Israelite Religion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Hess
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Historical Criticism ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
Gender Culture ◽  
Israelite Religion ◽  
Hebrew Scriptures ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Critical Interpretation ◽  
The One

Emerging from the academic study of the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures during the Enlightenment and Reformation, Israelite religion became a topic of study in terms of the presentation in the Bible of Israel’s worship of its God. Gradually this separated into a synthesis of biblical teachings on worship and its prescribed practices, on the one hand, and a study of the history of biblical Israel in terms of beliefs and practices toward one or more deities, on the other. The former branch evolved into biblical theology, while the latter developed into the topic of Israelite religion. Beginning in the nineteenth century, archaeological excavations and the interpretation of ancient Near Eastern texts preceding and contemporaneous with the period of the Bible broadened the picture. Comparing and contrasting archaeological and textual sources with the application of anthropological models derived from comparative religious studies led to modern syntheses of the subject. Initially these were heavily based upon the biblical text, often with the application of theories of literary and historical criticism. Since the 1980s, however, a focus on texts from the same time and region, as well as interpretation of artifacts with religious significance, has challenged older models of Israelite religion. Influences and the interactions of believers and their deities appear increasingly complex. No longer is there an understanding of a mere one or two religions in Israel (e.g., worshippers of Yahweh and worshippers of Baal). It now seems clear that various religious practices and texts attest to the presence of multiple religions followed by people in the region of ancient Israel, sometimes reflecting differences in gender, culture, ethnicity, and other factors. While a form of worship as described in biblical accounts may have been followed, there were other forms which, in various ways, syncretized Yahweh with other goddesses and gods. This has led scholars to question the factors that led to, and the time of emergence of, belief in a single deity in Israel, as well as to question the nature of that deity. Answers and models remain in a state of flux; evidence remains to be reviewed and interpretations demand critical interpretation.

The God at the End of the Story: Are Biblical Theology and Narrative Character Development Compatible?

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-189
Author(s):  
Mark McEntire
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Character Development ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Narrative Approach ◽  
Narrative Approaches ◽  
Hebrew Scriptures ◽  
Actual Use ◽  
Being There ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

AbstractIf the end goal of theology of the Hebrew Scriptures is a description of God and God’s relationship to the world, then the Hebrew Scriptures present us with a dilemma. It is increasingly apparent that the Tanak provides a wide variety of portraits of the divine being. There are two basic possibilities for making use of all of these portraits. The first option is to lay all of them out on a level surface and allow them be in dialogue and tension with one another. The second option is to place these portrayals on a trajectory which gives a position of privilege to those which are at some particular point along the path. Of course there are three choices of trajectory: Historical, canonical, or narrative. The last two differ far more for the Christian Old Testament than for the Tanak. A strictly narrative approach, which reads the biblical story from Genesis to Nehemiah, presents a divine being who is changing and developing as a character, a process which has been well demonstrated over the past decade by Jack Miles, Richard Elliot Friedman, W. Lee Humphreys, Meir Sternberg, Jerome M. Segal, and others. There is general agreement that the divine character portrayed at the end of this narrative trajectory is the one which matches the religious experience of those who were putting the literature, both the individual books and the canon, into its final form. This conclusion would seem to point toward a narrative method of doing theology which gives this endpoint a place of privilege, an observation which raises two questions. First, does this match the actual use of texts by those who are attempting narrative approaches to biblical theology? Second, what role do those portrayals which present earlier stages in the divine character development play in a narrative approach to a theology of the Hebrew Scriptures?

scholarly journals The canon as text for a biblical theology

2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Loader
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Historical Criticism ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Canonical Approach ◽  
The One ◽  
Religious Problems ◽  
The Church

