O frabjous day! Callouh, Callay! I’m chortling in my joy. Today my textbook on the entire Bible – Genesis to Revelation – gets published: The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction. This was a long time in the making, and it is a huge relief to see it finally out. I think Oxford did an amazing job on it – as they usually do. I love the cover, the layout, the whole production. You can buy it on Amazon or most anywhere else. It is priced a little higher than most of my books this size, but that’s because it’s a textbook, and that’s just what happens with textbooks. Even so, it is priced lower than the competition. And in my humble and completely unbiased opinion, you get a lot more bang for your buck.
I had agreed to do a textbook on the entire Bible many years ago, when my friend and editor at OUP (who lives in Chapel Hill now, even though he works out of the New York office; thank the gods for computers and email….), Robert Miller, twisted my arm. I had already published some years before my college-level textbook on the New Testament as well as my “Brief” version of that textbook.
I enjoyed doing both those earlier books: it is a very different kettle of fish writing for 19-20 year olds than it is writing for their parents (my trade books for general readers) or for their teachers (my scholarly books). Serious attention has to be paid – as for all the books – to explaining things clearly when they are, in fact, quite complicated. And there is the need to keep it all entertaining: even more than for trade books: 19-20 year olds have a very limited attention span. But it is also a very different affair keeping a 19-20 year old interested from keeping his/her parent interested. Different sense of humor, among other things.
Moreover, writing a textbook is REALLY tricky because you are not only writing for the student, you are (in some ways, even more) writing for the student’s professor – the one who is deciding which textbook to use for his/her class, from a plethora of options. That means that the book has to be written at the level of the student but with the academic competence and pedagogical usefulness expected by the professor. Writing for two audiences at once is *not* easy. It’s hard enough to write for *one* audience. Writing for two is really really tough. The way someone explained it to me once is that the author of a textbook is writing for students, who know almost *nothing* about the topic, and also for their teachers, who think they know *everything*! J (Every teacher – myself included – finds faults with just about every textbook we use, and imagine ways we would do it better. That’s what got me to write my NT textbook in the first place: I simply didn’t find any of the ones available at the time usable for my purposes.)
Anyway, among the thousands of complications I had writing this Bible Introduction, two stood out in bold relief. First was the breadth of coverage. It is an enormous task to try to cover the entire Bible in a single semester. And for a book to cover the Bible adequately, yet simply and briefly enough for a one-semester course: that’s a very tall order indeed. But I’m pleased with how it came out. I did it absolutely as well as I could. I cover every book of the Bible, including the Apocrypha, saying *something* about every book (even Obadiah!) and a good bit on some of them (e.g., Genesis). And I deal with the major approaches/views/conclusions of scholarship throughout (from the Documentary Hypothesis for Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch to the understanding of ancient Jewish apocalypses for Revelation).
The other problem: I realized going into the book that my knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and, especially, scholarship on the Hebrew Bible needed beefing up, since I had spent about 20 years teaching NT / Early Christianity and almost doing nothing on the Jewish Scriptures. So here’s the fuller deal: in my PhD program (as well as my Master’s program, and back into my undergraduate work), my secondary field of study was Hebrew Bible. So I had done a lot of work in it; back in grad school I had learned Hebrew, taken courses in Hebrew Bible, had a PhD exam in Hebrew Bible, and so on. And I had taught Hebrew Bible for four years at Rutgers. But I realized after I came to UNC in 1988, that my main professor of Hebrew Bible during my training at Princeton Seminary – who had written the textbook I used at Rutgers (students *loved* it!) — was about 20 years out of date in his scholarship when I studied with him and then started teaching the subject (since he was at the end of his career and had never changed his views much). And I was beginning to work on this book about 20 years after that. So I was 40 years out of date!
So, I relearned Hebrew. I started reading the Hebrew Bible again in Hebrew (I still do, 4-5 days a week). I started cramming up on developments in Hebrew Bible over the past several decades. I got as intimately familiar with the Hebrew Bible as I could. I started teaching Hebrew Bible at UNC (did it over a couple of years). And *then* I felt ready to write the book. Writing the NT bit would be hard – how to condense all that information into so short a space?! But there was not a problem with my knowledge. It was all packaging. And the Hebrew Bible part (which is longer than the NT part, since the Hebrew Bible itself is so much longer) turned out to be a real pleasure to write. I had a *great* time producing this book.
And now it’s out. I’m holding my breath that it will do well in the market. But for now, I’m just pleased that it has seen the light of published day!
Congrats, Bart,
I have all five of your NT Textbook series (Brief Intro, Historical Intro NT writings, NT writings, After the NT, and Christ. in Late Antiquity). I used them extensively after becoming a believer. I did not want to be an ignorant believer, as it seems we already had a sufficient number of those. I’m looking forward to reading about the OT, as I am weak in that area. Best of luck on sales. I look forward to adding this one
Congratulations on the book!!
