Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to a quick google search, the domestication of camels occured between 3,000-2,500 BC/BCE.
That quick Google search is a little bit skewed due to very apologetic interest in it. I notice on a quick Google search that virtually all the sites that pop up are from places called Apologetics Press and other such sources. Not exactly reliable. Reliable and scientific references concerning the matter point out that ancient references to Camels as being domesticated only start appearing in Cuneiform sources around the 12th to 11th Century BC, and it is only in the 7th Century BC where archaeological data have found large amounts of domesticated Camel bones. Both these dates are far too late for both the references to Camel-Ownership in the Book of Job and for Abraham. Those are the facts on the ground, available from any good reference that isn't actively trying to engage in apologetics. Any mention of domesticated camels in Patriarchal times are anachronistic - included by writers who were unaware of the history of camel domestication. We can forgive them this (after all, who spent their time researching that back then?) and admit that they made a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Ultimately the way I see it, either God inspired men to write, or the men who wrote the Bible are just plain liars. (Whether it was just apart of their culture to write these stories, or they did it on purpose to control the people)
That's a bad fallacy - the Either/Or Fallacy (in which only two possibilities are raised as a logical outcome) - if you claim that if the Biblical writers weren't inspired, they were liars. There's a reason we study the books and the possible authors and the reasons they wrote their works and to what audiences they were addressed to. Sure - many of it was for ideological and theological motivations, but they didn't necessarily need "Inspiration" to do it. As for Inspiration - there is no clear definition of what that means, and it's an assumption to think that ALL the writers were Inspired. If you want to be technical - only the Prophets were said to have directly related the words of God, and Moses to some extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
For instance, there's a couple of mentions within Scripture, that Moses wrote things down. I don't think the first five books are literally Moses writings, but those writings are based on what Moses wrote down. So a handful of the writings are Post-Exillic, but I feel they are based on the writings they had before Babylon carried them away. And those writings the people had before Babylon carried them away, are based on the original writings of Moses.
The references to what Moses "wrote" is to the Torah of Moses - which meant the law-code, the mitzvah - not the entire Five-Book Torah. Only later did this idea become extended and misread to mean that Moses wrote the entire Torah (the Pentateuch). Even then - the portion that Moses is actually claimed to have written is Deuteronomy, with his speech to the Israelites. But that still doesn't mean he "wrote" the book. The first reading of Deuteronomy supposedly happened during the time of Ezra, as is related in Ezra-Nehemiah. It was not the entire Pentateuch. And again - too much evidence has been brought to bear on the fact that Moses could NOT have written the entire Pentateuch. This isn't new - this has been standard for over 500 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I can definitely see that. One thing though about the plurality of "the seed of the woman", it seems the jewish tradition is to take it as plural. Yet it seems every english translation, even Young Literal translation and the Chabad.org's translation, has the seed as "He". (Whether capatilized or not, of course the capatilization is going to be found in many english translations) I agree it could be taken as plural, and that is perhaps the correct translation, but it's not translated as "they". So if it's not officially translated as "they", it would leave room for it also to mean "he" as a single person or whoever as a single person.
Thank you - I'm glad you see the etiological meaning in it. As to the plural terms used, it really has nothing to do with tradition. The context of the Hebrew grammar and syntax and the curse-formula clearly point that the term "seed" is to be taken collectively - otherwise it has no meaning. The interpretations that started to see serpent as an evil entity came about from Philo's, and the view that it was both Messianic and Christological is known from Irenaus. Ever since the time of Irenaeus - the plain-sense meaning fo the passage has been lost in favor of an allegorical interpretation. If ever there were a school of thought that did not do Scripture justice, it was the school of allegorical interpretation well-known from Alexandria Egypt. Is it wise, when encountering a passage that makes no sense at first glance, or seems improbable, to begin allegorizing the meaning away - just because we either don't agree with or understand it? Not if you have respect for the words of the authors, in my opinion. The same goes for those who refuse to admit that the author of Genesis 1 was quite specific as to what a "day" was.
As for Interlinears and Young's - they should be used with GREAT caution, as igorance of the language will lead one to ignore the syntax being used in the original text and produce a very, very skewed picture. In my humble opinion, Interlinears should never be used. Not to offend, but: learn the language. I do not understand why so many people profess a love for Scripture but are entirely content to read what they consider to be "God's Word" in a translation. A translation will always have to make sacrifices in order to make it understandable to a modern reader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Again I'll be back to discuss the rest here. Have you read my thread in the Christian forum titled something like "Seeing Jesus in the written Torah"? I might have some things I'll bring here that we can discuss.
No, I have not seen it. I usually remain in this forum for the most part, as it's the main all-encompassing one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Again, there's a scholarly touch that you bring with these things, and I don't know your specific beliefs about God.
I cannot claim to be a full-fledged scholar, but I can tell you that if I were to bring my personal beliefs into scholarly research, the results would not be very scholarly. If you have time, read the introduction to Benedict Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise to see how Biblical Scholarship tries to not adopt a priori beliefs or assumptions. It's also a very brief and helpful introduction to critical thinking (and I do not mean "critical" as bad or negative). It's freely available online in the Ewles translation. But anyways - my specific beliefs on God are personal. No offense. I don't let them dictate how I view facts. You will find that most scholars have to make that disconnect when engaging in work, and you will find that unfortuantely many scholars do not make that disconnect - with disastrous consequences for what Scripture actually says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I see these books as connected, but from a scholar's view, we would look at each book almost individually. (Not that these books don't reference one another. In that case, the scholar would look at the books related, but just in that sense)
Many scholars also adopt what is known as "Canonical Criticism" where the final form of the Canon is focused on, rather than on what made it the way it was. Literary Criticism does the same thing. Of course - one must still understand the individual works, their relationships, how they interpreted each other, borrowed from each other, built upon each other and how they were composed before viewing them as a whole. Why wouldn't one want to know these things about the books they love? But too many people start with the assumption that the Bible is one big book, one big message - and that is a theological interpretation that tends to ignore the individual voices that were in constant dialogue with each other - sometimes disagreeing and arguing over certain issues. It would be as if someone took the Four Gospels and smooshed them all together to make a new Mega Gospel - the individual writers' views on Jesus would lose their voices. Oh wait - most people already do this with the Gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Not to throw out the scholars work in favor of my own personal views. I want the Bible to be justified both scholarly and in every way as telling the truth concerning what is written therein. So if it's proven, for instance on our conversation about Daniel in another thread, these stories are just made up, and in some cases outright lies, then I would probably toss the Bible aside altogether. That's not to say there is not a lot of valuable culture within the Bible, but there's lot of culture within me that I don't even know about. I'll be back to further explain my points here, and on the other things I've said.
There's no reason to toss it aside simply because it's not everything you were taught it was. The Bible is fascinating, whether you think it's Inspired or otherwise. If you keep trying to put it into a certain hole, you will eventually find that it doesn't fit. Sometimes it is best to approach it with an open mind and get rid of the a priori assumptions you bring with you to the table. Many of the posts in this thread have centered on the assumption that Jesus can be found in the "Old Testament". Why? Certainly not because it's self-evident. It is because that is what people have been taught to believe. Nobody here stumbled on that by themselves without having been led to it by someone else. Nobody. It's been a long tradition in Christology to read the Hebrew Bible with a priori assumptions. I - for one - am not comfortable with assuming something and then searching to prove my point. That's called eisegesis, the exact opposite of exegesis. If you have time, look up the definitions of those two terms and let me know which you think is the more appropriate way to approach Scripture.
That quick Google search is a little bit skewed due to very apologetic interest in it. I notice on a quick Google search that virtually all the sites that pop up are from places called Apologetics Press and other such sources. Not exactly reliable. Reliable and scientific references concerning the matter point out that ancient references to Camels as being domesticated only start appearing in Cuneiform sources around the 12th to 11th Century BC, and it is only in the 7th Century BC where archaeological data have found large amounts of domesticated Camel bones. Both these dates are far too late for both the references to Camel-Ownership in the Book of Job and for Abraham. Those are the facts on the ground, available from any good reference that isn't actively trying to engage in apologetics. Any mention of domesticated camels in Patriarchal times are anachronistic - included by writers who were unaware of the history of camel domestication. We can forgive them this (after all, who spent their time researching that back then?) and admit that they made a mistake.
After you mentioned this, I went back to look, and found you're right about that, in that a lot of Christian oriented sites popped up. You may not believe me now, but when I did the search, I looked up what wikipedia had to say and another site..(http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm) Yet you've peaked my interest. I'll continue to look into this matter. Do you have any sources for me to look at concerning this? Much appreciated!
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
That's a bad fallacy - the Either/Or Fallacy (in which only two possibilities are raised as a logical outcome) - if you claim that if the Biblical writers weren't inspired, they were liars. There's a reason we study the books and the possible authors and the reasons they wrote their works and to what audiences they were addressed to. Sure - many of it was for ideological and theological motivations, but they didn't necessarily need "Inspiration" to do it. As for Inspiration - there is no clear definition of what that means, and it's an assumption to think that ALL the writers were Inspired. If you want to be technical - only the Prophets were said to have directly related the words of God, and Moses to some extent.
I think when it comes down to it, concerning the persons who wrote the books of the Bible, they would have been untruthful with their writings. Not that I'm saying they were purposely untruthful. Some people believe some of the authors of the Bible, wrote their stories because they consummed some kind of hallucinant. All in all, the Bible shows history and culture in it's text. So if that is what one is after, then that is good. Yet the either/or comes in for those who think the Bible is something more than that. It's for those who think the Bible is the history of mankind altogether, or provide the background to that history. So if that is what you're looking for, then it's valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The references to what Moses "wrote" is to the Torah of Moses - which meant the law-code, the mitzvah - not the entire Five-Book Torah. Only later did this idea become extended and misread to mean that Moses wrote the entire Torah (the Pentateuch). Even then - the portion that Moses is actually claimed to have written is Deuteronomy, with his speech to the Israelites. But that still doesn't mean he "wrote" the book. The first reading of Deuteronomy supposedly happened during the time of Ezra, as is related in Ezra-Nehemiah. It was not the entire Pentateuch. And again - too much evidence has been brought to bear on the fact that Moses could NOT have written the entire Pentateuch. This isn't new - this has been standard for over 500 years.
