In keeping with my past post to the Ehrman v. Craig debate, I offer another link. This one is to a Prof. Christine Haye’s (Yale) undergraduate lectures for her course Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. These really are an excellent, lucid presentation of the major issues facing contemporary readers of the HB (Hayes is a brilliant communicator). But more pertinent to my previous post, these are the kind of lectures undergraduates at most universities receive, and which the vast majority of Christians have yet to seriously face or engage. What’s more, unlike some lecturers, Hayes doesn’t antagonize or degrade her believing students; rather, she by and large just states what she thinks and why.
One additional note. I think like Ehrman’s presentations, Hayes’ offers a helpful entry point for considering possible directions forward. The fact is that for the most part there are 2 kinds of responses to these issues: total abandonment of the faith in light of the arguments, or total repudiation of the arguments in favor of a preconceived doctrine. In my opinion, for the same reason the first isn’t necessary and the second is irresponsible: the doctrine needs to be able to fit the data. Granted, we shouldn’t adopt everything in the academy whole hog, but there’s a lot we should. Moreover, the incarnational analogy is a helpful posture for approaching such issues, but it needs to be emphasized that the analogy doesn’t actually solve any problems. It tells us not to be surprised when we find challenges, but cannot actually tell us what to do once we find them. Ps. 18 describes Yahweh as a fire-breathing being being dwelling in a temple who opens the ceiling of earth to descend upon a cherub with arrows ablaze, and its not the only place in the HB–or in other ancient Near Eastern literature–where we meet such strange descriptions that don’t fit neatly into our creeds. We may be prepared to see this as God permitting the ancients to describe him in their own ancient ideas, but that kind of concession raises at least as many questions as answers, probably more. We have much more to do.
At any rate, enjoy!
November 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm
As usual…folks MISS the point. If you’re not Christian and regularly studying the word…ANY lecturer can flip and re interpret the text in the Bible.
November 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm
music album reviews…
[...]Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by Christine Hayes « ‘Conn’-versation[...]…
November 20, 2011 at 7:46 pm
hair loss…
[...]Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by Christine Hayes « ‘Conn’-versation[...]…
March 6, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Sorry I come late to this discussion, but I just found the site today. Is anybody still visiting here, I wonder?
About this time last year, I watched these videos one/day over several weeks and in order…just as if I were in class. Additionally, I printed out the transcripts (easier than taking notes) and did some of the readings from my personal library.
While I had taken ANE courses at UCLA in the early 1960s, I had never systematically studied the Hebrew Bible so this course was a revelation (not in the Christian sense) to me. I’m jealous of her students who had the opportunity to attend the (mandatory) discussion sections for further exposition and exchange of ideas.
Prof. Hayes was, I think, very thorough in her presentation, and I enjoyed the class a lot. When discussing the portions Tanakh with others, I now feel that I have some intelligent background for my opinions.
I sent Dr. Hayes an email thanking her for allowing the course to be placed online; she was gracious enough to respond.
As to the use of the JPS translation, we were ‘studying’ the Hebrew Bible so a Jewishly based translation is not out of place. While it my not be great literature as the KJV is, it is probably more accurate to the Hebrew Text. Also, the commentary therein is based on about sixty years more of Biblical scholarship than the Hertz commentary (which did use KJ).
August 29, 2008 at 1:15 am
Bobby,
I too have found some benefit from the lectures. I’m not throwing the baby out,per say. My point about the Author was simply that she should acknowledge that there is other scholarship that see things differently. I was striving for balance. I appreciated that Steve Taylor in his NTI class had us read Neusner and Cohen (non-Christian scholars) among other things to bring balance and a different perspective (or New Perspective??
JD,
I don’t find Dempster conveying arguments in the sense of trying to prove a point. He is simply laying out an interpretation. I think indeed that he is “really just show[ing] a unity of purpose(s)”. I happen to find it quite amazing and I think the various connections and themes do show an Author amidst the authors. To see the unity as a cultural phenomenon is I think overly simplistic.
