A Pragmatic Pedagogy of Bible

Abstract

Many Bible scholars have become aware of the fact that the results we produce are dependent on the particular approaches that we choose to employ, and have become more self-conscious about the methods we use and the reasons we use them. Each approach to the analysis and interpretation of a text will yield its own type of meaning or understanding. This thesis is an outgrowth of pragmatic philosophy. A multiperspective approach to teaching Bible is advocated, and it is illustrated with reference to the Tower of Babel narrative.

Notes

¹I do not mean to imply that Kugel's own view is restricted to canonical and traditional interpretation, only that the scope of this book is limited to such a perspective. See his more recent volumes, Kugel, 2003, and Kugel, 2007.

²Of course, there are always curricular and other constraints, limiting a teacher's choices. For practical constraints in reading and interpretation, see below.

³Compare Crane's statement: “The pluralist critic … would take the view that the basic principles and methods of any distinguishable mode of criticism are tools of inquiry and interpretation … and that the choice of any special ‘language’ [i.e., mode of inquiry and interpretation] … is a practical decision to be justified solely in terms of the kind of knowledge the critic wants to attain” (p. 31). For further discussion of pragmatic interpretation with bibliographic references, see Greenstein, forthcoming.

⁴In those times, it was understood that God would address only the males; since then, we have come to understand that God addresses women as well.

⁵Rashi: One language. The Holy Tongue. One in words. They came with one scheme and said: It is not for Him to choose the upper regions for Himself. Let us go up to the sky and make war on Him. Another interpretation: About the One Who is unique in the world. Another interpretation: One in words. They said: Once in 1,656 years the sky collapses, just as at the time of the Flood. Come, let us make supports for it (the sky).

⁶Rashbam at verse 4: Let us build ourselves a city etc.: According to the contextual sense (peshat), what sin did the generation of the dispersal commit? If it is because they said with its head in the sky, is it not written (in Deuteronomy 1:28) large cities fortified up to the sky? Rather, it is because the Holy One commanded them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28), and they chose for themselves a place to settle and said, Lest we be scattered. Therefore, He decreed that they be scattered from there.

⁷As I implied earlier, an adequate reading will take into account what one takes to be the most salient or significant facts of a text. The definition of these facts, like the judgment that they have been properly taken into consideration, is, like everything else involved with reading, a matter of interpretation.

⁸Note that the remark is set off by long hyphens in the JPS Tanakh and that it is labeled an “editorial aside” in the Etz Hayim Torah and Commentary (p. 59). Cassuto (1969) and others read the comment as a satirization of the Babylonians, who naively thought they could build forever. It is not my purpose here, however, to pick apart this somewhat chauvinistic exegesis. So-called parenthetic statements are very abundant in Biblical literature and need not be regarded as secondary; see Zewi, 2007. The fact that a remark is set off from the surrounding syntactic pattern and from the sequences of action in a narrative does not mean that it is unimportant from a thematic perspective.

⁹Acknowledging that center and margin are products of our own perspectives, and consequently redefining what is central and what is marginal, are typical deconstructive maneuvers.

¹⁰The creation narrative in Genesis 1–2 does not necessarily imply an orderly world; see Greenstein, 2001.

¹¹The version of the midrash cited by Leibowitz (1969) is: “The tower had seven steps on its east side and seven on its west side. They would bring up the bricks on one side and go down on the other. If a man fell off and died, they would not pay him any mind; but if a brick fell off, they would sit and cry, saying: Woe is us, when will another one come up and take its place?”

¹²This article is based on a Hebrew one entitled: “Meaning is the Main Thing: A Pragmatic Approach to Interpretation.” The English version is published by permission of the Centre for Educational Technology, Tel Aviv. An earlier English version was delivered at the conference “Teaching Bible: Bridging Scholarship and Pedagogy” held at Brandeis University, January 30, 2005. A version of that paper, revised with the assistance of Susan Fendrick, was made available online by the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education at Brandeis. The present article includes a few bibliographic additions as well as some clarifications made in response to comments by the anonymous reviewers of the Journal.