The Bible as it Was

James L. Kugel

This was my first exposure to a "scholarly" approach the Bible. To me the Bible was a relevant, applicable text that addressed both deep spiritual questions and contemporary life needs. To my professors the Bible appeared to be a somewhat random collection of ancient Near Eastern texts; survivors of hundreds of years of editors, copyists, and political upheaval. I was amazed at how my New Testament professor could read a Gospel passage and zero in on some obscure point of style or culture while missing the obvious meaning and application.

One day while we were studying the parable of the sower, I had to speak up. The professor said that Jesus used parables to make his teachings clearer. But as I read Jesus' own explanation of why he spoke in parables I saw something different:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

(Mat 13:10-16 KJV)

When I read this passage it was obvious that Jesus was using parables to hide his meaning, not clarify it. My professor was aghast. Apparently in all his studying he had never bothered to read what the Bible said, but only what his fellow scholars had said about the Bible. He was sure I had to be wrong in my interpretation but promised to look into it.

A couple weeks later he addressed me personally in front of the class and said he had found a confirmation for my interpretation. Apparently a hundred years ago some famous German scholar had held the same position I did. Upon reviewing the work (translating from German, no doubt), my professor admitted that I could be right. I pointed out that the text clearly said what I said, and that I didn't think any confirmation was necessary, but thanks anyway.

I have since noticed a distinct difference between Bible "scholars" and what might be best called "disciples" of the Bible. The former are interested in learning about the Bible and the latter in learning what the Bible says. I hadn't thought much about these two camps and how they arrived at their positions until I read The Bible as it Was by James L. Kugel.

In The Bible as it Was Kugel looks at how ancient interpreters understood the Bible. Going back to the last two centuries before and the first century after the birth of Christ, Kugel examines the development of interpretive motifs around both significant and relatively insignificant events in the Pentateuch. Some of these will be very familiar to present-day readers, others more obscure. For example, he examines the identification of the serpent in the Garden with Satan - taken for granted by most Christians but not specifically stated in the text.

Through his study, Kugel arrived at four underlying assumptions that guided ancient interpreters. These assumptions seem to be uniquely applied to the Bible. We don't read other books - even those from the same era - with these assumptions in mind. It seems clear to me that most Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians today would agree that these assumptions are what guide their own reading of the Bible.

"The first assumption that all ancient interpreters seem to share is that the Bible is a fundamentally cryptic document" (page 18). That is, while the Bible may be clearly saying X it either really means Y or else Y is implied or hinted at in X. Even the parts that are clear recitation of history contain symbolic truth or are portents of future events.

"The second assumption shared by all ancient interpreters was that Scripture constitutes one great Book of Instruction, and as such is a fundamentally relevant text" (page 19). One would never read Moby Dick with the idea that it was written with the idea that we should follow the pattern of living represented by the characters in the text. Yet we do read the Bible that way.

"The third basic assumption is that Scripture is perfect and perfectly harmonious" (page 20). Any apparent mistake or contradiction must be an illusion to be clarified by the proper interpretation of the erroneous or conflicting passages. But more than this, all the disparate parts of the Bible - written by dozens of people over hundreds of years - are taken as a uniform whole speaking with one voice. Again, we would never read a collection of writings from (for example) the founding fathers of the United States and assume their writings should be considered consistent with each other and representing a common point of view. But the ancient interpreters (and modern Christians, it is safe to say) read the Bible this way.

"The fourth assumption is that all of Scripture is somehow divinely sanctioned, of divine provenance, or divinely inspired. Needless to say, much of Scripture itself asserts that its words come from God: 'Thus says the Lord' is the introductory proclamation of many a prophet, and biblical laws in the Pentateuch are frequently introduced with, 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying …'" (page 21-22). While one could conclude from this frequent formula that other passages are not directly from God but rather from the pens of their human authors, ancient (and modern) interpreters did not thus conclude. This assumption is least frequently in evidence among ancient interpreters, yet seems to be the ever-present, unspoken background upon which their work is painted.

Several years ago I might have tried to argue that these assumptions flow from the Bible itself. But on thinking this through further, it has become helpful to me to see that these are assumptions we bring to the text when we read it. That is (for example), the Bible isn't inherently "verbally and plenary inspired and without admixture of error" but rather that statement represents a philosophy of interpretation that we bring to the Bible when we read it.

Fundamentalists would argue that the Bible couldn't be properly interpreted in any other way. If we allow for the Bible not to be inspired then we leave gaping holes - opportunities for a false teacher to claim a part of the Bible that contradicts his doctrine is simple "not inspired" whereas the parts that confirm his teaching are "clearly inspired." But just because we sincerely believe a thing doesn't make it true. If, in fact, God doesn't intend for us to treat the 66-book canon in the way that Fundamentalists treat it, then it doesn't matter how complicated that makes the job of interpreting the Bible. Just because changing an interpretive assumption makes it difficult for you to hold your position doesn't mean you couldn't or shouldn't change it.

While all of this is interesting, it's not really the thrust of the book. Kugel gives us these four assumptions to give us an insight into the thinking of the ancient interpreters and to point out "how much like us" they were (and how much the Jewish interpreters were like the Christian). Then he launches into a chronological exposition of the interpretive motifs in the first five books of the Hebrew/Christian Bible.

It was fascinating to see how the Israelites, in their zeal for the Law, could ignore the clear teaching of a passage (in my humble opinion and based on my interpretive assumptions) and develop a system of practice that "majored on the minors." For example:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

(Deu 6:4-9 KJV)

When the interpreters of ancient Israel read this passage they missed, in my opinion, the clear teaching that the Law was to be the guiding influence of everything they did, said, thought, and taught to their children. Instead, they literally wrote the first two verses (v. 4 and 5) on their hands and between their eyes, and on the door posts and gates of their houses. They repeated these words as they went to bed (after lying down) and when they woke up (after standing up).

Even more interesting is to see how we Fundamentalists and Evangelicals do the same thing but with different passages. For example:

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

(1 Pet 3:3-4 KJV)

I think this verse says that women (and men for that matter, though that's not what this verse is about) should be known not for their good looks but for their meek and quiet spirit. But our Fundamentalist churches read this and say "no braided hair," "no gold jewelry," and "no fancy clothes."

Again, Kugel's book makes no attempt to point out how modern Christians misuse the Bible - that's what I drew from it. Instead, he focuses on trying to understand what the Bible was to the people to whom it was current teaching.

He concludes by pointing out what biblical scholarship has done by trying to ignore the voices of the ancient interpreters and by deconstructing the Bible into its constituent parts. He compares the Bible to a plant growing in the rich soil of interpretation and application and modern scholarship to the botanist who uproots the plant and tries to understand how it functions by itself. Just as the plant dies in his hands, so too the Bible becomes no more than a static collection of words on a page in the absence of the interpreters. It was the interpreters, Kugel says, who made the Bible biblical. By development and application of the four assumptions presented early in the book, they gave the Scriptures a place that no other piece of literature earned.

In an interesting application of history, Kugel examines how this change - from studying from the Bible to study about the Bible - was able to take place in an institution as resistant to change as that of religion. He observes that the Reformation was more about "the growing conviction … that the Bible might not really mean what the church had been saying it meant" than it was about "the sale of indulgences and the like." The Reformation launched a reexamination of the Scriptures and brought a large number of new voices into their interpretation. So while Protestantism brought the elevation of the Bible to its current position of authority, by plucking it out of its context and tearing it apart page by page it also brought about its degradation among scholars.