A quick question: Are there writers you would recommend who emphasize an historical perspective and write trade books on the Hebrew scriptures?
I’d suggest the books by Richard Friedman, by James Kugel, by William Dever, and by Neil Silverman and Israel Finkelstein.
Thank you so much!
Hello Sir,
I hope Bart is ok? I’ve run across two YouTube videos introducing me to John Huddleston and Richard Friedman. I was wondering who do you think deals with a facts? I feel that Mr. Friedman’s stance is based on things inside the Bible and I question if he uses books and other sources outside of the Hebrew sources? Is that what he’s refering to when he talks about J, P,? He also seems to believe that the exodus did happen while Mr. Huddleston says that there is no historical proof of the exodus or even Moses. This past summer you, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins etc etc educated me and gave me the confidence to walk away from religion. As a Black southern man it wasn’t the easiest thing I’ve done, but thanks to you guys it’s been the most fulling. Thanks for your time.
Darryl
I don’t know Huddleston, but Richard Friedman is a bona fide scholar of the hebrew Bible. To understand his views, I’d highly recommend you read his book Who Wrote the Bible?
Any kindle edition soon?
Probably not for a textbook! Students don’t like or want electronic versions, as odd as that might seem.
I ordered it from Amazon weeks ago! Can’t wait. I probably won’t read it at the pace students will (to cover it in the length of a typical college course), but I do intend to read all of it. And then, it will be a wonderful thing to keep for reference.
When will Amazon have it?
They do!
I noticed! The link on the site works well.
There must be some sort of delay with Amazon’s inventory. Yesterday the site said something along the lines of “This title has not yet been released”, and today it says “Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.” (Maybe some conspiracy to get copies into the hands of students first!)
Writing for students, their parents, and professors. Wow! Congratulations. I am still working my way through your really great New Testament textbook having read about half of it.
Nook? Kindle?
Probably not. Students, oddly enough, don’t want or use electronic versions of textbooks.
Congratulations, Dr. E for another great scholarly book!
So let me get this straight:
– Your most recently published text book came out today,
– Among the multiple-per-weekly articles that you post to this blog, several in recent weeks have shared extensive selections from your book which will be published next March,
– (articles, which by the way, often contain casual asides like “…so I relearned Hebrew” above),
– The newest course which you developed for The Great Courses came out a month or so back,
– You’re just starting a new semester with (at least) both an undergraduate and a really-intense-sounding PhD seminar,
– And then, there’s “The Other Gospels” coming out in three months,
– As much as I’d like to know, I’m not even going to ask about the actual pure research projects you have going on at the moment…
…but yet you still find time to post articles like the last one in which you actually _apologize_ for not getting around to all the topics you’ve been wanting to.
Good grief…
But in all seriousness, congrats on Biblical Intro (I know where a good chunk of my reading-time budget will be going this fall). I hope days like this feel as good as some of us can only imagine they must.
Thanks. It’s been a full year. But it really helps to love what you do! (The problem is loving to do so *many* things; How, for example, am I going to watch both the final FedEx cup and the NFL on Sunday?!??)
I pre-ordered your new book several months ago, and my copy is scheduled to arrive on Wednesday. Can’t wait!
“So, I relearned Hebrew.” You make it sound so easy. Good for you.
Yeah, it actually wasn’t. And I’m still not very good at it! But I enjoy it, so it’s something I do….
Bart, just a note to say that we really enjoyed and were stimulated by your most recent UNC Humanities Center seminar (“When Did Jesus Become God”), as we have the others we’ve attended, and that we took your advice and subscribed to this blog as a result! Thanks!
David and Jacqueline Sices
Fantastic! Welcome to the blog!
Great accomplishment! Can’t wait to add your masterpiece to my library. DCS
Great news! But UK readers will have to wait until January 2014 for release here – unless ordering from US with shipping to UK. Really looking forward to this……
Bummer!
Sounds like just the kind of text I’ve been after. Ordered. Thanks!
You wrote : But it is also a very different affair keeping a 19-20 year old interested from keeping his/her parent interested. Different sense of humor, among other things. I often don’t “get” humor of younger people (being almost 60). How would you describe 19-20 year-old humor these days?
Uh, well, rather juvenile. 🙂
I have enjoyed all your books and I am currently enjoying reading your book The Bible. I have read before that the Hebrew Bible is made up of myths. I understand this to mean, as you say in your book, that the writers use myth to explain, teach and present religious beliefs. When did people start also thinking of the myths in the Bible as historically accurate? It appears that the Jews in the first century believed the stories to be historically accurate. And both conservative and fundamentalists Christians today all accept (and require) the belief that the events of the Hebrew Bible are historical.
My sense is that ancient Jews and Christians as a rule didn’t understand their myths as non-historical; but possibly they didn’t differentiate between “true” stories and “historically accurate” stories the way we do, in our post-Enlightenment age….
