General Introduction of Pentateuch

 

A. Studying the Bible.

 1. People’s reasons for studying the Bible—and therefore for using a biblical commentary—are many and various. The great majority of Bible readers have a religious motivation. They believe that the Bible contains the ‘words of life’, and that to study it is a means of deepening their understanding of the ways of God. They turn to the Bible to inform them about how God desires human beings to live, and about what God has done for the human race. They expect to be both challenged and helped by what they read, and to gain clearer guidance for living as religious believers. These people will use exegesis to help them understand the beautiful verses revealed about God's purposes and purposes. Doctors hope that those who turn to the Bible regarding religion will find that the Biblical text is interpreted in a way that makes it easier to understand its content and context. We envisage that the Commentary will be used by pastors preparing sermons, by groups of people reading the Bible together in study or discussion groups, and by anyone who seeks a clearer perspective on a text that they hold in reverence as religiously inspiring. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians have different expectations of the Bible, but we hope that everyone will find useful instructions in interpreting the scriptures.

2. A somewhat smaller group of readers studies the Bible as a monument to important movements of religious thought in the past, whether or not they themselves have any personal commitment to the religious systems it represents. One of the most striking developments of recent decades has been the growth of interest in the Bible by those who have no religious commitment to it, but for whom it is a highly significant document from the ancient world. Students who take university or college courses in theology or religious or biblical studies will often wish to understand the origins and meaning of the biblical text so as to gain a clearer insight into the beginnings of two major world religions, Judaism and Christianity, and into the classic texts that these religions regard as central to their life. We hope these people can find the information they need to understand this complex and diverse study here. The one-volume format makes it possible to obtain an overview of the whole Bible before going on to use more advanced individual commentaries on particular biblical books. 3. Finally, there are many Bible readers who are committed neither to a religious quest of their own nor to the study of religion, but who are drawn by the literary quality of much of the Bible to want to know more about it. For them it is a major classic of Western—indeed, of world—literature, whose influence on other literature, ancient and modern, requires that it should be taken seriously and studied in depth. A generation ago, "the Word of God as a document" was considered a hobby by many who study the Bible, especially religious people who do not know enough about the problems of the spiritual side of the Bible. But today there are many important works of scholarship on biblical writing, and many texts are written to meet the needs of the scribe rather than the religious audience. We think that those who approach the Bible in such a way will find much in this Commentary to stimulate their interest further. B. Biblical Criticism.

 1. The individual authors of commentaries have been free to treat the biblical books as they see fit, and there has been no imposition of a common editorial perspective. However, they are united by the method we call "experimental historical criticism". This is what has traditionally been called critical interpretation, but writers are aware of recent problems with what is often called biblical criticism and are trying (to a greater or lesser extent) to incorporate these difficulties into their work. Some explanation of these terms is needed so that the reader understands what this book aims to provide.

2. Biblical criticism, sometimes known as historical criticism of the Bible or as the historical critical method, is the attempt to understand the Bible by setting it in the context of its time of writing, and by asking how it came into existence and what were the purposes of its authors. The term ‘historical’ is not used because such criticism is necessarily interested in reconstructing history, though sometimes it may be, But because the books of the Bible are studied in their own time, rather than as free-floating books that we can read as if they had spent a day with us. It begins with the recognition that the Bible is an old book. However much the questions with which it deals may be of perennial interest to human beings (and perhaps no one would study it so seriously if they were not), they arose within a particular historical (and geographical) setting. Biblical criticism uses all methods to learn about the text and its context in order to discover what the text or its context meant at the time it was written.

3. One precondition for a critical understanding of any text is a knowledge of the language in which it is written, and accordingly of what individual words and expressions were capable of meaning at the time of the text’s composition. The critical reader is always on guard against the danger of anachronism, of reading later meanings of words into their use in an earlier period. Therefore, commentators often focus on the problem of understanding particular words and expressions and cite evidence that these words are used elsewhere in the text. The second prerequisite is that the text itself is the authentic version of what the author actually wrote. In the case of any ancient text this is an extremely difficult thing to ensure, because of the vagaries of the transmission of manuscripts down the centuries. Manual printing always introduces errors in the text, but since most biblical texts are considered sacred, they are copied with special care. In all the individual commentaries here there are discussions of how accurately the original text is available to us, and what contribution is made to our knowledge of this by various manuscripts or ancient translations.

