The Resurrection of the Son of God - Post #4

In Chapter 3 N.T. Wright gives us a thorough and honest review of the development of the idea of resurrection within Judaism from the Old Testament.

The fullest Old Testament resurrection imagery doesn't appear within Hebrew scriptures until the much later writings. When it does appear, it emerges simultaneously as a metaphorical expression of hope for national/political restoration from exile and foreign oppression as well as a literal expression of hope for bodily resurrection. Both of these concepts are firmly rooted in Israel's Creational and Covenantal understanding of God. Because God is the Creator of all that is and has specifically chosen Israel to be his covenant people, they were confident that he would ultimately be faithful to his promise and establish them as his own people within the land they had been promised. Because God is the Creator of all that is and has specifically chosen Israel to be his covenant people, they were confident that he would ultimately be faithful also to the faithful from Israel who had already perished without seeing the fulfillment of his promises. He would raise them from the dead.

Wright goes out of his way to demonstrate that this resurrection hope cannot be confused with a hope for a disembodied afterlife. It also cannot be merely viewed as a hope for national/political restoration, though the literal hope for bodily resurrection cannot be separated from that literal hope for national/political restoration for which resurrection was a metaphor.

This view of resurrection was a much later development within Old Testament Judaism. Early mentions of what can be expected after death point us to Sheol, the place for the dead. These ideas contain an expectation of sleeping, or of an existence that is barely existence at all. Later on, this idea develops further into some kind of undefined hope for life beyond the grave. This finally emerges into an expectation of resurrection. This resurrection hope, Wright concludes, is still firmly based in Israel's Covenental and Creational understanding of God's character and nature.

The Resurrection of the Son of God- Post#3

In chapter 2 of "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright we get a survey class of Greco-Roman philosophy. As seen through the prism of Christian theology.

Now, I would be remiss to allow my alacrity to deny Wright his due. This is a brilliant mind at work. He is obviously intimate with the material. He also shows a profound respect for it's content. Kudos. As I will undoubtedly repeat again and again; in an intellectual death-match this guy would kill me in 1.2 seconds. I am NOT his equal. 

He spends the majority of chapter 2 laying out the Greco-Roman thoughts on death and the afterlife. The bulk of it on Grecian giants such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. He quotes liberally and contextually from these as yet seldom matched minds and reaches his inevitable conclusion: Resurrection was not an accepted concept and therefore the resurrection of Christ was a unique and exceptional event, heretofore unheard of and unacceptable.

Beyond the evidence, admittedly inconclusive, that resurrection was attributed to others before Christ, it is true that, in general, this was a "novel" concept. Even, as Wright argues, an "unappealing" concept. The more stoic minded philosophers of Greek lineage were rather stark in their views: Death is inevitable; therefore, not to be feared or despised.

However, "Joe the Plumber" (or is it "Joe, Who's Dumber?") has little time for fearless intellectual inquiry. It's terrifying this death thing. We normal mouth-breathers don't really like the notion of "not existing". It flies in the face of what we have known thus far… you know, existing. 

I stand accused and plead VERY GUILTY of this very thing. You do NOT want to sit next to me in coach class during turbulence! (Business Class or First Class I'm fine. Something about free drinks and Wi-Fi access calms me. I guess I'm an Epicurean).

However, fear, the great motivator, is still my enemy.

What I perceived as the over arching point in chapter 2 of this book is as follows, Alan please interject if you find misunderstanding in my interpretation:

Greco-Roman philosophy, the basis of Western culture, was learning to deal with death and the possibility of an after-life. In their philosophies an after-life was allowed, even championed. However, it was not inclusive of a bodily resurrection. In fact, this was looked at as anathema. Death was viewed stoically (to say nothing of Stoically) and as the inevitable birthright of the human being.

Wright, without coming out and saying it, seems to be setting up the veracity of Christ's resurrection as both shocking and historical because of it's "uniqueness". Ostensibly, it flies in the face of all the thought that precedes it and is therefore historically undergirded because of it's singularity.

These are compelling arguments. To a point. But Wright does his argument a disservice by underlining and emphasizing (and correctly so) the metastasis of the Greco-Roman thought train. He points out, quite lucidly, the evolution of thought from Socrates to Plato, from Plato to Aristotle, from the Grecian philosophes to the Roman political predilection for deifying it's heroes and emperors. 

It is hardly a difficult step to see the conflation of Judaism and Hellenistic culture (first and second century Palestine/Israel) conjuring up a newly evolved faith that intermingles the "One True God" with a hero figure; one cut down in his prime, one that serves the "state" (the true believers), and one that triumphs over the last hurdle the philosophers could not defeat; Death.

I have a LOT to say on this chapter, but fear I've become gruesomely tiresome already.

I will conclude with this. N.T. Wright is a brilliant man. The fact that he believes in the New Testament is intriguing. It compels me to reread this text of my youth. I'm concerned that this "book club" could become quite boring to you readers. I hope it doesn't. Theism is more important today than ever. We still kill, die, and live by it's influence. Whatever your reading level (mine atrophied at Dr. Seuss) this is compelling and important stuff. It is VERY important politically, sociologically, and possibly, as my brother Alan would argue, eternally, where you stand on this stuff. So pay attention!

I await your blade, dear sir.

JE

The Resurrection of the Son of God - Post #2

How fondly I remember my first attempts at digesting N.T. Wright. He seemed to be involved in a conversation with lots of other scholars I'd never heard of about issues I had never considered. It was slow going for sure, madening even at times. I felt like a child stepping into the middle of a grownup conversation trying to figure out what it was all about.

I suspect you will get the hang of it quick enough.

I'm especially intrigued that you enjoyed the section on the five senses of which we can speak of "history". His clarification of these distinct senses and the confusion that comes when we aren't precise, when discussing history, about which of these we are presently considering, was very helpful to me too.

Those five senses are (for our readers, if we still have any):
"First, there is history as event. If we say something is ‘historical’ in this sense, it happened, whether or not we can know or prove that it happened."

"Second, there is history as significant event. Not all events are significant; history, it is often assumed, consists of the ones that are."

"Third, there is history as provable event. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say not only that it happened but that we can demonstrate that it happened, on the analogy of mathematics or the so-called hard sciences."

"Fourth, and quite different from the previous three, there is history as writing-about-events-in-the-past. To say that something is ‘historical’ in this sense is to say that it was written about, or perhaps could in principle have been written about."

"Fifth and finally, a combination of (3) and (4) is often found precisely in discussions of Jesus: history as what modern historians can say about a topic. By ‘modern’ I mean ‘post-Enlightenment’, the period in which people have imagined some kind of analogy, even correlation, between history and the hard sciences."

The Scope of the Book
This book is  almost 800 pages long, heavily footnoted, and approaches this subject both historically and theologically in unprecedented depth. In the introduction and first chapter N.T. Wright (hereafter NTW) helps set us up for the book's flow of thought.

