At one time, people read the historical accounts in the Tanakh, and presumed them to be literally, factually, and historically true. God created the world in exactly one week, approximately 6000 years ago. People actually lived to be 900 years old.
The Flood consisted of 40 literal days of rain, and the entire world was covered in water. There was a literal Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Ten actual plagues (as described) happened, resulting in 600,000 Hebrew men (plus women, children, livestock and belongings) exiting from Egypt. Joshua’s genocide occurred, followed by the time of the Judges, followed by a Joint Kingdom.
Times change.
Advances in science have happened. Geology and dating has become more accurate. Archeology has generated vast discoveries. And as the pace of technology increases—these stories are slowly being chipped away.
Oh, there are still stalwarts who hold to a 6000 year old Earth, and a world-wide Flood, and Exodus—despite the evidence. But many have re-evaluated the accounts. Now the “days” in Genesis chapter one are considered “periods of time.” Or the story is allegorical in form only. No longer is it actual, literal or historical. “Adam & Eve” are representations—not actual people.
The Flood? Only a local affair in which some guy probably put his wife and kids with a coupla calves and sheep on a raft for a few weeks. The Ten Plagues? Volcanic Eruption. The Exodus? Well, there weren’t really two million people wandering around for 40 years. Maybe a few thousand (at best) and then only a year or so. Joshua’s genocide? Minor skirmishes.
As we study and learn, the stories of the Tanakh become more and more improbable, even to the person who holds them as inspired, and science is prevailing. The Christian has to modify their position from an actual, literal event to more of a type, or legendary or blown-out-of-proportion event.
But isn’t that saying the stories of the Tanakh are wrong? See, the question presented is: what did the authors of these stories believe? Did they hold them out to be historical events? If so, weren’t they wrong? If they were wrong as to history (which we can confirm); why should I trust they would be right regarding actions on the part of a God—which we can’t confirm?
I realize that Christians of today’s time do not want to appear silly in light of the evidence presented. So they wrangle and force an allegorical meaning into what, even they see, cannot have actually happened.
Yet this undercuts the premise. It recognizes the Bible is wrong. It recognizes the Bible, when written, was factually inaccurate and only recent developments have placed the Christian in this precarious position by which they must read into the text what is not there.
Look at the New Testament authors. Did they think these were historical events? (And, on the Jewish side, it should be noted Josephus, writing in the First Century, treated these as actual, literal, historical events. Not as allegories. Not as mythical developments.)
Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying Noah was an actual person. (Matt. 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27) The author of 1 Peter treats Noah as an actual person, with an actual flood. (1 Peter 3:20) So does the author of 2 Peter. (2 Peter 3:20)
The authors of the New Testament treat Moses as an actual person. Not an allegory. (Matt. 8:4, 19:7; Mark 7:10, 12:19; Luke 20:37, 24:27; John 1:45, 3:14, 5:46; Acts 7:20-44; Rom. 9:15; 1 Cor. 10:2; 2 Cor. 3:13; 2 Tim. 3:8; and Jude 9) Adam is considered a real person. (Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; and Jude 14)
And, most famous of all, the author of Hebrews commends Noah (11:7) and Moses (11:23-29) for the events recorded in their lives in the Tanakh. As well as confirming the historical claim of Joshua’s genocide. (Hebrews 11:30-31)
2000 years ago, those who revered the Tanakh treated the historical accounts as events which happened as literally recorded. What has changed? If greater knowledge has demonstrated these accounts are in error, I understand it is quite convenient to brush it off as “allegorical” or “legend” or “myth,”—but can you understand why the claim this is error goes a long way to proving the Bible is in error on these points?
But it gets worse. And funnier.
See, in the First Century, it was accepted practice to write historiographical documents. When writing a biography, it was not expected, nor anticipated, for the author to write an exact date-by-date, event-by-event actual history.
So the author would write what they anticipate the person would have said—not necessarily what the person actually said. We see this in the speeches Josephus ascribes to individuals in his accounts. We also see this in the speeches the author of Acts puts in the lips of Peter and Paul.