The art of textual criticism aims to explain the evolution of texts, understand how they are corrupted (through reproduction errors) and how to rediscover their original form. 4. In reading any piece of text, ancient or modern, one needs to be aware of the possibility that it may not be a unity. Some documents of our time arise from the works of many different authors and are subsequently modified by others into a unified whole: these are the layers of nature in which, for example, documents created by the group are found. In the ancient world, it was not easy to create a book by first combining, sometimes even intertwining, several short texts called "positions" in the endnote. In the case of some Bibles, researchers want to say that the text we have now emerged through such a production process. Such hypotheses have been particularly prevalent in the case of the Pentateuch (Genesis– Deuteronomy) and of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

The attempt to discover the underlying sources is nowadays usually called ‘source criticism’, though older books sometimes call it ‘literary criticism’ (from German Literarkritik, but confusing in that ‘literary criticism’ usually means something else in modern English), or “higher” – rather than “lower” (i.e. textual criticism). It is important to note that Bible critics are not committed to believing that this book or the Bible is the result of the confluence of many sources. (R. N. Whybray’s commentary on Genesis in this volume argues against such a hypothesis), but only to being open to the possibility.

5. A further hypothesis that has had a long and fruitful history in the study of both Testaments is that our present written texts may rest on materials that were originally transmitted orally. Before the Bible books were written, stories or other things were created for independent living, passed down by word of mouth and passed from parents to children, or in the environment where spirits were sung and repeated, such as 'camp'. '-fire' or in worship. The attempt to isolate and examine verbal content is called criticism and is used extensively in the Gospels, the stories in the Pentateuch, the early history books of the Old Testament, and the books of the Prophets. Similarly, not all critics agree that the books are authentic as oral traditions, but all agree that the question of whether they are important requires an understanding of their original content.

6. Where texts are composite, that is, the result of weaving together earlier written or oral sources, it makes sense to investigate the techniques and intentions of those who carried out the weaving. Now we should call these people “editors,” but in biblical studies the term “editor” is often preferred, and so the branch of biblical criticism is called “proselytizer.” When we know what the author's raw material is - and the sources and methods of criticism can be revealed to us - we can ask what purpose the author should have. We can thus discover the intentions (and hence the thoughts or “beliefs”) of the editors of Matthew, Luke, or Isaiah. Criticism is a specialty of modern German-English studies, but it is still widely used in the English-speaking world as well. Critics can always claim that the book in question has only the author, without composition and therefore without editor. Most scholars think this is true of some short stories in the Old Testament (such as Jonah or Ruth) or most of Paul's letters. Here again, the importance of research is not the promise of a specific result, but the desire to participate in the research. As R. Coggins argues in the case of Isaiah, there is always the possibility that there is not enough evidence to resolve the issue. This decision does not render the review "unimportant" but was achieved through careful elimination of many important insights from previous researchers. Negative comments express ignorance of or reluctance to deal with these issues.

7. Legitimacy and literary criticism inevitably raise questions about the basic units that make up the books of the Bible and the social contexts of the editors who brought them into final form. In recent years historical criticism has expanded to include a considerable interest in the contribution the social sciences can make to understanding the Bible’s provenance. The history of the Bible and Paul's letters are examined with the aim of better understanding the relationship between early Christianity: see for example. Philip Esler's comments on 1 Thessalonians. The question of relationship continues to receive great attention in Old Testament studies; Special attention is given here to DL Smith-Christopher's commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah. C. After criticism.

 1. In the last few decades biblical studies has developed in many and varied directions, and has thrown up a number of movements that regard themselves as ‘post-critical’. Some take critical study of the Bible as a given, but then seek to move on to ask further questions not part of the traditional historical-critical enterprise. Others are frankly hostile to historical criticism, regarding it as misguided or as outdated.