Of course, it's obvious Moses didn't write the entirety of the first five books. If he did, even though I don't understand a great deal about ancient hebrew culture, I'm sure he would have used more first person verbage. Yet I figured, instead of Moses himself writing, that Moses kind of oversaw the writings of the first five books. The version we have today, I see as copies of the originals. That would be my hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Thank you - I'm glad you see the etiological meaning in it. As to the plural terms used, it really has nothing to do with tradition. The context of the Hebrew grammar and syntax and the curse-formula clearly point that the term "seed" is to be taken collectively - otherwise it has no meaning. The interpretations that started to see serpent as an evil entity came about from Philo's, and the view that it was both Messianic and Christological is known from Irenaus. Ever since the time of Irenaeus - the plain-sense meaning fo the passage has been lost in favor of an allegorical interpretation. If ever there were a school of thought that did not do Scripture justice, it was the school of allegorical interpretation well-known from Alexandria Egypt. Is it wise, when encountering a passage that makes no sense at first glance, or seems improbable, to begin allegorizing the meaning away - just because we either don't agree with or understand it? Not if you have respect for the words of the authors, in my opinion. The same goes for those who refuse to admit that the author of Genesis 1 was quite specific as to what a "day" was.
As for Interlinears and Young's - they should be used with GREAT caution, as igorance of the language will lead one to ignore the syntax being used in the original text and produce a very, very skewed picture. In my humble opinion, Interlinears should never be used. Not to offend, but: learn the language. I do not understand why so many people profess a love for Scripture but are entirely content to read what they consider to be "God's Word" in a translation. A translation will always have to make sacrifices in order to make it understandable to a modern reader.
My thing with translations, is more and more come out every year. If the syntax and everything lines up, why not have the translations say "they". I know things are lost in translation, and that is why we people who know the language correct us on that. (Just like you're doing with me) Yet in english, we can write "they" if that is the meaning. It's not like english has no plural words in it's languages. Yet even in the chabad.org's translation, a very hebrew oriented translation into english, even this translation has "He". ( http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8167/jewish/Chapter-3.htm) I think however, even if it is "He", it could also mean he in the plural. For instance a sentence like "he who fails to keep a part of the law, breaks the whole law" has "he" in a plural sense, basically meaning anyone. So that "he" in Genesis 3 15 could mean it in that sense maybe?
As for learning the language, I'd love to. In fact, I'd love to learn as many languages as possible. Though I find the best way to learn a language is to just live around people speaking the language. Trying to learn a language by relating it to your own language, is a self defeating way to fully learn in my opinion. Yet in the meantime, I'll just rely on those who do know the language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I cannot claim to be a full-fledged scholar, but I can tell you that if I were to bring my personal beliefs into scholarly research, the results would not be very scholarly. If you have time, read the introduction to Benedict Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise to see how Biblical Scholarship tries to not adopt a priori beliefs or assumptions. It's also a very brief and helpful introduction to critical thinking (and I do not mean "critical" as bad or negative). It's freely available online in the Ewles translation. But anyways - my specific beliefs on God are personal. No offense. I don't let them dictate how I view facts. You will find that most scholars have to make that disconnect when engaging in work, and you will find that unfortuantely many scholars do not make that disconnect - with disastrous consequences for what Scripture actually says.
Many scholars also adopt what is known as "Canonical Criticism" where the final form of the Canon is focused on, rather than on what made it the way it was. Literary Criticism does the same thing. Of course - one must still understand the individual works, their relationships, how they interpreted each other, borrowed from each other, built upon each other and how they were composed before viewing them as a whole. Why wouldn't one want to know these things about the books they love? But too many people start with the assumption that the Bible is one big book, one big message - and that is a theological interpretation that tends to ignore the individual voices that were in constant dialogue with each other - sometimes disagreeing and arguing over certain issues. It would be as if someone took the Four Gospels and smooshed them all together to make a new Mega Gospel - the individual writers' views on Jesus would lose their voices. Oh wait - most people already do this with the Gospels.
I hear what you're saying about personal beliefs and doing scholarly examination. Yet I mentioned in another thread how things are buried. I don't think it's possible to find everything concerning what the Bible says, from an indifferent point of view. Not that I'm suggesting we throw out evidence gathered from the scholars, but I don't believe they are gathering all the information in how the text describes things. In order to get all the evidence, I believe you almost have to look at the world as the writers saw it. We assume these writers were God fearing people, and how lying is an abomination to the Lord. So we must say these writers are being truthful to what is written in it. So I think to dig out those things that are buried, you also have to approach this thing from what is written.
Because the thing is what if these things truly happened? Yet if you approach it as if it didn't happen, or just indifferent, you may miss a great deal of things. I'm not saying we should be dishonet, and make up apologetic statements. I guess what I'm saying is, we should go in, expecting to find hard evidence to what is written. If we don't find any, then the Bible is simply a cultural piece of work, with some history sprinkled in it. I guess this is again coming back down to the either/or for me. If it's just a cultural work, that's great. I'll leave the jewish people to tell me about their history. Yet there is a lot of history concerning my origins that is not really known at all. I owe it to the jewish/Israelite people and the rest of the world, to tell them about my history as well. If the Bible doesn't contain any of my history, I need to find out more about my history, because that will be just as unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
There's no reason to toss it aside simply because it's not everything you were taught it was. The Bible is fascinating, whether you think it's Inspired or otherwise. If you keep trying to put it into a certain hole, you will eventually find that it doesn't fit. Sometimes it is best to approach it with an open mind and get rid of the a priori assumptions you bring with you to the table. Many of the posts in this thread have centered on the assumption that Jesus can be found in the "Old Testament". Why? Certainly not because it's self-evident. It is because that is what people have been taught to believe. Nobody here stumbled on that by themselves without having been led to it by someone else. Nobody. It's been a long tradition in Christology to read the Hebrew Bible with a priori assumptions. I - for one - am not comfortable with assuming something and then searching to prove my point. That's called eisegesis, the exact opposite of exegesis. If you have time, look up the definitions of those two terms and let me know which you think is the more appropriate way to approach Scripture.
I'll definitely take a look at those terms and get back to you on them. Yet you're absolutely right about how Christians look at the Tanakh. I won't deny that one bit. The question is concerning this tradition, is Jesus truly who He said to be? If there is one thing we can agree on about the Hebrew Bible, is that the people failed again and again to obey God's laws. Even though it is said Abraham obeyed all of God's commands (and you mentioned this in your second to last post, and I'm going to go back and touch up on that one in a sec), no, not really. Abraham lied, and Abraham doubted God. Abraham presented Eliezer to God, claiming his servant to be his heir because God provided Abraham with no seed. Is that not doubting God, when He already told Abraham that through his seed the whole world would be blessed? Yet what justified him was when Abraham believed God once He told him his heir would come from his own body, and that his seed would be like the stars of the sky.
Again Abraham doubted God when he presented Ishmael as his heir. Abaraham even laughed in his heart at the thought of Sarah having a child, laughed at God telling him this! So after that moment, he strongly presented Ishmael to God as the promised heir. Is that not doubting, by it's very definition? Yet God told Abraham it will not be Ishmael, but one coming from Sarah's womb. Then God even gave grace to Abraham concerning Ishmael. So Abraham didn't follow God's commands 100%. It was Abraham's trust in God that justified him, and because Abraham trusted God, he was able to do anything. This message is all throughout the Tanakh, it's not even funny. The revelation however, was to come later. If the revelation of Jesus is true, then we are right to look at the Hebrew Bible the way we do. Again, this goes back to looking at the Scripture as connected in a godly sense.
With that, I'll go back to where I left off in my last post. I apologize for all these quotes for you to respond to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I foreshadowed your comments here by mentioning the Prophetic lawsuits brought agains the people for breach of Covenant, and you have an interesting comment - but have missed something important about Abraham - something that many Jewish people were aware of - even Paul. Jewish tradition (that source of information that is seemingly endless once one dips into it) believed that Abraham kept the mitzvah, the Torah - yes, the entire Torah. What?! How can this be? Even a cursory examination of the Torah shows that the religion of the Patriarchs was vastly different from Mosaic Yahwism. Rather than having a central sanctuary that was the only permitted place of worship (Deuteronomy, but not in the other books), the Patriarchs worshipped at various places, set up altars, high places, worshiped God under various names (Yahweh, El Shadday, El Olam, Elohim, etc) as opposed to the revelation of God's name to Moses as Yahweh, and etc. They certainly were never recorded as observing the Sabbath. Other examples abound sufficiently to show that Abraham was not practicing Mosaic Yahwism. H.W.F. Saggs writes
In tradition, therefore, the God of the Patriarchs had quite different qualities from those of the original Mosaic God; a tincture of universalism as against ethnic exclusiveness; mercy and tolerance against intolerance and vindicitiveness; a calm prosecution of a predetermined plan as against aggressive self-assertion and ad hoc reaction.
(The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel, JLCR 12, London: Athlone, p. 38)
The point is that the "God of the Fathers" was a very different god from the god of Moses and the Covenant that was made between the people and Yahweh. It's almost as if Patriachal religion and Mosaic Yahwism were as different as Judaism and Christianity. But again - how did the tradition arise that Abraham received the mitzvah and practiced Torah, and even that Jacob went to "Torah school"? A very important passage in Genesis is suggestive - the oracle to Isaac:
And YHWH was seen by him [Isaac] and said:
Do not go down to Egypt;
continue to dwell in the land that I tell you of,
sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will give you blessing -
for to you and to your seed I give all these lands
and will fulfill the sworn-oath that I swore to Avraham your father:
I will make your seed many, like the stars of the heavens,
and to your seed I will give all these lands;
all the nations of the earth shall enjoy blessing through your seed - in consequence of Avraham's hearkening to my voice and keeping my charge: my commandments, my laws, and my instructions.
