The Old Testament and history

[tommyboy605182]

I was hoping to come across a discussion about the historical accounts of the OT vs. proven history, but i couldn't find one.

i have always been a believer in biblical inerrancy; however, it seems that more and more people are out to disprove that by bringing up the fact that history "proves" the OT false, mainly the stories of Genesis and Exodus.

im not looking to start a discussion on OEC vs. YEC, but rather textual criticisms of books such as Genesis, Exodus, and Job. obviously textual critics have concluded that the gospels were written as historical accounts and not mere stories... then again some books like Revelation were written as metaphorical prophesy. what have textual critics concluded about old testament books, if anything?

also, i had another thought: lets say that the genesis account, the flood, and the exodus never really happened... does that take away from their meaning? couldn't we still learn from them and apply them to our lives? Jesus taught his disciples using fictional parables... what if God taught Abraham in the same way?
what do you folks think?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You are an excellent candidate for Biblical Archaeology Review, the magazine. Buy it.

Let the textual critics have their discussions. Archaeology digs up the truth: what's actually there.

FL

[Gman]

I was hoping to come across a discussion about the historical accounts of the OT vs. proven history, but i couldn't find one.

i have always been a believer in biblical inerrancy; however, it seems that more and more people are out to disprove that by bringing up the fact that history "proves" the OT false, mainly the stories of Genesis and Exodus.

im not looking to start a discussion on OEC vs. YEC, but rather textual criticisms of books such as Genesis, Exodus, and Job. obviously textual critics have concluded that the gospels were written as historical accounts and not mere stories... then again some books like Revelation were written as metaphorical prophesy. what have textual critics concluded about old testament books, if anything?

also, i had another thought: lets say that the genesis account, the flood, and the exodus never really happened... does that take away from their meaning? couldn't we still learn from them and apply them to our lives? Jesus taught his disciples using fictional parables... what if God taught Abraham in the same way?
what do you folks think?

I guess some things could be classified as parables like the Garden of Eden story or others like the Samson story. More importantly than parable or stories, there are probably many more words in the Bible which are simply used as figures of speech, idioms, and orientalisms which many translators have stumbled over and have translated inappropriately, that is for sure. Others not... For example, the bloodline of Jesus Christ. God is making promises all the way back to Genesis that the savior would to be born out of Adam's lineage. Now this is no story, these are actual people that make up that bloodline and it shouldn't be tampered with unless we want to nullify it.

So to rehash here, yes there are many parables used in the Bible but in most cases they probably involved real people. Perhaps some of it could be with a few elaborations, others not. I think the main thing to understand here is what you take to heart.

If you are looking for some more concrete proof, I would suggest you look at the archeology section of our website...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ology.html

By the way, on another note, most Jews see Genesis as being more symbolic than true. To each their own I guess....

Also, if you really want to understand the figures of speech used in the Bible I would recommend Bullingers work.

[Robert Byers]

I was hoping to come across a discussion about the historical accounts of the OT vs. proven history, but i couldn't find one.

i have always been a believer in biblical inerrancy; however, it seems that more and more people are out to disprove that by bringing up the fact that history "proves" the OT false, mainly the stories of Genesis and Exodus.

im not looking to start a discussion on OEC vs. YEC, but rather textual criticisms of books such as Genesis, Exodus, and Job. obviously textual critics have concluded that the gospels were written as historical accounts and not mere stories... then again some books like Revelation were written as metaphorical prophesy. what have textual critics concluded about old testament books, if anything?

also, i had another thought: lets say that the genesis account, the flood, and the exodus never really happened... does that take away from their meaning? couldn't we still learn from them and apply them to our lives? Jesus taught his disciples using fictional parables... what if God taught Abraham in the same way?
what do you folks think?

I guess some things could be classified as parables like the Garden of Eden story or others like the Samson story. More importantly than parable or stories, there are probably many more words in the Bible which are simply used as figures of speech, idioms, and orientalisms which many translators have stumbled over and have translated inappropriately, that is for sure. Others not... For example, the bloodline of Jesus Christ. God is making promises all the way back to Genesis that the savior would to be born out of Adam's lineage. Now this is no story, these are actual people that make up that bloodline and it shouldn't be tampered with unless we want to nullify it.