Part One: Setting the Scene
In this section NTW begins by discussing history in general and setting the stage for his inquiry. He then moves on to an investigation into various views of death, the afterlife and resurrection moving first from the wide spectrum of pagan views during biblical times, then moving on to the Old Testament, and then Post-Biblical Judaism.

Part Two: Resurrection in Paul
Following the previous pattern of moving from the broad to the narrow, in this section NTW begins by discussing what Paul had to say about death, the afterlife, and resurrection in his epistles outside of those to the Corinthians. He then takes two chapters to examing what Paul had to say about these topics within his Corinthian letters, and he finally moves in to examine Paul's own account of experiencing the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus.

Part Three: Resurrection in Early Christianity (Apart from Paul)
This section begins with an examination of content from the gospels outside of the Easter narratives, then looks at other New Testament writings, then moves on to non-canonical early Christian writings about resurrection, and finally ends with a historical/theological construction of Jesus as Messiah, the worldview of early Christians, and their beliefs about resurrection.

Part Four: The Story of Easter
This section begins with a discussion of some of the challenges inherent in studying the gospel Easter narratives and two of the main options for considering these stories historically. In the following four chapters NTW takes us through the various gospel narratives beginning with Mark and then moving on to Matthew, Luke, and John.

Part Five: Belief, Event and Meaning
In this final section NTW begins to draw conclusions, including the various options available for consideration, their various merits, and the overall challenge the resurrection presents historically. In the next and final chapter, he then discusses the theological development of our understanding of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God from within this historical framework.

I'm still currently working through his very early chapter on death, the afterlife, and resurrection within paganism. I'm enjoying it very much. Not in the way one might enjoy a good novel, but enjoying it still.

The Resurrection of the Son of God -Post #1

The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) -N.T. Wright

At Alan's behest I have agreed to read this book he's a fan of and slice and dice our way through it one chapter at a time.

After crawling through the preface I meandered through the first 4 chapters. I took about 4 pages of notes, none of which I will presently share. I must say, this is going to be a slog for me.

Alan, allow me to whine a bit and then I promise to eat my veggies and soldier on.

At first blush, this is a book for Christians. Scratch that, "intellectual" Christians. Which, I must confess, always seems, like "jumbo shrimp", a bit contradictory. But, as N.T. Wright says, perhaps I "give too much away". As I am decidedly not a student of Christian literary criticism (which I believe you folks call Christian Epistemology) I confess to being in, as usual, over my head. In the preface and first two chapters, Wright references Biblical scholars of whom I have no knowledge and alludes to schisms in the modern (post-Enlightenment) Church of which I am only vaguely familiar.

In short, I find it, much like this evenings Irish whiskey; a bit dry. However, the Irish has readily understood medicinal value and a warming quality I find lacking in the text. Thus far.

On the bright side....

I did quite enjoy his breaking down of 5 predilections in historical understanding. Perhaps part of the dryness I've experienced so far is in my heretofore mentioned ignorance. Wright is, obviously, exceedingly well educated and far more cerebral than I can ever aspire to be. I found this bit of the book to be quite compelling.

I'm certainly anxious to see where things go in this epistle. At present it's far too early for me to raise any major objections other than those intrinsic to my own evident prejudice. I feel Wright is being fairly balanced thus far and giving any Christian opposition to his (as yet unknown) point a fair shake at least. I'm curious about what his "evidence" for the resurrection will be.

#48.5 A Suggestion

You mentioned wanting to un-pause Belling the Cat. I have a suggestion. Neither of us has time to do a ton of research. It might be more efficient and effective to discuss someone else's.

The reality is that my view of the gospels hinges upon the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. If that didn't happen, nothing else about Christianity matters.

N.T. Wright wrote a tome that is wonderfully researched and footnoted. We could read a chapter at a time and then discuss. Thoughts?

Here's a link to the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303906340&sr=8-1

#48 The Gospels as History Post #11

In the last post I talked about four main sects that existed in Jesus' day. Though each of these sects pretty much agreed about Israel's problem, they each offered a different solution.

One of the things I notice about the gospels is how well Jesus' message fits within this cultural/religious/political context. At the same time, his message was dissimilar enough to account for the opposition he received and his actions ultimately explain why he was killed. The consistently agreed upon problem across multiple sects was 1) We are in exile and need God to forgive our sin, 2) We need God to return to Zion, 3) We need God to cleanse the temple and priesthood, and 4) We need God to defeat our enemies.

The gospels present the life of Jesus as the unexpected answer to this problem. In the previous post I talked about how the Jews of Jesus' day viewed this problem from a very nationalistic perspective. In the gospels we find Jesus as the answer to these very questions minus the nationalistic emphasis. I believe Jesus, as presented in the gospels, addresses these very problems through the following grid.

Genesis 3:14–15 (ESV)

¹⁴ The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. ¹⁵ I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Genesis 12:1–3 (ESV)

¹ Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. ² And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. ³ I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

In the gospels, Jesus IS YHWY returned to Zion. Jesus came to forgive sins. He came to restore the temple and the priesthood. He came to defeat our enemies and end our exile. But the enemy he came to defeat wasn't Rome. It was the serpent. The exile he came to end wasn't national Israel's political struggle, but rather the exile from Eden. He came to fulfill God's promise to Abram, that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

This wasn't at all what the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting. Their nationalistic perspective had made them blind to the ultimate reason God had called Israel.

The second thing I want to say about the gospels is this. There is a historical reality that needs explanation. Second Temple Period Judaism existed. Christianity began (as initially a very Jewish movement), exploded, and changed that part of the world. The gospels actually make the most sense of why and how this could possibly have occurred. Why did a bunch of nice young Jewish boys launch something so obviously connected to their heritage (see above) yet so radically different from that heritage and the popular expectations and practices of their time?

These young Jewish men and women claimed that Jesus was the expected Jewish Messiah, and in claiming this meant something very Jewish by it, but different enough as to completely alienate them from influential Judaism while at the same time doing very little to help them within the broader Roman culture to experience anything but persecution.

When I look at Second Temple Judaism and the emergence of Christianity, the only explanation for this radical transition is that these men and women were eye witnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

In the posts that follow I hope to share why I believe their testimony is valid.

#47 The Gospels as History Post #10

One of the key elements of a worldview involves the answers we assume in response to some key questions about the story of life. Where are we? Who are we? What is wrong? What is the solution? Where are we headed? There are direct and overt ways of answering these questions. But we also answer them with the stories we tell generation to generation. Whether answering these questions propositionally, through the telling of stories, or through the symbols we celebrate, we inform those paying attention about the way we see reality. The biblical story tells us about  Creation (Where are we? Who are we?), the Fall (What is wrong?), Redemption (What is the solution?), and New Creation (Where are we going?).

The Jews, of course, lived life without the benefit of the New Testament, so we mustn’t anachronistically project the full scope of this biblical perspective back onto the Jews of the Second Temple Period. Though every element of my current understanding of Creation, the Fall, Redemption, and New Creation can be found in the Old Testament, the first thing I’ve found helpful to recognize is that the Jews were, for the most part, understandably a bit more nationalistic and Israel centered in their approach to scripture.