After reading your section on the book of Ruth in The Bible, my thoughts are that due to the translations of this story that Christians read, I do not think any Christian will ever agree that feet are genitals or that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the thrashing floor. The translations are very confusing. Christians look at Ruth as a very moral example of how a young woman should act today! They can’t imagine her ever having “premarital sex.”
Yes, it’s why scholars need to write books, to help the non-scholar understand their texts better….
I just finished the section on the historical Jesus and I am starting the section on the historical Paul. A couple of questions. I know that you explain the processes used for better determining whether Jesus actually did or said something from the gospels. But doesn’t make more sense that the authors wrote into the gospel accounts that Jesus said that he was going to die and that the Temple was going to be destroyed since at the time of writing, these events had already occurred? I mean this rather than Jesus actually saying these things. The more I study regarding the historical Jesus, he seems to be to be an illiterate apocalyptic peasant vagabond who was delusional enough to think that between what he was doing and what the Son of Man was going to do, the Romans were going down. In other words, it seems that Jesus would not have thought he was going to die (maybe until his arrest) and would not have thought the temple was going to be destroyed.
My view is that Jesus did not predict his death (and resurrection!), but that he did claim the Temple would be destroyed — just as others before and after him did….
I know that we can trust Paul’s “actual” words over Acts and that Acts is mostly unreliable due to its discrepancies with Paul authentic letters. But how historical probable is it that Paul inflated his credentials in his own letters? That his own words are not historical? I know modern day ministers who inflate their own credentials every time they open their mouths! Could it be that Paul is not the zealous Pharisaic Jew that he claims? Is there any evidence that he really kept the Torah, festivals and kosher rules? Is it possible that he is a Roman citizen because his father was a Gentile Roman citizen? And Paul’s Jewishness was from his mother? And therefore Paul is only half Jewish and is even closer to the Gentiles due to his father being one. After growing up in the Diaspora, Paul would have been very familiar with the mystery religions and have many Gentile friends. He was familiar with Judaism and knew that there were god-fearers among the Gentiles. Paul developed a passion to bring a version of Judaism to his Gentile friends and knew there had to be changes in order for them to accept it. Paul then would have an intimate reason to want to create a Judaism/mystery religion mix to the Gentiles. Thoughts?
Too many questions to answer! But yes, of course, he may have inflated his credentials. But he never claims to be a Roman citizen, and I doubt if he was one. I have no reason to doubt he was of the Pharisaic school and that he was zealous.
Sorry for all the questions. As I study Paul, it seems odd to me that if he were zealous for Judaism, why would he so easily (as it might seem to me) give it up and preach against it. The big reason that I come up with is that he had a large group of gentile friends that he became passionate about “saving.” He had familiarity with Judaism and with the mystery religions. He decided to combine them and pass his new religion off as the continuation or final step replacing Judaism. I also believe he fabricated many things including his “conversion” and his credentials. I also put him in the category of delusional for believing that the end of times was coming in his life time, etc. Taking his apocalyptic views in mind, he died a failure but yet, Christianity was able to take over the world. And educated people in the 21st century will discount other religion’s sacred texts but hold up the bible as inerrant and god inspired.
Also, in The Bible, you state that Paul never stopped thinking of himself as a Jew. That may be true but he did say there is neither Jew nor Greek, etc. He also said he hoped his Jewish counterparts cut it all off while performing a circumcision. His writings seem to indicate that he had left Judaism for his new religion. If Paul fabricated or at least exaggerated his Jewish credentials, couldn’t it be said that he might have only had a slight Jewish background that he was more than willing to give up for a new religion that included his Gentile friends?
Paul wanted his opponents to “cut it off” not because they were Jews but because they were trying to make Gentiles Jews. (They themselves were probably Gentiles — otherwise they wouldn’t be getting circumcised as adults and thus capable of cutting it off….)
I’m trying to understand. But in Paul’s writings, he speaks of symbolically eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood. He speaks of being caught in the third heaven, he speaks of a cosmic Christ who is coming in the clouds to take followers to heaven, etc. It seems that if Paul ever did have anything Jewish about him, it was completely gone by the end of his life. My thought is that he is not just saying these things to the Gentiles but to anyone who listened. And he did not have much luck with the Jews.
Judaism wasn’t a monolith in antiquity: there were lots and lots of very different kinds of Jews.
I know you can only speculate but what are your guesses on what Jesus was doing before he started his ministry? Working with his family, traveling to gather his thoughts/beliefs for ministry…? Also, was it unusual for a Jewish man in the 1st century to travel around preaching and not help provide the necessities for his family? Would a family in this situation generally be supportive, think their son was a bum or it depends on the parents and siblings?
My guess is that he was working at home, making wood products (yokes? gates?) and raising crops.
Yes. That makes sense. What about after he started his ministry? Just preaching? If so, would his family likely be frustrated with him?
there’s some evidence of that, even in the Gospels. but yes, once he left home for his ministry, it was all preaching I think.