Ancient Truth: Program Notes on the OT

I’m thinking out loud, as it were. Note the abbreviations: OT = Old Testament; NT = New Testament. This concerns the following books of the Bible: Genesis through Esther.
When I began this book series, I found an awful lot of NT commentary which was entirely too Western. It was necessary to counter that wealth of misguidance with a fairly detailed analysis from the proper Hebraic mindset. I find less of that in the OT commentaries. It seems there are a couple of reasons for that.
First, there simply isn’t that much work done in the OT by Christian scholars in the first place. Perhaps you could say it another way: The folks who write a lot about the OT are more likely real scholars and less of the fruity propaganda pushers. In terms of data, there is a lot more background from secular specialists in the Antiquities. Secular writers, having no dog in this fight, are more likely to accurately report what they find. They are less likely to have a hard Western bias in the first place. They take the philosophical difference between East and West more seriously. Christians tend to read their Western bias back into the text more than secular scholars do, because they are deeply invested in the religious meaning of their Western bias.
Second — separate but related — it’s hard to carry that bias in the OT with any credibility. Thus, the non-Christian, non-Jewish scholarship looms larger in view. Particularly in the history sections of the OT, there isn’t much room to inject so much false piety. The moment you do so, it becomes mere homily. That is, you end up with the same kind of extrapolation that you can do with any story from any part of modern society. That’s using the text for illustration only; one of the few good threads in evangelical scholarship is the distaste for that. Because they don’t really understand what the text is teaching, they don’t teach much from it.
So I’m less burdened when working in the OT. There is less junk to plow through, fewer misconceptions to overturn.
I’m not going to offer a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the history books of the OT. It simply isn’t necessary. What I offer amounts to additional translation, filling in the gaps between our widely disparate cultures with what little can be discerned outside the actual narrative. Granted, I filter out a lot of stuff I consider bad scholarship, but I fully admit to my own bias in that. When I perceive a scholar’s assertion comes from a hostile point of view, I give it less weight. Facts are facts, but to give them meaning requires interpretation and conflicts arise quickly when you have to fill in too many blanks.
There is no pretense here of answering all questions, of settling all discord or providing a definitive statement from God addressing the details and facts. God doesn’t operate that way, though most of us have been conditioned to do so. All I’m doing is showing how I got where I am. If you bother to survey the literature on OT archeology and antiquities, you’ll find plenty to dispute the thread I choose to follow. Have at it. I’m not building an orthodoxy for folks to follow.
Instead, I am introducing the subject for your examination. If my suggestions are useful to you, then my job is done. How you use them is really not my business. If you happen to like the looks of my results, if something in my blather here appeals to you, then it’s probably safe enough for you take my word on it. That means I can save you some time, because I did countless hours of research on your behalf and it wasn’t wasted effort. It works for me; might work for you. And if you reject it, I’m willing to bet your discomfort with my conclusions will help you find your own answers.
Either way, you’ll get to know God better, even if you don’t believe in Him.