The novelty of the canonical approach is questioned and its fascination at least partly traced to the Reformation, as well as to the post-Reformation’s need for a clear and authoritative canon to perform the function previously performed by the church. This does not minimise the elusiveness and deeply contradictory positions both within the canon and triggered by it. On the one hand, the canon itself is a centripetal phenomenon and does play an important role in exegesis and theology. Even so, on the other hand, it not only contains many difficulties, but also causes various additional problems of a formal as well as a theological nature. The question is mooted whether the canonical approach alleviates or aggravates the dilemma. Since this approach has become a major factor in Christian theology, aspects of the Christian canon are used to gauge whether “canon” is an appropriate category for eliminating difficulties that arise by virtue of its own existence. Problematic uses and appropriations of several Old Testament canons are advanced, as well as evidence in the New Testament of a consciousness that the “old” has been surpassed(“Überbietungsbewußtsein”). It is maintained that at least the Childs version of the canonical approach fails to smooth out these and similar difficulties. As a method it can cater for the New Testament’s (superior) role as the hermeneutical standard for evaluating the Old, but flounders on its inability to create the theological unity it claims can solve religious problems exposed by Old Testament historical criticism. It is concluded that canon as a category cannot be dispensed with, but is useful for the opposite of the purpose to which it is conventionally put: far from bringing about theological “unity” or producing a standard for “correct” exegesis, it requires different readings of different canons.

Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, his Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology

1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Provan
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Probable Origin ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Church

It is well known that the seeds from which the modern discipline of OT theology grew are already found in 17th and 18th century discussion of the relationship between Bible and Church, which tended to drive a wedge between the two, regarding canon in historical rather than theological terms; stressing the difference between what is transient and particular in the Bible and what is universal and of abiding significance; and placing the task of deciding which is which upon the shoulders of the individual reader rather than upon the church. Free investigation of the Bible, unfettered by church tradition and theology, was to be the way ahead. OT theology finds its roots more particularly in the 18th century discussion of the nature of and the relationship between Biblical Theology and Dogmatic Theology, and in particular in Gabler's classic theoreticalstatementof their nature and relationship. The first book which may strictly be called an OT theology appeared in 1796: an historical discussion of the ideas to be found in the OT, with an emphasis on their probable origin and the stages through which Hebrew religious thought had passed, compared and contrasted with the beliefs of other ancient peoples, and evaluated from the point of view of rationalistic religion. Here we find the unreserved acceptance of Gabler's principle that OT theology must in the first instance be a descriptive and historical discipline, freed from dogmatic constraints and resistant to the premature merging of OT and NT — a principle which in the succeeding century was accepted by writers across the whole theological spectrum, including those of orthodox and conservative inclination.

Book of Job

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Doak
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Reception History ◽  
Present Form ◽  
Book Of Job ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The Face ◽  
History Of

The book of Job is the longest and most thematically and linguistically challenging of the “wisdom books” in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. In the book’s prologue (Job 1–2) the narrator introduces readers to a man named Job (Hebrew ‘iyyōb; etymology unclear). Job’s prosperity extends into all areas of his life, and seems at least potentially linked to his moral status as completely righteous and blameless before God. The earthly scene then gives way to a heavenly setting, where a figure called “the accuser” (literally “the satan”; haśśātān) appears before God. God boasts about Job’s righteousness, but the accuser counters, suggesting that Job’s moral achievement has been merely the byproduct of God’s protection. The accuser and God enter into a bet: Job’s children will be killed, Job’s possessions stripped, and Job’s body afflicted with a painful disease—all to see whether Job will curse God. Job initially responds to the distress with pious statements, affirming God’s authority over his life. In a state of intense suffering, Job is joined by three friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, and then eventually a fourth, Elihu—who offer rounds of speeches debating the reasons for Job’s situation (Job 3–37). Job responds to the friends in turn, alternately lamenting his situation and pleading for a chance to address God directly and argue his case as an innocent man. The friends accuse Job of committing some great sin to deserve his fate; they urge repentance, and defend God as a just ruler. God enters the dispute in a forceful whirlwind (Job 38), and proceeds for several chapters (Job 38–41) to overwhelm Job with resounding statements on creation (38:1–38), animal life (38:39–40:14), and visions of two powerful creatures, Behemoth (40:15–24) and Leviathan (41:1–11). The book ends with Job acknowledging to God the fact that he is overmatched in the face of divine power. God condemns the friends for not speaking “what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:7), and then restores Job’s lost possessions and children (42:10–17). Job has enjoyed a rich reception history in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and, perhaps more than any other book in the Bible except Genesis, as a world literary classic in its own right. Within the Bible, it is the most bracing statement on the problem of suffering, as it presents a situation wherein a clearly righteous person suffers immensely—putting it at odds with more straightforward descriptions of why people suffer in Proverbs, Deuteronomy, and other texts. Scholarly research on Job has focused on the book’s place among other ancient Near Eastern wisdom materials, on questions of language (given the large amount of difficult Hebrew terms in the book), on historical-critical concerns about authorship and the way the book may have come together in its present form, and on the history of the translation of the text into Greek and other ancient languages. In the 21st century, interpreters have increasingly taken up readings of Job that situate it among concerns related to economics, disability, gender, and the history of its reception in many different eras and communities.

