Stephanie Warner RELIGION 175: Introduction to the Critical Study Of Biblical Literature Critical Reading Questions #2 Critical Reading Text: Levenson, &quot;Why Jews are Not Interested in <a href="/keyword/biblical-theology/" >biblical theology</a> ,&quot; (pgs. 33-45) from the Hebrew Bible, the <a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> , and Historical Criticism (on Blackboard) Instructions: The following questions are designed to help you discovery some of the most important points in your reading selections. The questions follow the basic course of the article. Please use specific examples from the reading? (1) According to Levenson what are some of the definitions and inherent problem with the terms &quot;<a href="/keyword/biblical-theology/" >biblical theology</a> &quot;? It might mean either a biblical kind of theology, or the theological parts of biblical studies. &quot;<a href="/keyword/biblical-theology/" >biblical theology</a> &quot; is the study of the religious ideas of the bible in there historical context. It is historical in character and sets forth what the sacred writers thought about the divine matters; dogmatic theology, on the contrary, is didactic in character, and teaches what a particular theologian philosophically and rationally decides about divine matter, in accordance with his character, time, age, place, sect or school, and other similar influences. This distinction between dogmatic and <a href="/keyword/biblical-theology/" >biblical theology</a> presented pluralism in scholarship. If &quot;<a href="/keyword/biblical-theology/" >biblical theology</a> is historical for its character&quot; then the affiliation of biblical theologians is of no account for their work. This implication is on that makes the biblical theologians recoil. This is where the inherent problem lies. It's the distinction between <a href="/keyword/biblical-theology/" >biblical theology</a> and history that is very problematic. (2) Why does Levenson claim that &quot;<a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> Theology&quot; cannot be &quot;historical?&quot; What is &quot;<a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> Theology&quot;? What does he mean by historical? <a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> Theology generally treats themes that appeal to them more pervasive in the <a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> and the religion of Israel than is warranted. Historians of religion without theological commitment would, instead, be inclined to acknowledge the diversity and contradiction of biblical thought frankly. They would feel no need for the unity. What Levenson means by historical is what actually happened in Israel and not necessarily what the bible says happened. What he means by <a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> Theology is a preparatory exercise for the study of the New Testament. It will seek to obscure the fact that Christ did not merely decode the <a href="/keyword/old-testament/" >old testament</a> but fulfill it. (3) Why has the historical-critical methodology (for example, Wellhausen) often been view by Jews as anti-Semitic? How have Jewish scholars reacted to this view? The method and the uses to which it is put are not always adequately distinguished, and the fact that historical criticism has undermined Christianity no less than Judaism is often ignored. There was great resentment among the Jewish scholars. They know how to defend there view but become offended when presented with something that does not agree with the Jewish beliefs, because they do not study those. Stephanie Warner