After his resurrection, Jesus was well able to show his disciples, from the scriptures, why he had to die and rise again, but let’s not pretend that that was an obvious option to readers of the Old Testament. Hindsight is 20/20. I’m admitting a violation by even calling it the Old Testament. It wasn’t the Old Testament then. It was just the Tanach, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

And they read these scriptures as Jews, from a Jewish perspective, with a concern about very Jewish things. Their concerns were deeply religious and deeply political. For them there was no distinction between these things. We tend to assume a distinction in our day. They did not. Religious influence and political power were deeply intertwined. Religious eschatological expectation was thus very political in nature.

Here’s my best understanding of how the Jews of Jesus’ day might have answered the big questions.

Where are we?
We are on the earth, which was created by and belongs to the God of Israel, the one and only god (Creational Monotheism). We are in the specific piece of land promised to us by God.

Who are we?
We are God’s chosen people (Election/Covenental Monotheism).

What is wrong?
• Sin.
But don’t think of Adam & Eve. This wouldn’t have been their first thought, though they certainly wouldn’t have been ignorant of these implications too. Remember, they were pretty Nationalistic. Adam wasn’t Jewish. Abraham was the first Jew. Adam’s sin is about all humanity and, though aware of this, this wasn’t their primary focus. They had failed to hold up their end of the covenant. As promised, God had allowed pagan nations to come and rule over them as a consequence of their covenant violation. Currently this was Rome. Before that it was back and forth between the Assyrians and the Egyptians (various Ptolemy-s). Before that they were actually geographically exiled in Persia. Before that Persia. Before that Babylon. Before that a divided Kingdom. Before that Solomon, David (a period of blessing). Before that the Judges (another season where they cycled through obedience/disobedience and freedom/oppression). The overarching narrative that gave identity to the Jewish people was the story of Moses and their deliverance from Pharaoh and slavery in Egypt. They understood their identity as a people in terms of Exile and Return. Exile happens when we sin. If we want to Return, then the sin problem must be addressed. Also, though they weren’t geographically in exile (they had returned a long time ago from Persia during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah), the time of exile was clearly not over. The next bullet points will explain why.

• The Temple is a mess.
It was quite a beautiful facility, and all kinds of very Jewish religious things were taking place their everyday. But – it had been built by Herod, who had no legitimacy to construct it. He was in cahoots with Rome and was only marginally Jewish himself. The Sadducees (the priesthood) was notoriously corrupt, especially at the higher levels.

• God is not with us.
In the past, they had more than a book, more than a theology of God. They had God. Behind the veil, in the Most Holy Place, God dwelt among his people in shekinah glory. Though they had returned from exile, God had not returned to Zion.

• Rome.
They were ruled by a puppet of Rome, paid taxes to Rome, and were occupied by Rome militarily.

• God’s people (his “true” people) must be vindicated.
Clearly we are in exile because as a people we have been unfaithful. Clearly the exile isn’t over because some remain unfaithful. By extension, when God comes back and fixes all this the faithful remnant will be vindicated.

What is the solution?
• Messiah.
But there was all kinds of language that served to pack up their messianic hopes: Kingdom of God and Resurrection being very popular among those.

• Sects.
Though they all (mostly) agreed on the problem (what is wrong?), they didn’t all agree on the solution. The problem: When will God come back to Zion, vindicate those who are truly faithful in Israel, restore the Temple and the priesthood, and defeat Rome? This wasn’t a problem at all. They pretty much agreed about this. But, they didn’t agree about what it meant to be faithful, to be the remnant. How can we, as Israel, be faithful and thereby be the ones who get vindicated when God comes back instead of the ones who get judged? Four primary sects will help us understand the various responses.

o Pharisees:
This group’s answer was radical obedience to God’s Law. Not just by them though. They were a very influential social pressure group, resorting to violence toward those who weren’t getting with the program. Saul (later Paul) was one of these before his conversion. If the problem was violating God’s Law, then the solution is following it with a vengeance. Now there were sub sects among the Pharisees and some exceptions to what I’m saying but that’s another discussion.

o Sadducees:
This group’s answer was compromise. They had entrenched political/religious power because they controlled the Temple and were linked up with Herod and his successors. Their agenda was maintaining the status quo. Terms like “resurrection” and “kingdom” represented a significant threat to their power base. So, they had theological/scriptural objections to these things. They conveniently “didn’t believe” in a coming resurrection.

o Essenes:
This group isn’t mentioned in the gospels but history reveals them as being fairly significant. The scrolls discovered at Qumran were likely written, copied, and/or preserved by them. Their answer to the problem was separatism (which explains their absence in the gospels). Whereas the Pharisees were still participating, albeit under protest, in the current Temple system, the Essenes disconnected from the Temple process and system altogether. They were going to be proven as “children of light” by not participating in the corruption of the broader Jewish world. John the Baptist, though likely not an Essene, certainly can be understood as offering an alternative way forward for Jews separate from the Temple as well. This all the more significant because he was, himself, from a family of priests and should have been a priest in the Temple system.

o Zealots.
This group thought they would help God out by taking up arms against their oppressors. Lots of would be Messiah figures with their band of zealots made their appearance during the 100 years before and after Jesus. The way you knew your messiah wasn’t the Messiah was when Rome crucified them.

More to come...

Note: Much of the above taken from N.T. Wright: The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. It's mostly my paraphrase and summary, but I made little attempt to adapt his material or hide that it's his. Those who've read him will recognize his language with little difficulty.

#46 The Gospels as History Post #9

Alan,

I know you've been on the road and we all await your next point in the Gospels as history argument; that  of the political and cultural environment in which the books were written.

But allow me, please, to answer a few comments that have been made thus far. Several people have queried about this:

"Jace, you question the historical veracity of the Gospels and the quality of the transcription of the books as they've passed through history. What about the transcription of Plato, Socrates, the Iliad, and other lionized works from antiquity? Why do you give them credence over the Gospels?"

(This is a compilation of three questions that all lead to the following answer).

I don't believe that ANY books from antiquity are error free. Hell, I don't think any books from this morning are error free. The difference between these other pieces of literature and the scripture of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simple: the believers of these scriptures generally ascribe to them the quality of being the Word of God. Therefore, they are necessarily REQUIRED to be powerfully scrutinized.

If Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare and Plato really believed in flying monkeys from space, it doesn't determine if the majority of the human race will burn in Hell for eternity. With the scripture, it does.

That is all...carry on.....

