summary

http://cbi.sagepub.com Currents in Biblical Research

DOI: 10.1177/1476993X05052431 2005; 3; 197 Currents in Biblical Research

Eryl W. Davies Some Proposed Solutions

The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible: An Examination of

http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/197 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Currents in Biblical Research Additional services and information for http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://cbi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/3/2/197 Citations

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

[CBR 3.2 (2005) 197-228] DOI: 10.1177/1476993X05052431

© 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi)

THE MORALLY DUBIOUS PASSAGES OF THE HEBREW BIBLE:

AN EXAMINATION OF SOME PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Eryl W. Davies

University of Wales, Bangor, UK

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This article offers a critique of some of the strategies deployed by biblical

scholars, past and present, who have attempted to come to terms with the

ethically problematic passages of the Hebrew Bible. Among the strategies

examined are: the evolutionary approach; the cultural relativists’ approach;

the canon-within-a-canon approach; the holistic approach; the paradigmatic

approach; and the reader-response approach. It is argued that the reader-

response approach provides the most satisfactory strategy for dealing with

the unsavoury aspects of Scripture and that biblical scholars must be pre-

pared to engage in an ethical critique of the Hebrew Bible. In order to

provide some focus for the discussion, each strategy is examined in relation

to one of the most notorious parts of Scripture, namely, the account of

Israel’s conquest of Canaan as recorded in Josh. 6–11.

Introduction

Anyone who has been concerned to apply the teaching of the Hebrew Bible to the needs and concerns of the present world has had to contend with the fact that it is, in many respects, a highly problematic volume (Carroll 1991). It is not merely that it contains various contradictions, improbabilities and errors of fact; it is not even that much of its teaching appears to be outmoded and to bear little relevance for contemporary Jewish and Christian faith and practice. The problem, rather, is that it often appears to advocate moral standards that seem to us to be offensive and unacceptable (Kaiser 1983: 247-304). Those who enter the world of the Hebrew Bible encounter a culture in which slavery and polygamy were accepted as the norm and in which violence, intolerance and hatred of

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

198 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

enemies seem to have been the order of the day. Many of its laws (such as that governing the rebellious son in Deut. 21.18-21) appear, by our stan- dards, to be harsh, cruel and intolerably vindictive, and even some of the motivations given for right conduct (riches, honour, long life) seem morally suspect. Several of the narratives recorded in the Hebrew Bible (such as those that describe the massacre of the Canaanites by the Israelites in Josh. 6–11) relate acts of extreme violence and bloodshed, and—to make matters worse—such acts are often performed at the express command of God himself (cf. Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). Even the book of Psalms, so often regarded as the high-water mark of Israel’s faith, frequently breathes a spirit of unbridled revenge and malice, and exhibits an attitude of exclu- sivism and provincialism that smacks of the worse type of xenophobia (cf. Pss. 109, 137). It is important at the outset that the nature of the problem is not over- stated, for the amount of material that is unedifying to an offensive degree is not great, and we would probably not bother to read the Hebrew Bible at all if it did not embody a far greater proportion of acceptable norms than those we might want to oppose or question. But while it would be mis- taken to magnify the ethically problematic passages of Scripture, it would be equally mistaken to minimize them, for their very presence has caused people, over the centuries, to raise questions concerning the canonical status of the Hebrew Bible, its underlying authority and its continued use within the Church. As long ago as the second century CE, Marcion sug- gested that the Hebrew Bible should be excluded from the canon of Holy Scripture and should form no part of Christian revelation (von Harnack 1924; Blackman 1948; cf. Barton 1997: 35-62 for a critique of von Harnack’s conclusions). However, few today would take such a suggestion seriously, for the Early Church regarded the Hebrew Bible as authoritative Scripture and it has always assumed a normative status within the com- munity of faith. Yet, paradoxically, this is precisely what renders the Hebrew Bible problematic. Were it not for the fact that it has been granted canonical status, it could be regarded as simply another random collection of books from antiquity that could be read and valued just like any other body of literature. But the fact is that the Hebrew Bible is part of the authoritative Scripture of the Church, and Christian believers might therefore expect these writings to confirm their beliefs, practices and values. If so, it is likely that they will often be disappointed, for its teach- ing at times appears to be at best irrelevant, and at worse, morally perverse. It is thus not surprising that biblical scholars have sought various ways to mitigate the offending passages of the Hebrew Bible, and the purpose of

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 199

the present article is to offer a critique of some of the strategies that have been proposed. In order to provide some focus for the discussion, how- ever, it may be useful to consider how each approach has sought to come

to terms with the moral difficulties raised by the account in Josh. 6–11 of Israel’s conquest of Canaan. These chapters describe the conquest of the land in the most graphic and chilling terms. After capturing Jericho, the

Israelites are reported to have ‘devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys’ (Josh. 6.21). They then proceeded to capture

and burn the city of Ai, killing all its inhabitants, a total of 12,000 people (Josh. 8.24-25). The inhabitants of Makkedah were also destroyed by Joshua and the invading army (Josh. 10.28), and a similar fate awaited the

inhabitants of Libnah (Josh. 10.29-30), Lachish (Josh. 10.31-32), Eglon (Josh. 10.34-35), Hebron (Josh. 10.36-37), Debir (Josh. 10.38-39) and Hazor (Josh. 11.10-11). The feeling of revulsion that modern readers of the Hebrew Bible are bound to experience when reading such narratives is heightened by the fact that such atrocities were not only permitted or condoned by God but were expressly commanded by him (Josh. 10.40; cf. Deut. 7.1-2). Clearly, such passages, which appear to justify what today would be termed ‘ethnic cleansing’, raise profound and disturbing ethical and moral questions. What edification and guidance for faith and practice can such narratives possibly have? How can such a portrayal of God, and such outrageous behaviour on the part of his people, possibly be recounted without a hint of censure or disapproval? It is hardly surprising that such passages have sometimes been appealed to in order to question the very authority of the Bible itself (Bright 1967: 241-50). For this reason, these passages may prove a useful ‘test case’ to examine the merits and defects of the various strategies that have been proposed to alleviate, if not remove, the ethical difficulties encountered as we read some of the morally dubious passages of the Hebrew Bible.

The Evolutionary Approach

One time-honoured solution to the so-called ‘difficult’ passages of the Hebrew Bible is what may be termed the ‘evolutionary’ approach, which

was in vogue during much of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth (Fosdick 1938). This approach developed largely as a result of the scientific principle of evolution and the idea of progress. Scholars of

the period argued that the whole sweep of human history should be inter-

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

200 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

preted in accordance with the evolutionary laws of science, and on this basis it was concluded that all cultures must have evolved gradually from a lower to a higher level of civilization. The crude, primitive, superstitious

beliefs and practices of earlier epochs inevitably gave way with the passage of time to more advanced and sophisticated ways of thinking as human society continued on its upward spiral of growth and progress.

Indeed, it was believed that all cultures had passed through similar stages of social and religious development, as human nature progressed to ever- higher levels of achievement (Evans-Pritchard 1951: 24-25; Rogerson

1978: 22-45). Such was the preoccupation with the idea of evolution and historical development during this period that it was inevitable that such factors

should have come to influence the way in which the Bible was interpreted. ‘Progressive revelation’ was regarded as the key to understanding Scrip- ture, just as ‘progress’ and ‘evolution’ were the keys to understanding

human history. The more primitive concepts of Israel’s early period gave way, in time, to more advanced and cultured ideas as God’s people gradu- ally developed in their moral perception and felt their way on matters of

religious and ethical import. Israel’s morality was seen as historically conditioned, and the Hebrew Bible was interpreted as bearing witness to a gradual refining and modification of the people’s ethical understanding

(Arnold 1844; Maurice 1841; cf. Rogerson 1984: 191-92). This development was frequently depicted in terms of a process of ‘edu- cation’ (Temple 1861). Just as a child advanced in knowledge and discern- ment on the way to adulthood, so human beings progressed under divine guidance as they attained ever-higher levels of ethical and religious insight. God was likened to a skilful teacher who revealed his moral demands to his people only to the extent that they were able and ready to receive them. The divine revelation at any given time was inevitably limited by the capacity of humans to comprehend and assimilate, for, as Frederick Temple remarked, the ‘whole lesson of humanity was too much to be learned by all at once’ (1861: 8; cf. Orr 1906: 465-78). The Bible was regarded as none other than the record of the religious education of God’s people, and the moral life of Israel was seen as one of constantly expanding ideals. It was readily conceded that there were occasionally some minor setbacks in the development of Israel’s moral and religious thinking, but this did not shake the basic conviction that this development could be traced in evolu- tionary terms. Thus, for example, although it was recognized that the achievements of the great classical prophets were followed in the post- exilic period by a more ritualistic and legalistic emphasis, this was usually

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 201

viewed as nothing more than a temporary aberration, since the highest levels of moral discernment in the Hebrew Bible were not reached until later times, as witnessed, for example, in the book of Job (Smith 1923: 320). Of course, the climax of the entire development was seen as lying beyond the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, for the teaching of Jesus far transcended anything that could be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, so profound were the ethical injunctions contained in the gospels that they were regarded as the norm against which everything else in the Bible could be measured (Kennett 1925: 385-86; Bewer 1930).