Biblical Archaeology

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avraham Faust
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Persian Period ◽  
Palestinian Authority ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Late Iron Age ◽  
Biblical Archaeology

The term “biblical archaeology” has meant different things to different people at different times. During most of its history, the term was used broadly and included archaeological (and archaeology-related) activities in the biblical lands, mainly the Near East but even beyond it, from prehistory to the medieval period. Later, the term was seen as parochial, narrow, and religiously loaded, and many felt uncomfortable using it, sometimes calling for a “secular archaeology” (e.g., William Dever), and preferring instead terms such as “Syria-Palestinian archaeology,” “Near Eastern archaeology,” or “archaeology of the Levant.” The change has also been connected with the decrease in the historical value attributed to the biblical narratives, and to political correctness. The term, nevertheless, is still widely used, and many scholars speak today about “new biblical archaeology.” Geographically, the new term is narrower, covering mainly the Land of Israel (also known as the southern Levant, Palestine, or the Holy Land; roughly covering the area of modern Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority). Chronologically, it still covers a long period, but a difference exists between Israeli usage and American/European usage. Both “groups” begin the era with the start of the Bronze Age (although all agree that there was nothing “biblical” in those periods). For Israeli scholars, however, the biblical period refers to the time covered in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and it ends by the Late Iron Age, or the Persian period. For most American and European scholars, especially in the past, the term embraced the Hellenistic period, the Roman period, and perhaps even the Byzantine period. Today, however, scholars specialize either in the early periods (Bronze and Iron Ages) or in the later (Hellenistic-Byzantine) periods, and the term “biblical archaeology” is becoming synonymous with the Bronze and Iron Ages (including the Persian period). Indeed, these are the periods that will receive most attention here. Although originally the “child” of biblical studies and archaeology, in its current usage the term is not necessarily connected with the Bible; rather, it relates to studies of a certain era in a certain region. Due to the wide definitions of biblical archaeology, and in light of the differences in meanings associated with it, the boundaries between biblical archaeology and other disciplines are not always clear cut, and they have changed over the course of the discipline’s history. Therefore, the following sections will address some works that are not archaeological in nature. Notably, this article will usually not refer to excavation reports or technical ceramic studies.

The Scillitan Saints and the Pauline Epistles

1956 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-146
Author(s):  
Gerald Bonner
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Significant Feature ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The North ◽  
Historical Continuity ◽  
Pauline Epistles ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Biblical Scholar

It is, no doubt, appropriate that the document which ushers in the stormy history of the African Church should be a record of martyrdom. But there is another, scarcely less significant, feature in the Acts of the Scillitan Saints—a reference to Holy Scripture. Saturninus proconsul dixit: Quae sunt res in capsa vestra? Speratus dixit: Libri et epistolae Pauli, viri justi. Biblical scholar and palaeographer alike find the reference interesting. For the one, there is evidence of the spread of the text of the Bible in North Africa at the end of the second century. For the other, there is the problem of the nature of the book-form in which the scriptures circulated. Recently, however, another aspect has been mentioned, in this Journal, by Dr. W. H. C. Frend in an article on ‘The Gnostic-Manichaean tradition in North Africa’. In this article, Dr. Frend argues that there was in the North African Church, besides the rigorist tradition which produced the Donatists, and the more inclusive and more compromising element, which constituted the strength of the Catholics, a third element, whose outlook was enshrined first in the Gnostics against whom Tertullian fulminated and later in the Manichees, from whom African Catholicism was to draw her most illustrious convert. Dr. Frend argues persuasively for the existence of an historical continuity between the Gnostics and the Manichees, one of his points being that both heretical movements relied extensively on the writings of St. Paul to support their teaching. In this connexion, he writes: ‘Rejection of the Old Testament led in Africa to an almost exaggerated respect for the Epistles of St. Paul, and also for the various Gnostic Ada of the Apostles.