August 27, 2008 at 12:16 am
Thanks for the links. Just FYI, if you download the course documents they include transcripts of all the lectures (which also include bibliographic references). Some people might prefer reading (it also saves on time downloading all the video or audio). However, it does remove the experience of seeing and/or hearing Hayes who is an excellent lecturer.
August 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I feel bad–I wandered away from my own post (Actually, wordpress stopped emailing me about new comments. Not sure why).
I think the Bible is for children–just not the way we typically think of it. The stories from Genesis through Joshua were commanded to be told to children. Of course, nothing was probably written back then and even after they were written few could actually read, much less had direct access to the texts. Along similar lines, Proverbs 1-9 aims itself at a youth, even if that’s a literary device. Perhaps the content wasn’t exactly read much, but might have been told, recited, etc. And I like Mike Kelly’s idea that Jonah is told like a fairy tale (can’t prove it, but there’s something to be said for that). Anyway, I think it’s hard to know why certain things were written, for and by whom they were written, etc. There are always a complex of reasons. But I’m not sure one can get away with a blanket statement like “the Bible wasn’t written for children.” Way too simplistic.
And thinking of modern contexts: most conservative Jewish kids read the Torah as early as possible and get to those rape parts. Sometimes they ask questions; sometimes they skip over. But the point is that they’re important to the Jewish community, so the community makes it incumbent upon them to read. What’s more, many of them also learn the Mishnah, which talk about a lot more awkward stuff than rape.
Steve: I’ve never read Dempster. Probably never will to be honest. Are you convinced by his arguments? And do you think that his arguments really prove something about a single author, or do they really just show a unity of purpose(s) that could’ve been shared by the Bible’s various authors (which, of course, would be understandable since they were all Israelites/Jews)? What do you think?
August 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm
On another note, I am now halfway through these lectures.
I really wish I had heard some of this information before. If you can look past some of the assertions she makes (about sources and borrowing from other cultures, changing things) that might be unsettling, you find some beautiful and glorious thoughts about who God is and what Israel and her practices were all about.
One thing that caught me recently was her discussion of how sacrifice is largely an act of “imitatio dei”. Put simply, the shepherd of a flock raises, protects, nurtures the domestic animals. He then selects one that is deemed to be appropriate and exercises the power of life and death over that one. Your mind immediately jumps to Jesus who, in taking on humanity, became one of God’s flock. This also works for other Bible stories as the exercise of life and death over his sheep does not always end in death (e.g. Noah, Joseph, etc.).
Just wanted to share.
August 26, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Steve:
I do think you are being a bit too critical of her. What she is saying with regard to the “book” and “author” issue is that we must recognize that there were a number of hands holding pens involved and that this compilation of texts was not complete until centuries after some of the parts where written. The only way you get single author and one book is by looking to the divine author and ultimate purpose. Do you expect that from a university professor?
I’m also not sure that I agree with you that the Bible was meant for children. It could very well be that the ancients were less protective of their children. After all, they saw war, violence, hunts, death, etc. in ways that kids today don’t see.
But in our cultural context, have you tried to explain rape to a 6 year-old? This is violent stuff that we try not to get into with our little ones. I have a friend who is extremely devoted to the Scriptures. He has family devotions with his wife and 6 kids (ages 13-2?) twice a day. And, yet, he really struggles with what to do with certain passages. Sometimes he reads them and they discuss them, other times he skips certain things. It is tough.
Of course, we might need to ask the question ‘has the church believed for the past 2,000 years that the Bible is for kids?’ For most of that time the common folks couldn’t read it at all. Then, they couldn’t understand it because it wasn’t read in their language. Instead, they were given pictures and statues to look at. It has only been in recent history that we have sought to bring it to everyone. And when we bring it to kids, we rewrite it and fill it with pictures. Do we really think that the Scriptures are for children, or only that the message is for children?
August 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Interesting link to the lectures. Thanks for posting them.
I only listened to the introductory lecture that was laying the foundation for the course she would teach. I found interesting her dismissal of the “myths” that surround the bible. My complaint is that she states these rather dogmatically. Granted, I understand what she is doing and that this is an introduction course. However, these “myths” are part and parcel of the Hebrew Bible.