The influence of the scientific evolutionary approach on the study of the Bible may be seen in numerous publications that appeared during this period purporting to trace the history of Israel’s religious and moral pil- grimage. In this regard, the pioneering work of Julius Wellhausen (1883) must be mentioned, for he sought to restore the documents of the Hebrew Bible to something approximating their proper chronological sequence, and he believed that once this task had been accomplished it would be possible to trace the development in Israel’s religious and moral ideas. According to Wellhausen’s evolutionary-historical model, early Israel exhibited a low sense of morality akin to her Canaanite neighbours, but this gradually developed by various stages (animism, polytheism, henothe- ism) into the sublime ethical monotheism of the classical prophets. Many scholars readily embraced Wellhausen’s evolutionary approach (cf. Mitchell 1912; Smith 1923), and so deeply rooted was the idea that Israel’s religion and morality had progressed gradually from the simple and rudimentary to the more complex and sophisticated that attempts were occasionally made to arrange the chronological order of the various traditions according to the stage of moral progress in Israel’s history that they were thought to reflect. The more primitive the religious teaching, the earlier was deemed to be the source. For example, the so-called ‘ritual decalogue’ of Exodus 34 was widely regarded as older in origin than the ‘ethical decalogue’ of Exodus 20 (cf. Wellhausen 1889: 332-33). To the mind of the day, influ- enced as it was by the theory of evolutionary progress, such an approach to Israelite morality was regarded as so self-evident that it was rarely even questioned in scholarly circles. It was, perhaps, inevitable that such an approach should come to have an impact upon the way in which the morally dubious passages of the Hebrew Bible were assessed. In the first place, the fact that the customs, beliefs and

mores of Israel emerged only gradually over a period of several centuries meant that due allowance had to be made for the fact that there were con- stant changes in Israel’s ethical ideas and moral behaviour. The ethical

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

202 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

apprehension of the people in the period of the Judges, for example, was bound to be inferior to that which existed at the time of the great prophets, just as the moral perception that existed at the time of the prophets was

inevitably inferior to that which pertained at the time of Jesus. It was a gross oversimplification to suppose that all parts of Scripture could be re- garded as equally true and valid simply because they were all the product

of God’s revealed will; rather, each injunction had to be evaluated and assessed in relation to its place in the development of biblical revelation as a whole. Viewed in this light, the offensive passages of the Hebrew Bible

did not prove quite such a stumbling block for the Christian believer, for any dubious ethical pronouncements that it might contain simply reflected the misconceptions of the age, and were by no means to be considered as

injunctions that were still morally binding. As Richardson observed, the notion that biblical ideas were susceptible to historical development meant that ‘it was no longer necessary to believe that the divine command to Saul

to slaughter the women and children of the Amalekites was on the same level as the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount’ (1963: 302). Further, adherents of the ‘evolutionary’ approach insisted that the moral teaching of the Hebrew Bible must be viewed in terms of its eventual out- come in the teaching of Jesus (Dodd 1938: 269-85). The biblical text bore witness to a gradual refining and modification of peoples’ ethical under- standing, and it was only right that the biblical tradition be judged on the basis of the point at which it eventually reached, not the point at which it originally started (Mozley 1877: 222-53). This meant, in effect, that only those ethical pronouncements in the Hebrew Bible that were consonant with the teaching of Jesus could truly be regarded as normative; all else represented outgrown stages in human religious development and could therefore be discarded with a clear conscience. For many biblical exegetes in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen- tury, the evolutionary approach provided a plausible and satisfying solu- tion to the problem posed by the troublesome passages of Scripture. It was viewed as a way of preserving the best of the ethical teaching of the Hebrew Bible without having to dismiss it wholesale, as Marcion and his followers had done. Moreover, the strategy was based on a principle that seemed per- fectly sound and irrefutable, namely, that ideas of morality in every culture were subject to the corrections of time, and the same, mutatis mutandis, must have been true of the culture of ancient Israel. The ethically unpalat- able parts of Scripture could thus be explained away as the product of Israel’s primitive mentality, and as reflecting an early stage in the nation’s religious development. Thus polygamy, for example, was viewed as a

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 203

phenomenon that characterized the early period of Israel’s history; as the nation advanced in her ethical perception, the custom gradually fell into desuetude and was replaced (precisely when is not known) by the more acceptable practice of monogamy. Similarly, such practices as human sacrifice, divination and sorcery belonged, for the most part, to Israel’s early period and were later prohibited (cf. Deut. 18.10-11) as a more enlightened and sophisticated outlook began to replace the twin evils of ignorance and superstition. Proponents of the evolutionary approach did not argue that contempo- rary readers should reject or dismiss the primitive ideas of the Hebrew Bible out of hand; they merely argued that such ideas should be acknowl-

edged for what they were: necessary stages on the route to a deeper and more profound understanding of human ethical obligation. If biblical teach- ing was to be taken seriously as a source of moral guidance, due allowance

had to be made for the fact that its moral norms evolved gradually over a period of time, and it was only reasonable and logical that its ethical values be judged accordingly. Now the evolutionary approach has occasionally been deployed in order to explain, if not to excuse, the kind of atrocities perpetrated by the Israelites against their enemies in the book of Joshua (cf. LaSor, Hubbard and Bush 1996: 148). It is emphasized that the accounts of such violence and brutality are found primarily in the earlier traditions contained in the Hebrew Bible; as the centuries advanced, a more humane and pragmatic attitude to war began to emerge (cf. van Oyen 1967: 183-84). Indicative of this development was the fact that some of the classical prophets were prepared to condemn the atrocities associated with war (cf. Amos 1.3– 2.5), and by the time of Deuteronomy various limitations were imposed upon the practice of warfare so that excessive killing and wanton destruc- tion could be avoided. Enemies were permitted to surrender and thus save their lives (Deut. 20.10-11) and special rules were prescribed for female captives enabling them to be taken as wives by the Israelites (Deut. 21.10- 14). Of course, the development in Israel’s attitude towards warfare was inevitably slow and gradual, and the pinnacle was not reached until the time of Jesus, who openly renounced all violence and enjoined a more conciliatory attitude towards one’s enemy (cf. Hobbs 1989: 230-32). It was ultimately in the light of his pronouncements, especially as reflected in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5–7), that the more primitive and brutal aspects of warfare in the Hebrew Bible were to be judged.

The evolutionary approach to the Hebrew Bible, however, has been criti-

cized on many fronts (Smart 1961: 79-80; Goldingay 1990: 58-59). In the

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

204 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

first place, the strategy is seriously flawed in its assumption that Israel’s

ethical understanding evolved gradually from a more primitive to a higher

level of morality. The various views encountered in the Hebrew Bible

concerning warfare, for example, do not suggest that attitudes in Israel

necessarily became less brutal and more humane with the passage of time.

Thus we find Jeremiah in the sixth century BCE calling upon God to bring

judgment against Babylon by ‘putting all her warriors to the sword’ and

leading them all ‘to the slaughter’ (Jer. 50.27; cf. 51.3-4). Similarly, the

book of Esther (belonging perhaps to the fifth century BCE) has been

viewed by some as reflecting a return to ‘a primitive ethic of war rich in

bloodthirsty vengeance’ (Niditch 1993: 120; cf. Est. 8.11; 9.5-6). Again,

Hosea’s disapproval of the bloody revolution that Jehu brought about at

Elijah’s request (Hos. 1.4) is earlier than the apparently approving tone of the Deuteronomic account preserved in 2 Kings 9. The evidence at our

disposal simply does not support the view that Israel’s ethics evolved in a

gradually ascending scale of values. In brief, the crude, social-evolution-

ary schema of the nineteenth century did not allow for the fact that there

were peaks and troughs in Israel’s moral understanding throughout her

history, and that periods of moral advance were frequently followed by

periods of moral regression.