So to rehash here, yes there are many parables used in the Bible but in most cases they probably involved real people. Perhaps some of it could be with a few elaborations, others not. I think the main thing to understand here is what you take to heart.

If you are looking for some more concrete proof, I would suggest you look at the archeology section of our website...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ology.html

By the way, on another note, most Jews see Genesis as being more symbolic than true. To each their own I guess....

Also, if you really want to understand the figures of speech used in the Bible I would recommend Bullingers work.

Yet the bible stories are not parables but actual events recorded accurately by God.
The samson story could only be a accurate story by so many clues. In fact i suggest the heracles story of the gbreeks is but a corrupted memory of the true samson story that must of amazed the ancient world.
In fact if one wanted to say the Samson story was false then one could say "If this story of such great strong man was true why did not other peoples record it or make it part of their own myths. Such a story is to good to ignore especially by those who love tales.
Sure enough the Greeks have herclues.
A line of easoning.
Robert Byers

[David Blacklock]

Hi Gman:

Of what importance are the geneologies in Luke and Matthew since Joseph was not Jesus's father?

DB

Hi Tommyboy:

>>textual criticisms of books such as Genesis, Exodus, and Job<<

There indeed is extensive textual criticism of these books nd the rest of the OT, the most well-known theory being the Documentary Hypothesis. The short version is as follows: "J" wrote a story representative of Southern Judean interests. "E" wrote one about Northern Israeli interests. When the North and the South united, the Priests in charge could not get rid of either well known document, so he (they) wrote "P", making the story more to his (their) liking. King Josiah "took charge" at age 8. Because of his age, he was heavily influenced by the priests. After he attained young adulthood, the main priest conveniently found "D" (mainly a set of laws) that so impressed the young king that he had the whole tome read aloud to the masses.

All these sources and editions were put together by an editor, called the "Redactor" into the final 5-book work. The Redactor may have been Ezekiel.

Evidence for this elaborate theory consists of differences in linguistics, terminology, content, narrative flow, connections with other parts of the Bible, relationships among the sources to each other and to history, and convergence (several different lines of evidence converge). This data is fascinating, well-presented, and quite convincing.

DB

[Canuckster1127]

Hi Gman:

Of what importance are the geneologies in Luke and Matthew since Joseph was not Jesus's father?

DB

Jesus' claim and presentation to the Jewish Nation as the Messiah rested in large part upon the traced line of descent from King David. Early Christianity, at the time of the writing of Luke and Matthew, was still more of a Jewish sect than an independent religion. Matthew in particular was written to a Jewish audience with a focus upon Christ's claim and standing as a Messiah and in the context of Jewish thought and expectations that means you start with a genealogy.

Luke was written by a Gentile to a more non-Jewish audience.

Some have speculated that the genealogies contrast in part as one traces through Joseph and the other through Mary and both trace back to David.

Even with the claim of immaculate conception, positionally, Christ traced through Joseph as the father in a patriarchal community.

[David Blacklock]

>>Biblical Archaeology Review<<

Hi FL:

Indeed that is a good magazine. I took it for a couple to years and get regular invitations to their digs and functions. One of these days I'll go to one.

DB

[Gman]

Hi Gman:

Of what importance are the geneologies in Luke and Matthew since Joseph was not Jesus's father?

DB

Looks like Bart already addressed it, but yes, the bloodline establishes Christ legally through his parent Joseph.

[Canuckster1127]

Hi Gman:

Of what importance are the geneologies in Luke and Matthew since Joseph was not Jesus's father?

DB

Hi Tommyboy:

>>textual criticisms of books such as Genesis, Exodus, and Job<<

There indeed is extensive textual criticism of these books nd the rest of the OT, the most well-known theory being the Documentary Hypothesis. The short version is as follows: "J" wrote a story representative of Southern Judean interests. "E" wrote one about Northern Israeli interests. When the North and the South united, the Priests in charge could not get rid of either well known document, so he (they) wrote "P", making the story more to his (their) liking. King Josiah "took charge" at age 8. Because of his age, he was heavily influenced by the priests. After he attained young adulthood, the main priest conveniently found "D" (mainly a set of laws) that so impressed the young king that he had the whole tome read aloud to the masses.