J

#45 The Gospels as History #8

The Importance of the Historical/Cultural Context

Anachronism is a common trap we fall into when examining history. We look at the past through the lenses of our present day assumptions and biases and project those filters onto figures and events from the past. The gospels were written during a time now referred to as the Second Temple Period in Israel's history, described events from that period, and included assumptions and biases appropriate for that period. I believe a very brief examination of that period will help us in a couple of ways. First, it will hopefully help us to at least recognize our own biases and attempt to see past them, to, as much as we can, put ourselves into their story so that we can more fully understand their story. Secondly, I believe it will help us identify how the story of Jesus' life and death fits within that context and, as importantly, how
it is a significant departure from all they might have been expecting. The gospels can only be understood historically as a development within Second Temple Period Judaism. The connections and similarities are a part of their historical credibility. And yet they are, at the same time, a significant departure from contemporary Jewish thought, praxis, and expectation. The dissimilarity from that context is also relevant, for in the difference the historical becomes historic. Two events occurred: 1) Jesus and 2) the Church. The gospels provide us with the link that explains the historical narrative development.

Why did this group of Jews embrace something so familiar and linked with their history and expectation (a Messiah) while, at the same time, so altogether different from the way any Jew would have anticipated the Messiah coming? In other words: given the Jews, why the Church? The Church, initially Jewish, later Gentile, turned the known world on its head. This change demands a cause. What events were catalytic to this change? The gospels tell us this story. They are witnesses. At least that's what is claimed. My goal is to examine 1) the internal evidence, and 2) the external evidence for the reliability of their witness. As a preliminary step, however, I think it will be helpful to take a look at the Jewish context from which these documents emerged (right or wrong, inspired or not). I don't believe a valid evaluation of evidence can take place apart from this perspective.

I'm not a historian. So I need to just admit up front that N.T. Wright, who is a historian, has radically influenced my understanding of Second Temple Period Judaism. Most of my input on this will simply be my paraphrase of his conclusions, at times bordering on down right plagiarism. Hopefully this citation up front will save me from that charge.

My next post will be my attempt at summarizing this cultural/historical/religious/political context.

#44 The Gospels as History Post #7.5

Alan,

I wasn't dismissing the "meat" of your argument. However, I was jumping the gun. Sorry, I'm eager to get to the "meat" of my personal issues with the Gospels!

I think we can both agree that delving into textual criticism would be secondary to our dialogue. For one thing, you know more about it than I do. That I will happily grant!

Rather than bore our readers and spend countless hours researching scholarly criticism of languages neither of us can read or write I will capitulate.

In what little research I have done, I will grant you the point that we have a great deal of evidence that whatever transcriptional errors may be in our current NT they are not worthy of throwing the books out in the cold. Furthermore, I agree that there is indeed a mountain of scraps, fragments, and pieces of these books that date to the first and second century. And, in general, they match up.

I, of course, am still cynical about this issue, but not to a degree that should stop us from moving on to your next points.

I know this isn't a very congenial surrender, but it's the best I can muster and were we keeping score (thank God were not!) I would award the point to Team Alan!!

Yours,
JE

#43 The Gospels as History Post #7

Interesting indeed.

First, your observation about my leap between the acknowledgement of multiple variants within the extant manuscripts and my claim that the texts are reliable fails to recognize the arguments and information I included in between. I didn't just make a leap. I talked about the process of textual criticism as applied to multiple manuscripts, multiple generations of manuscripts, spread out over a wide geographic area. It is possible to determine the content of the originals with reasonable certainty. A scholar doesn't have to have any faith whatsover to reach this conclusion.

Most of our earliest manuscripts are dated between 200-300AD. We do have fragments that are earlier which serve to support 1) the first century dating of originals and, 2) the accuracy of the early manuscripts where comparison is possible.

This means that events that took place between 36-39 AD (Jesus was likely born in 6 BC), were written about up to and before 60 years from their occurance and we have multiple manuscripts dating from within 100-200 years from that point. From the standpoint of historical investigation, this represents an overwhelmingly strong body of evidence to look at. Note the following comparison between the New Testament and other works of antiquity of historical and literary value.

http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Documents-of-Antiquity.png

You made the point that we are discussing writings that are presented as God's word, and thus they require a higher standard of evidence. Well, a higher level of evidence is in fact present. But let's not confuse what stage of argument we are currently at. I am arguing that the gospels are reliable as history. That they give us a reasonably accurate view into the events they describe. This is a historical discussion, not a theological discussion. Theology comes a bit later. N.T. Wright says "The gospels appeal to history, so to history we must go." The gospels describe events in history. This is either a reliable history or not. But the method of determination is standard historical process, for we have no other. And from this standpoint, we have more and better evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient work.

You also raised the issue that there are discrepancies in the gospels. This is worth discussing, but also a leap ahead of where we are in the discussion. We are talking about manuscripts. Do the gospels we now have match what was originally written. Once this is established, we will move on to the internal evidence regarding consistency and other issues. We will then examine external evidence. This is simply standard approach to evaluating any ancient document from a historical perspective. Talking about alleged inconsistencies in the New King James Version between Luke and John is essential, but if inserted during the point we are discussing variants between one extant manuscript of Luke and another, we will confuse the discrepancies we're discussing with each other. Besides, the discrepancies (if any) between Luke and John only matter once we're reasonably sure that the Luke and John we are reading match the Luke and John that were written. There's a logical process for us to follow.

Next, you claim that the variants that exist are more significant than I have indicated. I disagree factually. I would love to see you show one example of a variant within extant manuscripts that 1) isn't easily explained as a scribal error and corrected by comparing it to other manuscripts recovered from another geographic area and 2) has any bearing upon the historical content of the gospels.

This visual simply serves to further explain how the copying and geographic distribution process impacted things.

http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Geographic-Distribution.png

I really want to establish the issue of the reliability of the texts in providing us access to original content. No leap of faith is required here. This is a matter of fact and history. An unreasonable and strongly held assumption of falsehood going in is required to filter out this reality.

#42 The Gospels as History Post #6

Interesting. I will be very brief. I'd like you to finish your thought.

However, for you to explain how there are inaccuracies in the texts and then proclaim "the texts are reliable" is quite a leap. Would that we were playing "telephone" or simply discussing the veracity of a children's limerick I wouldn't quibble. Unfortunately, we're discussing a book known as "THE WORD OF GOD". These are words, sentences, and paragraphs that people kill over, die for, and hang there very life upon.

Your first post, which dated the manuscripts the NT is actually based upon, dates the "original copies" (for lack of a better description) in the 200-300 A.D. range. Well, that's a bit after the crucifixion. To think the only transcriptional errors or additions in almost 200 years would be semantic is indeed a generous orthodoxy. Especially considering who those scribes were. But I shan't jump ahead.

More than the linguistic errors (which are plentiful, obvious, and far more than mere pronouns and verb tense which you seem to limit them to) there are flat out discrepancies in the four Gospels. Not minor discrepancies either. These are factual "errors". Perhaps one of them is factually true. Unfortunately, that would mandate the others are factually not true.

I'd like to go more deeply into what I mean, but I fear I'm already being rude.... the floor is yours and I won't jump in again until invited.

JE

PS- I probably will jump in again, invited or not. I'm a terrible person!

#41 The Gospels as History Post #5

Not so fast! I said I was going to begin with talking about the manuscript evidence before I moved on to the other issues. Your post demonstrates that you think the manuscript evidence is weak. In reality, there's more and better manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other work of antiquity. We have more copies, with more copies dated closer to the events described, than any other ancient work I'm aware of. In 1971 fragments were identified from Mark, Acts, and a few epistles that dated from between 70-90 AD! It follows from this that Luke is also early, since Luke pre-dates Acts.

