In our time, whenever we want to know about or focus on our world events, we make choices about which sources we resort to in order to form an opinion, whether about economic, political, or social issues. As writers do not write in a vacuum, we, as thinkers, do not think or operate in a vacuum. We all base ourselves, to one degree or another, on what someone else has said.

6.  Literary Style- Whenever we read any document, one of the first questions we often raise is “What type of literature is this?”  Is it actual and literal history?  Is it folklore, legend or myth?  Is it allegory?  Is it comedy?  Is it tragedy?   The Bible, as a literary document, does not escape these same types of questions.  All the literary forms that we find in books, articles, essays, and other types of literature, are found in the Bible.

In our current time, in order to form an opinion and make an evaluation of local, national, and world events, we resort to reading the different literary forms of journalism.  Some of us resort to reading sources which are super-hyper sensationalist in nature, while others are more inclined to resort to more intellectually and scholarly-oriented sources of journalism.

It is the same thing in biblical literature.  Some of us are inclined to read books such as the Psalms which are more devotional in nature, while others are inclined to read the letters of Paul such as Romans, which establish the foundation for a well thought-out biblical and systematic theology.

Again, I repeat, that biblical literature is not exempt from the forms that we find in other literary documents.  Subsequently, we need to ask the same kinds of questions that we ask about any other type of literature.

7.  Questions of Redaction- In our time, whenever we read any type of document, one of the questions that we raise is whether the particular document has been edited and revised or not.  Biblical scholars raise the same type of question about the Scriptures.  It is, indeed, much more convenient to believe that whatever we are reading in Scripture was done in one sitting by the authors.  In other words, it is very convenient and to a certain extent, expedient for us to believe that there was no editing, or redaction involved in the writing of Scripture.

I think that it should be obvious by now to the reader, that this writer (yours truly) subscribes to the above approaches of reading, talking about, and writing about the Bible.  These approaches constitute what is called the “historical-critical” approach to Scripture.  It is in my opinion, both irresponsible and reckless to avoid this method of Bible reading and study.  The denial and lack of recognition to the historical-critical approach results in sloppy engagement with Scripture. 

Subsequently, we do injustice to the Scriptures, their authors, and to the biblical message.  My intention in describing the importance of utilizing the historical-critical approach to the Bible has been to affirm its message based on a responsible approach that entails clear, analytical and critical thinking.

NOTE:

The above-posed questions are related to the approach to the Bible known as the “historical-critical” method of biblical studies.  This approach emerged in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, with a special focus on the so-called “Documentary Hypothesis” of the Hextateuch (first six books of the Old Testament).

THE BIBLE AS LITERATURE

To discuss the Bible as literature, with chief attention to stylistic effects generated by word choice and order, therefore, would require limiting ourselves either to the original languages or to a particular translation.  If that were the case, the choice would be the easy one of choosing a particular translation such as the King James Version because it is universally conceded to be the finest writing in the English language (Calvin Clinton in “The Bible as Literature.”  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, p.129).

There are, however, elements of literary excellence that do not depend on peculiarities inherent in any particular language.  They include formal elements such as prose and poetry, narrative, drama, allegory, and biography; and such stylistic elements as parallelism, imagery, symbolism and the like. It is with such literary elements that we deal (Ibid.).

In further clarification of purpose, several questions may be asked.  Is it our intent to judge or “criticize” the book?  The last question is not so fanciful as it may seem (Ibid.)

The purpose, however, is neither to judge the value of Scripture nor to assess God’s literary style.  Nor does this disavowal evade the issue. Utilizing the literary approach to Scripture, we examine some of the major dimensions of literary quality as derived from and normally applied to other works of literature, to see how they are manifested in the Bible (Ibid.)

THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF LITERATURE

Great literature is that kind of writing which, in addition to whatever other purposes may serve, is characterized by aesthetic and artistic qualities.  It differs, for example, from expository prose, not in that it does not communicate, but in that it communicates in a way rendered more moving and memorable than writing designed merely to transfer an idea from one mind to another with a minimum of loss. It is writing, whether it be chiefly aimed at informing, exhorting, narrating, dramatizing, or whatever, is additionally concerned with aesthetic quality.  It is peculiarly fitting, therefore, that so much of the Bible should be beautiful as well as true, i.e. reminding us that God created humankind with the wonderful and mysterious capability of responding with delight to beautify of many kinds (Ibid.).

Literary quality is not merely decoration.  Because humankind is deeply moved by beauty, literature informs and teaches more effectively than does unadorned verbal communication.  Nor need the term adornment suggest anything elaborate or calculatedly artificial (Ibid.).

