260 M a r c Zvi Brettler
denying the centrality of certain passages (4). Finally, the Bible is not only
of great consequence for the values it teaches; it is also an aesthetically
beautiful text (7), thereby enticing its readers to appreciate its values.
Greenberg’s model for how the Hebrew Bible should be read in a Jew-
ish and critical context has infl uenced both Jewish and non-Jewish schol-
ars: it is powerful and oft en compelling. It is not, however, the only model
that Jewishly engaged biblical scholars practice — it has not garnered wide-
spread assent.50 Following the example of Greenberg, I off er the follow-
ing observations concerning his model “in the language of humility and
contingency.”51
One diffi culty is the method’s overreliance on the notion of “coherence,”
a frequent term in Greenberg’s oeuvre, which he sees as the opposite of
the atomistic readings of many modern biblical scholars. He adduces two
reasons for preferring coherence. One is that coherence is “justifi ed by the
enormous power it [the Bible] has exercised on the history of culture,” in
other words, that the Bible has typically been read over time as a coherent
work. Not all scholars feel the same weight of this cultural practice, and
even Greenberg, as a historical-critical scholar, in other ways rejects some
of the predominant ways that the Bible has been read over the past two
millennia — so why must he, for tradition’s sake, retain coherence? Green-
berg’s second argument is that the more anyone reads a text carefully, the
more signs of coherence emerge. To my mind, this is problematic: others
have shown that coherence may be in the eye of the beholder, rather than
the author, and that people inevitably create coherence out of the most bi-
zarre and diff use texts (and situations).52 Certainly, due to our nature as
humans, who by nature make coherence out of messes, we can read any
text as coherent — but should we? Furthermore, given that we know that
ancient texts were composed over time and oft en incorporate preexisting
texts and traditions, why should we bias our minds so strongly toward in-
terpreting only the fi nal form of the text?53
Greenberg criticizes others for fi nding in the Bible “a reinforcement of
one’s own predilections”; in insisting so strongly on a holistic Bible of all
passages, is he truly meeting “the text on its own terms” or fi nding what
he wants to see there? Th is dispute concerning whether redaction creates
coherence is found in other disciplines as well. Recently, Noam Zohar has
suggested that the redactors of rabbinic literature were strong redactors
who attempted to create meaning through their editing activities,54 while
Steven D. Fraade has suggested that some material is well redacted and
other is less so. Fraade’s warning is apposite for Greenberg as well: “For