For example, she dismisses out of hand the idea that the Bible is for Children. Now this is her opinion but it isn’t what the Bible itself teaches. More problematic is her dismissal that the Hebrew Bible is not a Book and does not have an Author. Is this really a balanced treatment of current scholarship? Stephen Dempster’s book Dominion and Dynasty spends the first chapter giving reasons with sources why there is evidence of a unity as a Book with an Author.
What do you all think? Am I being too critical of an introductory class? Perhaps she gives evidence for her opinions later?
Steve
August 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Craig,
I think you’re probably right that the hostility is overplayed. In my experience some definitely are, but often times what’s interpreted as hostility is profs presenting what they think, encountering a sharp push-back from difficult conservative students, and then profs reacting because it gets old and frustrating.
The place for religious Christians in the academy is a personal gripe of mine. In most programs I know, it’s perfectly fine–even preferable–if you’re an observant Jew, Muslim, or Hindu and want to study or teach Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism. On the other hand, it seems like the major qualification for teaching Christianity is that you don’t believe a word of it. The only exception seems to be if you’re a Christian of some rare denomination like Romanian Orthodox or something. The double standard really pisses me off. I’m perfectly fine with secular institutions guarding against divisive religious folk who only want to propagandize. That’s fine–religious education in secular schools shouldn’t be that. But I’m against them throwing the baby out with the bath water.
August 20, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I listened to the first three of these today as I was driving back and forth between Glenside and Lansdale. I like her.
It is really cool to hear how she presents this stuff to young, college students. I took Intro to the NT with Ehrman at UNC and Hayes is much gentler with difficult material than he was (perhaps it is the occasional weakness you can hear in her voice).
The first lecture on the ancient Near Eastern context of the Hebrew Bible flows similarly to Levenson’s first chapter in Creation and the Persistence of Evil.
If she makes me think of Jon D, she’s doing something right
August 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I am really looking forward to her lectures on “The Priestly Legacy: Cult and Sacrifice, Purity and Holiness in Leviticus and Numbers” (9) and “Biblical Law: The Three Legal Corpora of JE (Exodus), P (Leviticus and Numbers) and D (Deuteronomy)” (10). Hayes has worked extensively in issues of purity, holiness, and indentity in both the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism—see, for example, her helpful book “Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud.”
At the same time, I would like to listen through these in order, so I do not want to skip ahead. Decisions decisions…
August 19, 2008 at 6:07 pm
As far as lecturers antagonizing or degrading believers, I wonder if that isn’t a bit overblown. I never saw this when I was in college (California State University at Northridge). What I did see at times was believers misconstruing what was going on in class. For example, it’s pretty much standard fare for an introductory philosophy class to show problems with the arguments for the existence of God. The point of the exercise is to teach skills in analyzing arguments. I have seen some (not most) believers walk away from such a class thinking Christianity was being attacked. Also, if a professor has strong beliefs that are contradictory to Christianity, it’s not an attack if the professor expresses those beliefs. I’m not naïve enough to believe that attacks never happen. I do think they are rarer than advertised. In fact, in my school career I found being a Republican more difficult than being a Christian.
The interesting question, at least to me, is what happens when secular institutions have believers applying for teaching positions. I suspect there is some very real discrimination here. This may also, by extension, be evident in admissions policies to graduate programs.
August 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Thanks for this JD. I will try to listen to these as I have time.
August 19, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Personally, I love the JPS translation and Jewish Study Bible. I don’t know if they’re the favorite, but they’re really really good. The study bible also has an all-star lineup of scholars commenting. Check this out:
http://www.oup.com/us/brochure/jewish.study.bible/contributors/?view=usa
August 19, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I just happen to have finished listening to her lectures recently. I thought they were extremely insightful. I was a bit (maybe pleasantly) surprised when she talked about “canonical criticism” before lecturing on the ketuvim (writings). I also noticed her preference for the JPS translation and Study Bible, and I was wondering if this preference is a trend among critical scholars nowadays.