Another issue is geographic distribution. Copies were made from the originals and distributed accross a broad geographic region. New generations of copies were made from these copies after distribution. A common objection to the reliability of these texts references the multitude of textual variants that exist in all these copies. While it is very true that such variants exist, many people fail to realize the significance that geographic distribution has on our ability to recognize and correct errors.

For example, let's say that an original author in 60AD wrote:
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."

Let's say 10 copies of this were made.
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."

Note that the 8th copy contains a variant.

Now suppose that these copies are distributed accross Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other parts of northern Africa. Once distributed other copies are made. Also suppose that the copy containing the error winds up in Egypt. The next generation of copies will very likely reproduce this error. But those copies containing this particular variant will be geographically centered around a particular region.

Years later, most of the manuscripts have been lost, but a few remain. Some are complete. Some are only fragments.

In Greece we find:
125 AD - MARY          A               LAMB                              WAS WHITE    SNO
250 AD - MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB WHOSE FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW

In Italy we find:
90 AD - Mary had a lamb whose fleece was white like snow.
150 AD - Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white like snow.

In Egypt we find:
125 AD -          had            sheep          fleece                  as
250 AD - Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow.

Now there are all kinds of variants in these extant manuscripts and fragments.
1) Sometimes lettering is all caps, sometimes not.
2) Sometimes we have "sheep" and sometimes "lamb".
3) Sometimes the adjective "little" is missing.
4) Sometimes there's punctuation, sometimes not.
5) Sometimes becuase we have only a fragment, words are missing entirely.
6) Sometimes "as" and "like" are exchanged.

But, by taking the various manuscripts and fragments we have from various regions and placing them side by side for comparison, Textual Criticism allows us to be reasonably certain what the original autographs contained. And we have more than 5,000 manuscripts and fragments to compare.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the above examples are exactly the kinds of variants that actually exist in the extant New Testament manuscripts. No central Christian belief, assumption, or doctrine is in any way at risk due to the nature of these variants. The very end of Mark's gospel might seem an exception, for early manuscripts do not contain the final bit about handling snakes and such. While there are some very small segments of Pentacostalism in Tennessee and Kentucky that are bothered by this, nothing of orthodox faith hinges on it.

So, the reality is that we have enough copies and fragments dated early enough and spread over a wide enough geographic area to be very confident that the content we currently possess matches the content originally recorded. We know that what was written was presented as eye-witness testimony of events in history. We know we have an accurate record of that testimony. We must now determine whether we can believe that testimony or not. The texts are reliable. Are the writers? I will attempt to address that next.

#40 The Gospels as History Post #4

I know you're not "looking" for a response, so I will keep it brief. Or not. Brevity isn't my strong suit!

Your link was a good read. Succinct and as reliable as anything else I've read on the subject. It didn't reveal anything I wasn't aware of, however. How true is that of your congregation, I wonder?

The oldest "original" documents we have of the Gospels were written (according to your own research) in the area of 200-250 A.D..

Having just watched a fascinating documentary on Reagan (HBO, ya gotta love it) it reminds me of the basis of my skepticism.

In the 20 plus years since Reagan has left office a cult of personality built upon his burgeoning legend has promulgated to such a level that he would likely win the Republican nomination in 2012 with a broomstick propping him up. Why is this germaine to the topic at hand?

Well, the documents we read as "gospel" are based on documents, that are based on documents, that are based on documents...... I fear vertigo encroaching. (Though it may be the Irish Whiskey).

My same criticism of Genesis will ably apply to the Gospels.

Is it quite possible that the words we study as the Gospel, weren't at all the words of Jesus of Nazareth? Are they in fact the "traditions" held by the followers of Jesus and more accurately the traditions followed by the followers, of the followers, of the followers of Jesus? Add a "follower" for every 10-15 years between 33 A.D. and the date of an existing fragment. This is an interesting discussion. The various "red-letter" moments in the Gospels reveal several different sides of Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't say this to be a smart-mouth. Nor to diminish the spiritual validity of any given line of Scripture. Let me be very clear on this point: the historical veracity of an event does not intrinsically diminish it's value as a spiritual lesson or even a "TRUTH".

That's a really important point for me to make as clearly as possible. When I doubt, with great agitation and mountains of evidence, the "inerrancy" of the Bible, I do so as it is posited as a historical document. The debate on the validity of the spiritual and metaphysical concepts broached in the Bible are NOT what I am attacking.

I will attack those from a different angle......

Now, we discussed you "starting the argument" for once. You're not very good at it though.

It seems you follow the Nazarene rather closely, at least in his more docile moments, and are more likely to turn the cheek than raze the temple. So allow this to be a shot across the bow, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors and wretched grammar:

1. Do you believe the Gospels to be the literal words of Christ/God, where attributed as such?
2. If so, why? (knowing the historical nature of the books before us).

My friend, this is a lot of fun, and I'm ever grateful for your indulgence. For me, this is an important conversation. But not a dangerous one. For you, it is your life's work and dangerous indeed. I respect you, I love you, and I am honored to call you my brother.

JE

#39 The Gospels as History Post #3

What Extant Canonical Manuscripts or Fragments are Available?

I begin by not beginning at all, but rather by borrowing someone else's beginning.  Too much work otherwise.

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Check this out. I'm not really looking for a response to this, but simply for you to read it. It's a good scholarly summary (from Duke) that introduces some of the textual issues. What kinds of textual copies and fragments do we have? When are they dated? How are they dated? That kind of thing.

#38 The Gospels as History Post #2

So - you're asking me to drive this part of the discussion, which has actually slowed me down a bit. It's surprisingly easier to respond to you. Interesting.

Anyway, I want to talk about the gospels. For me, this is really the starting place for any evidentiary approach to a Christian apologetic. 1) Do the texts, as we now have them, match what was originally written? If yes, 2) Do the texts represent a reliable record of the events they describe? 3) If yes, is Jesus the Lord of Heaven and Earth?

Here's how I would like to approach things in the first section. This ok with you?

1) Do the gospels, as we now have them, match what was originally written?

• What extant canonical manuscripts or fragments are available?
• What is their date?
• What variants exist and what is their relevance?
• Does textual criticism give us accurate access to the original autographs?
• What about translation issues?

#37.5 The Gospels as History Post #1.5

Thanks Alan! If I can quit smoking, then surely a virgin can drive a camel through the eye of a fat man whilst loving her enemy! 

Do I believe in miracles? I'm certainly skeptical. However, the natural world itself is so full of bizarre wonders which are inexplicable to my uneducated mind that I find any supernatural wonders that might test my “faith” at least acceptable to some degree. Science has explained the inexplicable for decades, even centuries, surely more “miracles” can be defined as time marches on.