Further, the lack of consensus among contemporary scholars concerning

the date of the various traditions contained in the Hebrew Bible (Rendtorff

1977; Schmid 1976; Van Seters 1975; 1999; Whybray 1987; for an excel-

lent review of recent scholarship, see Nicholson 1998) should make us very

wary of using the biblical documents to support a pattern of evolutionary

development in Israel’s thought. In fact, recent sociological analyses of the

Hebrew Bible suggest that different groups in Israel probably held different

ethical norms simultaneously, and the likelihood is that both primitive and

sophisticated ethical perceptions were in vogue at the same time (Barton

1983: 117-19).

But perhaps the most serious indictment of the evolutionary approach

is that it tends to disparage much of the ethical values enshrined in the

Hebrew Bible. By making the Christian gospel the yardstick by which all

else is to be judged, adherents of this strategy in effect make the injunc-

tions of the Hebrew Bible appear outmoded and irrelevant. After all, what

point is there in tracing Israel’s blundering, faltering steps when one’s time

could more profitably be spent contemplating the divine revelation in its

purest and most perfect form in the teaching of Jesus?

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 205

Despite the popularity of the evolutionary approach in its day, and its continued influence upon some biblical scholars, it is clear that this strategy of dealing with the unsavoury aspects of Scripture is far from satisfactory.

The Cultural Relativists’ Approach

Proponents of this strategy emphasize that the texts of the Hebrew Bible

evolved out of a particular historical, social and cultural situation and must

be understood in the context of the society for which they were written.

The biblical authors expressed their insights in terms appropriate to the

times in which they were writing, and it was therefore inevitable that they

should reflect the attitudes, outlooks and beliefs of the people of their age.

It would thus be a gross distortion to try to wrest the moral teaching of

the Hebrew Bible from its historical moorings and transport it across the

centuries with the aim of applying it to a totally different cultural situation

(Nineham 1976: 106-107). Rather, it must be recognized that the ethical

values of the Hebrew Bible are historically conditioned; they were prom-

ulgated for a particular people at a particular time and in a particular place

and were not necessarily intended to have universal application. In fact,

we do the Bible a grave injustice if we try to absolutize its claims and

present them as if they were intended to be binding for all times and all

places. For adherents of this approach, the Bible is an ancient book and no

interpretative sleight-of-hand can make it anything else.

Such an approach to the text of the Hebrew Bible has been welcomed

by—among others—feminist critics who have been concerned with the

secondary status of women as reflected in many biblical texts. The offend-

ing passages, it is argued, are merely a reflection of the beliefs and cus-

toms of people who had very different frames of reference from our own

and who belonged to a cultural system far removed from the one that we

inhabit. The so-called ‘sexism’ of which the biblical writers are so often

accused is simply the inevitable product of the male-dominated world to

which they belonged, and the subordinate position of women that they

appear to advocate merely reflects the social and cultural conventions of

the time (Meyers 1988: 139-64). We may well feel that the biblical writers

have been unfair to women, but the fact is that we would be unfair to them if we failed to see them in the context of their own predominantly patriar-

chal society. The biblical statements that appear to be demeaning to women

must be read in historical terms and should not be regarded as permanently

prescriptive for all time.

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

206 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

Now, in some respects, the strategy deployed by the cultural relativists seems eminently plausible and it cannot be denied that it has a certain logical appeal. Few would doubt that the Hebrew Bible must be viewed in

the light of its particular historical context, and most would probably accept that many of the customs and provisions that it records belong to a bygone age and can no longer be regarded as binding in our own secular,

pluralist society. After all, nobody today would seriously entertain the pros- pect of putting to death a man who indulged in homosexual activities (as demanded by such texts as Lev. 20.13), nor would they ask a woman sus-

pected of adultery to prove her innocence by drinking a noxious potion prepared by a priest (as was the custom in ancient Israel according to Num. 5.11-31; cf. Davies 1995: 48-57; Brichto 1975; Frymer-Kensky

1984). We fully accept that these are ancient laws and customs designed for peoples of ancient times, and know that it would be nothing short of ridiculous to take them as they stand and apply them to our contemporary

society. Yet, the type of approach associated with the cultural relativists is not without its difficulties and it begs questions for which we have no satisfac- tory answers. What grounds do we have for singling out some texts as culturally relative and others as permanently prescriptive? What criteria do we have for separating what is time-conditioned and irrelevant from what is permanent and valid? Moreover, the cultural relativists’ approach inevi- tably courts the risk that the morality of the Hebrew Bible will come to be regarded as outmoded, obsolete and irrelevant, having little or no bearing on issues of contemporary concern. Far from responding to the needs of our world, the Hebrew Bible will be regarded as a document of purely anti- quarian interest, reflecting how the people of a particular period responded to the issues of their day. Further, the approach adopted by the cultural relativists tends to exag- gerate the difference between our culture and that of ancient Israel. Accord- ing to this approach, we can never bridge the cultural divide that separates us from the people of biblical times, nor can we wave a magic wand and find that what Karl Barth (1933: 1) called ‘the differences between then and now’ have somehow miraculously been erased. But while it is true that a chasm separates us from those who wrote the biblical texts, the divide is not necessarily unbridgeable, for behind the different cultural patterns between our society and that of ancient Israel there lies a striking uniformity (Redfield 1957). The two cultures are held together by certain shared beliefs and common values, such as an abhorrence of incest, disap- proval of rape, and the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Such

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 207

examples, which could easily be multiplied, merely serve to emphasize that there are cultural ‘constants’ as well as cultural differences between our society and that envisaged in the Hebrew Bible, and that the two cul- tures do not differ significantly with regard to what are considered to be the ultimate ethical goals. We must not, therefore, over-emphasize the remoteness of the biblical world from our own, nor exaggerate the inabil- ity of the modern reader to enter into the cultural ethos of the biblical authors, for although we inhabit different worlds of moral discourse, we are, nevertheless, inheritors of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and thus stand in some degree of continuity with the people of biblical times (Goldingay 1990: 53). At this point, it may be salutary to consider how this strategy might be applied to such passages as those encountered in Josh. 6–11. Adherents of this approach would want to emphasize that the violence perpetrated by

the Israelites against the native inhabitants of Canaan must be viewed in their proper historical perspective (Hobbs 1989). Wars in the ancient world were, by their very nature, unspeakably cruel and brutal, and it must

be recognized that the kind of actions attributed to the Israelites, however reprehensible they may appear to us, were ‘normal in the social, political, religious and cultural context of the time’ (Mason 1997: 75). It would thus

be ‘hopelessly anachronistic for us to pass moral judgments about the severe cruelty in war…in the light of what we would want to claim as the more humane feelings of a modern, educated, liberal conscience’ (Mason

1997: 74). Moreover, it is argued that when such passages as Josh. 6–11 are placed in the context of their time and culture, they may not be quite as reprehensible as they might ostensibly appear, for the wholesale destruc-

tion of the Canaanites recounted in these chapters was not intended as a sanction for hatred, violence and vindictiveness; rather, it was part of a set ritual—referred to in the Hebrew Bible as the ‘ban’ (Heb. erem)—accord- ing to which the population of captured cities and even their animals and belongings had to be destroyed since they were regarded as a kind of offering or sacrifice to God (cf. LaSor, Hubbard and Bush 1996: 148). Such arguments, however, seem highly questionable from an ethical point of view, for it is surely disingenuous to try to excuse the wholesale destruction of the Canaanites by saying, in effect, ‘Not to worry! This was normal practice at the time and this is how all enemy nations were treated during this period’. As Barr has rightly remarked, there ‘can be no moral extenuation on the grounds that Israel simply fitted in with what was normal in the environment’ (1993: 211). Moreover, it is questionable whether the kind of genocide practised by the Israelites in Josh. 6–11 was,

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

208 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

in fact, ‘normal’ in the ancient Near East at the time, for there is no indica- tion in the ancient sources that any other culture (apart from the Moabites) placed the enemy under a ‘ban’ and massacred them in the way in which the Israelites are reported to have exterminated the Canaanites (cf. Brekel- mans 1959: 128-45; Kang 1989: 80-82). Thus the actions of the Israelites can hardly be excused on the grounds that they were merely acting in conformity with the normal practice at the time. The fact is that it is all too easy, in discussing the ethically dubious passages of Scripture, to retreat into the safe haven of cultural relativism, stressing how time-bound and culturally-dependent the writings of the

Hebrew Bible are. The strategy associated with the cultural relativists gives the impression of being merely a convenient way of side-stepping the problems caused by the biblical commands and customs that happen to conflict with our own rational and moral judgments. Moreover, the strategy has the unfortunate effect of instilling in contemporary readers an unhealthy ethnocentricity, confirming their belief that all other cultures are

to be scaled and rated with reference to their own.