All these sources and editions were put together by an editor, called the "Redactor" into the final 5-book work. The Redactor may have been Ezekiel.

Evidence for this elaborate theory consists of differences in linguistics, terminology, content, narrative flow, connections with other parts of the Bible, relationships among the sources to each other and to history, and convergence (several different lines of evidence converge). This data is fascinating, well-presented, and quite convincing.

DB

The JEDP theory has indeed been around for a long time. The evaluation of its being convincing and the methodology of its establishment being unassailable is one of opinion, not fact.

http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/jedp.htm

[David Blacklock]

>>The evaluation of its being convincing and the methodology of its establishment being unassailable is one of opinion, not fact.<<

Hi Bart,

For sure the above is true, but the techniques used are the same techniques used on "Iliad" or on any other historical books and nobody complains. From the website you mentioned - nice summary of the Documentary Hypothesis, but then the author throws up roadblocks. A historian tries to approach his topic objectively. We are both aware of human limitations of the ability to be objective, but with that disclaimer, it looks to me like the author wants rules of engagement that are other than what the same historian would use on another book. He's lost me right there. A scientific approach simply follows the evidence.

I don't necessarily buy into everything the DH says, but i'm not against considering the evidence. When obvious discrepancies are faced, the response of a literalist might be to engage in attempts to explain away the discrepancy - no matter how many times the block must be rounded. Instead, maybe the author just made a mistake, by today's standards. Maybe he had a point to make that was different than one of the other authors - the NT gospel writers certainly did that. That quack might really be a duck.

Biblical criticism is now new. Jerome and Augustine as early as the fourth certury accepted the view that Daniel was written later than 200 BCE, even though it was written as an eye-witness account about events from 300 years earlier. As the website mentioned, the culture was different then. I would add, accuracy wasn't expected and Jewish midrash was an accepted method for recording history. I see the Bible as being inspired by God, yet written by inspired authors who wrote appropriate to the historical standards of their age.

Some of the early textual cirtics independently discovered that large excerpts from the Torah referred to God as Elohim. Other large sections referred to God as Yahweh. A closer examination showed that one of them consistently portrayed God to be anthropomorphic, conversing with Man. The other portrayed God consistently as more mysterious. One had the flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights. The other some 100 days or something, I forget. Although some DH scholars have gone to extremes about arguing whether certain words or phrases belong to one or the other, it seems likely, if not obvious, that the same guy didn't write both versions. If it weren't the Bible, in the hands of someone who insisted on a traditional Moses authorship, the argument would probably be eagerly considered.

When the J and E parts are separated, both stories have better continuity. But maybe it really isn't a duck. You need more proof. What about the part that talks about Moses's own death, after the fact. Certainly that wasn't written by Moses.

DB

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks for the review on Biblical Criticism.

The JEDP theory is facing a lot of criticism itself and is seen even in liberal circles as in decline. It's an example, of my opinion, of the the dangers of elevating some of the earlier principles of modern Biblical Criticism and attempting to draw too much from forms and ignoring the whole.

There's no question there is another contributor at the end of Duet. Probably Joshua.

Here's a good book that is recognized as strong by both camps in addressing many of the excesses in JEDP.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... ministries

[David Blacklock]

psst....hey Bart....The primer on Bib crit wasn't for you , it was for all those other guys.

I AM interested in reading something about what current scholars think about DH. From glimpses here and there, I gather most of them buy it, at least in broad strokes. I listened to a Yale lecture series (college courses avaialable on the internet - Open Yale Courses is the weblink) about religion. The Jewish lecturor was equivocal about DH - but for an academic to be equivocal about a theory could mean lots of things. Through out the series, she continued to talk about the JED & P sources. I read the reviews on that book you referred, but just from those reviews, I didn't see any link to DH. I'll try to find it in the library.

Thanks

DB