We have the 8th editions, but there is a 9th edition available at: http://www.amazon.com/
Chapters 1. The Book and Those Who Study It
Mr. Tulloch bills his work as an “introduction to an academic study of the Old Testament” (2). Fair enough. Workable for a high school class and, perhaps, a first-year course in college. But, not recommended more widely.
But, gratuitously, he informs us…page 1 and then again on page 2…the Torah as “canon” was completed in 500 B.C. and the Hebrew canon close in 100 A.D. Whala! There ya' have it. Case settled, right? There are other objections that will be raised as we proceed. There is much good material here, but…
He offers a fair-enough summary of the Old Testament over two pages: Creaton, Flood, Patriarchs, Judges, Monarchy, Divided Monarchy, Exile, and the Post-Exilic Period. No problems.
He inserts a one-liner denying “verbal plenary inspiration” calling it the “dictation theory,” a specious one-liner that, God willing, will be rebutted elsewhere, notably, in connection with reviews of the highly recommended volume by the Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Robert Reymond, that is, his stellar Systematic Theology.
Mr. Tullloch airbrushes God out. It's a presumption or operational assumption by faith alone--his faith alone, er, an assumption of the establishment in some places.
Mr. Tulloch uses the metaphor of “tributaries” gathering force and unification as the canon emerges, but then gratuitously informs us that:
• The Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) was accepted as canonical in 400 B.C. Oh really?
• The Prophets were accepted as canonical in 200 B.C. Really, now?
• The Kethuvim (Writings) received canonical authority in 100 B.C.
• We would add, evidence please? This dawg ain't gonna fly well.
Mr. Tulloch advises that the "Dead Sea Scrolls" offer the entire OT canon or portions of those books, minus two books. Also, there 1000 non-canonical manuscripts. More as this story develops too.
We get a “brief” on textual criticism:
• The Leningrad Codex is dated at 1000 B.C. What Mr. Tulloch failed to note was that about 3-4% of the text varies from those of the Dead Sea Scrolls from a millennium earlier. To wit, the inference that grand caution was used in textual transmission and that the canon was closed before the Council of Jamnia, c. 90 A.D. A council that “recognized” the authoritative OT canon.
He helpfully (and we wish to note the positive elements in the book) offers a review of the background of the Masoretes. That is, the family and, particularly one rabbi, Aaron Ben Moses Ben Asher, who labored on the Hebrew texts by day and by night. There were no printing presses. He labored with pen in hand, ink well, at a desk, without lights in the house, and produced careful textual “pointing” to the text.
Truly, but amazingly, Mr. Tulloch tells us about “major shifts” in Old Testament studies.
• The standard introduction to Documentary Hypothesis initiated by H. W. Witter (d. 1711) and Jean Astruc (d. 1753) with observations about alternating uses of the divine names, Jehovah and Elohim, certain repetitions, and a few differing names (Mt. Sinai and Mr. Horeb)
• The standard introduction to sources names J (dated 950 B.C.), E (750 B.C.), D (550 B.C.) and P (450 B.C.)
• To our humor and amusement, Mr. Tulloch notes two weaknesses with this: (1) no evidence and (2) the assumption of evolution. This little note is another “one-liner.” What does that mean? No evidence? Evolution, an assumption? This one-liner, "no evidence" and "evolution," was very telling and humored us here.
• Another shift occurs with the schools of formgeschichte, or, “form criticism,” an effort to further analyze smaller units: the Sitz em Leben, or life context, of stories, poems and laws.
• Another “shift” to redaktionsgeschichte,” or redaction criticism, an effort to evaluate the “theology of editors” who reshaped the text. Mr. Tulloch doesn’t use the German terms, but for the record, we include them. Further, he does not identify the philosophically assumed effort at de-historicization or the anti-theological assumptions that were widely operative. This school or effort was just coming into its own during this scribe’s studies
But then, we get essentially, something of a “concession speech” by Mr. Tulloch with another “marked shift” in Old Testament studies. That is, scholars are focusing on the “finished product” as documents that are “entirely credible” and as “works of force and authority” (15). More can be said, to wit, that the Documentary Hypothesis, Form Criticism, and Redaction Criticism is in a state of some disarray. More as that storyline develops.
Mr. Tulloch gives a quick overview of archaeology: the purpose, practice, skills, tools and value (17-21).
He has a lovely and helpful “block” of important archaeological discoveries:
• Rosetta Stone—the three-language, or tri-lingual, inscription whose de-coding enabled the reading of Egyptian texts. What Mr. Tulloch fails to note is that these civilizations were literate, an embarrassing note highly underplayed in the liberal world of yesteryear. You mean Moses might have been literate? With scribes too? Oh no! You mean he “actually” may have written the Pentateuch? More as that develops.
• Gilgamesh Epic—another account of the Flood
• Beni Hasan Mural—located 150 miles north of Cairo, depicting traders and commerce. I would add that this scribe had opportunity to view this wonderful mural. The colors were original and preserved by the dry sands and very preserving and protecting climate
• Gezer High Place—10 tall obelisks or stones—witnesses to a covenant ceremony
Misters (Revs. Drs. Profs.) Roland Harrison and Gleason Archer's Introduction to the Old Testament still are much more to be preferred and recommended for novitiates.