The Canon-within-a-Canon Approach

This approach recognizes that we are bound to find in the Hebrew Bible material that we will regard as offensive or unpalatable, and it invites us to sift through the biblical texts in search of what we may find useful and valuable as a source of ethical guidance in our lives. We are encouraged to balance the moral statements of Scripture in our own scales of ethical judgment, extracting the principles that we regard as instructive and enlightened from those that we regard as dubious and questionable. The material that we deem to be edifying can be retained, and that which we find objectionable can be discarded. ‘Use what you can’ is the slogan of this approach, with the implicit corollary that what turns out to be unus- able or unsuitable can be jettisoned without any qualms. In effect, this strategy invites us to form our own ‘canon’ of texts based on the wider canon of Scripture, and by adopting this approach we are encouraged to focus upon those features of the biblical tradition that are more central and relevant to our faith (cf. G.E. Wright 1969; Dunn 1982). Such a strategy has proved particularly popular among those with a par- ticular axe to grind (for examples, see Rodd 1995: 5-6). Thus, those of a conservative disposition who oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood tend to focus on the early chapters of Genesis (cf. Gen. 2.20- 24) or selective quotations from Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 14.34-35; Col. 3.18),

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 209

while neglecting passages that appear to strike out in favour of women’s equality (cf. Gal. 3.28). Those who favour capital punishment point to such passages as Gen. 9.6, while conveniently neglecting the fact that the Hebrew Bible calls for the death penalty for those guilty of adultery (Deut. 22.22) and those who strike or curse their parents (Exod. 21.15, 17; Lev. 20.9). Scholars who seek to construct a theology of peace on the basis of the Hebrew Bible have similarly found the ‘canon-within-a-canon’ approach to be particularly amenable. Faced with the numerous accounts of violence

and brutality in Scripture they have, of necessity, been ‘highly selective in their choice of material’ (Hobbs 1989: 14). Thus, passages such as those in Josh. 6–11 that describe the complete annihilation of the Canaanites at the

express command of God are conveniently shunted to one side, allowing the reader to focus instead on texts that contain lessons of a more salutary nature, such as the importance of ‘beating swords into ploughshares’ and

‘spears into pruning-hooks’ (Isa. 2.4; cf. Gottwald 1964: 308). Laws that command the Israelites to massacre the native inhabitants of the land (cf. Deut. 7.1-2) are overlooked in favour of those that demand care and

respect towards the sojourner and resident alien (cf. Exod. 22.21). Now the adoption of the so-called ‘canon-within-a canon’ approach has many obvious advantages. The first, of course, is its basic simplicity, for it involves the easiest of all tasks: that of winnowing the ethically acceptable material from that which is more unpalatable. By means of this process, the Hebrew Bible is immediately divested of all the antiquarian elements that are no longer regarded as valid, and of all the laws and customs that would today be regarded as abominable and abhorrent. Some line has to be drawn between that which is valid and authoritative and that which is obsolete and outworn, and, according to adherents of this strategy, this seems as good a way as any to draw it. In the second place, the strategy has the merit of acknowledging openly what everyone (except the most ardent purist) takes for granted, namely, that the Bible cannot be accorded equal authority in all its parts, and that everything contained in it cannot be regarded as equally binding upon the Christian (cf. Dunn 1977: 374-76). Most of us, for example, would happily endorse the commands of the decalogue concerning murder, theft and adul- tery (Exod. 20.13-15), but would entertain serious qualms about putting to death a particularly recalcitrant son (Deut. 21.18-21). This approach recognizes, in a reassuringly honest and forthright way, that Scripture is by no means always morally edifying, and that we are bound to accept some of its provisions while rejecting others. Moreover, from a purely practical

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

210 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

point of view, the strategy can claim to be one that is entirely necessary, for we cannot reasonably be expected to be familiar with the entire content of the biblical teaching; the sheer quantity and variety of material which the Bible contains makes it inevitable that readers will have to be selective in their approach and prioritize certain passages over others. By inviting us to regard as binding only those parts of the Bible that we find ethically acceptable, the ‘canon-within-a-canon’ approach permits us to adopt the biblical passages of which we approve, while allowing us to reject pas- sages that might conflict with our deeply ingrained sense of what is right and proper. Further, this strategy may justly claim at least some measure of support from within the Scriptural tradition itself, for the writers of the New Tes- tament, in quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures, tend to focus on a select number of books, and make no attempt to appeal to a representative sample from within the Hebrew Bible as a whole. It is estimated, for example, that approximately half the explicit quotations from the New Testament come from Isaiah and the book of Psalms (Barr 1983: 61; 1999: 386; Evans 2002: 186). In a similar way, Jewish tradition has accorded the Torah pride of place, regarding it as more authoritative than other parts of Scripture, and in this sense the Torah may be said to have formed a sort of pre-canonical ‘canon-within-a-canon’ (G.E. Wright 1969: 179-80; Barr 1983: 83). Thus, Scriptural tradition itself appears to have questioned the notion of a flat, level canon that had equal authority in all its parts, and it could be argued that there is, therefore, a biblical warrant for the selec- tive approach to the Hebrew Bible advocated by the proponents of this strategy. Despite its advantages, however, this ‘pick and choose’ approach to the ethics of the Hebrew Bible must be viewed with some reserve. In the first place, it gives the impression of regarding the reading of Scripture as an exercise rather akin to visiting a restaurant, where the individual is invited to select from the menu what appears to him or her to be most appetizing; by adopting such a strategy, nobody need come from the Bible (any more than they need leave the restaurant) without finding at least something to suit their particular taste. But it is doubtful whether such an eclectic and selective approach to biblical morality can be defended, for there is some- thing vaguely spurious about a strategy that invites us merely to ignore those passages of Scripture of which we do not approve. The clear danger of such an approach is that the ethical values that we derive from Scripture will turn out to be no more than expressions of our own personal prefer- ences, and that the biblical passages that we will embrace will be those

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 211

that happen to conform to our own instinctive assumptions about what is right and proper. Thus those who focus exclusively on passages in the Hebrew Bible that speak of universal peace and harmony can hardly claim to furnish us with a ‘biblical ethic’; rather, they merely provide us with a distillation of the ethical values that they themselves happen to regard as appropriate and acceptable.

Secondly, the criteria used to decide which parts of Scripture may be

deemed acceptable and which may not often appear to be nebulous, ill de-

fined or arbitrary. One suggestion, for example, is that a distinction should

be drawn between the moral and ritual requirements of the Hebrew Bible,

and that the former should be retained while the latter should be discarded

(cf. Bright 1967: 53-54). Thus such moral enactments as those concerning

fairness in the judicial process, or respect for one’s neighbour (Lev. 19.15,

18) are still regarded as relevant and acceptable, while ritual regulations

such as those concerning the types of sacrifice that had to be offered or

the various festivals that had to be observed (Num. 28–29) are clearly no

longer valid or applicable. The difficulty with this suggestion, however,

is twofold. In the first place, the Hebrew Bible itself draws no such dis-

tinction between its moral and ceremonial laws; all were given by divine

command and all were considered equally binding. Secondly, it is by no

means clear that all the moral laws in the Hebrew Bible can be regarded as

acceptable as they stand, nor is it clear that all the ritual or ceremonial

laws are to be regarded as outmoded or irrelevant. For example, no one

today would uphold the ‘moral’ requirement to impose the death penalty

on those who commit adultery (Lev. 20.10; Deut. 22.22) or curse their

parents (Exod. 21.17; Lev. 20.9). On the other hand, the principle of

‘tithing’ advocated in the ‘ritual’ law of Lev. 27.30-33 is still accepted in

some churches, and adopted by many Christians as an ideal by which to

measure their giving.