Although the overall tone of this review is critical, most participants believe that these updates raise important questions and contribute to the study of biblical scholarship. Hence our adoption of a critical stance is ‘chastened’ by an awareness that new questions are in the air, and that biblical criticism itself is now subject to critical questioning. 2. One important style of newer approaches to the Bible challenges the assumption that critical work should (or can) proceed from a position of neutrality. Those who write from feminist and liberationist perspectives often argue that the older critical style of study presented itself as studiedly uncommitted to any particular programme: it was simply concerned, so its practitioners held, to understand the biblical text in its original setting. In fact (so it is now argued) there was often a deeply conservative agenda at work in biblical criticism. Critics have managed to challenge themselves by classifying the Bible as a product of ancient culture and fail to clearly see that the Bible has any influence on character formation. What is needed, he said, is a more integrated approach to biblical studies in which the process is informed by the need for human freedom against political oppression, even if the military targets the poor or other groups such as women.

The text must be read not only in its reconstructed ‘original’ context but also as relevant to modern concerns: only then will justice be done to the fact that it exercises an existential claim upon its readers, and it will cease to be seen as the preserve of the scholar in his (sic) study. 3. Such a critique of traditional biblical criticism calls attention to some of the unspoken assumptions with which scholars have sometimes worked, and can have the effect of deconstructing conventional commentaries by uncovering their unconscious bias. Many of the commentators in this volume are aware of such dangers in biblical criticism, and seek to redress the balance by asking about the contribution of the books on which they comment to contemporary concerns. They are also more willing than most critics to "critique" the meaning of the text, that is, to question its assumptions and commitments. This can be seen, for example, in J. Galambush's commentary on Ezekiel, where negative views are noted.

 4. A second recent development has been an interest in literary aspects of the biblical texts. Where much biblical criticism has been concerned with underlying strata and their combination to make the finished books we now have, Some Bible students have come to believe that such “digging” (as Robert Alter calls it) at best helps complete reading, and at worst diminishes enjoyment of the text. This is good information.

Books with special annotations (the Pentateuch and the "historical" books of the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament) were initially translated as "blasphemous", similar to today's new books, and read other books carefully. . For the process and content of writing, such as narrative, specifically plot, character, and resolution. He argued that Bible readers should at least have knowledge of these topics and the origin and creation of the text, and many have argued that these are more important for a meaningful Bible. The relevance of biblical texts is a classic method of critical inquiry. Many of the commentaries in this book (such as those on Matthew and Philippians) show an awareness of the aesthetic problems that arise when reading the Bible, and that the books they study are readable texts, compared to other good scholarship in the world. work together. . The interest in this text is linked to the interest in the Bible of those who read it not for religious education but for its similarity to ancient literature, and it seems that this thought will continue for a long time.

5. Third, there are now numerous studies in biblical studies arguing that biblical criticism has traditionally paid insufficient attention not only to the literature but also to the features of the text. Here, the interest in establishing the main content and meaning of the text is considered as the fundamental interest of the antiquarian, which is necessary for the "meaning" of the "textual meaning". An important representative of this perspective is the “canonical approach,” sometimes called “canonical criticism,” in which biblical commentators question not the source of the biblical books but their integration into the Bible as a unity. This is part of an attempt to reclaim the Bible for religious believers, on the hypothesis that traditional historical criticism has alienated it from them and located it in the study rather than in the pulpit or in the devotional context of individual Biblereading. While this volume assumes the continuing validity of historical-critical study, many contributors are alive to this issue, and are anxious not to make imperialistic claims for historical criticism. After all, such criticism begins with the decision that the Bible is open to everyone's scrutiny, not for political authority: more than anything else, it requires evidence, it requires a place of evidence. It is important not to lose this understanding by starting to look at the Bible as a critical tool of another group of authorities: the historians! Although this is the best way for religious people to have the right to ask their own questions about the text, it would be harmful if this belief legitimately led to historical significance. However, the contributors to this volume are interested not only in the basis of the book in the Bible, but also in explaining its general religious contents and in showing how a book is related to other books in the Bible.

