Textuality and the Bible

Shepherd

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781498282789
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Textuality and the Bible represents a concerted effort to clarify the object of study in biblical scholarship and in the church by bringing together the disciplines of hermeneutics, compositional analysis, canon studies, and textual criticism. It ultimately seeks to issue a call for study of the Bible for its own sake.

1

Orality and Textuality

The relationship between the text(s) of the Bible and any possible oral traditions behind them has long been of interest to biblical scholars.1 More recently, oral performance of texts has captured the attention of those seeking to explain the Bible in something other than strictly textual categories.2 In addition to these issues is the matter of the dynamic quality of orality over against the potentially static textualization of that orality. This chapter is not intended to deny oral tradition/performance or the value of orality in general. Rather, it is an attempt to avoid the confusion of orality and textuality. Related to this discussion will be the treatment of other non-textual phenomena that frequently obscure the textuality of the Bible in interpretation. Of course, the goal is to give the Bible’s textuality its proper place, but this will not be at the expense of other legitimate pursuits.

Oral Tradition

The Bible itself bears witness to the oral performance of stories, laws, prophecies, poems, and songs prior to their written form and prior to the inclusion of their written form within the larger composition of the biblical texts. The text of Judg 5:11 mentions the recounting of the righteous acts of YHWH, which now has a textual reference in the narratives of the Pentateuch (cf. 1 Sam 12:7). The laws at Sinai were delivered orally (Exod 20:1, 19; Deut 5:4–5) and only later were committed to writing (Exod 24:4, 12; 31:18; Deut 5:22). The sermons of the prophets (e.g., Jer 7) have been collected and textualized and thereby have been re-contextualized so that messages for past generations can now be messages for future generations.3 As for the psalms, Hermann Gunkel attempted to reconstruct from their written forms the “setting in life” (Sitz im Leben) in which their content might have been uttered.4 The sayings of the book of Proverbs also likely stem from larger oral and written traditions (1 Kgs 5:9–14 [Eng., 4:29–34]).5

But the assumption that this pre-history somehow explains the intended meaning of the currently extant literature is not necessarily a warranted one. Apart from the general uncertainty surrounding reconstruction of tradition and apart from a basic inability to access directly the oral performance of earlier traditions, there are issues that should prevent the interpreter from making too facile a correlation between orality and textuality even when confidence in the reconstruction is high. For example, the Sinai law is now not only in written form, but also it is set within a larger narrative and compositional framework that provides its own context for interpretation. Likewise, while individual psalms may have had a life of their own in either oral or written form, they are now part of the book of Psalms where their relationship to other written psalms exerts an influence on how they are to be read. Even the rehearsals of biblical history (e.g., Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:1–15; Ezek 20; Pss 78; 105; 106; 136; Neh 9), which are generally taken to be manifestations of variant oral and written traditions about Israel’s history, are now presented to the reader as examples of textual exegesis.6 Furthermore, appeals to extra-biblical tradition to explain texts like Hosea 12, which refers to the Jacob story, appear dubious and unnecessary compared to the abundant and firm textual evidence of Genesis.7 Oral performance of texts prior to their inclusion within the composition of a biblical book would also belong to the pre-history of that book. On the other hand, oral performance of biblical books or portions thereof would belong to the subsequent history of reading and interpretation. Information about such performance could conceivably provide insight into the way the texts were copied, transmitted, and received. But it does not belong to the stage of biblical composition, which is a purely textual enterprise. Explanation of oral performance does not at the same time constitute explanation of the texts performed.

Writing in antiquity was special in part because the number of those who could produce and read substantial literary works was limited compared to the modern world (Isa 29:11–12).8 Writing was not only a way to preserve words (e.g., Isa 8:16; Dan 8:26; 12:4; Rev 22:10) but also a way to lend authority and power to words.9 Thus, for example, Job’s desire to have his words written (Job 19:23–24) might be more than a wish for the preservation of his argument for posterity. It may very well be a longing for an authoritative status that would strengthen his case for vindication.

On the other hand, there has always been resistance to writing at least in some circles and in particular circumstances. Those who are not members of the elite, literate class do not always find their voice represented in writing. Furthermore, some words are better spoken than written. The living voice of the teacher is in many ways just as valuable as the text.10 William Schniedewind has suggested that the reference to the “false pen of the scribes” in Jer 8:8 is an example of such an objection to textualization, although it is possible that the verse is a reference to tampering with actual texts, tampering evident even in the transmission of the book of Jeremiah when the MT and the LXX (cf. 4QJerb, d) are compared.11

Schniedewind also cites the critique of writing in the complaint of Plato’s Socrates to Phaedrus: “Written words seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever. And once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place” (Phaedrus §275d).12 This quote highlights one of the key differences between orality and textuality.13 The author of a text is not present to explain what he/she has written every time the text is read. A teacher, on the other hand, is present with the students and is available to interact with them over the content of the teaching. But what this means is that the author must put his text together with such considerations in mind, anticipating questions and objections from readers. Perhaps the real objection in the above citation is to the recording of teaching intended for a particular audience at a certain time. This would be comparable to the audio recording of a modern lecture. The lecture is really directed to the students who are in the moment and who share the context of the rest of the course. To isolate that lecture for someone who was not present would be to decontextualize the content. It is very difficult to freeze such a moment and make it transferable to other settings without significant loss. A consciously constructed literary work, however, is ideally prepared to be read by anyone. As for the unchangeable nature of such a literary work, it likely depends upon the quality of the content and the perspective of the reader as to whether or not its immutability is a ...

Table of contents

• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Orality and Textuality
• Chapter 2: Self-aware Bookishness
• Chapter 3: Canon Consciousness
• Chapter 4: Torah lishma
• Chapter 5: A Study in Variant Literary Editions
• Chapter 6: A Grammatical Study
• Chapter 7: A Study in Semantics
• Bibliography