For these reasons, many have expressed considerable reservations con-

cerning the ‘canon-within-a-canon’ approach as a method of dealing with

the morally dubious passages of Scripture (Lönning 1972; Goldingay

1987: 122-27; 1995: 105-106). It is regarded as a convenient way of gloss-

ing over the more objectionable features of biblical teaching without

having to reject it wholesale. Ultimately, the method does not face up to

the difficulties encountered in Scripture; it merely provides a convenient

strategy for escaping from them by permitting the reader to privilege some

parts of the Hebrew Bible over others. The unfortunate effect of this pref-

erential weighting of the biblical teaching is that it violates the integrity of

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

212 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

the Bible as a whole and relegates some parts of Scripture to a position of

secondary importance.

The Holistic Approach

In many respects, this strategy is diametrically opposed to the ‘canon- within-a-canon’ approach. According to this view, to single out some texts

while rejecting others is merely to distort the biblical witness and to demean its very essence. If justice is to be done to the message of the Hebrew Bible, we must take the entire canonical evidence into consideration and

eschew any attempt to privilege any particular portion of it (Childs 1970: 130-38; 1985: 6-17; Sanders 1984: 22-25; 1987: 155-74; Birch and Ras- mussen 1976: 175-84). In reading the Bible, we must constantly bear in

mind the meaning and import of the message as a whole, for this will inevitably influence the way in which we interpret individual texts. Scrip- ture is viewed as a vast canvas in which the individual details are not as

significant as the picture as a whole. Just as we cannot properly appreci- ate a masterpiece if we stand too close, so we cannot properly interpret Scripture if we focus exclusively on particular passages. Individual inci-

dents and isolated precepts must be measured in the context of the entire thrust of biblical revelation, for reading the Bible involves the elucidation of the whole in relation to its parts and the parts in relation to the whole.

Thus the plea of those who adopt the holistic approach is quite straight- forward: let us not try to elicit ethical norms from isolated texts but look, rather, at the broader picture and go by the general impression of the bib-

lical message as a whole. Scripture establishes certain norms and values as acceptable and others as unacceptable, and whatever impression is left by individual incidents or provisions, there is a general drift to be discerned

which makes it abundantly clear what is required and what is prohibited (Barton 1983: 123; 1998: 12-13). Unlike the ‘canon-within-a-canon’ approach, therefore, this strategy does not reject the unpalatable parts of

the Hebrew Bible; it merely allows us to view them in a broader perspec- tive, and enables us to read Scripture untroubled by some of its more unsavoury aspects. According to adherents of the holistic approach, therefore, the so-called ‘offensive’ passages of the Hebrew Bible are problematic only when viewed in isolation; if we consider the message of the Bible as a whole and respect its overarching perspective and overall intention, the ethically objection- able passages do not prove to be quite such a stumbling block. Thus, for example, passages that depict the wrath of God must be seen in the light of

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 213

his ample manifestations of love and grace; passages that portray him as a vengeful and bloodthirsty deity must be set alongside those that depict him as patient, long-suffering and slow to anger; passages that cast him as fickle and capricious must be understood in the context of those that depict the basic consistency of his purpose and the unchangeableness of his character. Similarly, texts that appear to incite hatred and intolerance towards the enemy must be viewed in the light of those that command love of one’s neighbour (Lev. 19.18); those that reflect an unfavourable atti- tude towards foreign nations (Deut. 23.1-2, 20) must be viewed against those that exhibit a concern for the needs of the stranger and resident alien (Exod. 22.21; 23.9).

At first sight, this strategy of dealing with the morally difficult passages

of Scripture appears to be very attractive, for in one fell swoop it manages

to smooth over the aggressiveness of some biblical passages and to defuse

some of their more inflammatory statements. Moreover, readers are not

burdened with the responsibility of having to choose between the compet-

ing voices of Scripture, accepting some while rejecting others, for the

holistic approach invites them to discover a basic coherence in the Hebrew

Bible despite its different emphases and the plurality of its witnesses.

Further, by reading the Hebrew Bible in the light of its dominant empha-

ses, and taking cognizance of its broader perspective, readers are pre-

vented from limiting or distorting its moral witness and they are provided

with a kind of control by which to appraise some of its more dubious

ethical statements. They cannot twist the biblical message to mean what

they want it to mean, or blow some bits out of proportion to fit some pre-

conceived position of their own, for they are required to pay careful and

disciplined attention to the canonical context as a whole, and it is this context that must be regarded as authoritative for the meaning of the text.

After all, it was on the basis of the broader, canonical vision of the Bible

concerning the dignity of human beings that the Church eventually

opposed the institution of slavery, though both the Hebrew Bible and the

New Testament accepted its existence without demur. The Church, in

effect, was able to take a step back and see that the institution was not in

harmony with the broader view of love, justice and equality found in Scrip-

ture. Not surprisingly, therefore, the holistic approach to the interpretation

of the Bible has been regarded by many as eminently plausible, for it is

argued that by taking into account the whole range of material presented in

Scripture, and discerning its general drift, readers are more likely to arrive

at sensible, balanced conclusions as they interpret the biblical texts.

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

214 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

When the holistic approach is applied to such ethically problematic passages as those encountered in Josh. 6–11, the merits of this particular reading strategy are immediately apparent. The moral difficulties posed by

such passages are not played down but they are viewed in a more nuanced light. Seen in the perspective of the canon as a whole, the clear message conveyed is that the violence and brutality that accompanied Israel’s

conquest of Canaan belonged entirely to Israel’s past and were on no account to be repeated in the future (Childs 1985: 78-79). The prophets never exhorted the Israelites to wage a holy war against their enemies;

rather, they envisaged the future age as one of universal peace which God himself would inaugurate (Isa. 2.1-4; 11.1-9). Thus, according to scholars such as Childs, just as the gross immoralities of the patriarchs (Bainton

1930) may be seen in a more favourable light when viewed against the background of such texts as Pss. 105 and 106 (Childs 1992: 679-80), so the annihilation of the Canaanites may be seen in a different light once

the ‘inner dynamic of biblical thought’ (Childs 1970: 133) is taken into account.

But despite these obvious advantages, the holistic approach is not with-

out its difficulties. In the first place, attempts to discover the ‘general drift’

of Scripture often merely reflect the values, prejudices and presuppositions

of the individual interpreter. As Rodd has observed, ‘the “thrust” is as

much that of the reader as of the writings…[and] the fact that the princi-

ples discovered are always such as are acceptable today should immedi-

ately suggest that something is wrong’ (2001: 322-33). Further, the task of

discovering the ‘main thrust’ of Scripture is not as easy as adherents of

this approach would like to believe, for it is not always clear which moral

principles are compatible and which are incompatible with the general

drift of biblical thought. The case of warfare in the Hebrew Bible provides

an interesting case in point, for to argue that the main thrust of Scripture is

represented by messages of peace and harmony such as those found in the

prophetic literature overlooks the fact that many of these prophecies are

infused with the language of war. Thus, for example, in Isa. 11.1-9 the

messianic ruler who will come to inaugurate an era of universal peace will

‘strike the earth with the rod of his mouth’ and will ‘kill the wicked’ with

the breath of his lips (Isa. 11.4b). Similarly, Zechariah looks forward to

an age of peace in the land of Judah when old men and women would sit

watching children play in the streets (Zech. 8.4-5), but the peace envisaged

will only come about when Israel’s enemies have been quelled and when

the coming king appears in the midst of his people ‘triumphant and

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 215

victorious’ (Zech. 9.9; cf. Rodd 2001: 193-95). The fact is that the Hebrew

Bible contains a complex of different and often conflicting messages, and

consequently to seek to recover the totality of the Bible’s message in order

to do justice to its parts is a very tall order.

Despite the merits of the holistic approach, this strategy clearly has its

drawbacks, not the least of which is that it tries to achieve the difficult balancing act of recognizing the rich diversity of the ethical principles of the Hebrew Bible on the one hand and upholding the essential unity of

biblical thought on the other. In doing so, however, it tends to impose a strained unity on the variegated deposit of material in Scripture.