(Genesis 26:2-5)
The words used here are distinctly and specifically related to observance of Torah and are found elsewhere in the Bible together:
So you are to love YHWH your God, you are to keep his charge, and his laws, his regulations and his commandments,
all the days (to come).
(Detueronomy l11:1)
Did a Deuteronomic editor add those words to Genesis after the fact? It certainly seems so - especially since the lanuage is very Torah-observance-centered. Wherever the idea came from, Jewish tradition expanded on this and insisted that Abraham - as father of the nation of Israel - MUST have observed Torah. Jacob is also said to have observed Torah, from the passage in which he is said to have "dwelled in tents" as opposed to his brother. Tradition supposed that the time spent in tents was time spent studying Torah. Where did Abraham get the Torah? Well - that gets kind of strange, and if you're really interested we can talk about it, but I'll skip it for now.
The point of the above is to point out that the New Testament's insistence (well, one author's insistence) that Abraham was "justified through faith" ignores this passage. Paul was well aware of the tradition that Abraham practiced Torah, he was simply trying to reinrepret it to fit into his own theological and philosophical ideas. One can find that the author of the Epistle to James would disagree strongly with Paul on the matter of the law. Even Martin Luther noticed this when he wrote that it was "an epistle of straw" - for he agreed with Paul against the Hebrew Bible, the Epistle to James, and Jesus' words in the Gospel of Matthew to the rich man concerning how to enter the Kingdom.
I can definitely believe that, about the editing part. You said Paul knew of this particular tradition. Of course I should know this being a Christian and all , but did Paul ever say anything about Abraham observing the Law/Ten Commandments? Everything I'm famaliar with is the opposite. I agree Paul would have personally known of jewish traditions and the oral law. I also agree with there being a difference in how Abraham followed God and how the people followed God after the giving of the commandments by Moses.
I can buy the possible editing in Genesis, talking about Abraham keeping God's commands. The question is how did he do it? Did he do it by keeping the God's laws 100%? I've explained he certainly didn't do that. Or did he do it by first trusting God and His righteousness? Jesus said in the Gospels that He didn't come to get rid of the Law, but came to fulfill it. So the connection is our trust in God's righteousness. We are justified by it, His righteousness becomes ours. In God, we fulfill His commandments. That is basically what Paul is saying, and the other epistles and Jesus are saying. With Jesus and the rich man, the rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. He approached Jesus concerning what works must be done. So Jesus told Him to keep the commandments. The man boast saying he kept all the commandments, so Jesus tested him with his money. The very first commandment is to have no other god before God, if I'm not mistaken. This guy broke this commandment with his love of money. (So much for keeping the commandments from his youth) Then Jesus went on to say with man, it is impossible, but with God (hence our faith in God) all things are possible. With God, a rich man can enter the kingdom of God with great ease! So that's my take there. Paul didn't disagree with anything James, Jesus, or the Book of Hebrews state (where it talks about that Abraham was justified by faith). Unless Paul specifically stated however, that Abraham kept the Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Some of these are not mysteries (see above). Yes - in some of the Prophetic and Apocalyptic writings there is to be a new Israel, but this does not mean automatically that Jesus was the answer to this. The hope for a Messiah was one in which an actual Davidic descendant would overthrow Israel's oppressors and establish the Davidic Kingship once again on earth. This failed to happen - the "Messiah" was killed and Rome remained in power. He had been one in a string of many would-be "Messiahs" who had tried and failed to fulfill the various prophecies - which themselves varied in scope and content whether the "Messiah" was to be one in number, what he was to do, when he was to come, etc. When these hopes failed to happen concerning the case of Jesus, the very Hellenistic writers of the New Testament - influenced by Plato and others - had no problem in changing an earthly message into a spiritual one. The Messiah was not to rule Israel - he was to rule the new "spiritual" Israel. He was not to defeat an earthly opponent, he was to defeat a "spiritual" opponent. He was not an earthly descendant of David, he was conceived by the Holy "Spirit". I mentioned elsewhere the importance of understanding the Platonistic and Hellenistic background of the New Testament writers - it's essential to grasping how they saw two different worlds at the same time: an earthly and spiritual world.
The people, as seen multiple times, didn't really understand God. It's not like spiritual things entered into the equation on in the NT, and all the OT talks about is earthly things. We very much see the wickedness of man from birth, as David wrote about. The whole sacrificial system was brought about because we are evil, or better yet corrupt. There are many teachings about this in the Tanakh. If the people missed that, it's because their hearts were closed to it. Yet not all missed it. It was mainly the leaders who missed it, and the nation followed suit because they were under the care of the leaders. This isn't a Platonist view at all. By the way, I think you can tell I don't know a lot about Plato and his views. Maybe you can give me an introductive view on his teachings, so I can compare it to the NT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
If Jesus best explained these things, then it's amazing that millions of Jews and Muslims have failed to recognize this "obvious" explanation. It's a pretty standard fact - every single person who follows a cause or religion firmly believes that their choice is obviously the best and right one. I happened to have been born into a family that was Western and had a Christian background, so I was raised a Christian. If I had been born in the East, I would have been raised to believe something completely different. But one things would have remained the same: I would have insisted that my religion was the only right one.
Again, the people of Israel missed a whole lot of things, just from a standard reading of Scripture. They complained against Moses til the day he died, the one God chose. Even before the people entered the promise land, Moses already prophesied they would break the laws and abandon God. It's not so far fetched they also missed who Jesus was is it? There's many prophecies about how God reached out His hand all day long to a stubborn people. This is not me saying this and I hope no one takes offense, this is what is written in the Scriptures themselves. There is also Scripture on how God is going to reach out to a people who didn't know Him, and they would become His people. All these things are talked about. So it's not weird Israel rejected Jesus, if He is the real deal.
Last edited by Heavenese; 04-10-2013 at 08:22 AM..
After you mentioned this, I went back to look, and found you're right about that, in that a lot of Christian oriented sites popped up. You may not believe me now, but when I did the search, I looked up what wikipedia had to say and another site..(http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm) Yet you've peaked my interest. I'll continue to look into this matter. Do you have any sources for me to look at concerning this? Much appreciated!
You're welcome!
A nice and handy resource for the subject can be found under the entry "Zoology" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) - an incredible resource for those studying the Bible. Its entry is very thorough, and has discussions on what domestication means (how it changes the animal and how it changes people, etc.) and has helpful charts and information on almost every animal mentioned in the Bible (3 double-columed pages are devoted to the Camel alone). At the end of the article, an extensive bibliography is supplied for futher research (6 pages!). It would be impossible to repeat the article in full here, but at least one citation might encourage you to seek out this resource for further information:
While camel remains sporadically occure at MB [Middle Bronze] and LB [Late Bronze] sites, it is not until the Iron Age that they are found in significant numbers. Isolated and often stratigraphically dubious, camel remains from the MB Age are reported at Gezer, Megiddo, Taanach, and el-Jisr ... At LB sites, camel bones have turned up only at Timna ..., and these may belong to wild species from Arabia. In Palestine at least, there is therfore no reason to suppose that the domestic camel was in use until after 1200 B.C.E. Donkey bones, on the other hand, are found at most sites in both these periods, suggesting that it was indeed the donkey rather than the camel that was the primary pack animal.
(Edwin Firmage, ABD VI, p. 1139)
There is much more information, and it talks about some of the finds that have been mentioned on the more apologetic web-sites. I have to go, so I don't have much time to add more information at the moment, but here is a link to the Dictionary since it's either very expensive to purhcase or is not always available at a public library (though one can get lucky and find a set at a Goodwill Bookstore sometimes!): https://www.box.com/s/3r1hbg1qadobdndij5a2 This is in PDF format and free.
You may find this resource very helpful and informative. Let me know what you think of the article's section of Camels if you download it. I will have to get to the rest of your post later today.
Off to work I go, as seen below hee hee. Someday I WILL get over my fear of riding them!:
I think when it comes down to it, concerning the persons who wrote the books of the Bible, they would have been untruthful with their writings. Not that I'm saying they were purposely untruthful. Some people believe some of the authors of the Bible, wrote their stories because they consummed some kind of hallucinant. All in all, the Bible shows history and culture in it's text. So if that is what one is after, then that is good. Yet the either/or comes in for those who think the Bible is something more than that. It's for those who think the Bible is the history of mankind altogether, or provide the background to that history. So if that is what you're looking for, then it's valid.
I understand that - but if you enter a subject "looking for" something, then you are performing eisegesis and you will probably find what you are looking for, even if it means twisting what is found. The better approach is to enter it without looking for anything except what the text or subject can tell you. If it disabuses you of certain notions you once held about it - all the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Of course, it's obvious Moses didn't write the entirety of the first five books. If he did, even though I don't understand a great deal about ancient hebrew culture, I'm sure he would have used more first person verbage. Yet I figured, instead of Moses himself writing, that Moses kind of oversaw the writings of the first five books. The version we have today, I see as copies of the originals. That would be my hypothesis.
You would need more evidence for your hypotheses - which is, in the end, still based on the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It is once again searching for something, rather than letting the text instruct. The Documentary Hypotheses has been the normative explanation for the composite nature of the composition of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) - that there were 4 distinct sources that were combined into the final form we have it - and it makes very good sense. There's not many scholars today who would not admit its validity, even if in a revised form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
My thing with translations, is more and more come out every year. If the syntax and everything lines up, why not have the translations say "they". I know things are lost in translation, and that is why we people who know the language correct us on that. (Just like you're doing with me) Yet in english, we can write "they" if that is the meaning. It's not like english has no plural words in it's languages. Yet even in the chabad.org's translation, a very hebrew oriented translation into english, even this translation has "He". ( http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8167/jewish/Chapter-3.htm) I think however, even if it is "He", it could also mean he in the plural. For instance a sentence like "he who fails to keep a part of the law, breaks the whole law" has "he" in a plural sense, basically meaning anyone. So that "he" in Genesis 3 15 could mean it in that sense maybe?