No one reading the documents in the First Century (nor writing them) would have questioned, “A-ha! But did Peter actually say, word-for-word, what is recorded here?” Of course not! They recognized the author’s imputing speech which would have normally been predictable for the individual.
Did Jesus give the word-for-word Sermon on the Mount or was this what Matthew’s audience expected Jesus would have said? At the time—this question would never have been asked!
Further, it was expected to ascribe events to certain people of certain social status. Holy Men heal people. If you were writing about a Holy Man, you would naturally include a story about healing. If they were a person of great honor, you would provide them an honorable birthplace, often with astounding events occurring (earthquakes, darkness, miracles) to accompany the birth.
Again, this was expected in the biography. No one was inspecting this with a 21st Century mindset, questioning whether Mary really gave birth in Bethlehem or Nazareth. Or whether there were angels attending the birth. This was a birth of the Christ—angels would be part of the perceived story. (So would earthquakes and darkness at the death of such a Christ.)
One of the ways in which a philosopher’s position was explained was through challenge-riposte. The story would unfold as the philosopher is asked what is initially seen as a perceptive or difficult question, and then the philosopher would cleverly answer in such a way as to show the philosophical position being promulgated, and to gain in honor as having bested another.
How many times do the Gospels record Jesus being accused by Scribes or Lawyers or Pharisees or Sadducees or Jews? The people reading (or hearing these stories read) understood this was a convention to explain the philosophy of Jesus. They were looking for what Jesus taught, and the authors placed it in the form they were most familiar.
A common writing technique was a chiasm. To frame the story in certain relational sequences. The best example of this is the sandwiching of the curse of the fig tree, followed by the temple ruckus, and then closed with the seeing of the cursed fig tree. Mark is replete with chiastic structures. (Arguably completely infused, although I think some are a stretch.)
Again, this was a method familiar to the audience. An audience uncritical of whether Jesus actually, chronologically cursed the tree, then caused a ruckus, and then saw the results of a cursed tree.
Yet what do we see in today’s culture when it comes to the New Testament writing? The very same people willing to concede the lack of historicity of the Tanakh, grimly hold on to every word claimed to be said by Jesus is actual. Every footstep 100% historical. Every breath literal. Something the authors never intended!
Many Christians have it mixed up. When the authors (Tanakh) intended it to be historical, the Christian claims it is figurative. When the authors (New Testament) intended it to be figurative, the Christian claims it is historical!
Apparently the methodology is to completely abandon (or never study) what the authors intended by looking at similar works or how similar works are treated OR the Christian wants to believe what is most convenient at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteYou read my mind...I've been thinking about how the bible is treated as history by so many and was wishing you would write something about this. I guess there is a God, this is proof. How else would you have known???
You used the example once of "Gone With the Wind." Just because there may be some history in the book doesn't make the whole book historically accurate. To me, that sums up the bible so well. The tough part is, it seems easier to verify what is historically accurate in "Gone With the Wind," than it is to do so with the Tenakh or NT. Gone With the Wind speaks of a time so much more.
Once the bible stops being the inerrant word of God, it becomes much more challenging identifying what is actual historical record.
Excellent post. Thanks
paul
oops. I meant to say: Gone With the Wind speaks of a time so much more recent.
ReplyDeletesorry,
paul
You make some great points, Dagoods, but I have a few questions, three to be exact.
ReplyDeleteHistorical not literal is still historical.
One is that the stories of the Flood and Jericho were not historical nor literal. This does not follow from what you are saying. You say there are differences of scale perhaps but not that nothing like that happened. An event can't be historical and not historical at the same time.
The greater relevance of the intent of the reading is overlooked
You also wrote Many Christians have it mixed up. When the authors (Tanakh) intended it to be historical, the Christian claims it is figurative.
The ancients did not question the details of the Tanakh as it was the basis of their education, God's wisdom and sovereignty revealed to them. That it was figurative in parts and literal in others was not relevant. The life lessons were to be explored and understood to the best of their efforts. It was the unifying book of their nation. Jesus even referred to Jonah - whose historicity is questionable.