The Paradigmatic Approach

Adherents of this strategy maintain that the morality of the Hebrew Bible

is embedded in certain foundational principles, and it should not be sup-

posed for a moment that its ethical and religious directives must determine

our beliefs and practices to the last detail. Rather, it provides us with broad,

general principles that guide us in our ethical decision-making, and estab-

lishes a standard to which we can appeal in order to justify the correctness

of a position taken or to test the propriety of an action performed or con-

templated. Such a strategy has sometimes been called the ‘paradigmatic’

approach to the ethics of the Hebrew Bible (C.J.H. Wright 1983: 40-45;

1995: 57-66; Janzen 1994). In grammatical terms, a paradigm is a verb or

noun that is used as a model or example of the way in which countless

other words in a language may be formed, and the so-called ‘paradigmatic’

approach to the ethics of the Hebrew Bible maintains that the laws and

narratives that emerged from ancient Israel should be regarded only as a

‘model’ or ‘example’ of the type of conduct deemed appropriate or inap-

propriate. To transpose the provisions of the Hebrew Bible to the modern

world and apply them as they stand would severely limit their applicability

and would be rather like ‘taking the paradigms of a grammar book as the

only words one could use in that particular language’ (C.J.H. Wright 1983:

43). The point of the grammatical paradigm is that it has to be applied to

other words, and the point of the ethical material contained in the Hebrew

Bible is that it has to be applied to circumstances other than those to which

they were originally addressed. Thus the fact that many biblical laws and

customs cannot be viewed as normative or prescriptive as they stand need

not be regarded as problematic, for it is not the law or custom per se that is to be applied but the essential principles that can be drawn from it. For

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

216 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

example, the institution of animal sacrifice recorded in the Hebrew Bible

appears to be completely irrelevant as it stands; yet, the principle that

underlies the institution may be entirely applicable in so far as it serves as

a reminder of the gravity of sin and the human need for forgiveness (Bright

1967: 148-49). Thus the challenge that readers face as they contemplate

the Hebrew Bible is to discover the underlying principles behind the

various laws and narratives and to consider how those principles may be

applied in the most appropriate ways to the kinds of situations in which

they are likely to find themselves. Only by adopting such a strategy, it is

argued, can the moral teaching of the Hebrew Bible prove a fruitful source

of guidance for our ethical thoughts and actions.

Now it is easy to see how the paradigmatic approach might be deployed

to mitigate some of the ethically dubious passages of Scripture. Such pas-

sages, it is argued, are problematic only if we adopt an overly literal and

restrictive approach to the laws and narratives of the Hebrew Bible; once

we learn to root out their objectives and underlying principles, even some

of the most morally offensive portions of Scripture may be seen to func-

tion as a valuable guide for human conduct. As Kennett long ago observed,

once the Hebrew Bible is viewed in its proper perspective, ‘it will com-

monly be found that things which to unintelligent literal interpretation are

an occasion for stumbling embody a principle which should be for our

spiritual and moral wealth’ (1925: 394). Thus, for example, the laws of the

Hebrew Bible concerning slavery (Exod. 21.1-11; Deut. 15.12-18) may

ostensibly seem to be shameful and reprehensible, but they are not so objec-

tionable once they are understood as provisions designed to uphold the

dignity and worth of all human beings, whatever their status. The concept

of Israel’s special election, often seen as creating the foundation of dis-

crimination against other groups and nations (Plaskow 1990: 96-107),

becomes far less problematic once it is understood that the principle

underlying God’s action was to bring a blessing to the nations of the earth

and to reveal to them his redemptive purpose (cf. Gen. 18.18; 22.17-18;

26.4-5).

The attraction of the paradigmatic approach for those concerned to explicate the ethics of the Hebrew Bible is perfectly understandable, for it

is a strategy that aims to be true to the spirit of the biblical text while at the same time making it relevant and applicable to the modern world. Even passages that may at first sight appear obsolete or irrelevant are regarded

as potentially valuable, for they may contain principles that transcend their culture-bound limitations and that speak all the more tellingly to the needs

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 217

of contemporary society. Moreover, the problem of the specificity and historical conditionality of the ethical demands of the Hebrew Bible is conveniently resolved by means of this strategy, for by rooting out the

underlying principles of a text we may be able to generalize or universal- ize its meaning and make it relevant and applicable to various situations in today’s world. Viewed in this way, the ethical teaching of the Hebrew

Bible may be used in a flexible manner to resolve problems and issues that have no precedent as such in the Bible, and readers are invited to search the Scriptures for signposts pointing them to destinations which were not,

perhaps, located on the original map.

Now when the paradigmatic approach is applied to our ‘test case’ in

Josh. 6–11 it is easy to see how the ethical difficulties can be alleviated, at

least to some extent. The depiction of Yahweh as a God of war, so often

viewed as one of the darker aspects of the teaching of the Hebrew Bible,

may not be quite so offensive if seen as an expression of the idea that

every aspect of human life—including the political and military realms—

are under his ultimate jurisdiction. To speak of God as a warrior was to

indicate that he was actively involved in human history both as judge and

redeemer (Craigie 1978). Moreover, the basic principle underlying the

annihilation of the Canaanites was that pagan rituals and customs could

not be allowed to persist side by side with the religion of Israel; the action

taken by the Israelites, although drastic, was therefore entirely necessary if

the religious life of the nation was to be preserved. It was vital that Israel’s

faith should remain intact, for it was through his chosen people that God

was to bring a blessing to all the nations of the earth. The Canaanites and

their wicked practices had to be abolished in order ‘to prevent Israel and

the rest of the world from being corrupted’ (Kaiser 1983: 267-68). Adher-

ents of the ‘paradigmatic approach’, therefore, insist that the destruction of

the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan must not be permitted to

overshadow Israel’s ‘missiological challenge’ (C.J.H. Wright 1996: 108),

for the point is that the Israelites had to remain completely distinct and

exclusive if they were to mediate the knowledge of God to the surrounding

nations and bring them into covenantal fellowship with Yahweh.

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that in seeking to elimi- nate one ethical problem another is immediately created. For example, those who apply this strategy to Josh. 6–11 are forced to concede that, in this instance, the end justifies the means. However, such an argument is

highly problematic from an ethical point of view, for even if the indige- nous population of Canaan was particularly wicked and depraved (an

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

218 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

assumption by no means shared by all biblical historians) it is doubtful whether this would warrant the destruction of an entire population. More- over, to seek to justify Israel’s annihilation of the Canaanites on the basis

that she is to become a vehicle of blessing to other nations overlooks the fact that there are many passages that suggest that Israel was anything but a blessing to the nations with which she came into contact (Clines 1995:

208-209). The fact is that the paradigmatic approach, however appealing it might ostensibly appear, inevitably raises some uncomfortable questions. How

do we know that the derivative moral principles that we cull from Scrip- ture are legitimate within the contours of the paradigm? How do we distin- guish between what is an acceptable extension and application of a text

and what is not? How do we prevent our derived principles from being merely a subjective statement of our own particular predilections? Will not different people be inclined to draw different—and perhaps even conflict-

ing—principles from the same texts and make the Bible say what they want it to say? The danger of the paradigmatic approach to Scripture is that it invites readers to indulge in a ‘hermeneutics of desire’ (Ostriker

1997: 165-66) and permits them to draw from the text whatever lesson or message they please. Once the Hebrew Bible is dragged from its literal and historical moorings, it can be made to mean many things, and this par-

ticular strategy courts the risk of imposing an arbitrary meaning on the biblical text and throwing open the gates to every conceivable vagary of interpretation. There is also the danger that such a strategy will reduce the

ethical teaching of the Hebrew Bible to mere platitudes and vague gener- alizations with which nobody would wish to disagree. To disregard the plain meaning of the text and discover another more edifying meaning in

order to make the Hebrew Bible relevant and palatable seems a strangely disingenuous way of interpreting Scripture, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that by deploying such a strategy we are merely making ex-

cuses for not facing up to what the text actually says.

The Reader-Response Approach

In view of the problems that arise with each of the strategies outlined above, it may be useful to consider a different approach, namely, that adopted by reader-response critics in secular literature (Suleiman and Crosman 1980; Tompkins 1980; Freund 1987). Such critics emphasize that readers of lit- erature have a duty to converse and interact with the text, and that literary compositions must be read in an openly critical, rather than in a passively

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 219

receptive, way (Iser 1974: 274-94; 1978: 167-72; 1980). Instead of tacitly accepting the standards of judgment established in the text and capitulating uncritically to its demands, they must be prepared to challenge its assump- tions, question its insights, and (if necessary) discredit its claims. They may want to resist texts that appear to be oppressive or tyrannical and reject demands that they feel should not (and perhaps cannot) be fulfilled. They may want to argue that the tradition underlying the text is ethically ques- tionable and that to accept it as it stands is both morally and intellectually indefensible. They may want to expose the text’s moral inadequacy and inscribe ‘COULD DO BETTER’ in bold letters on its margin. In brief, they may want to read ‘against the grain’ of the text and call its content into account in their own court of ethical judgment.