My point being this; my “rejection” of the Gospels is not based upon a scientific standard that “miracles don’t happen in history”. Is that a component of my skepticism? Certainly. Just as those same miracles are a component of your Faith. However, the germination of my disbelief did not stem from a science vs. supernatural mindset.

This is a topic I hope to get into, as it’s not something to merely brush aside from an agnostic or Christian perspective. I am not afraid to discuss any issue you can think of about these books. I hope you won’t preemptively take things off the table via your own priori assumptions.

Now back to the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth... better known as smoking cessation.

JahSay

#37 The Gospels as History #1

I've delayed  launching this discussion due to a limitation in my own brain. I'm not exactly sure where to start. As I turned it around inside my noggin, the thing that has become clear is a need to settle a philosophical question before we turn to the historical questions.

Many who reject the gospels do so for reasons that have to do with texts and history and bias and the process involved. But there's a separate issue that precedes this discussion. Many who reject the gospels as history do so for a reason that has nothing to do with history. Their objection is philosophical. They reject the possibility of the supernatural and miraculous. This a priori assumption, when present, makes a discussion about texts, authorship, dating, etc a big waste of time. For those who reject the miraculous, the gospels are rejected as history because miracles don't happen in history. Babies can't be born to virgins. People blind from birth don't suddenly start seeing. The dead don't rise.

Now I'm not asking at this point whether or not you believe the particular miracles in the gospels happened. I'm asking in general terms if you believe miracles happen? Do we live in a closed system of uniform natural causes? Or, do we live in a somewhat open system where supernatural cause is possible? Probable?

I need to know your current position on that question before I can know where to start.

Congrats on quitting smoking. I'm proud of you bro.
Alan

#36 Parenthetical Post

Just want to make a couple of points indirectly connected to our current conversation.

1) Reason and knowledge did not lead me to faith.
Rom 10:17 says well that "faith comes by hearing". I'm a believer because I met a man named Jesus. He talks to me. He works powerfully in my life. He answers prayer. He works miracles. It's a very relational and revelational kind of thing. He speaks to me through scripture and he speaks to me in many of the ways I observe him speaking to other people in the narratives of scripture. No audible voice yet. Maybe later today though.
2) Reason and knowledge are complementary to my faith.
I'm not claiming to be a scholar or a genius. But I have put some thought into my faith. So far, this has served me well. It hasn't undermined my faith at all, but only supported it through the consistent congruence that I discover.
3) I recognize that no one else is going to come to faith through reason and knowledge. Sorry for that Aquinas.
4) Even so, from an apologetic perspective, I need to point out that we're going at this all wrong. Starting with Genesis and working forward is not the best way to establish scriptural authority. Much better to begin with the gospels as reliable documents then move to Jesus as a trustworthy authority then move to acceptance of the OT on the warrant of Jesus' authority. The current conversation would then serve to simply clarify objections to the OT and better understand the purpose and development of the OT rather than attempt to establish it's authority through argument.

#35 Genesis Post #15 Response from Jace

Jace replies in context and in RED:

I'm familiar with J, E, P, and D as you've described them. I find the whole theory humorous at best. The entire argument, when used as an attempt to undermine scriptural authority, is weak in my opinion. First of all, that the five books of Moses were entirely written by Moses is obviously false. The end of Deuteronomy tells of Moses' death and burial. There was clearly some redactor involved there. I wouldn't argue otherwise and nothing hangs on it in my opinion. I’m not sure why you find the “argument” humorous, at best or otherwise. As a lay person I find it fascinating. As a minister and theological teacher I would think you would as well. To your “First of all”, with more to follow, I would ask if you agree that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Bible, then who did if it was just one person? You explode your own nonchalance with the following:

Secondly, the whole argument fails to note the obvious. A writer's agenda and bias in different pieces of writing can dramatically influence the final product.

The whole “argument”, as you continue to describe it, is EXACTLY predicated on your point. Not only do the majority of main stream theologians believe this to be correct they believe it precisely BECAUSE “A writer's agenda and bias in different pieces of writing can dramatically influence the final product”. I’m a little unclear on how you can even separate those two things.

 In Genesis 1 the writer is clearly paralleling and, in the distinctions, correcting the contemporary Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation stories. In Genesis 2, the agenda is independent of any thought of the Babylonian stories and therefore free to take on another shape. To note differences between Genesis 1 & 2 stylistically is most simply explained by understanding that the two sections have distinct purposes. Occam's Razor would lead me to this explanation over the overly complex JEPD theories any day.

The JEPD theories aren’t complex at all. In fact, they are incredibly simple. Various oral traditions of the Hebrews were written down by various people, eventually, they were compiled together. That’s a bit like saying that the creation of Nortons Anthology of English Literature is more easily explained by magic than a collection of editors doing their jobs.

The writer of Genesis is BIASED. He has a theological, philosophical, and political agenda in every word. Find me a history that doesn't and I'll give you a dollar. None of this has anything to do with the writing's value or accuracy as history. If it did, history would be impossible in any setting. It's just that in reading history, the reader will be well served to acknowledge and attempt to identity the writer's bias and to admit his own as well. 

Again, I don’t think anyone of even moderate education would argue with you on this; all historians suffer from varying degrees of bias. You can keep your dollar! And, again, the point you are making is the specific reason theologians have come to this conclusion; that multiple authors wrote various portions of Genesis. That’s the reasons there are different versions of the same story throughout Genesis (Creation, The Flood, Jacob, etc.). Different writers wanted to emphasize different aspects of these stories.

As far as the bias having “nothing to do with the writings value or accuracy as history”....Surely you don’t mean that? I don’t say their value as theological or spiritual is denigrated by the multiple authors. Not at all. In fact, that may make them all the richer. However, although all historians are biased to some degree, the best ones are the least so. Would you like to read the history of World War 2 as written by Ahmadinejad? Bias has it’s boundaries and it’s limitations.

The argument you present is an argument against a fundamentalist and positivistic view of scripture, one that I don't share. In arguing against that you are not arguing with me at all. The view you are in disagreement with fails to see that the text of scripture does not give us direct access to the events described. They think that:

1) The event occurs.

2) The writer records the event in scripture.

3) The reader reads and understands the event.

This is ludicrous and naive. Reality looks more like this:

1) The event occurs. 

The event is REPORTED to have occurred. You do dismiss every Creation story save Genesis, right? I would argue that most of the other Creation stories are no more fantastical. And since our intrepid “reporters” are indeed biased and with an agenda, well....

1. The historian brings his own bias and agenda to the evaluation of the event.

Agreed.

1. The historian works through a particular process of research, analysis, and selection to process the event through the filter of his own bias and agenda.

Agreed, with the caveat that “bias and agenda”, in a nomadic tribe of the Middle East about 3,000 years ago, may also affect the efficacy of “research and analysis”. 

4) The text itself is a multi layered and nuanced concrete item where genre, the function of language, the nature of referent, and layers of possible meeting both denoted and connoted.

I’m not sure I understand this point. Please explain.

5) The reader brings their own approach to the reading. Some read to control. Others read to surrender. They both tend to find what they're looking for. 