6. Thus the historical-critical approach may be chastened by an awareness that its sphere of operations, though vital, is not exhaustive, and that other questions too may reasonably be on the agenda of students of the Bible. In particular, listen to the final form of the books of the Bible, whatever form it takes, which combines the written text with the classical method. Few scholars nowadays believe that they have finished their work when they have given an account of how a given book came into being: the total effect (literary and theological) made by the final form is also an important question. Contributors to this volume seek cooperation. D. Biblical canon. 1. Among the various religious groups that recognize the authority of the Bible, there are some differing views on what the Bible should contain. In the case of the New Testament all Christians share a common list, though in the centuries of the Christian era a few other books were sometimes included (notably The "Shepherds of Hermas", which appear in some major texts of the New Testament and are now included in the canon, are sometimes considered evil events. (e.g. Hebrews, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude). The extent of the Old Testament varies much more seriously. Protestants and Jews alike accept only the books now extant in Hebrew as fully authoritative, but Catholics and Orthodox Christians recognize a longer canon: on this, see the Introduction to the Old Testament. The Ethiopic and Coptic churches accept also Enoch and Jubilees, as well as having minor variations in the other books of the Old Testament.

2. In this analysis, we included all books included in the NRSV, that is, all books accepted as canonical in one of the Western churches (Catholic and Protestant), Greek and Russian Orthodox, and in the church. . We have not included books found exclusively in the Ethiopian or Coptic classics, although some quotations are included in the main article on Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. 3. It is important to see that it is only at the periphery that the biblical canon is blurred. There is a great core of central books whose status has never been seriously in doubt: the Pentateuch and Prophets in the Old Testament, the gospels and major Pauline epistles in the New. Few of the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament have ever been of major importance to Christians—a possible exception is the Wisdom of Solomon, so well respected that it was occasionally regarded by early Christians as a New Testament book. There is nowadays comparatively little discussion among different kinds of Christian about the correct extent of the biblical canon (which at the Reformation was a major area of disagreement), and our intention has been to cover most of the books regarded as canonical in major churches without expressing any opinion about whether or not they should have canonical status. E. How to Use this Commentary.

1. A commentary is an aid towards informed reading of a text, and not a substitute for it. The contributors to this volume have written on the assumption that the Bible is open before the reader all the while, whether in hard copy or electronic form. NRSV is the legacy or "default" version. When another model or observer has a better view, this is recorded; This is usually because some nuances from the original text are lost in the NRSV (no translation can fully reflect the entire meaning of the text in other languages) or because of some confusion (these are many in the Bible) This is a different way from the judgment of the speaker. 2. The NRSV is actually included in a long series of translations dating back to the letters authorized by King James I of England in 1611. It is increasingly recognized as the most suitable for the purposes of serious study, because it is based on the best available critical editions of the original texts, because it has no particular confessional allegiance, and because it holds the balance between accuracy and intelligibility, avoiding paraphrase on the one hand and literalism on the other. But comparison between different English translations, particularly for the reader who does not know Hebrew or Greek, is often instructive and serves as a reminder that any translation is itself already an interpretation. 3. The Oxford Annotated Bible, based on the NRSV, is particularly useful for those who wish to gain a quick overview of the larger context before consulting this Commentary on a particular passage of special interest. It is useful in another way too: its introductions and notes represent a moderate consensus in contemporary biblical scholarship with which the often more innovative views of the contributors to this Commentary may be measured.