Now such an approach may prove helpful for readers troubled by the

ethically problematic passages of Scripture, for such passages are unset-

tling only because readers have been conditioned to remain slavishly

respectful to the text’s claims and to respond to its demands with uncritical

obeisance. Readers of the Hebrew Bible have traditionally felt themselves

to be passive recipients of the text, obliged to submit to its authority and to

acquiesce in its value judgments. The type of approach deployed by the

secular reader-response critics, however, serves to remind readers that they

have a duty to enter into dialogue with the text and to consider the extent

to which the views adumbrated by the biblical authors agree or conflict

with their own. As they read Scripture, they must respond as thinking indi-

viduals and feel free to draw their own conclusions regarding the validity

or otherwise of the text’s claims. Their task is to engage in a vigorous

debate with the Hebrew Bible, resisting statements that appear to be morally

objectionable, and taking a critical stance against what they may regard as

the excesses of the biblical text. Unlike the canon-within-a-canon

approach, which has the effect of ignoring the ethically problematic texts

of the Hebrew Bible and thus downgrading them to a position of secon-

dary importance, this strategy recognizes the canonical status of these

texts but invites the reader to wrestle with them and to question their

presuppositions and ideologies.

Such an approach may well cause a certain unease in scholarly circles,

for biblical scholars have generally been reticent to engage in what may be

termed ‘ethical criticism’ (Booth 1988: 3-22); their interest, rather, has been

that of the theologian, sociologist or anthropologist, and consequently they

have conceived their task as being to describe, as dispassionately as

possible, the customs, beliefs and practices of the ancient Israelites. What

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

220 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

they have singularly failed to do is to enter the domain of the moral

philosopher and evaluate and critically appraise the biblical statements. It

is a curious truism that biblical scholars have generally been quite pre-

pared to question the historical accuracy or reliability of the biblical

traditions but have shied away from questioning the validity of its moral

norms and underlying assumptions. They have usually proceeded from an

examination of the text to an explanation of its meaning without pausing

for a moment to pass judgment on its content. As a result, the task of

evaluation has all but been evacuated from the realm of biblical criticism.

But there must be a place in biblical scholarship—and a respectable and

honourable place—for moral critique and ethical appraisal of the biblical

tradition. For why should it be regarded as respectable to undertake a

critical evaluation of the sources of the Hebrew Bible but not of its moral-

ity? Why should the categories of ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ be so readily

applied to the historical statements of the Hebrew Bible but not to its value

judgments? It is vital that ‘ethical criticism’ be placed firmly on the agenda

of the university curriculum and that the biblical exegete should be pre-

pared to tackle what may perhaps be the most important task of the bibli-

cal interpreter, namely, that of interacting with the text and reflecting

consciously and critically upon the validity or otherwise of its claims (cf.

Exum 1995 for an example of such an approach).

Of course, the application of reader-response criticism to the Hebrew

Bible is not without its problems. In the first place, the transition from the

historical-critical to the literary-critical approach is not one that many

biblical scholars will find particularly easy or congenial. The interests of

literary theorists seem alien to the traditional interests of biblical scholars,

and many will probably balk at the importation of a methodology that

seems so new and unfamiliar. Yet, such a dramatic shift in perspective

may well prove to be the best hope for the future of the discipline, for

there are interpretative problems for which the methodologies traditionally

deployed no longer seem appropriate and where the application of insights

from contemporary literary criticism could yield more satisfactory results

(cf. Davies 2003a: 32).

Another problem that arises with the reader-response approach is whether the strategy can justifiably be applied to the Hebrew Bible. Can readers question the normative value of biblical statements without

impugning their authority as Scripture? It is our contention that an ethical critique of the Hebrew Bible is not only possible but unavoidable, for even a cursory reading reveals that it exhibits many different—and even

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 221

conflicting—moral norms which inevitably require some form of ethical adjudication. One could easily point to texts that appear to condone polyg- amy or capital punishment and to other texts that appear to oppose such

practices. An analysis of the moral teaching of the Hebrew Bible would be comparatively easy if it presented a consistent and coherent system of ethical thought, but the fact is that there are discordant voices within

Scripture, and readers are placed in a position where they must often choose between competing claims. Thus, every reader of the Hebrew Bible becomes, of necessity, his or her own ethical critic.

Moreover, an ethical critique of Scripture can be justified on inner-

biblical grounds, for the biblical authors themselves frequently exercise a

critical role, questioning past beliefs and querying past judgments. Far

from accepting passively the values that they had inherited, their strategy

was to probe, question, modify and even reject some of their inherited

traditions. For example, some recent feminist biblical critics have discov-

ered in the biblical texts a critique of the patriarchal values espoused in

much of the biblical literature (Trible 1973; Pardes 1992). Now this

dialectical process of criticism and renewal of traditions apparent within

the Hebrew Bible may be regarded as providing a seal of approval for an

ethical critique of Scripture, for what biblical scholars have termed a

‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ (Goldingay 1995: 106-14) is encountered

within the biblical tradition itself. In brief, the Hebrew Bible comes to us

bearing clear traces of its own critique of tradition, and thus provides the

contemporary reader with a warrant to dissent from its teachings and to

question (and perhaps even reject) some of its ethical injunctions.

Now the biblical passages describing the annihilation of the Canaanites

in Josh. 6–11 must surely feature prominently in the list of biblical texts

that modern readers of Scripture would wish to question or reject, for the

depiction of God encountered in these chapters is seriously defective and

the actions attributed to his people are clearly morally offensive. Indeed,

the need for an ethical critique of Scripture is nowhere more apparent than

in these texts, for it is precisely when such passages go unchallenged that

the Bible is in danger of being shamelessly exploited for political and

ideological ends (cf. Jones 1999: 192-96). As we contemplate such pas-

sages of Scripture we must learn to become ‘dissenting readers’ (Davies

2003b), and just as we might readily concede that parts of the Hebrew

Bible are scientifically or historically wrong, so we must be prepared to

pronounce that parts of it are morally wrong. It is not enough simply to excise such passages from Scripture, or to relegate them to some inferior

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

222 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

stage of Israel’s development, or dismiss them as out of symmetry with the

more palatable parts of Israel’s faith and ethics. Rather, the morally offen-

sive passages of Scripture, such as Josh. 6–11, must be questioned, cri-

tiqued and even rejected in an open, honest and forthright way.

An ethical critique of these chapters can be justified on inner-biblical

grounds, for it is arguable that there is a critique of the violence associated with war in the Hebrew Bible itself (Niditch 1993: 134-49; but cf. Rodd 2001: 191-93). Thus, for example, the Chronicler, in recounting the treat-

ment of defeated captives (2 Chron. 28.8-15), highlights God’s displeasure with the folly and cruelty of war and commends the merciful clothing and feeding of the prisoners. A similar plea for the fair treatment of prisoners

of war is implied in 2 Kgs 6.20-23, and a powerful critique of the intoler- able aspects of warring behaviour is encountered in the oracles against foreign nations in Amos 1.3–2.5 (cf. Barton 1980). Thus it is arguable that

some of the biblical writers themselves felt uncomfortable with the tradi- tions recounting the cruelties and atrocities of war, and there is a sense in which Scripture itself provides a warrant for modern readers to probe its

values, to question its assumptions and to dissent from its teachings.

Conclusion

In this article we have been concerned to examine some of the strategies

deployed by biblical scholars over the years to overcome the ethically

problematic statements of Scripture. In an attempt to exonerate the Hebrew

Bible of some of its more dubious moral pronouncements, a wide variety

of approaches have been advocated. However, none of the strategies

examined is without its difficulty. Some merely serve to highlight the dis-

tance that separates the biblical text from its contemporary readers, while

others simply make the text appear irrelevant, outmoded or obsolete. It is

argued that the most satisfactory solution is the one that invites the reader

to interact with the text and to question or reject propositions that seem

blatantly unacceptable or perverse. Instead of ignoring or sidelining bibli-

cal passages that appear to be ethically questionable, as adherents of the

canon-within-a-canon approach advocate, this strategy faces such passages

head-on, inviting the reader to weigh such statements in their own scales

of ethical judgment. Such an approach does not derogate from the author-

ity of Scripture; on the contrary, it continues a process encountered within

the Hebrew Bible, for the biblical authors themselves often assumed a

critical, dissociating position with regard to the traditions that they inherited.

