Pedagogical Theory of the Hebrew Bible

An Application of Educational Theory to Biblical Texts

Hinkle

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781498228626
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Every generation must accept the responsibility of training the next. Yet, are modern Christian pastors and educators using teaching paradigms that impact memory and long-term memory retention? Pedagogical Theory of the Hebrew Bible is a cross-disciplinary book that connects religious education with active learning theory and demonstrates how these two areas are intimately connected within the biblical texts of Genesis through 2 Kings. Through vivid discussion of the literary texts, Adrian Hinkle demonstrates that religious educators never used isolated oral stories or instructions. Instead, these are purposefully connected with other learning formats to increase memory retention and ensure each generation experiences the traditions of Yahweh.

Part One

Background

Chapter 1

Learning Theory and Active Learning

Formal and Informal Education

Arguments for and against formal education systems are available for groups similar to those portrayed in the Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic History, and Wisdom Literature. James Crenshaw is one of the leading modern researchers on the formal education system for what he calls “ancient Israel.” Crenshaw examines the beginnings of literacy and how Israel was transformed from an oral to a literate culture. According to his research, after the invention of cuneiform writing, scribal schools emerged in Sumer to teach this form of writing for employment purposes within palaces, temples, and administrative offices. “The School system flourished . . . and the variety of positions held by the scribes suggests that the schools were numerous and sizeable.”12 Numerous terra-cotta tablets containing written texts have survived through their modern discovery, providing abundant documentation of Mesopotamian culture.13 Crenshaw further notes students were trained to become priests, engineers, administrators, or soldiers. Since priests were responsible for recording the lives of the dead and burying it with them, it is believed they may have been the first to use writing. Students attending both the Sumer and Egyptian schools were male children from wealthy families. Their education in cuneiform afforded them social positions in various vocations.14

Similar characteristics of the “scribal” culture are found in the Wisdom Literature of the Hebrew Bible. This is particularly evident in Proverbs, where the son is, more or less, provided a handbook of moral instruction for training in civic obligations and traditional wisdom of the cultural milieu in which Israelite scribes lived between the tenth and seventh centuries BC.15 These scribes were essentially responsible for mastering the technique of writing. Large amounts of vocabulary tested their memory skills and the complexity of form resulted in practical difficulty. Added complications of different Egyptian writing types (hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic) and Mesopotamian use of different languages (Sumerian, Acadian, and later Aramaic)16 made education difficult to attain, seldom exceeding 1 percent of the population.17

The scribe was a civil servant whose primary obligation was recording legislative decrees for the monarchy. The initial vocational concerns of scribes were to oversee archives, accounting, and legal mandates. This fundamental importance was primal, before its developed use for recording theological dogma and philosophy. Therefore, because of their importance, scribes were elevated above the working classes. This elevation in social prestige gave room to exercise patronage resulting in an attached value of formal education to one’s success. For children in early Israelite culture, education was the point of entry to the rankings of the socially elite.18 However, as Marrou and Crenshaw both bring out in their studies, education within a formal setting was focused upon children’s scribal literacy not religious education. As evidenced in the following pages, the primary medium for conveying the spiritual ethos of Israel remains critically connected to the family unit.

Crenshaw’s mention of formal education raises several questions. At its center is the lack of evidence for its existence. Much of the current information remains inferential. “This deficiency of hard evidence exists despite many attempts to uncover the actual learning situation prior to the first explicit reference to a school, Ben Sira’s reference invitation to acquire an education at his house of study (bét hammidraš, 51:23).”19 Using the analogy of schools existing in Egypt and Mesopotamia, it is logical to infer similar institutions existed for Israel. In addition to Crenshaw, this is noted and expounded on by several biblical scholars such as Leo Perdue and Philip King. Since the validity of these schools is beyond the scope of this book, they will only be briefly mentioned. A more thorough discussion is located in the writings of Crenshaw and Perdue. These same writers also contend that some type of formalized training must have existed during the early monarchy to support the bureaucratic government system and the role of Hezekiah’s men mentioned in Prov 25:1, which suggests some type of court school. The lack of firsthand information regarding schools in Israel leads scholars to conclude that either they were so prevalent, writers did not deem it necessary to record information regarding them, or they did not exist.20

While these studies offer substantial argument and support, their conclusions still lack enough concrete evidence to acceptably validate their claims. Therefore, their conclusions regarding formal educational systems remain anecdotal. There are ongoing disputes over the viability of these schools and the nature of instruction that transpired before Ben Sira’s invitation in the second century BC. Commentators, such as Crenshaw21 and Walter Brueggemann,22 insist that religious education was primarily practiced orally in the home. Other critics contend that a complex educational system existed before Solomon’s era while others suggest it began during Hezekiah’s reign in the eighth century.23

From the patriarchal narratives in Genesis through the early monarchy in 1–2 Samuel, families are depicted as carrying the core responsibility for educating their children. This education included vocational trade, social expectations, and religious beliefs. It is conceivable that schools within Israel may have imitated Egypt and Mesopotamia as models for education. However, the extent of this influence remains speculative.24 Conclusive proof and consensus among specialists is lacking. Crenshaw argues that only a miniscule portion of the population is able to receive formal literary training, and that formal education was available only to the socially elite.25 The majority of the population then, continues their education within the family setting. This training included vocational training, and social and religious expectations. As this trajectory continued, the importance of scribal abilities grew to document historical accounts, decrees, and prominent oral traditions.26 By the early monarchy, formal specialized schools for training in scribal literacy began to develop which later developed into the documented schools of Greek culture.

Little evidence exists that conclusively validates the use of formal educa...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgement
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part One: Background
• Part Two: Pedagogy of the Pentateuch
• Part Three: Pedagogy of the Deuteronomistic History
• Part Four: Conclusion
• Bibliography