Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 11-20-2006, 11:21 AM

I've just finished Whose Bible Is It? by Jaroslav Pelikan, and I found it a bit of a disappointment. I wonder of other forumers have read it and share that impression.

The book is subtitled A Short History of the Scriptures. It is indeed fairly short, just over 250 pages in the Penguin soft cover edition. It also does a bit of history of the bible, but not as much as it could have. It starts with several chapters that summarize the contents of the OT and the NT. Interesting, but not the first thing one would expect in a history. Interspersed with this, in the OT part, are some no doubt interesting things about the various parts of the OT, how Judaism sees it.

Also interspersed with this is a not insignificant bit of preaching, testifying, witnessing, or whatever you want to call it. This makes the book difficult to read, you constantly have to be on guard and wonder what is scholarship and what is personal religious conviction. For example, Pelikan points out the oral background of the OT, in a chapter called "The God who Speaks." Fine, except for the fact that you get the impression that Pelikan firmly believes that God actually spoke. What is the problem with that? Well, he correctly remarks that the written version of the OT follows a spoken one, in other words the written words follow the spoken words of the OT which follow the spoken words of God. Fine, but what is left undiscussed is if the word of God developed in parallel with the spoken word, and whether that process continued with the written version. That should at least have been mentioned.

He also explains how in Judaism it is irreverent to pronounce the name of God, which is why in the King James OT we see "the LORD." Fine, but not a word about the JDEP redaction. Isn't that a bit strange?

The book continues that way, with interesting bits intermingled with bits of personal religious conviction, the reader has to constantly figure out which is which. Here is a quite revealing quote from the "final sermon" (as the last few chapters may be termed):

[p 249] Yet it would be fatuous in the extreme to pretend that the primary and special readership of that text [the Bible, GS] even now can be anything but the Jewish and Christian communities. From the Septuagint to the most recent translation into some exotic tongue, the fundamental impulse for making the Bible available has always come from within those communities. The historical or literary or philological desire to comprehend what it says has been and is vastly less important than the religious need to understand it in order to obey it. For that reason the study of the biblical text must always be the special business of (using the medieval terminology) Synagoga and Ecclesia.

(My bold)
In other words, only confessional scholarship counts according to Pelikan. And scholarship is strictly secondary to religion.

His regard for those outside the church is, with regard to understanding the bile at least, rather limited:

[p 229] Many people who want nothing to do with organized religion claim to be able [sic] to read the Bible at home for themselves. But it is difficult to resist the suspicion that in fact many of them do not read it very much. For if they did, the "sticker shock" of what it actually says would lead them to find most of what it says even more strange than the world of synagogue and church.

So if you don't suffer from an immediate conversion to the ways of church or synagogue when you read the bible, you are obviously not getting it! One can only imagine what Pelikan thinks of actual atheists reading the bible.

Now I don't want to leave the impression that the whole book is one long sermon. It isn't and it certainly contains interesting parts. But the preaching as exemplified by the two quotes above deal the credibility of the whole book a serious blow.

Gerard Stafleu

Joan of Bark · 11-21-2006, 04:42 AM

Thanks, GS. I was actually intending to buy this book the next time I am in Bangkok, but from what you've said I'll give it a pass.

DrJim · 11-21-2006, 06:11 AM

Just for comparison's sake, try to get the little volume by Philip R. Davies, "Whose Bible is it, Anyway? (or via: amazon.co.uk)" from T & T Clark (a part of the Continuum chain).

Quote:

Different parties have an interest in the contents of bibles and what should be done with them, and they often take to sqabbling or at least sniping about whose interest is the more authentic. My suggestion is that any such conflict is misconcieved and unnecessary, becasue there is no common space that they can both legitimately occupy; rather, each should recognize, cherish and cultivate its own identity and operate within its own separate territory, without coveting its neightbour's house. (p. 13).

The final chapter of the 2nd edition address the Life of Brian as a contribution to work on the historical Jesus...

A great little read.

Jim Linville

gstafleu · 11-21-2006, 08:35 AM

Thanks Jim, good timing: my wife just asked me for a Christmas list!

Gerard

11-20-2006, 11:21 AM	#1
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	"Whose Bible is it?" by J. Pelikan: Scholarship or Sermon? I've just finished Whose Bible Is It? by Jaroslav Pelikan, and I found it a bit of a disappointment. I wonder of other forumers have read it and share that impression. The book is subtitled A Short History of the Scriptures. It is indeed fairly short, just over 250 pages in the Penguin soft cover edition. It also does a bit of history of the bible, but not as much as it could have. It starts with several chapters that summarize the contents of the OT and the NT. Interesting, but not the first thing one would expect in a history. Interspersed with this, in the OT part, are some no doubt interesting things about the various parts of the OT, how Judaism sees it. Also interspersed with this is a not insignificant bit of preaching, testifying, witnessing, or whatever you want to call it. This makes the book difficult to read, you constantly have to be on guard and wonder what is scholarship and what is personal religious conviction. For example, Pelikan points out the oral background of the OT, in a chapter called "The God who Speaks." Fine, except for the fact that you get the impression that Pelikan firmly believes that God actually spoke. What is the problem with that? Well, he correctly remarks that the written version of the OT follows a spoken one, in other words the written words follow the spoken words of the OT which follow the spoken words of God. Fine, but what is left undiscussed is if the word of God developed in parallel with the spoken word, and whether that process continued with the written version. That should at least have been mentioned. He also explains how in Judaism it is irreverent to pronounce the name of God, which is why in the King James OT we see "the LORD." Fine, but not a word about the JDEP redaction. Isn't that a bit strange? The book continues that way, with interesting bits intermingled with bits of personal religious conviction, the reader has to constantly figure out which is which. Here is a quite revealing quote from the "final sermon" (as the last few chapters may be termed): [p 249] Yet it would be fatuous in the extreme to pretend that the primary and special readership of that text [the Bible, GS] even now can be anything but the Jewish and Christian communities. From the Septuagint to the most recent translation into some exotic tongue, the fundamental impulse for making the Bible available has always come from within those communities. The historical or literary or philological desire to comprehend what it says has been and is vastly less important than the religious need to understand it in order to obey it. For that reason the study of the biblical text must always be the special business of (using the medieval terminology) Synagoga and Ecclesia. (My bold) In other words, only confessional scholarship counts according to Pelikan. And scholarship is strictly secondary to religion. His regard for those outside the church is, with regard to understanding the bile at least, rather limited: [p 229] Many people who want nothing to do with organized religion claim to be able [sic] to read the Bible at home for themselves. But it is difficult to resist the suspicion that in fact many of them do not read it very much. For if they did, the "sticker shock" of what it actually says would lead them to find most of what it says even more strange than the world of synagogue and church. So if you don't suffer from an immediate conversion to the ways of church or synagogue when you read the bible, you are obviously not getting it! One can only imagine what Pelikan thinks of actual atheists reading the bible. Now I don't want to leave the impression that the whole book is one long sermon. It isn't and it certainly contains interesting parts. But the preaching as exemplified by the two quotes above deal the credibility of the whole book a serious blow. Gerard Stafleu

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-21-2006, 04:42 AM	#2
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Thanks, GS. I was actually intending to buy this book the next time I am in Bangkok, but from what you've said I'll give it a pass.

11-21-2006, 08:35 AM	#4
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Thanks Jim, good timing: my wife just asked me for a Christmas list! Gerard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.