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 223

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, T.

1844 Sermons, II (London: Rivingtons, 3rd edn). Bainton, R.H.

1930 ‘The Immoralities of the Patriarchs according to the Exegesis of the Late

Middle Ages and the Reformers’, HTR 23: 39-49. Barr, J.

1983 Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 1993 Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 1999 The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London:

SCM Press).

Barth, K.

1933 The Epistle to the Romans (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Barton, J.

1980 Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

1983 ‘Approaches to Ethics in the Old Testament’, in J.W. Rogerson (ed.), Begin- ning Old Testament Study (London: SPCK): 113-30.

1997 The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon (London: SPCK). 1998 Ethics and the Old Testament (London: SCM Press).

2003 Understanding Old Testament Ethics: Approaches and Explorations (Louis- ville, KY and London: Westminster/John Knox Press).

Benedict, R.

1934 Patterns of Culture (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.). Bewer, J.A.

1930 ‘The Christian Minister and the Old Testament’, JR 10: 16-21. Birch, B.C., and L.L. Rasmussen

1976 Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House).

Blackman, E.C.

1948 Marcion and his Influence (London: SPCK). Booth, W.C.

1988 The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press).

Brekelmans, C.H.W.

1959 De Herem in het Oude Testament (Nijmegen: Centrale Drukkerij). Brichto, H.C.

1975 ‘The Case of the S and a Reconsideration of Biblical Law’, HUCA 46: 55-70.

Bright, J.

1967 The Authority of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press). Carroll, R.P.

1991 Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as a Problem for Christianity (London: SPCK).

Childs, B.S.

1970 Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press).

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

224 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

1985 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM Press). 1992 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on

the Christian Bible (London: SCM Press). Clines, D.J.A.

1990 ‘Holistic Interpretation’, in R.J. Coggins and J.L. Houlden (eds), A Diction- ary of Biblical Interpretation (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International): 292-95.

1995 Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

Craigie, P.C.

1978 The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Davies, E.W.

1995 Numbers (New Century Bible Commentary; London: Marshall Pickering; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

2003a ‘Reader-Response Criticism and the Hebrew Bible’, in R. Pope (ed.), Hon- ouring the Past and Shaping the Future: Religious and Biblical Studies in Wales (Leominster: Gracewing): 20-37.

2003b The Dissenting Reader: Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Alder- shot: Ashgate).

Dodd, C.H.

1938 The Authority of the Bible (London: Nisbet & Co., rev. edn). Dunn, J.D.G.

1977 Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press).

1982 ‘The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture’, Churchman 96: 104-22, 201-25.

Evans, C.A.

2002 ‘The Scriptures of Jesus and his Earliest Followers’, in L.M. McDonald and

J.A. Sanders (eds), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson): 185- 95.

Evans-Pritchard, E.E.

1951 Social Anthropology (London: Cohen and West). Exum, J.C.

1995 ‘The Ethics of Biblical Violence against Women’, in J.W. Rogerson,

M. Davies and M.D. Carroll (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 248-71.

Fosdick, H.E.

1938 A Guide to Understanding the Bible: The Development of Ideas within the Old and New Testaments (New York: Harper & Row; London: Student Christian Movement Press).

Freund, E.

1987 The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response Criticism (New York: Methuen). Frymer-Kensky, T.

1984 ‘The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Num V 11-31)’, VT 34: 11-26. Goldingay, J.

1987 Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

1990 Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (Leicester: Apollos, rev. edn).

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 225

1995 Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press).

Gottwald, N.K.

1964 ‘ “Holy War” in Deuteronomy: Analysis and Critique’, Review and Expositor 61: 296-310.

Harnack, A. von

1924 Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag; repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1960).

Herskovitz, M.J.

1971 Cultural Relativism: Perspectives in Cultural Pluralism (New York: Random House).

Hobbs, T.R.

1989 A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier).

Iser, W.

1974 The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).

1978 The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press).

1980 ‘Interaction between Text and Reader’, in Suleiman and Crosman 1980:

106-19.

Janzen, W.

1994 Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville, KY: Westmin- ster/John Knox Press).

Jones, G. Lloyd

1999 ‘Sacred Violence: The Dark Side of God’, Journal of Beliefs and Values 20: 184-99.

Kaiser, W.C.

1983 Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Kang, S.-M.

1989 Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (BZAW, 177; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).

Kennett, R.H.

1925 ‘The Contribution of the Old Testament to the Religious Development of

Mankind’, in A.S. Peake (ed.), The People and the Book (Oxford: Clarendon Press): 383-402.

Knox, J.

1942 Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). LaSor, W.S., D.A. Hubbard and F.W. Bush

1996 Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Tes- tament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn).

Lönning, I.

1972 ‘Kanon im Kanon’: Zum dogmatischen Grundlagenproblem des neutesta- mentlichen Kanons (Oslo: Universitets Forlaget).

Mason, R.

1997 Propaganda and Subversion in the Old Testament (London: SPCK). Maurice, F.D.

1841 The Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament (London: Macmillan).

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

226 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

Meyers, C.

1988 Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press).

Mitchell, H.G.

1912 The Ethics of the Old Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Mozley, J.B.

1877 Ruling Ideas in Early Ages and their Relation to Old Testament Faith (London: Rivingtons).

Nicholson, E.

1998 The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Niditch, S.

1993 War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press).

Nineham, D.

1976 The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change (London: SPCK).

Orr, J.

1906 The Problem of the Old Testament (London: Nisbet & Co.). Ostriker, A.S.

1997 ‘A Triple Hermeneutic: Scripture and Revisionist Women’s Poetry’, in

A. Brenner and C. Fontaine (eds.), Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 164-89.

Pardes, I.

1992 Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press).

Plaskow, J.

1990 Standing again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective (San Fran- cisco: Harper & Row).

Redfield, R.

1957 ‘The Universally Human and the Culturally Variable’, Journal of General Education 10: 150-60; reprinted in J. Ladd (ed.), Ethical Relativism (Bel- mont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973): 129-43.

Rendtorff, R.

1977 Das Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 147; Berlin: W. de Gruyter); ET by J.J. Scullion, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).

Richardson, A.

1963 ‘The Rise of Modern Biblical Scholarship and Recent Discussion of the

Authority of the Bible’, in S.L. Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 294-338.

Rodd, C.S.

1995 ‘The Use of the Old Testament in Christian Ethics’, in C.S. Rodd (ed.), New Occasions Teach New Duties? (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 5-19.

2001 Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DAVIES The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible 227

Rogerson, J.

1978 Anthropology and the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). 1984 Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany

(London: SPCK).

Sanders, J.A.

1984 Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

1987 From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Schmid, H.H.

1976 Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuch- forschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag).

Smart, J.D.

1961 The Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press). Smith, J.M.P.

1923 The Moral Life of the Hebrews (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Suleiman, S.R., and I. Crosman (eds.)

1980 The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Temple, F.

1861 ‘The Education of the World’, in Essays and Reviews (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 5th edn): 1-49.

Tompkins, J.P. (ed.)

1980 Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Balti- more: The Johns Hopkins University Press).

Trible, P.

1973 ‘Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation’, JAAR 41: 30-48. Van Oyen, H.

1967 Ethik des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn). Van Seters, J.

1975 Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale Univer- sity Press).

1999 The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Aca- demic Press).

Wall, R.W.

2002 ‘The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church’s Scripture’, in

L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson): 528-40.

Wellhausen, J.

1883 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, I (Berlin: Georg Reimer); ET, Pro- legomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885).

1889 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und die historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 2nd edn).

Whybray, R.N.

1987 The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

228 Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005)

Wright, C.J.H.

1983 Living as the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament Ethics (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press).

1995 Walking in the Ways of the Lord: The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament (Leicester: Apollos).

1996 Deuteronomy (New International Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Wright, G.E.

1969 The Old Testament and Theology (New York: Harper & Row).

at CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA on April 2, 2009 http://cbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from