We should make this continued argument you’ve been making a whole separate conversation. There’s a lot to it. Also, I don’t entirely disagree.

6) The reader brings their own bias and agenda to the reading. 

I think this is really point 5.5?

7) Meaning is defined.

Ah! I assume the bias and agenda are still involved in this “defined meaning”?

And the above doesn't even address the complexities of language, translation, reproduction, and redaction. I'm no scholar on this stuff, but I have spent some time in the text and dealing with these issues. I am convinced that:

1) There is no possibility of a text that would give us direct access to events. Bias cannot be eliminated.

2) We have exactly the text God wants us to have. 

Hmm, hard to figure how these aren’t in direct conflict. But then, I guess God is biased. Even in my Christian days though, I had trouble with this. I’m not sure what God wants me to take from Leviticus, but it must be something I’m blind to. I LOVE shrimp cocktail!!

This entire process demands:

1) Surrender. If I come to the text committed to my a priori agendas and assumptions looking to validate my already settled position (whether belief or unbelief) then the text will serve me well either way. I'll find what I'm looking for. When I come to the Bible, not just to read it, but to let it read me, I find all kinds of things getting adjusted and changed in me all the time, even my fundamentalist assumptions about the Bible. 

Ah, but that assumes that “Surrender” is not, in and of itself, a bias. That said, I do my best to approach all literature with an open mind and heart. Including the Bible.

2) An epistemology of Critical Realism. I must abandon positivism and adopt the mindset that there is a concrete reality I can truly know while humbly maintaining my awareness of personal bias.

I salute that effort and join in with you.

3) An epistemology of Love. The Bible doesn't work well as a tool to validate my "rightness" (either direction). It works great when Love is the filter through which all knowledge must pass. If my agenda is to love God and others, then all the Law will be fulfilled in that. If the kind of knowledge I'm looking for is a relational and experiential knowledge of God, the Bible works very well for that. 

I can’t disagree with that. Well, accept for the bits where God is smiting and slaughtering. Or turning folks into pillars of salt and such. But, I agree that love is the filter which SOME knowledge must pass. I agree that you can’t have a good relationship with anyone without humility, openness, hope, faith, grace... all things that are discussed and extolled throughout Scripture. However, I don’t need the meteorologist to love me or vice versa for his knowledge to be of use. Or my doctor. Yadda, yadda. I won’t belabor the point.

Alan, my over all point is not to take away the spiritual importance of either of these two Creation stories. But, to take these stories as “history” is to take about 30 branches of science and throw them out the window. Why would one do this? To satiate a bias. 

#35 Genesis Post #15

I'm familiar with J, E, P, and D as you've described them. I find the whole theory humorous at best. The entire argument, when used as an attempt to undermine scriptural authority, is weak in my opinion. First of all, that the five books of Moses were entirely written by Moses is obviously false. The end of Deuteronomy tells of Moses' death and burial. There was clearly some redactor involved there. I wouldn't argue otherwise and nothing hangs on it in my opinion.

Secondly, the whole argument fails to note the obvious. A writer's agenda and bias in different pieces of writing can dramatically influence the final product. In Genesis 1 the writer is clearly paralleling and, in the distinctions, correcting the contemporary Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation stories. In Genesis 2, the agenda is independent of any thought of the Babylonian stories and therefore free to take on another shape. To note differences between Genesis 1 & 2 stylistically is most simply explained by understanding that the two sections have distinct purposes. Occam's Razor would lead me to this explanation over the overly complex JEPD theories any day.

The writer of Genesis is BIASED. He has a theological, philosophical, and political agenda in every word. Find me a history that doesn't and I'll give you a dollar. None of this has anything to do with the writing's value or accuracy as history. If it did, history would be impossible in any setting. It's just that in reading history, the reader will be well served to acknowledge and attempt to identity the writer's bias and to admit his own as well.

The argument you present is an argument against a fundamentalist and positivistic view of scripture, one that I don't share. In arguing against that you are not arguing with me at all. The view you are in disagreement with fails to see that the text of scripture does not give us direct access to the events described. They think that:

1) The event occurs.
2) The writer records the event in scripture.
3) The reader reads and understands the event.

This is ludicrous and naive. Reality looks more like this:

1) The event occurs.
2) The historian brings his own bias and agenda to the evaluation of the event.
3) The historian works through a particular process of research, analysis, and selection to process the event through the filter of his own bias and agenda.
4) The text itself is a multi layered and nuanced concrete item where genre, the function of language, the nature of referent, and layers of possible meeting both denoted and connoted.
5) The reader brings their own approach to the reading. Some read to control. Others read to surrender. They both tend to find what they're looking for.
6) The reader brings their own bias and agenda to the reading.
7) Meaning is defined.

And the above doesn't even address the complexities of language, translation, reproduction, and redaction. I'm no scholar on this stuff, but I have spent some time in the text and dealing with these issues. I am convinced that:
1) There is no possibility of a text that would give us direct access to events. Bias cannot be eliminated.
2) We have exactly the text God wants us to have.

This entire process demands:
1) Surrender. If I come to the text committed to my a priori agendas and assumptions looking to validate my already settled position (whether belief or unbelief) then the text will serve me well either way. I'll find what I'm looking for. When I come to the Bible, not just to read it, but to let it read me, I find all kinds of things getting adjusted and changed in me all the time, even my fundamentalist assumptions about the Bible.
2) An epistemology of Critical Realism. I must abandon positivism and adopt the mindset that there is a concrete reality I can truly know while humbly maintaining my awareness of personal bias.
3) An epistemology of Love. The Bible doesn't work well as a tool to validate my "rightness" (either direction). It works great when Love is the filter through which all knowledge must pass. If my agenda is to love God and others, then all the Law will be fulfilled in that. If the kind of knowledge I'm looking for is a relational and experiential knowledge of God, the Bible works very well for that.

#34 Genesis Post #14

Response to Genesis Post #13

Well, I must confess, I am not fluent in Hebrew. But I'm sensing a trend. This is somewhat reminiscent of the much maligned comment, "That depends on what the word "is" is." made by Bill Clinton during his times of trouble in the 90's.

I don't say that just to be glib or dismissive of scholarship. In fact I applaud this approach you are taking; studying the language, examining the context, researching the culture. But do you take it far enough?

As an evangelical Christian I was taught that Moses wrote all 5 of the first books in the Bible. As it turns out, this is not what the vast majority of Biblical scholars believe to be true. (In fact the only ones who don't acknowledge the following tend to be of a decidedly evangelical or fundamentalist bent).

In fact, although Moses still receives credit for most of the source material in the Torah, both Jewish and Christian scholarship has determined there are as many as 5 easily identifiable authors, or more pointedly, scribes within these books attributed to Moses.

We can certainly get in to the different authors at a later time. But, for those unfamiliar or skeptical of the notion It would be informative to read chapter 1 and chapter two in a "compare and contrast" method.

Stylistically and linguistically they are quite different. In fact, it would appear to be a very confused mind that would write these two chapters sequentially and present them as a narrative.