Excessively presumptuous
You wrote So the author would write what they anticipate the person would have said—not necessarily what the person actually said. We see this in the speeches Josephus ascribes to individuals in his accounts. We also see this in the speeches the author of Acts puts in the lips of Peter and Paul.
Patterns of speech that ancient writers authentically repeat might lead us to look for an outside source when there is a change of style in a work attributed to writer X. However, it is very presumptuous to say that Paul's appeal to the Greeks at Mars Hill in Acts 17 was not Paul. He made a great speech with a great error, he watered down the gospel. The result: "few believed".
While this is a fascinating study that you've done, there is a great uncertainty of whether you are showing that someone put words in Paul's mouth, or you yourself are taking words out of his mouth.:-)
You wrote Apparently the methodology is to completely abandon (or never study) what the authors intended by looking at similar works or how similar works are treated OR the Christian wants to believe what is most convenient at the moment.
Unfortunately this is true of lots of Christians, because it means that they have stopped digging into the message.
Jim Jordan,
ReplyDeleteSince there isn’t a single question mark in your comment, I will attempt to guess what questions you are raising. If I am going down the wrong path, please correct me.
1) What is “historical enough?”
If I said Germany managed to conquer all of Africa in WWII, is that “historical enough” even though it only conquered part of Africa? What if Germany only conquered Egypt—could I still say, “Aww…close enough!” What if Germany only attacked Egypt unsuccessfully? Does that still count?
So what is “historical enough” in the account of the Flood? If a man put himself and his wife on a raft and floated down a flood plain for three weeks—is that enough? Or what if it was just a man? Does there need to be a boat? Could just one guy have walked out of a flooded area with his donkey and it count? And how big does the flood have to be? One day? Two weeks?
How can you possibly come up with a methodology by which you declare some tale is “historical enough, even though it is not literal” to count as historical. There are lumberjacks—does that mean the tales of Paul Bunyan qualify as “Historical, but not literal”?
Further, you failed to address the intention of the two writers and the compiler. Did they think these were literal? That literally all the animals on the earth were represented on the Ark? That all humans (except the 8) including the (unknown) Chinese and Mesoamerican were drowned? The straightforward reading would indicate they did.
If I really thought Germany conquered all of Africa, and wrote Germany conquered all of Africa—am I not still wrong? Even if Germany conquered some of Africa?
2) Figurative and Literal in parts not relevant.
Come, come. Are you saying the authors of 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not utilizing what they thought were literal events in their writing? Further, Josephus, in writing a history of the Jews, and containing literal events, records those of the Tanakh.
You also vastly underestimate the reliance upon the land grant which Jews still utilize today to justify their ownership rights to Israel. There is no hand-waving of “Oh, the Exodus was just figurative.”
You are right Jews use midrash—coming up with new meanings from the events of the Tanakh, but at the base the events are still considered as having literally happened.
It is not my problem your Jesus refers to people (Jonah, Noah, Moses) who apparently didn’t exist. The point is that both the authors who wrote the stories, AND the authors who utilized the stories in the First Century (both Christian and non-Christian) held those stories to have actually, literally, and exactly happened as recorded in the Tanakh. There has been no demonstration on your part of anything different than that.
3) Speeches in Acts.
May I suggest you read this page?
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_acts.html
And this is a conservative website! Schnelle notes the distinct Lukan characteristics of the narrative of the speeches, and states Luke utilized the speeches as a way to explain his (Luke’s) theology. Even Ben Witherington only distinguishes Stephen’s, James’ and Paul’s speech in Miletus as being dissimilar to Luke to the point of coming from a different source. (And while I think the methodology of dissimilarity is highly suspect, the point made is that a conservative Christian scholar, who does hold to such a method, can’t find enough dissimilarity in Paul’s speech in Athens.)
I could go on and on, but until a counter-argument is made, there is no need. And what DO we have on the other side, “Bob” from “Sunday School Papers ‘R Us” who provides Sunday School lessons for adults? And “Bob” claims this was actually Paul’s words? What do you think, all these scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, are in some huge conspiracy to prove “Bob” wrong?
