Reading Report
for S113: Old Testament Introduction II
Gary P. Arbino / Spring 2001


Reading of the Nevi'im and Kethuvim

I read 100% of the biblical text. "Read" is probably an inexact word. I dug out the old cassette tapes that my mother bought for me in 1976 and listened to most of the books during my long commutes to Santa Rosa. I listened to hours of Alexander Scourby reading from the King James Version. The hours in the car went by quickly. The narratives in Judges and I Samuel were the most enjoyable. The most tedious portions proved to be the long genealogies in Chronicles, the dividing of the land in Joshua, the specifications for the temple in I Kings and Ezekiel. Little things popped out at me. I was surprised at how many isolated verses I recognized in Isaiah (part 2). I noticed that the same saying about the shrewish wife showed itself three times in Proverbs.

Reading of the Apocryphal books

I read 100% of the assigned readings in the Apocrypha. I also went on to read some of the shorter parts like Psalms 151, Bel and the Dragon. I also read some of the juicier parts like Judith beheading Holofernes.

Reading the Old Testament Parallels

I read 100% of the Old Testament Parallels that were assigned for this semester. Most of them were enjoyable, although some of the proper names were tongue twisters.


Discussion and Integration

The two sources of extra-biblical material served two different purposes, it seems to me. Readings in Old Testament parallels informed me about what was going on in the Ancient Near East contemporary with the writing of the Old Testament. Readings in the annotated Apocrypha informed me of the history of the Hebrew people through the Greek era and up to the coming of Christ. Reading the apocrypha also made me aware of what is included in the canon of fellow Christians who are not of the reformation tradition. I think that readings in this extra-biblical material is indeed appropriate and that it was presented in about right portions: 90% Old Testament canon, 7% OTP, 3% Apocrypha. I felt that it was also appropriate that most of the extra-biblical material was dealt with as outside reading and that in-class time was devoted solely to the Hebrew Bible.

Old Testament parallels demonstrated two things to me. First, that the genres of writing by ancient Hebrews was not unique to Israel. This should not be surprising, but it did catch me unaware. Second, as I read through Hebrew scripture, I am reading only one side of a complicated story.

I think that there is a mindset among most Christians that because the books of the Old Testament are inspired, that they must also be unparalleled. Holy Scripture is "holy" because it uniquely contains God's word. Some of this thinking is true. Hebrew scripture is unparalleled in regard to its inspiration, but finds many ancient parallels in regard to its laws and stories. At times it was difficult for me to accept the relationship between scripture and parallel ANE writings. My questions include: "Did the Hebrews steal this story from the Egyptians?" and "Was this originally a Babylonian myth that the Jews re-worked?" I have concluded that it makes little difference either way in regard to the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible. I have given God "permission" to include other languages and peoples as players in the process of bringing Scripture to me in the 21st century. The Hebrews were not God's people because they were one-of-a-kind in language and writing. They were His people because it was through the Hebrews that God in his own sovereignty chose to reveal himself.

The teachings of Ptah-Hotep are certainly parallel to the Proverbs of Solomon. The Egyptian love songs are truly parallel to the Song of Songs. I believe that such themes as wisdom and love are universal and that wisdom and love literature appears in all cultures. I have not quite worked out in my own mind what it means that Israelite erotica is "inspired" while Egyptian erotica is not. Ancient Israel was not in some isolated pocket of the world. It was at the vortex of competing cultures. It should not surprise me that Israel borrowed much of its literary style from the competition.

Old Testament parallels also provided me with alternative and augmenting interpretations of Old Testament events. These ancient accounts removed Israel from my illusionary Sunday-School world and placed the Israelites in the real "space/time continuum". The Black Obelisk of Salmaneser III certainly presents an alternative picture of King Jehu that would never be written of in Hebrew scripture. The Lachish Letters augment the scriptural story of Jerusalem's fall with a poignancy that rivals scripture: "The only other remaining signal fire at Azehah as gone out". ANE accounts flesh out the life and work of Elisha the kingmaker. They also document the battle of Carchemesh, an event unmentioned in scripture, yet pivotal in the fortunes of Israel. How can one understand ancient Israel without a minimal understanding of its context? I believe that's what I have now - a minimal understanding.

Reading notes from the apocryphal books completed the story of the Old Testament and filled the 400 year gap between the two testaments. I read about Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids and Romans. I saw the creeping Helenization of Israel. I saw the people of Israel expand outside the confines of the Promised Land and prosper in many parts of the Greek world. Some of the seventeen apocryphal books appear downright silly to me - Bel and the Dragon for instance (Habakkuk traveled by "Angelic Hairlines"). A few appear as good histories - I Maccabees for example. Some of the books looked like re-hashing of existing books - The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus. I liked the two female books - Judith and Susanna. Psalm 151 seemed unlikely to be a true psalm. I cannot imagine who would want to include it in the canon.

I also think that in a Christian world of increasing ecumenicalism a nodding acquaintance with the apocryphal books is essential. All Roman Catholics, all Eastern Orthodox, and about one-half of Protestant denominations consider some of the apocrypha to be the inspired word of God. Although as Baptists we may disagree with the majority of our Christian brothers and sisters about this inspiration, we should be aware of the content of our disagreement. Maybe this thought is heretical, but I believe it was just a crap shoot that included the Song of Solomon and Esther in the canon but that excluded the Wisdom of Solomon and Judith.

In conclusion, I think that reading Old Testament parallels and notes on the Apocrypha is a worthwhile exercise. I am not convinced that extra-biblical material should be a part of the an Old Testament introduction class, but then if it is not included here, then where else could it be?