James Kugel: The Debate is Joined

There is much that is quite debatable, and also much to learn, from James Kugel’s scholarship. Off the cuff, I would point out the following.

Kugel’s claim that there is no such thing as poetry in the Bible is seriously flawed. His preference for the Bible as it was read by late antique rabbis is just that, a preference. His denigration of attempts to read the compositions contained in the Bible as they might have been intended to be read by their historical authors is misplaced.

Kugel likes to point out that the meaning the Bible had in origin, once upon a time, is abhorrent to contemporary readers. True enough, but the reasons for that are both good and bad, and Kugel does a poor job of distinguishing between the two.

Kugel is not off the mark when he claims that the meaning the Bible had for rabbis and Christians in late antiquity is an antidote to the meaning it had in origin. But the reverse is just as true. He pays no mind. Kugel is just as one-sided in his approach, if not more so, than those he chooses to attack.

That’s my little rant.

In any case, the debate around Kugel is heating up across the blogosphere. I agree with the laud reserved for Kugel by DovBear here and here. I understand why Extremegh likes him: this piece in particular makes for an interesting read.

But see Charles Halton’s comments, and of others thereto, here and here. Stephen has comments of his own. So has Phil Sumpter.

A bit more poking around, and I would find a critique of Kugel’s approach from a Jewish point of view. It’s out there, believe me. But I will leave it to others to highlight it.

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

As I dreamed in the morning twilight, I thought - no poetry? No uniqueness? What about the Gospel of John - is there any remotely like this in human writing anywhere else?

[Phil Sumpter]

His preference for the Bible as it was read by late antique rabbis is just that, a preference.

This intrigues me still. As a devotee of the late Childs, I'm still struggling to come to terms with the theological tampering to the poetics made by the tradents of the tradition. Although it undermines the integrity of the poetics, it makes a theological point, which leaves open the question of the theological implications that should have for us.

Though, having said that, from what i remember Kugel rejects poetry in the Bible, not on theological grounds but on poetic grounds (it's more of a continuum then an 'either or'). At least, that's what I remember from reading Alter.

I'm posting my own theological response today (for what it's worth).

[JohnFH]

Hi Phil,

I look forward to more posts from you on this topic. Kugel, of course, is top-shelf, so even when he is wrong, he is right.

But he is often wrong. I find him palatable theologically but not so much when he ventures into poetics or historical criticism.