Well, the word for "seed" in Biblical Hebrew very much means a quite explicit "issue" from the genitals - if you catch my meaning. In English we also use it to mean multiple things: a single grain of "seed", a large amount of "seed", he gave birth to a son - it was his "seed", he gave birth to many sons - they were his "seed". It's all in how it's contextually and syntactically used. A similar issue in Biblical Hebrew is in play here - "seed" is technically a singular noun that a wooden translation would translate singularly, but a translation that takes into account the actual content of the sentence would definitely see in a plural sense. A backwards example is the word "Elohim" that is usually translated as "God". It's syntactically a plural word, but is used with both plural and singular verbal and other markers. Only these can help us determine its meaning. It's also the common plural word for "gods" - which introduces even more confusion. Only context - and sometimes guessing - can tell us how to translate this word.
Perhaps some good translations of the verse? Here is the 1965 version of Ephraim A. Speiser:
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel.
(E. A. Speiser, AB 1)
His note to the translation reads
"offspring" - Hebrew literally "seed", used normally in the collective sense of progeny. The passage does not justify eschatological connotations. As Dr. put it, "We must not read into the words more than they contain".
So a good translation with good notes is always reccomended. It helps clear up issues immediately. A translation almost begs for a commentary along with it, or at least notes, because of the way language works. Much is lost in translation. Every translation will make its own decisions, however. Your point is well taken - but I think the context and syntax clears the problem up. Otherwise, the etiological nature of the tale is completely lost if it does not apply to mankind and snakes in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
As for learning the language, I'd love to. In fact, I'd love to learn as many languages as possible. Though I find the best way to learn a language is to just live around people speaking the language. Trying to learn a language by relating it to your own language, is a self defeating way to fully learn in my opinion. Yet in the meantime, I'll just rely on those who do know the language.
I fully agree with you - but when I embarked on learning Akkadian, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew there were no modern native speakers of these languages to assist me. Modern Hebrew is very different from Biblical Hebrew - especially in pronounciation. The plus side of learning it the way I did is that you have to learn the roots and how they are related and how they evolved through the languages. Not many modern English speakers could explain to someone why "Naughty" in Chaucer's time meant something completely different than it does today! Yet it would be required when reading Chaucer. Going further than that, one has to learn how "Naughty" got into the English language. Many linguistic problems that have beset the Biblical text for many years has been cleared up thank to cognate languages that have helped us trace roots - especially the discovery of Ugaritic in 1929.
Again - I'll get to more of your comments later. Must...sleep... Camel ride....exhausting (thanks, Woodrow ha ha!)...
I hear what you're saying about personal beliefs and doing scholarly examination. Yet I mentioned in another thread how things are buried. I don't think it's possible to find everything concerning what the Bible says, from an indifferent point of view. Not that I'm suggesting we throw out evidence gathered from the scholars, but I don't believe they are gathering all the information in how the text describes things. In order to get all the evidence, I believe you almost have to look at the world as the writers saw it. We assume these writers were God fearing people, and how lying is an abomination to the Lord. So we must say these writers are being truthful to what is written in it. So I think to dig out those things that are buried, you also have to approach this thing from what is written.
Approaching the text by learning about the world in which the writers lived is essential to scholarship and it is done. Looking at the ANE context of the world around the events of the Bible, we find - as one example - extra-Biblical stories about the seer Balaam. Now, while this certainly demonstrates that there was probably a seer named Balaam, it does not automatically "prove" the accounts about him in either the Biblical or extra-Biblical sources. The same goes for the Flood Epic from the various cultures that told the story - most Christians or Jews will automatically prefer the Biblical versions of these tales. Every other version is automatically "false" and used to "prove" the Biblical account. This isn't exactly sensible.
As for lying - I don't think we can apply ethical or religious standards completely to Biblical authors. The idea of history as an objective science just did not exist in the ANE until Herodotus, and then Thucydides, helped hone the craft. Historians from the ANE were not always interested in telling "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - they had ideological, religious, political and other reasons for how they wrote "history", the events they chose to narrate, how they narrated it, and so on. Even in Thucydides, he admits that he did not remember exactly what the people in his history said down to the smallest detail, so he had to elaborate and try to get the "sense" of what he had head them say - if he had even been there. So the result is that most speeches in Thucydides history sound like - well, Thucydides. Now - did he consider himself a liar? I don't think so. Did Herodotus consider himself a liar when he related tales that he admitted were far-fetched but he was only repeating what he had heard? Did the Biblical writers consider themselves liars when they interpreted a historical event as occuring because of the actions of Yahweh? Probably not. That world was very different from ours - and the distinction between our reality and the Divine was not as marked.
It's impossible to really give a good picture of how writing was viewed in the ANE in a post, but suffice it to say that how we view reality, truth and history today is NOT how the ancient writers viewed it. If we try to apply these notions to them, they will not work. As to the Biblical idea of "lying is bad" - it certainly didn't matter to Jacob or Abraham when they lied to save their own skins or make a profit. They are just interesting narrative features, in a way. One would have to demonstrate that all Biblical authors lived by some code in which "lying" was truly an "abomination to Yahweh". It should be remembered that the Biblical authors frequently disagreed with one another, and told different versions of the same story (just see who caused David to take the Census: Samuel blames Yahweh, while the very apologetic author of Chronicles puts the blame on Satan).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Because the thing is what if these things truly happened? Yet if you approach it as if it didn't happen, or just indifferent, you may miss a great deal of things.
Most scholars do not approach it as if it didn't happen. Like historians, they assess the evidence and let it dictate the results. They do not look to "prove". The American School of Archaeology under W. F. Albright went about with the assumption that Biblical text was basically correct historically in its main points and could be proved from archaeology. This assumption skewed their approach and they had to finally admit that taking such an assumption was faulty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I'm not saying we should be dishonet, and make up apologetic statements. I guess what I'm saying is, we should go in, expecting to find hard evidence to what is written.
This is entering a subject with assumptions. It is not truly scientific or objective. It is biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
If we don't find any, then the Bible is simply a cultural piece of work, with some history sprinkled in it. I guess this is again coming back down to the either/or for me. If it's just a cultural work, that's great. I'll leave the jewish people to tell me about their history.
Going back to what I said about how "history" was viewed in the ANE, I don't think I would personally dismiss the entire thing simply because my assumptions of its inerrant and inspired nature were not proven correct. There can be great truth in things, even if they are not historically accurate. That may not make sense, but one can look at the story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree story in which he admits to it and we learn the moral that one should not lie. This story never happened, and we know who made it up, but we still tell it because it has a truth claim - even if not historical. Make sense?
I enjoy the Book of Job's examination of Theodicy but I don't need it to be entirely "true" historically for it to speak to me. If an oral tale has been passed down concerning a forefather, and someone decides to mistakenly add something anacrhonistic to it (such as camels) - should we throw out the tale? We can still keep it, admitting that fallible men passed the story down and it underwent changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I'll definitely take a look at those terms and get back to you on them. Yet you're absolutely right about how Christians look at the Tanakh. I won't deny that one bit. The question is concerning this tradition, is Jesus truly who He said to be? If there is one thing we can agree on about the Hebrew Bible, is that the people failed again and again to obey God's laws. Even though it is said Abraham obeyed all of God's commands (and you mentioned this in your second to last post, and I'm going to go back and touch up on that one in a sec), no, not really. Abraham lied, and Abraham doubted God. Abraham presented Eliezer to God, claiming his servant to be his heir because God provided Abraham with no seed. Is that not doubting God, when He already told Abraham that through his seed the whole world would be blessed? Yet what justified him was when Abraham believed God once He told him his heir would come from his own body, and that his seed would be like the stars of the sky.
Again Abraham doubted God when he presented Ishmael as his heir. Abaraham even laughed in his heart at the thought of Sarah having a child, laughed at God telling him this! So after that moment, he strongly presented Ishmael to God as the promised heir. Is that not doubting, by it's very definition? Yet God told Abraham it will not be Ishmael, but one coming from Sarah's womb. Then God even gave grace to Abraham concerning Ishmael. So Abraham didn't follow God's commands 100%. It was Abraham's trust in God that justified him, and because Abraham trusted God, he was able to do anything. This message is all throughout the Tanakh, it's not even funny. The revelation however, was to come later. If the revelation of Jesus is true, then we are right to look at the Hebrew Bible the way we do. Again, this goes back to looking at the Scripture as connected in a godly sense.
The passage in which it is said that Isaac would continue to be under the Covenant "in consequence of Avraham's hearkening to my voice
and keeping my charge: my commandments, my laws, and my instructions" ... says what it says whether we find that to be true or not. We can find a contradiction concerning it in his behavior and dismiss it, or we can try to find out why it was written. Here - the Documentary Hypothesis is helpful. What one author claims for a character is not necessarily what another author has written about him. This removes many inconstinacies in the text. The Priestly Author, for example (one of the main sources of the Pentatuech), almost never narrates any actions on the parts of main characters that would be at variance with the later Torah laws. In Deuteronomy, there is only one central place where worship is permitted - and this probably reflects the Jerusalem Temple's monopoly reflected back on the text. So what about all the times in which the Patriarchs set up high places and altars? Well - the Priestly Author, with his very priestly concerns, does not narrate these events. In the Flood Account, the P Author does not have Noah offer a sacrifice; this comes from the Yahwist Source. He is very careful in this regard.
In the case of Abraham keeping the commandments, etc. - it is usually seen as coming from the Yahwist Writer - so we do not have recourse to this explanation. So there must be something else. The Yahwist writer certainly was not very condemning when he wrote his accounts. He told the stories, and the Patriarchs frequently come off looking in a bad light. Just think of Abraham's attempt to pass his wife off as his sister - in order to save his own skin. He comes out of the situation rich, but the author is probably fully aware of the trickery that he pulled. A later author - uncomfortable with this - of course tries to apologize for it by saying "Oh YEH - she was his sister, actually". The same goes for the account of Jacob stealing Esau's birthright. The oldest account has a very culpable Jacob who is definitely in the wrong, and must spend the next couple of decades running for his life from the justice that was sturely due to him. But later authors interspersed details pointing out that Esau was a "bad" man, and that Jacob didn't really run for his life - he just casually went to find a wife. The combination of all these stories makes for a confusing mess and a false sense of righteousness on the part of the Patriarchs.