And why is it you believe “Bob”?—Is it because “Bob” says what you believe?
What proof or arguments do you have to demonstrate Luke did NOT put words in Peter’s and Paul’s mouth?
The point is not whether the Bible is profound or edifying fictional literature. The point is whether it's true. The rules of these games are completely different.
ReplyDeleteNobody thinks that Macbeth or Oliver Twist or Gone with the Wind actually establish factual truth, even though they do in fact contain some factually correct material. Nobody says that we know that so-and-so really existed and really did thus-and-such just because we read it in one of these books.
The thing about fictional literature is that to be good literature it must appeal to something already within the reader. If what the work is seeks to appeal to in the reader isn't there, then the work is not good literature to that reader.
My wife loves loves loves 19th century English Literature (she has a degree). I just don't care about it. I love my wife, I'd love to enjoy this literature with her, but whatever it is that the authors are intending to appeal to just isn't there in me. And, vice-versa, I love love love science fiction, which leaves my wife utterly cold.
Neither one of us is wrong, but we can talk ourselves blue in the face and we'll never convince each other to like what we don't like.
Truth, on the other had, is what you have to believe even if it doesn't appeal to you. It pains me that my country, my ancestors and my culture perpetrated the genocide of the American Indians. I don't want to believe it, I don't enjoy it, but it's the truth: I have to believe it, I have to absorb it, I have to let it influence me.
Literature cannot put anything in you: It depends on what's already there. Truth, on the other hand, can and should put something in you, regardless of what's already there.
If you* say the Bible is literature then what you're saying is that the Bible appeals to that which is already in you. That's all well and good, you are who you are. But if you say the Bible is truthful you're saying you — and everyone else — should believe and absorb it regardless of what's already in you.
*The rhetorical "you".
And that's Dagood's problem, I suspect. If you call the Bible fictional literature, then it forfeits its claim to establishing truth; it is not inherently authoritative on matters of fact or truth. It might contain some truthful statements, but any conclusion of veracity must, therefore, depend on independent, scientific and historical confirmation. Nothing in a work of fictional literature can be believed to be factually true on just its own authority.
But I've never in my life met a religious believer who actually held that the Bible was fictional literature, however profound. That's what makes some belief specifically religious: believing the truth of some revelation or scripture or authority, not just believing that it's good literature. Because, of course, to believe it's literature puts it in the same class as the hundreds of thousands of other works of fictional literature. (At best; personally, I think the Bible is fourth-rate: dull, tendentious, morally reprehensible and amateurish. The Koran is worse.)
Abandon the belief that the Bible is true, and believers and atheists have nothing to discuss. You enjoy it as a work of fictional literature; well, good for you. I don't enjoy it; well, good for me.
One quick point and one long question ...
ReplyDeleteTo many of us, taking the Bible "as written" is taking it "literally". If something is written as allegory and we take it that way, it's "literal". If it is written as hyperbole and we take it that way, it's "literal". If something is written as metaphor and we take it that way, it's "literal." To many of us, "literal" doesn't mean "at pure (stupid) face value"; it means "as intended."
The question is shorter, but the answer is longer. I wasn't aware that modern science had disproved the story of the Exodus or the Flood or most of the Tanakh. Could you please cite some of the science/archaeology that proves this? (It's a question, not a challenge.)
Edifying comments, Barefoot. I would only add that the Bible consists of various kinds of literature and truth, as if it wasn't confusing enough.
ReplyDeleteDagood**What is historical enough?
No, my point was that it was historical period. The lesson is that God is our judge and there is nowhere we can hide from him. I think that's literally true.
Your #2 didn't really answer the corresponding statement. It only repeats what you said in your post.
The granting of Israel to the Jews by God is considered a literally true fact. The Exodus was not figurative in my opinion and new evidence is showing more corroboration to the story.
#3 - Words in Paul's mouth etc.
The Christian Cadre address didn't work although I found the main website.
Dagoods wrote**I could go on and on, but until a counter-argument is made, there is no need. And what DO we have on the other side, “Bob” from “Sunday School Papers ‘R Us” who provides Sunday School lessons for adults?