SOME BASIC ELEMENTS OF LITERARY FORM

Literary beauty, like all beauty, results from the harmonious blending of many elements and the complexity begins at the simplest level, that of the words themselves.  For almost every object, the biblical languages-Hebrew and Greek (and in a few Old Testament passages , Aramaic)-present us with multiple choices.  For example, whether one writes “girl,” “maiden,” or “young woman,” depends on the connotation that one wishes to convey.  Some words, indeed, come so richly robed in an aura of feeling that the connotative dress may say more than the denotative “thing” within.  The Bible is rich and subtle in its use of precisely the right word, ranging from the multiple implications of a common word like “shepherd” to the rich suggestiveness of such words as lamb, candlestick, and vine (Ibid.) 

From at least the time of the Greeks, it has been recognized -i.e. discovered, not decided-that there are certain essential characteristics of all great literature.  Terminology relating to these characteristics, and even in some cases their identity, varies harmony, and radiance.  By the first is required singleness (not simplicity) of purpose; by the second, internal congruence, absence of contradictoriness; and by the third, the effusion of light, figuratively taken to be the revelation of the beauty that shines from truth (Ibid.).

When the Hebrew tribes broke into Palestine in the long series of incursions and infiltrations that reached flood tide sometime during the fourteenth or thirteenth century B.C.E., they projected themselves into a course of culture that was already very old.  Of their own level of civilization little is known.  At times, they have been regarded as unspoiled nomads directly out of the Arabian Desert, and consequently possessed of a culture not far above the barbaric.  They have been associated with the widely diffused Habiru peoples who then lived or had lived in varying status in several of the civilized lands of the ancient Near East.  Probably the safest guess is a theory that provides room for a combination of these views.  Nonetheless, the conquest of Palestine was epochal for their culture, as it was to prove also, in the long perspective of the centuries for civilization as a whole.  The little land to which they made claim lay right athwart the great highroads of the ancient world.  Up and down its valleys and along its strip of coastal plain went the commerce as well as the pomp and circumstance of the empires of the time, rich argosies of products from the looms and shops of Egypt and Babylonia that bore also undeclared imports of spiritual treasures from the civilization of “the gorgeous East (William A. Irwin, in “The Literature of the Old Testament”( The Interpreter’s Bible.  New York: Abingdon Press, 1952, p. 175).”

Ancient Near Eastern Culture

The great story of the achievements of the older Orient is not in the theme of this book.  We restrain comment on the incredibly superb metalworking of Sumer, and the temples of Egypt and of Babylonia, different as they were in their architectural genius, yet alike in their housing of a ritual and liturgy that grew ornate and magnificent with the lengthening centuries.  The palaces, the pyramids, the splendor of well-planned royal cities, the wealth and ease and the refinement that leisure can encourage-and much more may be recalled only as colorful and pregnant background possessed of immense relevance for the quasi-barbarian invaders of Palestine’s narrow strip of fertility between the desert and the sea.  It is more acute loss, however, that we may only allude to the slow dawning of a science that in some departments presently became empirical, and to the speculative thought of these lands that age after age wrestled with the persistent problem, in course of time to become Israel’s obsession also-What is humankind?  What is humankind’s place in a world of wonder and unfathomed mystery (Ibid.)?

It was a very old and ripe culture into which the Hebrews came.  More significantly still, it was a literate civilization.  All literatures have their beginnings in oral traditions of one sort or another; and this unwritten heritage was of peculiar significance to the Orient.  Note must soon be taken of its function in Israel.  But by the time of the Hebrew conquest, the great lands of the Near East had long since passed beyond the stage of development.  Business, government, law, ritual, and the outreach of thought had all invoked the art of the scribe for so many centuries that it had become normal.  As the modern world has its classics, so then likewise, famous old poems and myths circulated afar, and won a renown which justly has revived in our own day.  In the history of human culture documents of a very high relevance (Ibid.)

THE PRE-ISRAELITE CULTURE OF PALESTINE

The immediate context of the emerging Hebrew nationality was also notable.  The Canaanites have received less than their due.  Religious practices, which rightly shocked Israel’s austere morality, have through the medium of Old Testament condemnation provoked contempt and disregard for the pre-Israelite culture of Palestine, but accumulating facts compel more generous appraisal.  The Canaanites were a people of unusual ability.  Through more than a thousand years, they had built up in Palestine a great civilization.  The wealth and refinement of their cities astonished Egyptian conquerors.  Their inventive genius originated three novel systems of writing; two of these were alphabetic, and one of these was one destined to supplant the venerable systems of Egypt and Babylonia,  and to become in its lineal descendants the medium of written record and communication for the entire Western culture even to this day. These alphabetic characters were ready, waiting when the Israelites arrived, tempting alert spirits to invoke them for expression and for annals.  But stimulus and example were at hand.  It has longed been recognized that a considerable portion of the Old Testament legal system, notably the social legislation in Exodus 21-23, was originally Canaanite, but received Israel’s characteristic stamp.  The Canaanites shared also, it would appear, in the intellectual activity of the Orient known as “wisdom.”  Yes, most astonishing is the group of documents uncovered at Ras Shamra on the northern coast of Syria in 1929 and subsequent years.  They turned out in decipherment to consist largely of ancient religious poems, epics, and myths intimately related to the cultus-nothing less in fact than a portion of the long-lost literature of the ancient Canaanites! That the documents date from the period when the Hebrews were in the early stages of their thrust into Palestine is but incidental; the significant fact is that they give us an all too tantalizing glimpse of the intellectual and religious culture that were to be Israel’s pervasive atmosphere for centuries.  Their actual influence is attested in the notable series of parallels, allusions, and even near quotations readily being recognized in the Old Testament down to its later portions (Ibid., p. 176).

