The Reformation
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 60, No. 1 – Fall 2017
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. x + 374 pages. Paperback, $46.95.
Old Testament scholarship has long explored how ancient Israel may have preserved its stories, songs, sayings, etc. orally, that is, before they wrote them down. However, in the past two decades the conversation about orality (spoken), textuality (written), and the interaction between the two has changed drastically. This volume represents changes in the conversation along three lines: 1) the extent, location, and function of literacy in ancient Israel, 2) the dynamic and fluid relationship between orality and textuality, and 3) the use of comparative evidence to understand more clearly how orality and textuality interacted in the production, transmission, and veneration of Israel’s Scriptures.
To bring focus to this review, I will pose a question to each of its parts and answer based upon the essays. For the first part, how extensive is literacy in early monarchic Israel based upon epigraphic evidence?
To answer the question, one must look at the nature of epigraphic evidence. Epigraphic evidence itself is “secondary” evidence for writing since the material used for most writing, especially administrative writing, would be perishable and, therefore, has not survived (especially Na’aman, 48). Also, one must interpret the evidence in light of the social conditions of the region and period. During periods of military conflict, a state would likely redirect its resources and personnel to supporting military efforts rather than producing inscribed texts (Schmidt, especially 124–127). Therefore, even though a nation may have developed a high degree of literary competence earlier (even in the 10th or 9th centuries BC, Lemaire, 34), their social conditions may prevent them from spending their time or resources to produce such texts until later.
Beyond the nature of the evidence itself, one must consider the context in which literacy develops in order to identify its extent. The essays proceed on the supposition that the state is the primary context for literacy. State bureaucracies provide the reasons, resources, and training for literacy since managing resources (especially taxes), promoting royal authority (through messages and edicts), and negotiating treaties all require writing. Scribes would generally perform these tasks as part of their highly respected, elite occupation in the employ of the state (Rollston, 71–78). The evidence also suggests that high-ranking state, temple, and military officials had access to literacy education, as well as some private professional scribes (not employed by the state) and perhaps even some “middle-class” citizens living in important fortifications (see Na’aman’s cautious statement, 66). Therefore, the epigraphic evidence points to literacy primarily within elite circles of the state administration. However, the evidence suggests that literacy was not limited to these circles, but included private professional scribes, and perhaps, in some locations, even the “middle-class.”
For the second part of the book, what are the characteristics of the oral-literate dynamic relationship? First, scholars have recognized that there is no “great divide” between orality and textuality; rather, the two function alongside one another and writing information down does not limit its use in oral presentation. For example, even written texts would serve like “scripts” for a public performance of the “oral” (now partially preserved in writing) tradition (Miller, 177–182).
Second, memory plays a significant role in the production and preservation of biblical literature (see Carr’s essay). Often, one can see memory at work in the “good variants” of a text, variants that make good sense in the context. Often, these “good variants” involve either small changes that do not affect the meaning of a text (e.g. changes in word order, diction, equivalent expressions, etc.) or harmonizing and coordinating other similar passages from elsewhere in biblical literature. These shifts take place because those producing and preserving these texts held this information in memory as well as in textual form.
Third, the dynamic relationship between orality and textuality may help explain variations in early manuscripts and parallel passages since a feature of the oral-literate dynamic is multiformity, that is, preserving the same tradition even though using different readings (Person, 207). Despite these different readings, ancient audiences would have understood both texts as faithful representatives of the same common tradition (Person uses the example of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles as different readings faithfully representing the same tradition).
For the third part of the book, how do Israel’s writings become sacred in a primarily oral culture? Three factors that may contribute to this process. First, Exodus 24:12; 31:18 record that God himself writes (Schniedewind, 313); therefore, writing is worthy of divine activity. Second, prophets utilize the messenger formula, that is, they use the same introduction that a messenger sent from a king would use to proclaim a message. The messenger’s job was to reproduce the precise words of the one sending him (Schniedewind, 314). In fact, prophets likely used scribes (as Jeremiah employs Baruch) to record their divine messages from God (Schaper, 337). Third, in antiquity writing functioned within magical and ritual contexts, such as the curse sections of treaties. Deuteronomy 27–29 emulates these contexts by reading aloud the blessings and curses of the covenant. Including these texts in this ritual reading helps ensure that the audience understands the power of these words as pronouncements from God. These aspects of biblical literature help confirm the divine nature of the writings within the ancient Near Eastern context.
This volume serves as a helpful glimpse into current Old Testament questions regarding literacy, orality, and textuality. The volume shows the limits of the evidence available to work out these questions and pushes back against some minimalistic answers to them. It also provides possible explanations for understanding some of the shape and form of biblical literature within a primarily oral culture. Finally, it provides historical analogies for understanding the uniqueness of Israel’s writings, especially as sacred literature. The volume points to a number of questions that evangelicals still have to consider and work out in ways that are faithful and responsible. This volume does not work out such questions; it only raises them.
