John Goldingay. A Reader’s Guide to the Bible. IVP Academic, 2017. See here to purchase the book.
John Goldingay teaches Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary.
This book is an introduction to the Bible, both the Hebrew Bible and
also the New Testament. Goldingay attempts to be empathetic towards the
perspectives that are within the Bible. He briefly covers the biblical
stories, but he also comments on the possible identity of the authors,
their backgrounds, and how their works spoke to their own and subsequent
historical contexts.
Imagine a spectrum. On the far right, you have an
ultra-fundamentalist perspective on the Bible, which sees the Bible as
divinely-dictated and as historically-accurate in every detail. On the
far left, you have a liberal perspective, which regards the biblical
writings as solely human in origin, as reflecting ancient prejudices,
and as containing historical errors, contradictions, and diverse
theological, religious, and political perspectives. On this spectrum,
Goldingay is probably center-right. He accepts the historicity of key
events in the Bible, such as the Exodus and the Conquest. He does not
seem to acknowledge any major contradictions within the biblical
writings (though he does come fairly close to saying that Paul and James
contradict each other on justification). Yet, he is open to the idea
that different versions of biblical stories developed. He accepts the
standard scholarly division of the Book of Isaiah. He believes that the
personal, political, and geographical background of biblical authors
influenced what they wrote, in distinct and diverse ways. Although he
never explicitly engages the subject of how God inspired the Bible (as
far as I can recall), his perspective may be consistent with the
evangelical view that states that God providentially arranged the
personalities, lives, and backgrounds of the biblical authors, such that
they wrote what God wanted them to write, even as their own distinct
personalities remained intact in their writing.
The book tries to be a solid introduction: it talks about the history
and geography of Israel in the first chapter, which would be logical in
an introductory book about the Bible, as the story of ancient Israel is
the subject of it. At the same time, the book may also be of interest
to seasoned, and even academic, readers of the Bible, especially when
Goldingay offers his insights on the meaning of biblical passages and
speculates about why the Bible is as it is. For example, Goldingay
offers an explanation for why Elijah and Elisha lack biblical books that
bear their names, whereas later prophets have books that are attributed
to them. And both new and seasoned readers of the Bible can appreciate
Goldingay’s vivid description of how the biblical writings (i.e., the
Pentateuch, Joshua, etc.) could have spoken to different historical
contexts, such as the time of the Davidic monarchy and the exile.
The book is deep, yet it is short and rather cursory. Some ideas
could have been developed further, yet one should remember that this is
an introductory book about the Bible, and also that Goldingay has
written volumes on Old Testament theology, where he explores issues in
greater depth. In this particular book, Goldingay does not answer every
question one might have, but he gives readers something on which to
chew.
Some mild critiques or questions:
—-On page 39, Goldingay differentiates between Israel’s creation
story and other creation stories of the ancient Near East: “No other
nation’s history starts from the creation of the world, but this history
of Israel does. Other ancient religions had stories about creation,
but they did not go on to link the story of creation to their own
history in this way.” Goldingay’s comparison of the Hebrew Bible with
the ancient Near East on creation and law was fascinating, and there may
be something to what he is saying: that Israel employs what other
nations have, but in a distinct and perhaps even a unique way. But my
impression is that at least some of the prominent ancient Near Eastern
creation stories were attempts to explain the present in light of the
past and to account for the structure of society: Enuma Elish ends with
the foundation of Babylon, Atrahasis presents the gods creating humans
to be their servants, etc. Can we say, then, that they divorced their
understanding of their history from their creation story?
—-Goldingay states on page 116 that “Ezekiel emphasizes that his
message relates to the people he is ministering to, and it is hard to
see why God would be showing Ezekiel events to take place millennia
after his time and their time.” Goldingay employs a similar approach to
the Book of Daniel, saying that it primarily concerns the Antiochian
persecution in the second century B.C.E. With the Book of Revelation,
by contrast, he attempts to see it as more trans-historical (but also
historical). Saying that Ezekiel and Daniel are primarily about their
own historical contexts poses a theological problem because a number of
prominent eschatological events that they predicted (i.e., peace, etc.)
did not find fulfillment in their own historical contexts. Goldingay
tries to address this problem: he talks about how the New Testament
believes that Ezekiel was fulfilled, and, in the last chapter, he
discusses how we keep looking for these eschatological hopes to be
realized, since they were not realized in the past. Goldingay does not
come up with a satisfactory answer to the problem, but, again, he offers
insights on which to chew.
—-On pages 164-165, Goldingay states that Qoheleth addresses two
mistaken responses to the problem of death. One response is escapism in
pleasure. The other response is “the pie-in-the-sky solution that
asserts, hopefully, that all will be put right after death.” Goldingay
then goes on to quote Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, which states that humans and
animals both go to the dust and asks how anyone can know that the human
spirit goes upward. Goldingay was making an intriguing argument, and
it piqued my interest because I have wondered about what Qoheleth
believes about the afterlife. Unfortunately, Goldingay was not clear
about how Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 connected with the “pie-in-the-sky
solution” he said Qoheleth opposed.
—-Goldingay seemed to be saying that Jesus’ teaching against divorce
is for an ideal world. Yet, he also says that Jesus thought that
divorce could lead to serial adultery, implying that Jesus was serious
about his prohibition. Does Jesus expect people in this far-from-ideal
world to obey his teachings on divorce? Goldingay was not clear about
this. Still, his discussion of how the Bible presents an ideal yet
condescends to where people are was thoughtful.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.