From Esther to Kwezi

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Juliana Claassens ◽  
Amanda Gouws
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Patriarchal Society ◽  
Collaborative Engagement ◽  
Multiple Levels ◽  
The One

This article seeks to reflect on the issue of sexual violence in the context of the twenty year anniversary of democracy in South Africa bringing together views from the authors’ respective disciplines of Gender and the Bible on the one hand and Political Science on the other. We will employ the Old Testament Book of Esther, which offers a remarkable glimpse into the way a patriarchal society is responsible for multiple levels of victimization, in order to take a closer look at our own country’s serious problem of sexual violence. With this collaborative engagement the authors contribute to the conversation on understanding and resisting the scourge of sexual violence in South Africa that has rendered a large proportion of its citizens voiceless.

The Problem of a New Testament Theology

1973 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst Käsemann
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Biblical Theology ◽  
The Other ◽  
Historical Criticism ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Church

In the Protestant tradition the Bible has long been regarded as the sole norm for the Church. It was from this root that, in the seventeenth century, there sprang first of all ‘biblical theology’, from which New Testament theology later branched off at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Radical historical criticism too kept closely to this tradition, and F. C. Baur made such a theology the goal of all his efforts in the study of the New Testament. Since that time the question how the problem thus posed is to be tackled and solved has remained a living issue in Germany. On the other hand, the problem for a long time held no interest for other church traditions, although here too the position has changed within the last two decades. In 1950 Meinertz wrote the first Catholic exposition, while the theme was taken up in France by Bonsirven in 1951, and by Richardson in England in 1958. Popular developments along these lines were to follow.

scholarly journals Muhammad(S) And Paul On Jesus: A Comparative Study Of Two Sacred Pillars

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-190
Author(s):  
Keyhanee Mousa
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Axial Direction ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Historical Criticism ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The Face ◽  
Islam And Christianity ◽  
The One

This comparative study of Islam and Christianity struggled to reveal the mutual meaningful expressions of God, the creator. The main question to which the article tried to answer is: Who is Jesus Christ for Paul and Muhammad(s)? The significance of countering to this question is being revealed much more through the contemporary issues of hate, and delusions that are influencing all believers in one God. Questioning the human nature and the Lordship of Christ looks like a barrier in dialogues between Islam and Christianity. So, as its primary purpose, Jesus, as the Lord from Paul’s perspective and Isa al-Masih, the son of Maryam from Muhammad’s(s) viewpoint, will be compared through different methods. Like the spiritual interpretation of Joel S. Goldsmith, in which the monotheistic presupposition (worshipping only one God), will implant the axial direction of the examination of the Bible and the Quran. Moreover, through historical criticism, the article will try to clarify the origins of faith in Pauline Christology compare to the doctrine of Tawhid from the Quran and the origin of the Quranic accounts of Christ. Also, through a feminist analysis, the essay will have a critical look at maleness of titles of God in Christianity. In this way, the historical analysis will display the urge of accepting the Quran as the Incarnated word of God for Islam and the importance of Paul as the best witness for Christ. By spiritual interpretation, the meaning of the “form” and the “face” of God in Christianity, and “face”, and the “Rope” of Allah and Al-Rahman in the Quran will validate a mutual notion of divinity for all believers. Also, through the feminist approach framed in the text of the Bible and the Quran, this research will spot the sexless status of the Incarnated Christ after the resurrection, the one who is the Lord of all now, even if is being praised in the new name of Al-Rahman. Thus, in conclusion, this article will suggest mutual findings in Quranic and Biblical Christology and will be ended by spotting the incarnation of the word of God, as the best point of starting a fruitful dialogue between Islam and Christianity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document