"For the more deeply one penetrates the formulations as they have been transmitted to us, the more sensitive he is to the roles which words and motifs play in a composition; the more he concentrates on the ways in which thought has been woven into linguistic patterns, the better able he is to think the thoughts of the biblical writer after him"
James Muilenburg, SBL Presidential Address 1968.
If Muilenburg is correct and the language and style of the Hebrew Bible can reveal as much about an author's intention as that author's historical situation then why should we spend so much time in biblical studies trying to determine absolutes concerning historical background?
Any thoughts?
JES
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
Muilenburg's approach was and is a corrective. An example of a scholar who tried to put flesh on M's approach is Jack Lundbom. See his massive 3 volume commentary on Jeremiah in the (Yale) Anchor Bible series.
M's own commentary on Isaiah 40-66 in the old Interpreter's Bible remains an interesting read.
Post a Comment