The Hebrews, then, had august guides, and the stimulus of a great and ancient culture so all-comprehending as to constitute their native air, when presently they set out themselves to create a literature that was to prove itself one of the greatest achievements of the human spirit.  Yet it would be an error to limit our perspective to non-Hebraic facts and forces. Basic to all was the inherent genius of the Hebrews themselves, although it is highly dubious that as yet any of them or of their contemporaries could have suspected the possibilities that lay in germ in these uncouth shepherds and desert wanderers whose immediate purpose was to dispossess the Canaanites, the legal owners of the land.  The reality of national traits cannot be denied, even though their origin lies hidden in the mystery of human biology; and Israel’s incomparable contribution to human culture will not be comprehended if it is not recognized that they were a people of remarkable endowments (Ibid.).

EARLIEST FRAGMENTS OF HEBREW LITERATURE

It is more directly to the point, however, to speak of the Hebrew literary heritage so old as apparently to antedate the settlement in Palestine.  Poetic scraps, such as the Song of the Well, the taunt against Heshbon, and the vivid bit of description of the boundaries of Moab, preserved in Numbers 21, are placed by the narrator in the time of the Wandering, a date there is no good reason for disputing.  How long before the Conquest the Song of Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24) and the Curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:24-27) may have originated no one can say.  But it is freely admitted that some nucleus of the Song of Moses (or Miriam?) in Exodus 15 was actually composed of the triumphant celebration it materializes.  Balaam’s oracles (Numbers 23-24) are other extended poetic traditions which can with reasonable confidence be assigned in greater or lesser bulk to the period with which the record associates them.

The earliest Hebrews also accumulated a body of traditions about the great figures and events of their history.  To these we are indebted in some undetermined measure for our stories about the patriarchs.  The superb character of these narratives is, consciously, or otherwise, recognized by all; but the critical study of them is yet far from finality; indeed, much further than was once supposed.  Even among prominent scholars, opinions differ widely, as reflected in a relative conservatism (H. H. Rowley, From Josephus to Joshua.  London: Oxford University Press, 1950).

There is also a belief that the stories have grown up in a way typical of most early traditions: a small nucleus of historic events-which cannot now be precisely determined-overlaid with legendary embellishments (Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1948).

However, this may be, the account of Abraham’s successful pursuit of the four marauding kings who had carried off his nephew Lot (Genesis 14) has archaic features that indicate dependence on an actual historical source.  The whole body of these narratives has indeed received in recent years small, quite indefinite, but significant corroborative support from various aspects of our growing knowledge of the ancient East.  We can no longer doubt their factual basis, but he/she would be a bold spirit who would undertake to delineate that basis.  Much the same is to be said about the stories of Jacob; they fit at numerous points what we know from other sources.  Yet we wrong this whole body of literature when we appraise it primarily or exclusively as history, for it was composed for a variety of purposes, most of them quite apart from systematic record of the past.  Nonetheless it is apparent that the origins of these stories carry us far back in Israel’s career, so that the traditions provided a significant portion of the nation’s cultural heritage when at length the Hebrew tribes emerged into actual history. It is highly improbable that any of these various elements had been committed to writing before the Conquest; they existed rather as an oral literature, more accurately, as folk traditions.  The art of writing was already very ancient and was widely diffused; it had been practiced in Palestine.  But such meager knowledge as we possess relevant to the point does not encourage the assumption that literacy was general at this time in Israel (Irwin, op. cit., p. 177).

Style of Old Testament Literature

A literature so diverse as that of the Old Testament may well baffle rational appraisal and in addition to its diversity of type and theme, it possessed also a wide range of merit.  Nevertheless, the important matter is to realize its prevailing existence.  For those who possess historic perspective, it stands out easily as the greatest literature of the ancient East.  The writers of Egypt and of Mesopotamia, notwithstanding their indisputable importance in the history of culture, yet at their best only imperfectly approached the level where Israel’s literary persons moved easily as masters.  Nor is this all.  The Old Testament has continued to this day a high treasure of our cultural heritage by reason of its historical significance, it is true, but primarily through its literary beauty and power (Ibid.).