First, it's an ongoing study as the study of history is continual. Second, many apologists have many times your book knowledge. You can crucify Sunday school volunteers all you want to if it makes you feel better. But it proves nothing.
Dagoods wrote**What proof or arguments do you have to demonstrate Luke did NOT put words in Peter’s and Paul’s mouth?
As much info as you have for the contrary view, zero. There was a vibrant community of Christians who circulated their work amongst the churches of the first century. Falsifying someone's speech, while not impossible, would definitely draw some questions from among the companions of those apostles. There is no evidence of any dispute over authenticity at the time.
Dagoods**What do you think, all these scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, are in some huge conspiracy to prove “Bob” wrong?
I have read a number of the studies on the "Deutero-Pauline" letters and the history of 2 Peter and find them fascinating, even if they employ many hypotheticals. What we are finding now are possible inconsistencies, but the true picture is still far from coming together.
Several years ago the consensus was that Pilate couldn't have been so wishy-washy as he appears in the gospels. He is worried about riots when "history shows" he was the kind of leader who loved to crush riots. But then it came to light that Pilate was an ally to Sejanus, Tiberius' right-hand man. Sejanus fell from power and was killed in AD 31. Pilate circa AD 33 would have been dramatically affected by his tenuous political position (link here.
I have to go but I'll comment later tonight or tomorrow. Try to leave the Cadre link if you can.
Regards.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteWe understand the difference between allegory and literal. We really, really do. We understand the difference between the historical account of Exodus 14 as compared to Moses’ song of Exodus 15. I am not discussing the scientific value of Job, or the fact God isn’t really made of mineral to prove Psalms’ incorrect when it talks of God being a “rock.”
We are talking about specific recorded events with specific details. Which are incorrect.
I will answer your questions about the Flood and Exodus, but first, I am afraid, I must ask you a question. No, I am not “answering a question with a question” but I have had these discussions numerous times, and I have found a little limiting up front helps with the direction of the conversation. Otherwise we end up all over the place.
What year was the Flood (plus or minus 1000 years)?
What year was Exodus (plus or minus 100 years)?
See, I tend to start answering right away, and I find the person then uses evidence from different years (the Exodus for example, has been dated to the 23rd Century BCE, and the 16th Century BCE and the 13th Century BCE) and so I have made it a policy…more like a rule…that before I discuss Exodus, I like to know what year we are talking about. As to the Flood, it depends on whether one is an OEC or a YEC. The YEC has a much, MUCH harder position, and is therefore easier to address.
Jim Jordan: No, my point was that it was historical period. The lesson is that God is our judge and there is nowhere we can hide from him. I think that's literally true.
ReplyDeleteNow I’m really confused. The “literal” part of the Flood was the lesson. But the “historical part” of the Flood story is ________? I am not following you here.
Let’s try something simple. Gen. 7:21 says, “And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.” Gen. 7:23 says: “So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.”
Now, was there a Flood which killed all living things on the face of the earth (other than what was in the Ark, of course?) Or does “earth” mean a more local area? And “every” mean “some”? And “Only” doesn’t mean “only”? By what method are you picking and choosing which words to apply and which ones to not?
Jim Jordan: The Exodus was not figurative in my opinion and new evidence is showing more corroboration to the story.
What new evidence? And why is the Flood figurative, but not Exodus? What method do you utilize to make the differentiation?
Sorry about the Cadre link. Try it hot: Here
Jim Jordan: Second, many apologists have many times your book knowledge.
Ah, but with my street smarts and knowledge of every kung-fu movie ever made, my dragon-claw karate shall overpower their weak fighting stance. We shall FIGHT. And PREVAIL.
Give me a break. Sure there are plenty of apologists who have “many times my book knowledge” who hold to an inerrant, literal Protestant Bible. Who hold to a 6000-year-old-Earth.
There are plenty of scientists with many times YOUR book knowledge who hold to evolution. Are you convinced, therefore, evolution is true?