The narrative events concerning Abraham trying to find a way to have a son is part of the tensions, however. We - as readers - are supposed to be in suspense. If you read the original promise to Abraham - it is not specifically addressed to include Sarai. So we are left to wonder at how this promise will be fulfilled. In the ANE - there were multiple ways in which "seed" could be realized. First we have the story of Egypt. Was Abraham trying to fulfill God's promise via the Pharoah? It's possible. Then we have the possibility of Lot - a close relative. Could the promise be fulfilled by him? It's possible - and we are certainly made to think so, but when he departs and moves away we are bereft of this, and the narrative tension again builds. HOW will God fulfill his promise? Yahweh's promises start to get more specific concerning his seed, but again the possibiltiy of Hagar is given - but then taken away. The possibility of his personal servant - and adopted seed is given. Again - possible, and not at variance with the Promise. But then the promise becomes specific and Sarai is named. Now the narrative tension is really built up, since she is so old. Of course - she laughs. Who wouldn't? One must keep in mind that Abraham had already demonstrated a huge leap of faith when Yahweh told him to just up and leave his family and city. Not many people would do that. But as the story goes on, we are supposed to wonder how this Promise is to be fulfilled as it is expanded and made more sure. Carrot after carrot is dangled in front of us - to no avail, until finally Sarai gives birth. This is great narrative art and great storytelling. We miss this - because we already know the end of the story! But to those who do not know, it is a riveting drama of faith, promises fulfilled and a faithful servant trying to achieve God's Will by any means possible.
Now just imagine the horror of the story in which Yahweh suddenly asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - after all that has proceeded it. We should not be surprised if Abraham had gone through with it, and the Promise was fulfilled in some other manner. Some Jewish Tradition says that Isaac WAS sacrifice, actually - and a close reading of the text and its seams does point to the fact that only Abraham and the two lads returned from the mountain. Isaac is missing. The account even says "because you DID this thing"... But this is for another time. I merely point out the growing tension of the account that we hae taken for granted.
I guess your question about whether Abraham kept the commands, etc 100% needs some more looking into, perhaps. It might not be as simple as saying "well, he did lie that one time - so...." We do not know WHAT commands and laws the narrator is referring to. The various later laws of the Torah are not automatically pointed to, but that is what later Jewish Tradition adduced them to be. But this is reading a lot more into the text than is actually there. This is how much tradition works, however: a problem is found - a seeming contradiction - and then Tradition steps in to explain it away nice and easy. It happens even in the Biblical text among the authors - like the Samuel/Chronicles example from above.
Thanks Whoppers for your information, and I enjoyed your picture with the camel. I to will learn to ride one someday. I'll let you finish responding to my posts before I give you my answers to them. So far in my research concerning domesticated camels, I'm getting some discrepancy from different sites, including some stuff from my search on google scholar. (Of course I guess not every piece of information found on google scholar, is actually from a scholar) I checked with National Geographic's website, and they say the domestication of camels goes back 3,500 years approximately. So that would agree a bit with your take for a late domestication of camels. I'll continue to look there, and read more from the links you gave.
Also something else you can touch up on, my basis for believing in the Tanakh as mostly accurate accounts, is because that is how Jesus took them. Now of course scholars don't believe Jesus did all of what is claimed in the Gospels, but there's enough information to say it's most likely Jesus existed. That He preached a message, and was crucified for it. There's plenty of evidence that there were many Messiah figures that popped up during that time and so on. The best evidence to suggest that Jesus existed and He definitely preached that He is God in the flesh, is Paul's letters and the Gospels themselves. (Which I believe their's good evidence to suggest three of the Gospels were written before 70 AD, meaning that these writings spread during the time the original apostles were still alive to confirm them) So if Jesus is truly God in the flesh, and He presented the Tanakh as factual history (which He did), He is basis for looking at the Scriptures in this light. Surely God would know whether or not the Scriptures were reliable information.
Going back to my earlier bit (and I still haven't looked up the definitions of exegesis and that other term. I will get back to you on them, I'm sorry ) about the either/or fallacy, I don't think my research would be corrupt if I did go out to prove my bias. Bias or no bias, I wouldn't let it make me falsify information. I would be looking for hardcore evidence, that can't be refuted in any way. If I can't find that kind of information, then I would agree the Bible wasn't meant to be a totally factual book. I'll let others judge my work. People wouldn't believe me anyway if my work had holes in them. (I view it like creationism and my research concerning it. If I can't explain the world adequately with my creation model, no one would take me seriously, as it should be) You mentioned Albright and his research, how he admitted his work was biased and it wasn't the correct way of gaining information. I hear ya! Yet the kind of information I'm looking for and the kind I want to bring to the table for examination, is the kind without holes. That inspite of my biases, inspite of how I got it, it is still one without holes. So I would let others judge my work.
I find your take on the Hebrew Bible being a composite of four distinct sources interesting. You mentioned how there are discrepencies within the accounts, and also contradictions in different books about the same account. (For instance the situation about David and the census) I have some interesting questions for you about that, and I want to ask you some questions concerning your knowledge on Christian tradition, so you'll have to put back on some of your christian upbringing for a bit with that one, hehe! Yet I'll let you finish answering the rest of my posts. Thanks for your responses and I to am enjoying this conversation.
I can definitely believe that, about the editing part. You said Paul knew of this particular tradition. Of course I should know this being a Christian and all , but did Paul ever say anything about Abraham observing the Law/Ten Commandments? Everything I'm famaliar with is the opposite. I agree Paul would have personally known of jewish traditions and the oral law. I also agree with there being a difference in how Abraham followed God and how the people followed God after the giving of the commandments by Moses.
Please pardon the long reply!
Good - there's definately a difference between Patriarchal Religion and Mosaic Yahwism, the latter being much more codified and specific in its requirements. It was this strict codification that Paul was reacting against and later Christians would reject - to the point that Biblical Scholarship for a long time was missing Jewish scholars due to the extreme anti-Semitism that sprouted from it and Christian teachings about the "New" getting rid of the "Old". The Torah was certainly difficult to follow and it required constant updating to keep it relevant and understandable. This is where the "Oral Torah" came from (though Orthodox Jews still believe that the Oral Torah was given directly to Moses on Sinai) - when the times changed and different circumstances made the observance of Torah difficult or confusing, the Rabbis would weigh in on a law and interpret it, followed by Rabbis after them. It is very interesting to read the Talmud and its legal decisions concerning Torah. Why they did this is because the Torah is not always specific in certain matters and omits many important matters altogether. So the Oral Torah arose as a way of dealing with this.
Paul was a Pharisee raised in the Jewish Tradition and was steeped in both Judaism and the then-prevailing Hellenistic way of thinking of Judaism. He was very similar to Philo of Alexandria in how he saw certain things. Philo was intent on proving that Judaism was just as valid as Greek Philosophy, so he very much adopted Plato's teachings on Allegory and the existence of an unseen world that this present world only imitates. Though after the time of Paul, the following two divergent views can be highlighted as to Abraham's observance of Torah. The 3rd Century AD Rav wrote that "Abraham carried out the whole Torah", while Shimi bar Hiyya later responded by writing "I can say [that Genesis 26:5b refers only to] the seven commandments". These "seven commandments" would be the pre-Abrahamic Noahide Laws, which were supposed to have been observed by both Jews and Gentiles. Many Jews today claim that Gentiles need only follow these laws, and not the Torah. These "seven" laws are traditionally derived from Genesis 9 and are mentioned by Paul as being a requirement, even if the full Torah is not. This was in response to the controversy in which Jesus' claim that Torah must be observed was preached by most of the Disciples until Paul came along - not an original disciple - and decided it would probably be good for business if Gentiles were admitted and did not have to follow Torah. Not many people would have converted if they had suddenly found themselves bound by Torah!
Paul would have been familiar, however, with these following traditions concerning Torah observance and Abraham. Bear in mind that the Canon of the Hebrew Bible that makes up the Tanakh today was not yet fully agreed upon (see my chart earlier in this thread), and that there were other books used by Jews and Christians. One of these - the Book of Jubilees - was a very thorough work that examined Genesis (and others) and tried to figure out various problems. In Jubilees 21, the question of how Abraham observed Torah before Moses is both detailed and given an explanation:
In the sixth year of the seventh week of this Jubilee [2057] Abraham summoned his son Isaac and gave him orders as follows:
'I have grown old but do not know when I will die because I have reached the full number of my days. Now I am 175 years of age. Throughout my entire lifetime I have continually remembered the Lord and tried to do his will wholeheartedly and to walk a straight course in all his ways...
With him there is no favoritism nor does he accept bribes because he is a just God and one who exercises judgement against all who transgress his commands and despise his covenant. Now you, my son, keep his commands, ordinances, and verdicts. Do not pursue unclean things, statues, or molten images.... [What follows are very priestly details that were detailed in the Mosaic Code]
All who eat [meat left over a third day] will bring guilt on themselves because this is the way I found (it) written in the book of my ancestors, in the words of Enoch and the words of Noah.
(Jubilees 21:1-2, 4-5, 10 - Vanderkam)
Jubilees claims that there had been a series of works passed down from which Abraham learned the proper observance of Torah. That books had been passed down is explained elsewhere in Jubilees, with the figures involved being father to son (Enoch to Methusaleh , then to Lamech, then to Noah - this also explains the popularity of the Pseudepigraphical Books of Enoch that both Jews and Christians would read; of course, they are not what the author of Jubilees is referring to here, but the author of the Books of Enoch might have liked to think so). So in Jubilees, Abraham reveals that he observes Torah long before Moses gives it.
But how can such a thing be? How could Torah exist before Moses? Some Jewish Tradition claims that the Torah was eternal, existing before Creation and that God Himself consulted it when creating the world.
