<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Poor scholarship based on little evidence
Review: Davies want to make an argument so badly, that he ignores all of the data that contradicts him. His effort here is to prove that the bible was not just redacted (something every scholar agrees on), but was composed out of hole cloth by scribes at a very point and that the text has no historic basis. You may want to know why he wants do this, but first lets review the evidence that proves him wrong. 1- Davies tries to argue that biblical Hebrew is a scribal language created by these mysterious scribes to give the text an ancient gloss. The problem is that we have countless examples of ancient Hebrew from archeology dated 800-1000 years before the time when Davies puts the text as being composed. Moreover, why can you find no Greek rooted words in the Hebrew Bible, if that was the lingua franca when it was written? 2- The Hebrew Bible is filled with place and personal names that were not current in the Hellenistic period, but were in use in the iron age, when most archeologists place the events. If the redactors were not working from old texts, how would they know the names of places destroyed centuries before? 3- The Hebrew Bible does not represent in any way the dominant Hellenistic world view that was in place when Davies claims the text was written. In fact you can see this by looking at the book of Daniel, probably the latest book in the bible and the only one to reflect this later world view. Why does Davies ignore all of the evidence to put forward an argument that is patently false? He is part of a fringe group of scholars, self styled 'biblical revisionists' who are looking to attack the Hebrew Bible in an effort to prove that Jews have no history or historic connection to the land of Israel. It is pathetic when serious scholars prostitute academic credentials in an effort to make a purely political argument. For a tremendous critique of Davies and his colleagues work, see Dever's "What did the bible writers know.' It i s an awful title, but an excellent and thoughtful text.
Rating:
Summary: Poor scholarship based on little evidence
Review: Davies want to make an argument so badly, that he ignores all of the data that contradicts him. His effort here is to prove that the bible was not just redacted (something every scholar agrees on), but was composed out of hole cloth by scribes at a very point and that the text has no historic basis. You may want to know why he wants do this, but first lets review the evidence that proves him wrong. 1- Davies tries to argue that biblical Hebrew is a scribal language created by these mysterious scribes to give the text an ancient gloss. The problem is that we have countless examples of ancient Hebrew from archeology dated 800-1000 years before the time when Davies puts the text as being composed. Moreover, why can you find no Greek rooted words in the Hebrew Bible, if that was the lingua franca when it was written? 2- The Hebrew Bible is filled with place and personal names that were not current in the Hellenistic period, but were in use in the iron age, when most archeologists place the events. If the redactors were not working from old texts, how would they know the names of places destroyed centuries before? 3- The Hebrew Bible does not represent in any way the dominant Hellenistic world view that was in place when Davies claims the text was written. In fact you can see this by looking at the book of Daniel, probably the latest book in the bible and the only one to reflect this later world view. Why does Davies ignore all of the evidence to put forward an argument that is patently false? He is part of a fringe group of scholars, self styled 'biblical revisionists' who are looking to attack the Hebrew Bible in an effort to prove that Jews have no history or historic connection to the land of Israel. It is pathetic when serious scholars prostitute academic credentials in an effort to make a purely political argument. For a tremendous critique of Davies and his colleagues work, see Dever's "What did the bible writers know.' It i s an awful title, but an excellent and thoughtful text.
Rating: 
Summary: A Tantalizing Look At How The Bible May Have Come To Be
Review: Philip Davies has a reputation as one of the more extreme members of the recent school of Biblical minimalists/revisionists. However, in "Scribes and Schools" he keeps himself fairly well restrained and highly referenced. The result is a book that, while not conclusively definitive, intrigues the reader with a wealth of possibilities about how the canon of the Bible grew into the one we are familiar with today. He starts by introducing us to the idea of canons generally, moves to those who controlled the technology of writing in the ancient world, a hereditary international class of scribes attached to palaces and temples, and how they operated in the fairly well-documented societies of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece. He then reviews various approaches taken by scholars regarding these issues in Judaism, and summarizes Israelite and Judean history from the monarchic to the Roman periods. The remainder of the book is devoted to specific divisions of the Bible: the Torah, Prophets, Widsom Literature and Apocryphal writings, taking into account the libraries at and around Qumran. The final chapter considers the final form: the transition of canonical collections of literature into Holy Books as we now know them. The book is fairly short, written in a rather dry, academic style, and good enough to recommend to anyone thinking about the Bible's growth into its present form. Sometimes Davies is insightful, as when he suggests a Persian period date for the composition of Deuteronomy on the basis of its diminished notion of the role of the king, which would have been unsuitable for a monarchic state but well-adapted to a colonial one. Other times he is less so, as when he suggests that the oldest parts of 1Enoch were composed at the same time as the oldest parts of Genesis, since it is quite clear in comparing these texts that they come from totally different literary and conceptual universes! Davies also refers to obscure sources which is very interesting, at least to me.
Rating:
Summary: A Tantalizing Look At How The Bible May Have Come To Be
Review: Philip Davies has a reputation as one of the more extreme members of the recent school of Biblical minimalists/revisionists. However, in "Scribes and Schools" he keeps himself fairly well restrained and highly referenced. The result is a book that, while not conclusively definitive, intrigues the reader with a wealth of possibilities about how the canon of the Bible grew into the one we are familiar with today. He starts by introducing us to the idea of canons generally, moves to those who controlled the technology of writing in the ancient world, a hereditary international class of scribes attached to palaces and temples, and how they operated in the fairly well-documented societies of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece. He then reviews various approaches taken by scholars regarding these issues in Judaism, and summarizes Israelite and Judean history from the monarchic to the Roman periods. The remainder of the book is devoted to specific divisions of the Bible: the Torah, Prophets, Widsom Literature and Apocryphal writings, taking into account the libraries at and around Qumran. The final chapter considers the final form: the transition of canonical collections of literature into Holy Books as we now know them. The book is fairly short, written in a rather dry, academic style, and good enough to recommend to anyone thinking about the Bible's growth into its present form. Sometimes Davies is insightful, as when he suggests a Persian period date for the composition of Deuteronomy on the basis of its diminished notion of the role of the king, which would have been unsuitable for a monarchic state but well-adapted to a colonial one. Other times he is less so, as when he suggests that the oldest parts of 1Enoch were composed at the same time as the oldest parts of Genesis, since it is quite clear in comparing these texts that they come from totally different literary and conceptual universes! Davies also refers to obscure sources which is very interesting, at least to me.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking original view
Review: Traces the development of scribes and the notion of canon in ancient Israel and other ancient cultures. I found it made me rethink what I thought I "knew" about the development of the canon.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking original view
Review: Traces the development of scribes and the notion of canon in ancient Israel and other ancient cultures. I found it made me rethink what I thought I "knew" about the development of the canon.
<< 1 >>
| 