After all that has transpired in more than two thousand years, we must yet appoint a place with the mighty for these unknown persons of the rugged hills of Judah and the narrow vales of Israel.  They lived in conditions of stark simplicity; but herein they set themselves a symbol of their own meaning: human life consists not in things, but “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Ibid.).

The curse of not a few contemporary writers is that with notable mastery of their art they have nothing to say.  To their qualities of great expression, the Hebrews added robust and profound thought.  Their theme was one, whatever their immediate topic; and it is the greatest theme that can engage human thought.  In some way, the mystery of human life had been impressed upon them.  What is humankind?  Humankind, in their deepest being, humankind over against and in relation to that supreme mystery of Being from which all things and all beings proceed?  Here lay their interest, their obsession.  Age after age, in varying mood, form and emphasis, the Hebrew writers discussed directly or through implication this and this only.  Some lost the greatness in a petty selfishness; some were content to mouth ancient sentiments, and at best to stand on the gains of former ages.  But, overall, they were thinkers of the highest order (Ibid.).

THE LANGUAGE AND STYLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament is a monument of the Greek language as it was spoken in the first century C.E., not of the artificial and sophisticated style.  Its heritage includes classical Greek, the Old Testament in Hebrew and in Greek translation, and the speech of the common people.  The New Testament, moreover, originated new classes of literature, which are not “literature” in any actual formal sense.  The Gospels, for example, were a new type of work, they are not biography, for they do not give personal descriptions nor an analysis of the principal characters, nor a full-life story of Jesus.  Neither the Gospel accounts nor Acts are primarily “history.”  Paul’s Epistles, while more than mere personal letters, are not literary oratory.  The motivation throughout the New Testament was not to produce literature or promote its authors, but to proclaim the message of salvation through faith in Christ (J. Harold Greenlee in “The Language of the New Testament.”  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas, eds.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, p. 414).

There are, of course, several levels of language and styles in the books of the New Testament.  At one extreme, the Epistle to the Hebrews with careful progression of argument and arrangement of words, is a model of the “koine (common Greek)” in good written, as opposed to spoken form.  Luke and Acts, too, reveal Luke’s knowledge of literary Greek.  Luke can vary his style, making it more colloquial, more Jewish, or more elegant. (Ibid., p. 415).

Certain scholars have had a “field day” pointing out instances that they maintain show that John’s Gospel account is filled with Semitic expressions and with Greek ‘mistranslations’ of an underlying Aramaic original.  Yet one of the most remarkable features of these investigations is the almost total disagreement of such scholars with one another concerning the specific examples of these “Semitisms,”  John’s style, rather, is the style of a person of some education, using a conversational form (Ibid.).

The grammar of Revelation is so inferior that many scholars have questions about its authorship.  Revelation has been said to be the work of a Semitic-speaking person who was just learning Greek, as evidenced by its poor Grammar.  It is true that Revelation is full of ideas and imagery of the Old Testament.  Yet its grammatical “blunders” are not Semitic idioms translated into Greek; they have parallels in colloquial Greek papyrus texts, many of which are grammatically inferior to Revelation (Ibid.).

The Gospel account of Mark is considered the primary document from which the other Gospel writers may have derived their information for composing their accounts.  It has a simple and vivid style.  The author uses the word “immediately” about forty times (Ibid.).

The style of Paul stands in contrast, in various ways, to those of John, Mark, Hebrews, and Revelation.  Paul is thoroughly steeped in the Old Testament, but he speaks the Greek of an educated man.  In contrast with Hebrews, Paul’s style exhibits the irregularities and broken constructions to be expected in letters that were more personal, than formal presentations that were often written in response to other letters, dictated without later revision, and sometimes written out of deep feelings.  More than once Paul begins an argument, digresses to a different matter, and either never returns to his original point or returns by a different grammatical route (Ibid.).

Paul’s Greek vocabulary, moreover, is permeated by the Old Testament and by Christian concepts.  Though this is evident in all the New Testament books, it is probably more extensive in Paul’s writings (Ibid.).

The style of the Greek New Testament has implications for translations into other languages.  If the original was written in the language of common speech, then a translation into English or any other language should likewise be in the language of common speech. Part of the genius of the Greek New Testament is that it was not written in the archaic and artificial style that many secular writers and even later Christian writers, affected (Ibid., p. 416).

Summary

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the Bible must be recognized as a document of literature.  The questions that we pose about other literary documents can, and in fact, must be asked about the Bible.  We cannot avoid or dodge the questions simply because it is a document of faith considered to be “The Word of God.”  For us to be responsible with the biblical message, we must maintain the highest degree of intellectual and literary honesty.