If you are not convinced in the field of evolution using this same (silly) argument—why should I be convinced in an area in which I have actually studied?
Jim Jordan: As much info as you have for the contrary view, zero. There was a vibrant community of Christians who circulated their work amongst the churches of the first century. Falsifying someone's speech, while not impossible, would definitely draw some questions from among the companions of those apostles. There is no evidence of any dispute over authenticity at the time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Please, I beg of you—pick up a book. Not a website, not some article, an actual book and read it! I highly recommend Udo Schnelle’s History and Theology of New Testament writings. Or Metzgers’ Textual Commentary. Both are Christians—no fear of “atheist propaganda” here.
Please read the Christian Cadre article. (Note, I forgot Witherington also uses “dissimilarity” on Peter’s speech in Acts 3) Notice how the historians of the time recorded speeches. Notice what source documents we have to determine what Luke used in Acts (None.)
When you use the term “falsifying” you are imposing your 21st Century mind in their writings. It was not considered “false” to summarize a person’s speech! Nor to impose their beliefs through words which their characters might have said!
Amazingly, I can only hand you conservative Christian sites and books which say this. If I dared start to dive into the more skeptical non-believer writings, this would cause you to tear your hair out!
As to “authenticity” you might research Metzger’s Canon of the Scripture, or textual criticism as to what “authentic” meant.
Jim Jordan: I have read a number of the studies on the "Deutero-Pauline" letters and the history of 2 Peter and find them fascinating, even if they employ many hypotheticals. What we are finding now are possible inconsistencies, but the true picture is still far from coming together.
Uh…are you saying Christianity is wrong now, but it hopes to be proven right some time in the future? That isn’t very persuasive.
Where can I find this “consensus” that Pilate was “wishy-washy”? The larger question would be—why would Pilate be so condescending to Jesus (i.e. Christianity)? And why would Pilate do what the Jews would ask him to do?
The link you provided was interesting. (By the way—what year was Jesus crucified? Most of those “Christian apologists who have more book knowledge” than me put it in 30 CE. Kind kills the whole point of the article, don’t ya think?)
So Pilate would have been more conciliatory to the Jews? Why, then, did he put up such a fuss (and all the hand-washing) if they asked him to kill someone? The article doesn’t explain, if Pilate wanted to be more ingratiating to the Jews, why…uh…didn’t he support the Jews?
**See, the question presented is: what did the authors of these stories believe? Did they hold them out to be historical events? If so, weren’t they wrong? If they were wrong as to history (which we can confirm)**
ReplyDeleteI think this is one of the key points in reading the Bible. Did the authors intend the Genesis accounts to be literal? The ascension of Jesus to be literal?
The author of Acts shows that Jesus literally went up to the sky where heaven was, and a cloud hid him from sight. Yet we've seen that heaven isn't up there. Or Stephen gazing up into heaven, and seeing Jesus at the right of God. All indications, based on the text itself and the knowledge of that time, speak of a literal occurance.
If we then take those to be more metaphorical, then are we going against the author's intent?
Or what about Paul? A lot of what he writes in his letter seems to focus on a second coming that will occur in his lifetime. He was wrong about that -- yet as you ask, if he's wrong about that, what about everything else he wrote? We can say that clearly Paul didn't mean the second coming would occur in his lifetime, as it has obviously not happened, but what basis do we use to make that determination?
**Falsifying someone's speech, while not impossible, would definitely draw some questions from among the companions of those apostles. There is no evidence of any dispute over authenticity at the time.**
Jim raised this point, and I was curious, DAgoodS -- Ben Witherington addressed the point of someone writing under another's name, while common practicie, was vilified when it was discovered. Do you know what the supporters of the pseudo-Paul letters say in response to that?
Although, a response to Jim's point could be what basis to we have that the apostles would've disputed this, if the points in a pseudo-letter were agreed upon by the church? Why would it draw questions if the letters were needed?
We can say that it's a less than truthful way to get the "truth" across -- but humans are remarkably in their justification of actions.
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDeleteCan you give me a cite where Witherington said that? If available? I hate to address it without reading what he was saying and why. Specifically what examples he used.
