Publisher's Synopsis
In this work Dr. Isbell has thought long and well about the complexities of the Old Testament as it is rooted in history but surges always to new theological interpretation. Dr. Isbell's program of a "drama" that is at the same time "didactic" (intended for community formation) and "theological" (meaningful beyond historical questions) is exactly the right accent. He has a powerful sensitivity to the interpretive dynamism that the text evokes. Preface; Charles Isbell has thought long and well about the complexities of the Old Testament as it is rooted in history but surges always to new theological interpretation. His program of a "drama" that is at the same time "didactic" (intended for community formation) and "theological" (meaningful beyond historical questions) is exactly the right accent. Professor Isbell has a powerful sensitivity to the interpretive dynamism that the text evokes and shows how that dynamism is intrinsic to the very character of the text in its final form. Readers of this book will be given access to the Bible beyond the popular options of rigid scholasticism and thin historicism.;In Isbell's hands the "creativity" of the canonizing tradition continues in the ongoing contemporary interpretive process. As is the case with most works, readers will not agree with everything that Isbell has to say. My own impression upon first reading his treatment of historical criticism and scientific explanations was that, although what he says is clear and well said, he was making a point that most scholars already accepted. But with further reflection, it seemed fair to recall, as Isbell does, that arguments about the scientific basis for a series of plagues continue to evoke reaction. Thus Isbell's goal of moving the discussion completely away from the argument from science, made from one side or another, is not only defensible but necessary. Likewise, my initial reaction to Isbell's treatment of the root yada' was that he had construed the word too narrowly. I wrote to him that I felt he was incorrect to use "know" merely to mean knowledge or ignorance and lack of knowledge, and cited the treatment of Huffmon and Parker, who showed decisively that the word doesn't have to do with knowledge and information but with acknowledgement.