Seven things were created before the world, and these are they: the Torah, repentance, the garden of Eden, Gehenna [Hell], the Heavenly Throne, the Temple, and the name of the messiah.
(b. Pesahim 54a, as cited in Kugel: Traditions of the Bible - The Bible as it Was at the Start of the Common Era, p. 54)
But we must move on from Jubilees to Philo, who viewed Torah as being a natural phenomenon that the Patriachs understood from nature and were not taught. People could find and observe Torah if they looked hard enough into the nature of the Unvierse.
In these men we have laws endowed with life and reason, and Moses extolled them for two reasons. First he wished to shew that the enacted ordinances are not inconistant with nature; and secondly that those who wish to live in accordance with the laws as they stand have no difficult task, seeing that the first generations before any at all of the particular statutes was set in writing followed the unwritten law with perfect ease, so that one might properlysay that the enacted laws are nothing else than memorials of the life of these ancients, preserving to a later generation their actual words and deeds. For they were not scholars or pupils of others, nor did they learn under teachers what was right to say or do; they listened to no voice or instruction but their own: they gladly accepted conformity with nature, holding that nature itself was, as indeed it is, the most venerable of statutes, and thus their whole life was one of happy obedience to laws
(Philo, On Abraham 5-6, Colson - as cited by J. D. Levinson, "The Conversion of Abraham" from The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, p. 26, Brill, 2004)
In this view - contrary to Jubilees - the Patriarchs were, to use Levinson's phrase, "walking Torahs". They did not learn from books or scrolls, from teachers or sages - they simply accessed nature. Now this may sound a little far-fetched, but a similar notion was adopted by Paul concerning knowledge of the Divine
..."the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.
In past generations he allowed all the nationsto follow their own ways, yet he has not left himself without a witness in doing good - giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filling you with food and your hearts with joy."
(Acts 14:15-17, NRSV)
Paul insists that "pagans" always had access to the knowledge of God through nature - God's witness to Himself. Notice the tripartite division of Creation in the first line - heavens, earth, seas - exemplified in Genesis 1, a common view of the Universe.
Other views of Abraham's observance were that Melchizedek taught Abraham the Torah; that he only observed the Noahide Laws; that he observed the entire Torah. This debate continued for a long time - never fully settled.
Paul - fully aware of these traditions, being an educated Pharisee at one time - saw it differently. In Galations, he rejects the notion that Abraham knew Torah and insists that since he had no access to it, but was deemed "righteous", then he must have been righteous for some other reason.
Just as Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," so you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in your." For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.
(Galations 3:6-9, NRSV)
Paul was writing this in response to the members of the Galation church who were still practicing Torah. His interpretation was yet another in a long line of interpretations - as we have seen from some of the examples above, and from elsewhere. We can analyze it and see if his conclusion necessarily follows from his premises. Is "righteousness" the equivalent of the state of being that is achieved through Torah observance? Paul admits that this is how people might view it, and then goes on to deny it. He does this by interpreting Genesis 12:3 as a revelation to Abraham of the Gospel of Jesus.
YHWH said to Avram:
Go-you-forth
from your land,
from your kindred,
from your father's house,
to the land that I will let you see.
I will make a great nation of you
and will give-you-blessing
and will make your name great.
Be a blessing!
I will bless those who bless you,
he who curses you, I will damn.
All the clans of the soil will find blessing [or "seek to be blessed (as you)"] through you!
(Genesis 12:1-3, Fox)
This was the inital revelation to Abraham from Yahweh. In it, the conclusion is not clear but can be examined with several possibilities. One I would cautiously reject is the later, Paulistic interpretation that it points to Jesus. This is not anywhere evident in the text and it requires a GREAT deal of creative thinking to wring it out of it. It is certainly possible that it is messianic, but that is also a stretch. I will deal with this issue down below after a preliminary discussion of the passagae. A much better possibility is that it is the culmination of the many disasters that doomed mankind from the beginning, and a return to the initial state of fruitful blessedness that God had declared on mankind:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God did he create it,
male and female he created them.
God blessed them,
God said to them:
Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth
and subdue it!
(Genesis 1:27-28)
At the very begining of humanity's existence, a universal blessing is bestowed on all humanity. There is no Israel yet, not chosen people. Humanity is God's concern in the beginning. Through the course of the events of Genesis 1-11 humanity and the rest of "flesh" on earth end up corrupting it. God decides to wipe them all out and pin his hopes on one family who finds favor with him - Noah's. From Noah, it is written, all of humanity is then descended. The very same blessing is once again given to this "new creation", this new "Adam":
God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them:
Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth!
(Genesis 9:1)
The blessing of fruitfulness is given again, but narrowed down to Noah and his family. But Noah's line proves itself to be almost as corrupt as the previous one and the Tower of Babel is another example of humanity being punished for being corrupt and reaching far beyond their means. It is then that Genesis 1-11 ends and God once again decides to narrow his focus to a single family - no longer all of humanity. He chooses Abraham and you can see from the passage above that he once again renews the blessing of fruitfulness, but leaves the enigmatic statement that perhaps the rest of humanity may find "blessing" through Abraham's line.
What does that mean? A plain-sense reading might just see it as another chance for humanity, but filtered first through Abraham as a possible test case. The promise to be fruitful becomes extremely important in the Abraham story (as I pointed out in a previous post) and makes for much of the dramatic tension (how will God fulfill his "blessing" of seed?). That would be the obvious way of looking at, I would think - but it requires seeing what has come before in the blessing motif. One of the names of God used in the Patriachal stories, and almost always within a fertility context, is 'El Shaddai (usually translated merely as "God Almighty" - but this is not certain at all). This name has "God" as the beginning and the ending's meaning has several possibilites. The double meanings of "mountains" and "breasts" may point to a fertility function for this name, and it would then make sense as to why the name was used in the Patriarchal stories - where continuance of one's line was of the utmost importance. That the later Priestly source knew of this tradition is reflected in Exodus where Yahweh reveals his name (supposedly for the first time) and states that the Patriarchs only knew him as "El Shaddai". In the Priestly strata of the Pentateuch, this is certainly true - the name "Yahweh" is not known to the people until the passage in Exodus. In the Yahwist Source, however, the name "Yahweh" had been known from the beginning, apparantly - it is even stated explicitly that around the time of Lamech was begun the practice of invoking the name of Yahweh. Anyways - that's part of the reason the Documentary Hypothesis was adopted and why two of the sources names (the Yahwist and the Elohist) are given those tites: they used certain names for God up until Exodus. Getting back to the point - is that 'El Shaddai makes sense in the context of fertility and the blessing originall bestowed on all humanity, and now reserved for Abraham and possibly extended to the rest of humanity via Abraham.
Apart from that, later interpreters with a messianic eye will see the promise as pointing to the promised Messiah of the post-exillic times who would free Israel from their enemies, and then the glorious rule of God would occur over all the nations. In this way, the nations would be "blessed" through the Israelites - the descendants of Abraham. It is probably this interpretation that Paul adopts, and of course attributes to Jesus Christ. But it is useful to understand how he got to that interpretation. One can assume that he was given it by God, or one can look at the long string of traditional interpretations that influenced Paul's thinking, I suppose. One disturbing feature of Paul's interpretation is that is strips Jews of their status as the Covenanted People, when he speaks of the "true descendants of Abraham". This would not end well for Jewish people over the years, unfortunately.
But what about Paul's conclusion? He concludes - without necessarily demonstrating why this should be so - that "righteousness" is equal to people who merely "believe" in God. This is a strange conclusion to make, since the vast majority of people already "believed" in God through faith - having no other option, such as concrete proof. He suggests that Torah Observance - even though it was commanded by God - is not necessary because "righteousness" is achieved through just "believing". This is, quite frankly, some bad logic. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I disagree with Paul on this matter, and many others. That's okay - I don't feel as if I am blaspheming the "Word of God" when I disagree with a man who wrote letters that were eventually seen as Scripture. It's dubious as to whether he, himself, saw his letters as ever expecting "sciptural status". If he had - he would have been a bit more consistent in some of his statements. If we accept his interpretation as "scriptural", then why not Jubilees, or Philo, or the rabbis who wrote in the Talmud and the Mishnah? But that's to wander from the point.
Again - off to work! The above is not an easy subject to condense.
By the way - did you read the article on camels in the Anchor Bible Dictionary? You will find the domestication of camels occured in different places at different times, just as the ages of "Bronze" and "Iron" occured at different times.
I can buy the possible editing in Genesis, talking about Abraham keeping God's commands. The question is how did he do it? Did he do it by keeping the God's laws 100%? I've explained he certainly didn't do that. Or did he do it by first trusting God and His righteousness?
Yes, those possibilities are certain open to interpretation. The text can be read several ways, with no definitive answer, I think. The issue of "righteousness" is a Midrashic comment by Paul, it appears. How much value that has is open to debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Jesus said in the Gospels that He didn't come to get rid of the Law, but came to fulfill it. So the connection is our trust in God's righteousness. We are justified by it, His righteousness becomes ours. In God, we fulfill His commandments. That is basically what Paul is saying, and the other epistles and Jesus are saying.
I'm not sure that follows necessarily. I'm not even sure what God's righteousness has to do with it. He did demand that the Israelites be "holy" becuase he was "holy" - but that is another subject. I think it's a big stretch to summarize both Paul and Jesus' statements to what you have done above. It sounds more like traditional interpretation and dogma rather than what the text says. And it must be remembered that Paul was at odds with Jesus on Torah-observance. Don't ever forget that Paul probably kept following Torah, and it was only his Gentile converts that he addressed his non-Torah requirement to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
With Jesus and the rich man, the rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. He approached Jesus concerning what works must be done. So Jesus told Him to keep the commandments. The man boast saying he kept all the commandments, so Jesus tested him with his money. The very first commandment is to have no other god before God, if I'm not mistaken. This guy broke this commandment with his love of money. (So much for keeping the commandments from his youth)
That is reading a lot into the text! I'm referring to the account in Matthew.