Beyond just the contradictions of chronology, there is a distinct difference in the "voice" of these two passages.

But, it is even more subtle a proposition than that. We of a modern and Western mindset will be compelled to (if we accept the premise of dual authors) conclude that chapter 1 is writer A (actually, he's known as "P" for "Priestly") and chapter 2 as writer B (actually, he's known as "J" for Yahwist or Jehovist), but we would be in error.

The writer of chapter 1 is indeed "P", the "Priestly" writer. A literary style more concerned with history and genealogies, the letter of the law, if you will. You'll notice in chapter 1 the almost mantra-like approach to the action. Not a lot of personality.

In chapter 2 "P" continues…but just for the first few verses. Then, verse 4 rather abruptly, transitions to Creation story redux. This 4th verse is generally thought to be written by yet a 3rd author, at least in part. But more about "Redactor" as necessary.

The remainder of chapter 2, which is also thought to predate chapter 1, is attributed to writer "J". Our Yahwist friend. And to be fair, compared to "P", old "J" is a regular pushover. "J" is where you're more likely to hear and feel real emotion, dialogue, and blessed mercy from God. For example, the words "mercy", "grace", and "repentance" never emanate from "P"'s pen. However, "J" and his commiserator "E" (yes, that's another one the scholars have identified through style, language, and interest) use these words around 70 times. Apparently, "P" is believed to have written chapter 1 after "J" wrote chapter 2. This would explain the presence of "R" and his clumsy attempt at a transitional phrase (the first half of verse 4).

Sorry this is so dang long…

By the way Alan, I am not assuming you are ignorant of these things. Although, I don't know how much education you have received outside the confines of modern evangelical "thought". I would assume, with your curious and voracious intellect that I'm not showing you any new info here. However, I can say with great confidence, that this knowledge of Biblical origin is not exactly bandied about in Sunday School.

The point is, these were oral traditions of a pre-history for the nomadic Hebrews. They were written down, once a written language was developed, and were later compiled. This took centuries of development. To read this as a literal truth flies in the face of even the most remedial research. That said, faith is a funny thing. One can certainly believe whatever one wishes. But to do so without examining the evidence is a shoddy bit of work.

#33 Genesis Post #13

Are there chronological inconsistencies between Genesis 1 & 2? Here are the key passages to compare:

“And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. ” (Genesis 1:11, ESV)

“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, ” (Genesis 2:4–5, ESV)

The word translated "field" in Gen 2:5 is Sadeh in the Hebrew. While it can occasionally be translated to mean land as opposed to sea, it most often refers to a smaller piece of land within all the overall land that exists. There is another Hebrew word that speaks to land in general - eretz. This context leads us toward this particular use, for it says "No bush of the field was yet in the land (eretz)..."  Sadeh has a specific agricultural connotation picturing a plain that has been cultivated. This is also consistent contextually for it says "and there was no man to work the ground..."

So the very common objection that Gen 1 says God made plants then Man while Gen 2 says God made Man then plants is misleading. For in actuality Gen 1 says God made plants then Man. Gen 2 says that until God made Man there was no agriculture, which makes sense given there was no Man.

#32 Genesis Post #12 (brief too!)

1. I believe the Creation stories denote historical events.
2. I believe the Creation stories connote essential theological truth.
3. I believe readings of these stories that fail to give due weight to the figurative language present in the text are dangerous at worst and misleading at best.

#31 Genesis Post #11

I have so much work to do....but I'm gonna jump in on this. Because you're really annoying me! (Although, it mostly makes me smile and love you all the better because nobody else gets my goat quite as charmingly).

I'm using the word myth as it is described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Definition of MYTH

1

a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenonb : parable, allegory

2

a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society<seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs>b : an unfounded or false notion

3

: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4

: the whole body of myths

Now the definitions you credit to Kreef and Tacelli are a bit tedious. The appearance of specificity is not necessarily the advent of clarity. I do mean #2, but I also mean all of the above. Do we need to enumerate what myth is not?


If so, here is what myth does NOT mean: Something that is literally true, based on provable fact, and free from embellishment. Myth develops in order to make sense of things that are beyond our comprehension. 


As I've repeatedly stated, myths do have value. They should be studied from every angle.


Now, answer my darn question!!!

#30 Genesis Post #10

Here are several possible ways to define myth. Which of these (or more than one) do you mean by the word? I think you're using #2, right?

1. The literal sense of myth, from the Greek mythos, is simply "sacred story." This says nothing about its truth or falsity, historicity or nonhistoricity—just that it is a story and that it is sacred, or about sacred things.
2. The popular sense is simply "something that didn’t really happen," or "something that isn’t real"—like Santa Claus. Here myth is contrasted with truth or fact. This is the sense in which most people are concerned about the stories in the Bible, especially the miracle stories: did they really happen, or are they only "myths," that is, mere fictional human inventions?
3. A more technical and narrow sense of myth that is often used to describe biblical stories, especially miracle stories, is that of a literary genre that includes fantasy, talking animals and stories of the gods. These are supernatural stories that are not literally true, nor are they meant by the storyteller to be taken as literally true, but as a way of explaining natural facts by supernatural (or natural) fictions. Both supernatural stories of gods and talking animals, and natural stories like Jesus’ parables, fit in this category.
4. Another technical meaning, unusual outside professional circles, is that of a projection of human consciousness out onto reality. In this sense, Kant’s theory of knowledge ("the Copernican revolution in philosophy," as he called it) is the claim that all human knowledge is myth. In a narrower sense, dreams are myths if while we are dreaming we take them for objective realities.
5. A much broader, but still technical and professional, use of myth is "any story meant to articulate a worldview." This sense would include both literally true and fictional stories, but it is usually used with the connotation of fiction.
6. A last sense, also quite broad and quite technical, used in literary more than biblical circles, is that of a Platonic archetype in story form, a universal truth about human life expressed in a story. The story is usually fiction, but not necessarily. Christ’s resurrection, even if factual, would also be a myth in this sense, as the pattern for our resurrection.

These definitions from Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli

#29 Genesis Post #9

Interesting stuff. It's certainly germane to the topic at hand, but it also appears to be dancing around my actual questions.

Let's simplify. I'l state my beliefs about Genesis. You reciprocate.

1. I believe the Creation stories are myths: Again, this does not mean a Creator didn't create. It means these stories were developed by ignorant (not stupid, ignorant) people. You can find similar stories in every culture and faith.
2. I believe holding onto these myths is dangerous: They force people of Faith to ignore provable facts in order to sustain unprovable beliefs in the pursuit of an orthodoxy. The need for orthodoxy is based in the fear of death and damnation. A fear all of us share at one level or another.
3. I believe these myths DO have value: These stories can speak to what an ancient people believed in, aspired to, valued and feared. Since these stories are a cornerstone of both Western literature and Western thought it is imperative, regardless of our beliefs, that we study them and try to understand them within their historical context.


Trying to keep it as brief and clear as possible. Please follow suit!

Jace