As far as I know the Apocalypse of Peter could not possibly have been written by Peter, yet it was not vilified. Nor, the Letters of Jesus which were also obviously fake, yet believed by Eusebius to be real.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunatly, I'm going from memory, based on reading his book "What have they done with Jesus?: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History -- Why we can trust the Bible."
It's been a while since I've read it, but I believe he was addressing those who said that the Pastoral letters were not written by Paul, and that it was common practice to write something and attribute it to a famous person.
I haven't a clue when the Flood or the Exodus took place. I found my copy of the Bible, looked through it, and couldn't find a single verse that said, "And all this took place in X BC" or the like. I would consider any such necessitating of dates as frivolous and mere conjecture.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that people can't ask questions anymore. I understand it -- I really do. I assume that most people who ask me questions like that do so with an intent rather than a request for knowledge. You assumed the same of me. I was simply asking for some of the archaelogical or scientific evidence that disproved biblical events. I stated that it was just a question, not a challenge. I am simply unfamiliar with any such information. Unfortunately, I see your question of when I believe the Flood and Exodus took place as a challenge to my intelligence, just as you saw my question as a challenge to your position. Can't we all just as questions? (Sorry, Rodney, I don't suppose that quite works, does it?)
I apologize, Stan, if I came across as challenging, or as if I was “putting up my dukes.” That was far from my intention. The written ‘net can fail us in portraying our true intentions.
ReplyDeleteI DID think your question was genuine. And I truly intended on answering it, regardless of what era you put it in. In fact, I started looking up old websites toward that end. See, depending on when you put the Flood or Exodus results in different ways to respond to the data. If we put it in the 23rd Century there are different problems than the 15th or 13th Century.
I didn’t read it as a challenge. I figured I would try and narrow the scope. Ah well. Here we go…
Exodus
Good place to start is a similar discussion here. (You…er…might note I asked the same question as to what century it was in; I didn’t get an answer; and I later regretted it.) The books recommended in that thread are valuable reading.
There was a follow-up discussion here. And in each of these blog entries, there are numerous links in the comments. Ought to keep you busy for at an afternoon. *wink*
Another synopsis site: here.
If you want me to quote from some books, I would be happy to do so. Hopefully, though, this will give you a nice start on the study. There is more—ask if you want.
Flood
A fun debate to read, addressing some of the problems is here.
A break out (rough) of the documentary hypothesis is here. A look at some of the other ancient tales of floods is here. Finally you can look at talkorigins take on the flood here.
It has been my experience, when faced with many of these difficulties; the Christian often goes to claiming “miracles” wherever there is a problem. (Like mixing salt water with fresh, for example, many Christians say God miraculously created pockets of fresh water.) A bit of self-promotion, I deal with the differentiation of determining miracles and natural events here.
Again, good start.
Hope this is helpful. (And I again apologize if I gave the impression I was questioning your intelligence, or was entering some type of debate mode. I was not.)
P.S. Who is Rodney???
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDeleteI hate that. I remember reading some great line, and at best can only narrow it down to some book (or books). I wish I could read it in context to see exactly what Witherington was saying.
I am unaware of any documents regarding vilification of writers during the First Century, either Christian or Non-Christian. I wonder if Dr. Witherington was referring to Tertullian in On Baptism (Chapter 17) where he refers to punishing a monk who made up “Acts of Paul.” (Interesting reading—the largest reason Tertullian seemed to hate it was the fact that the book had…ready?…ready?…a woman baptizing other believers. Gasp! Sacrilege!)
But that was a book that first made its appearance in 170 CE, and was obviously not from Paul. I would be curious as to something more contemporary with the psuedo-pauline books. (And I can’t help noting all the apocryphal works, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Epistle of Barnabas, which were fakes, yet apparently no one was vilified for them. How would Dr. Witherington answer those, I wonder?)
Ah well.
(Just to answer the postscript question, I had said, "Can't we all just ask questions?" and apologized to "Rodney" who made famous the question, "Can't we all just get along?" That would be Rodney King.)
ReplyDelete