I wouldn't say that he "approached Jesus concerning what works must be done" necessarily. The initial question - "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" seems out of place on the lips of a Jew. Eternal life was already part of the Covenantal nature between God and Israel, at least according to the Pharasaic tradition and the later apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Bible. Jesus very specifically tells him he must keep his commandments - and he is referring to the Torah - and to show this he uses language specifically addressed to that law code.
Was Jesus "testing" him? That is not in the text. Usually, in the Bible when a "test" is mentioned it is clearly stated ("and than God tested Abraham"). It appears that Jesus is simply aswering an honest question from an honest seeker. According to Deuteronomic Retributive Justice (one of the main governing theologies that can be found in Proverbs and the law-code), one of the marks of a man of God who did good and followed the Torah was that he would live a long life and be wealthy. Notice that these marks are attributed to Job in the framework of that book. One could tell a man of God from his life: how many children he had, how wealthy he was, how old he was, etc. Of course, there were exceptions and critiques of this idea - but this was a main principle of the Hebrew Bible's idea of Retributive Justice. Jesus critiques this theology when he tells the man he must get rid of all of his money and come follow him. This would have been surprising to the man, since the Hebrew Bible clearly shows the rewards of living a Godly life. Instead of assuming that this man broke the commandment to have no other God before him (which is, by the way, a very extreme misunderstanding of that commandment) simply because you assume he "loved money", it would be better to understand the exchange as a surprising teaching of Jesus concerning wealth.
The commandment that says "you shall have no other God before me" is referring to gods - not possessions, not animals, not people, not things. It was made in a time when the Israelites believed that multiple gods existed, yet Yahweh was the main god of their people. It admitted the existence of other gods, yet demanded that the people be obedient to Yahweh first and foremost - the God of the Covenant. The entire Covenant is similar to Vassal Treaties of the ANE in which a subject people enter into a Covenant or Treaty with another country, to whom they pledge allegience. In almost every Vassal Treaty we have from the ANE (including the Biblical one) we have a similar admonition that you shall have no other god/ruler before me. This is just common treaty language. When applied to humans, it means you shall be obedient to whoever is over you: you will support them in war, you will not make allegiences with enemy states, you shall not collaborate with enemies of your ruler. When applied to gods, the same thing occurse on a divine level. Yahweh was to be the foremost god - not Marduk or Baal or Asherah.
It's a very gross misinterpretation to make this verse say anything other than what it does. Television, stones and money do not fall under this first point of the Covenant. It's formulaic and well-attested in Vassal Treaties.
What shold be noted is that Jesus rejects the old idea that one's outer appearance can reflect one's inner relationship with God. He constantly speaks about those who one would think would be the very last to enter the Kingdom (sinners, etc.) as being the first to enter the Kingdom. He is turning the old ideas of Godliness on their head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Then Jesus went on to say with man, it is impossible, but with God (hence our faith in God) all things are possible. With God, a rich man can enter the kingdom of God with great ease! So that's my take there.
I don't fine this there. In fact, the rich were prohibited from becoming church members for hundreds of years until The Rich Mans' Salvation preached an apologetic for them, allowing them to enter and their money to be used to enlarge the church. Jesus meant what he said literally - not allegorically or metaphorically. If you had money - you had no place in the Kingdom. We find this a difficult teaching of Jesus, but it is something we must come to grips with. We cannot just "explain" it away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Paul didn't disagree with anything James, Jesus, or the Book of Hebrews state (where it talks about that Abraham was justified by faith). Unless Paul specifically stated however, that Abraham kept the Law.
He did indeed! This can be found very easily. In Matthew 5, Jesus does what any typical teacher or rabbi did in his time - he gives his own personal interpretation of the law and what it means. This relates to what I mentioned earlier in making Torah-observance relevant to a modern setting. Even though he interprets the Torah, he is very adamant about the requirement to keep it:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets;
I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20, NRSV)
You cannot get anymore clear than that! There is a reason why the 1st Century Christians kept Torah for the most part. The attempt of Paul to "explain" it's requirement away has had lasting consequences that we still live with, but it puts him in a certain category that makes him "least" in the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus was not speaking in riddles or metaphors here. Whether Abraham kept the Law or not does not matter to Jesus. It may have mattered to Paul, but if one were to choose one's authority - who would you choose? Paul or Jesus?
I'll start responding to some of your previous posts. Also, I looked at your PDF reference concerning the camels today. Does it cost to download it? I'm continuining to do some research on it on my own, and I've found the bactrian (spelling) camel was domesticated in central asia for some time, before the domestication of the dromedary camel in the middle-east. From the sources I've looked at (without the downloaded source you gave me), there seems to be debate as to when the dromedary camel was domesticated. Personal opinion as of now, could it be that the physical evidence as far as bones go, which would suggest a timeframe of wide usage of domesticated camels, only depicts the time that they were widely used as a pack animal? Considering it might take time to domesticate an animal, could it be the actual process of domestication have began thousands of years before they were widely used? In the Scriptures, it seemed like only the very wealthy had camels. (Job/Pharaoh/Abraham who was given camels by the Pharaoh) So the theme was wealth, equaled having an assortment of domesticated animals, including the domesticated camel. Is that a possibility? I just kind of doubt that there was a time when there are no domesticated camels, and then all of a sudden in 1200 BC or so, you have a wide usage of domesticated camels.
Of course I'll continue looking into it. One PDF writing said (this one kind of being apologetic) it was possible the kings of the middle-east imported the bactrian camel in and around 3,000 BC. That reminded me of a favorite quote of mine from the first movie of the series "Men in Black" stating, "Why don't you show him the new imports, Jeebs."
On with my responses
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I understand that - but if you enter a subject "looking for" something, then you are performing eisegesis and you will probably find what you are looking for, even if it means twisting what is found. The better approach is to enter it without looking for anything except what the text or subject can tell you. If it disabuses you of certain notions you once held about it - all the better.
I looked up the definition of the words eisegesis and exegesis. After looking at them, I find my position is unique in itself. My position is, I want to examine the Bible using both forms. To prove it eisegesis wise and exegesis wise. Your last sentence in the above paragraph fits me well. Yet with me, if examination terminates my previous held notions, I would leave the texts of the Hebrew Bible to the Israelite people. My notions are the Bible holds my origin, part of my history is in it. No, I'm not jewish, but if the Bible is correct, I'm a descendant of Noah, who's a descendant of Adam, and Adam being God's creation. If none of that is true, the Bible is completely Israelite in terms of origin. I know plenty about the Bible, but know very little of my own ancestors and their stories. Somebody should tell their story to, of course we can all relate because we are humans after all.
Though if the Bible is true, and contains my origins and the origins of the human race, the culture of my ancestors should still be told. One day I want to composite a complete telling of everyone's history in some fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
You would need more evidence for your hypotheses - which is, in the end, still based on the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It is once again searching for something, rather than letting the text instruct. The Documentary Hypotheses has been the normative explanation for the composite nature of the composition of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) - that there were 4 distinct sources that were combined into the final form we have it - and it makes very good sense. There's not many scholars today who would not admit its validity, even if in a revised form.
The only thing that would kind of help my hypothesis, is to present evidence the exodus happened. I think that is firstly what I'm looking for, though I'm very limited concerning archaeaological work in the Middle East and so on. I don't know if it was you or someone else who mentioned the dangers of doing that kind of work over there, how politics and disputes have disrupted any kind of archaeaology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Well, the word for "seed" in Biblical Hebrew very much means a quite explicit "issue" from the genitals - if you catch my meaning. In English we also use it to mean multiple things: a single grain of "seed", a large amount of "seed", he gave birth to a son - it was his "seed", he gave birth to many sons - they were his "seed". It's all in how it's contextually and syntactically used. A similar issue in Biblical Hebrew is in play here - "seed" is technically a singular noun that a wooden translation would translate singularly, but a translation that takes into account the actual content of the sentence would definitely see in a plural sense. A backwards example is the word "Elohim" that is usually translated as "God". It's syntactically a plural word, but is used with both plural and singular verbal and other markers. Only these can help us determine its meaning. It's also the common plural word for "gods" - which introduces even more confusion. Only context - and sometimes guessing - can tell us how to translate this word.
Perhaps some good translations of the verse? Here is the 1965 version of Ephraim A. Speiser:
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel.
(E. A. Speiser, AB 1)
His note to the translation reads
"offspring" - Hebrew literally "seed", used normally in the collective sense of progeny. The passage does not justify eschatological connotations. As Dr. put it, "We must not read into the words more than they contain".
So a good translation with good notes is always reccomended. It helps clear up issues immediately. A translation almost begs for a commentary along with it, or at least notes, because of the way language works. Much is lost in translation. Every translation will make its own decisions, however. Your point is well taken - but I think the context and syntax clears the problem up. Otherwise, the etiological nature of the tale is completely lost if it does not apply to mankind and snakes in general.
You mentioned before the etiological understanding of these verses, that if the "seed" is referring to only one person, then it would lose meaning. However, why does it state the seed would crush the serpent's head, and not the head of the serpent's seed instead? The verse reads like this:
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel.
My question is if the enmity is between the snake's offspring and the woman's offspring, why aren't the snake's offspring mentioned in striking the heel of the woman's offspring? Perhaps that is why most english translations have it as "He", because the one who's head is being crushed is in the singular. Maybe that is the english language limitation, but the hebrew language could handle such a comparison?