4. The standard NRSV abbreviated text may be used when the commentator wishes to highlight similar passages or concepts in the Bible. However, lower case letters are used when the reference is for further discussion in the review itself. Thus (cf. Gen 1:1) signifies the biblical text, while GEN 1:1 refers to the commentary on it. In the same way GEN A etc. refers to the introductory paragraphs of the article on Genesis. The conventions for transliteration of the biblical languages into the English alphabet are the same as those used by The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed. B. M. Metzger and M. Coogan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). 5. The traditional teaching of the passage has emerged in recent years as a "disruptive" method that distracts the reader's mind from the natural flow of the text. The paragraph or longer section, so it is argued, is the real unit of thought, not the verse. However, certain commentators commenting on certain texts would still defend the traditional approach, since they claim that readers chiefly need to be provided with background information necessary to the proper historical interpretation of the text, rather than a more discursive exposition which they could work out for themselves. Examples of both the older and newer methods are to be found in the commentaries below. However, even if a particular speaker has an opinion about a passage, readers are advised to read the entire passage or chapter, not just the introduction to the passage they like, to understand more. And to encourage this we have not peppered the page with indications of new verses in capitals (V.1) or bold type (v.1), but mark the start of a new comment less obtrusively in lower case (v.1).

6. The Bible reader, a twentieth-century book, aims to provide readers with everything they need to study the Bible. In addition to reviews of individual books, it often includes general articles such as "The Weights and Measures of the Bible" and "The Teachings of the Person of Christ." In fact, it tries to be a commentary, a Bible dictionary, a guide (that is, analysis of evidence, writings, places, etc. from that day) and religious texts are brought together. But given the breadth and diversity of science today, it is not possible to try to provide diversity: in fact it is unnecessary, because it interferes with the good work of criticism, which is to reveal the text itself. If the reader needs background information on a particular topic, he is advised to consult the Oxford Companion to the Bible or the Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. 1997). D. N. Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1992), but the old Bibles can be used instead: the factual information they contain remains reliable and stable over time. 7. Each article ends with a bibliography. But in addition at the end of the volume there is an aggregated bibliography that points the reader towards the most important specialist works in English on the separate books of the Bible, and also major reference works, introductions, theologies, and so forth.

8. Contributors to the Oxford Commentary on the Bible (and this also applies to its users) may or may not belong to different religions. They bring different approaches and perspectives to their work, which adds richness and depth to the work as a whole. But it also creates problems in reaching agreement on the issue. As we have mentioned before, the definition of the Bible, that is, the scope of the canon, is controversial. Also, should we consult the Old Testament and the New Testament, or the scriptures of Israel and the early Christians? Apocryphal knowledge or apocryphal knowledge? How should dates be indicated, with BC and AD in the traditional manner or with BCE and CE in reference to the Common Era? The usages we have actually adopted should be understood as simple conventions, without prejudice to the serious issues that underlie these differences. A particular problem of a similar kind was whether or not to offer some assistance with a welter of texts, dating from the late biblical period up to 200 CE, which, while not biblical on any definition, are nevertheless relevant to the serious study of the Bible: these are the Dead Sea scrolls, the Old Testament pseudepigrapha, and the apocryphal New Testament. The solution we have arrived at is not to present a detailed analysis, but to provide two further explanations of these documents (Chapter 55 and Chapter 82); but these still focus on the text itself according to review standards. Some readers may wish to distinguish sharply between the status of this material and that in the Bible; others will see it as merging into the latter.

9. In addition to the overall introductions to the three main subdivisions of the commentary, there are other articles that attempt to approach certain texts not individually but as sets. The Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, serves not only as a doctrine but also in his historical work as a five-part work. Similarly, the Epistles of Paul are a unique collection of writings before they were expanded and added to the growing New Testament canon. The four Gospels can be examined individually, or they can be read "contextually" as historical and religious information. No attempt has been made by the editors to make these additional articles that group certain texts together entirely consistent with the individual commentaries on them, for the differences are entirely legitimate. The review content at the end of the volume relates only to this information, not the review itself. To locate discussions of biblical characters, places, ideas etc. the reader is recommended to consult a concordance first and then to look up the commentary on the passages where the key words occur.

The Bible is a vast treasury of prose and poetry, of history and folklore, of spirituality and ethics; it has inspired great art and architecture, literature and music down the centuries. It invites readers to its ancient and mysterious world, but at the same time its importance today often surprises us. It deserves and repays all the efforts of critical and attentive reading which the Oxford Bible Commentary is designed to assist.