Don't worry, I haven't gone all religious on you. It's supposed to be a book about modern biblical research, which is which parts of the bible were written at which time and what did they mean to the people then"",5/11/2008 15:16
Mencken: A Life,Fred Hobson,5/14/2008 18:46,394563298,,,0,,5/14/2008 18:46
Disturber of the Peace: The Life of H.L. Mencken,William Manchester,5/14/2008 18:47,870235435,,,0,,5/14/2008 18:47
The Vintage Mencken,H.L. Mencken,5/14/2008 18:48,679728953,,,0,,5/14/2008 18:48
The Commitment: Love ( )

Really a very beautiful guide to Biblical scholarship that should interest any thoughtful person. I got a little bored with some of the stuff about prophets, but the great majority of the book is excellent.

This book is quite a tome, but Kugel is an excellent writer. His point is that, yes, modern Biblical scholarship is probably correct in many or most statements, but that this misses the point: The Bible was put together to advance certain viewpoints and when you read the Bible you need to understand the assumptions that go into reading it in a certain way. So in addition to the words of the Bible you need to understand why the ancient interpreters actually interpreted it this way. This interpretation makes the Bible what it is. So things like 'Original Sin' are really not supported by the Bible text per se, but are rather part of the what the Ancient Interpreters wanted the Bible to mean.

Very well researched and interesting. I agree with what he writes, except that he seems to think that somehow the words of the Bible plus the ancient interpretations make it into a holy book. I cannot follow that. Instead his detailed analysis suggests to me that the Bible was written and put together from several sources to advance certain viewpoints, but it is completely up to the reader to accept or reject these viewpoints. They are not supported by the text of the Bible. In addition, in re-reading some of the stories of the old testament (after a long time not looking at them), they appear even more fantastical and some instances ridiculous. And the ancient interpreters really went through some mental gymnastics to make some of characters appear better than they really were.

But these are personal conclusions, and a believer may come to different ones. However, Kugel clearly points out that the modern scholarship on the Bible and the usual interpretations (based on the ancient interpreters) are irreconcilable. So, if you want to believe in the Bible you need to read as a book of 'how to serve God' and on some level make a leap of faith. This will work for some believers and he does his best to make both the stance of the believer and the skeptic intellectually respectable.

Kugel has a very refreshing writing style and he will never push his viewpoint or insult the readers intelligence, so although Kugel clearly is a believer, this book is an enjoyable read for both believers and skeptics. ( )

James L. Kugel, a Harvard professor of religion and an Orthodox Jew, has written an exceptionally lucid analysis of the Hebrew Bible itself (the "Old Testamtent," as it was taught to me) as well analyses of modern biblical research and the interpretations given to it by the ancient interpreters of the 3rd through 1st centuries B.C.E.

Modern research has shown that the current text of the Bible is the result of much changing and editing of the orginal stories, which editing took place primarily during that same 3rd through 1st centruies B.C.E. Moreover, the original stories were even less literally believable to a modern reader than their current redacted form.

Kugel urges the reader to read the Bible not as it was originally written, but how it came to be. Most of the major changes in the meaning of the Bible took place without actually changing the original words, but by changing the meaning given to them. Thus the Song of Songs was originally an erotic hymn to a human lover, but it was recast (without changing the words themselves) to a description of God's relationship with his chosen people.

Some interesting conclusions of modern scholarship: The ancient Israelites were monolatrists, not monotheists. That is, they believed in the existence of other gods, like Baal, but they thought they were to worship only their tribal god, YHWH. There is no archeological evidence of a conquest of Canaan; rather it seem that the Israelites may have won a few battles with the indigenous people of Palestine, but absorbed them rather than thoroughy vanquishing them. Not only is the flood story borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian myths, but even the language of the story seems copied from earlier sources. Even David and Saul (let alone Abraham and the earliest Biblical figures) may not have been real people. The story of the Covenant on Mount Sinai borrows its form and structure from earlier Assyrian vassal treaties, with God assuming the role of the suzerain.

Despite being aware that little in the Bible is "true," Kugel argues that it may still be taken seriously. The Bible became the manual of behavior for the Jewish people, and one can believe (if one needs to) that at least some (but probably not all) was divinely inspired. Nevertheless, Kugel concludes that "modern biblical scholarship and traditional Judaism are and must always remain completely irreconcilable." He chooses to read the Bible as what it came to mean during the editing process, irrespective of how it got to be that way.

I think Kugel's perspective may be the only way to read the Bible and keep religious faith. I prefer the modern scholarship approach, finding it to be a very human document with many inconsistacies, absurdities, and down right evil examples of behavior described as ordered by God. Also the idea of the Jews as the chosen people of a transcendent God (as opposed to their original tribal god) seems patently silly.

I thank Kugel for a wonderful book, one that should be required reading in every Baptist seminary.

(JAB) ( )