Besides that, I can agree about the etiological understanding. Yet what if Genesis is literal history? Then it becomes more than etiological, it becomes more than just trying to explain what they see. I believe it's both etiological and possibly prophetic. (That is the last statement about the crushing of the head and the biting of the heal)
On an aside, you mentioned about Elohim having a plural meaning behind it. Of course we know about the doctrine of the Trinity, and with that in mind, the name Elohim would make sense. In Genesis, Elohim is mentioned, and the statement that God said concerning Himself while making man, "Let Us make man in Our image." It's jewish tradition that God was kind of in a way including the angels in creation, that God was humbling Himself. That the "Us" was referring to God and the angels. Yet that's tradition. Did the Israelite people worship God and angels for creation? Then how can one say God was referring to the angels in that statement? A plain reading of Scripture, without tradition, suggests God is one, but there's plurality about Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I fully agree with you - but when I embarked on learning Akkadian, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew there were no modern native speakers of these languages to assist me. Modern Hebrew is very different from Biblical Hebrew - especially in pronounciation. The plus side of learning it the way I did is that you have to learn the roots and how they are related and how they evolved through the languages. Not many modern English speakers could explain to someone why "Naughty" in Chaucer's time meant something completely different than it does today! Yet it would be required when reading Chaucer. Going further than that, one has to learn how "Naughty" got into the English language. Many linguistic problems that have beset the Biblical text for many years has been cleared up thank to cognate languages that have helped us trace roots - especially the discovery of Ugaritic in 1929.
Again - I'll get to more of your comments later. Must...sleep... Camel ride....exhausting (thanks, Woodrow ha ha!)...
How long did it take you to learn Hebrew and it's roots?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Approaching the text by learning about the world in which the writers lived is essential to scholarship and it is done. Looking at the ANE context of the world around the events of the Bible, we find - as one example - extra-Biblical stories about the seer Balaam. Now, while this certainly demonstrates that there was probably a seer named Balaam, it does not automatically "prove" the accounts about him in either the Biblical or extra-Biblical sources. The same goes for the Flood Epic from the various cultures that told the story - most Christians or Jews will automatically prefer the Biblical versions of these tales. Every other version is automatically "false" and used to "prove" the Biblical account. This isn't exactly sensible.
As for lying - I don't think we can apply ethical or religious standards completely to Biblical authors. The idea of history as an objective science just did not exist in the ANE until Herodotus, and then Thucydides, helped hone the craft. Historians from the ANE were not always interested in telling "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - they had ideological, religious, political and other reasons for how they wrote "history", the events they chose to narrate, how they narrated it, and so on. Even in Thucydides, he admits that he did not remember exactly what the people in his history said down to the smallest detail, so he had to elaborate and try to get the "sense" of what he had head them say - if he had even been there. So the result is that most speeches in Thucydides history sound like - well, Thucydides. Now - did he consider himself a liar? I don't think so. Did Herodotus consider himself a liar when he related tales that he admitted were far-fetched but he was only repeating what he had heard? Did the Biblical writers consider themselves liars when they interpreted a historical event as occuring because of the actions of Yahweh? Probably not. That world was very different from ours - and the distinction between our reality and the Divine was not as marked.
It's impossible to really give a good picture of how writing was viewed in the ANE in a post, but suffice it to say that how we view reality, truth and history today is NOT how the ancient writers viewed it. If we try to apply these notions to them, they will not work. As to the Biblical idea of "lying is bad" - it certainly didn't matter to Jacob or Abraham when they lied to save their own skins or make a profit. They are just interesting narrative features, in a way. One would have to demonstrate that all Biblical authors lived by some code in which "lying" was truly an "abomination to Yahweh". It should be remembered that the Biblical authors frequently disagreed with one another, and told different versions of the same story (just see who caused David to take the Census: Samuel blames Yahweh, while the very apologetic author of Chronicles puts the blame on Satan).
(You might have to read my original post that you responded to here, to get the context of my response)
I hear what you're saying, and I don't have much to add to it. Yet what's interesting is the first five books according to tradition are based on the writings of Moses. Moses himself wasn't around when Abraham was living. So we can't say this history is from first hand accounts. The only one who had first hand information about the things that happened in Genesis, would be God Himself. As we see from Scripture, Moses would have wrote down the things God told him about. I think this is the basis for what the ancient Israelite people would consider to be Scripture, or at least to the Pentateuch, that it was God inspired. Perhaps the people who wrote the Pentateuch (whether my view that these writings are based on writings of Moses, or is the collection of word by mouth stories), had more incentive to be as truthful as possible, because these writings were based on God inspired stuff. I'm babbling on here, and I might be giving you a little bit of my views while looking at the Bible. More historical evidence would help my case.
The Biblical idea that lying is bad, came with the Law. The writers of the first five books, wrote their books under the Law. Again even if these writings are based on some original writings of Moses, Moses also wrote with the Law in mind. So would you say from an exegesis standpoint of Scripture, the writers had great incentive to be as truthful as possible? (As we know under the Law, lying is an abomination) As for the disagreements in Scripture, can you provide some quick examples I can look at. You mentioned David and the census, at first glance that looks like to be a disagreement. Yet I've found in the Samuel account, it seems to disagree with itself. It reads as though God moved David to count the people, yet then God is mad at David for counting the people? What's your take on that? As we see in many instances in the Tanakh, there are references to books about the works of both David and Solomon. (And many other books that are lost) Maybe one of those books would possibly clear up the confusion there, instead of the view that the writer of Chronicles wasn't okay with God moving David to sin. Of course this could be seen as dodging the problem, but it's a possibility. Again, II Samuel's account seems to disagree with itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Going back to what I said about how "history" was viewed in the ANE, I don't think I would personally dismiss the entire thing simply because my assumptions of its inerrant and inspired nature were not proven correct. There can be great truth in things, even if they are not historically accurate. That may not make sense, but one can look at the story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree story in which he admits to it and we learn the moral that one should not lie. This story never happened, and we know who made it up, but we still tell it because it has a truth claim - even if not historical. Make sense?
I enjoy the Book of Job's examination of Theodicy but I don't need it to be entirely "true" historically for it to speak to me. If an oral tale has been passed down concerning a forefather, and someone decides to mistakenly add something anacrhonistic to it (such as camels) - should we throw out the tale? We can still keep it, admitting that fallible men passed the story down and it underwent changes.
And I have no problem with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The passage in which it is said that Isaac would continue to be under the Covenant "in consequence of Avraham's hearkening to my voice and keeping my charge: my commandments, my laws, and my instructions" ... says what it says whether we find that to be true or not. We can find a contradiction concerning it in his behavior and dismiss it, or we can try to find out why it was written. Here - the Documentary Hypothesis is helpful. What one author claims for a character is not necessarily what another author has written about him. This removes many inconstinacies in the text. The Priestly Author, for example (one of the main sources of the Pentatuech), almost never narrates any actions on the parts of main characters that would be at variance with the later Torah laws. In Deuteronomy, there is only one central place where worship is permitted - and this probably reflects the Jerusalem Temple's monopoly reflected back on the text. So what about all the times in which the Patriarchs set up high places and altars? Well - the Priestly Author, with his very priestly concerns, does not narrate these events. In the Flood Account, the P Author does not have Noah offer a sacrifice; this comes from the Yahwist Source. He is very careful in this regard.
In the case of Abraham keeping the commandments, etc. - it is usually seen as coming from the Yahwist Writer - so we do not have recourse to this explanation. So there must be something else. The Yahwist writer certainly was not very condemning when he wrote his accounts. He told the stories, and the Patriarchs frequently come off looking in a bad light. Just think of Abraham's attempt to pass his wife off as his sister - in order to save his own skin. He comes out of the situation rich, but the author is probably fully aware of the trickery that he pulled. A later author - uncomfortable with this - of course tries to apologize for it by saying "Oh YEH - she was his sister, actually". The same goes for the account of Jacob stealing Esau's birthright. The oldest account has a very culpable Jacob who is definitely in the wrong, and must spend the next couple of decades running for his life from the justice that was sturely due to him. But later authors interspersed details pointing out that Esau was a "bad" man, and that Jacob didn't really run for his life - he just casually went to find a wife. The combination of all these stories makes for a confusing mess and a false sense of righteousness on the part of the Patriarchs.
Would you say these four distinct sources for the first five books, were aware of each other, that each author in their own sources tried to smooth the uncomfortable parts over? Or was it the final draft we have in our Bible's today, that tried to meld these thoughts together, to soften the uncomfortable parts?
From my view that the Scriptures we have today are based on the original writings of Moses, it's expected to have some edits such as Abraham obeying God's commands. Yet not that he followed the complete Torah. There's jewish tradition that says God gave Adam one command, and to him that was the Torah in a sense. Then Noah had what the jewish people call the Noahide laws, and that was his kind of Torah. It could be the mention about Abraham following God's commands, is not necessarily saying Abraham followed the Law Moses received, but that He followed what God told him. Yet the complete Torah, the complete revelation came later, by Moses. So because Scripture was written down by writers who had the Ten Commandments and all the laws, I can see them putting in some terminology they can understand, but not that Abraham kept the laws given by Moses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The narrative events concerning Abraham trying to find a way to have a son is part of the tensions, however. We - as readers - are supposed to be in suspense. If you read the original promise to Abraham - it is not specifically addressed to include Sarai. So we are left to wonder at how this promise will be fulfilled. In the ANE - there were multiple ways in which "seed" could be realized. First we have the story of Egypt. Was Abraham trying to fulfill God's promise via the Pharoah? It's possible. Then we have the possibility of Lot - a close relative. Could the promise be fulfilled by him? It's possible - and we are certainly made to think so, but when he departs and moves away we are bereft of this, and the narrative tension again builds. HOW will God fulfill his promise? Yahweh's promises start to get more specific concerning his seed, but again the possibiltiy of Hagar is given - but then taken away. The possibility of his personal servant - and adopted seed is given. Again - possible, and not at variance with the Promise. But then the promise becomes specific and Sarai is named. Now the narrative tension is really built up, since she is so old. Of course - she laughs. Who wouldn't? One must keep in mind that Abraham had already demonstrated a huge leap of faith when Yahweh told him to just up and leave his family and city. Not many people would do that. But as the story goes on, we are supposed to wonder how this Promise is to be fulfilled as it is expanded and made more sure. Carrot after carrot is dangled in front of us - to no avail, until finally Sarai gives birth. This is great narrative art and great storytelling. We miss this - because we already know the end of the story! But to those who do not know, it is a riveting drama of faith, promises fulfilled and a faithful servant trying to achieve God's Will by any means possible.
Now just imagine the horror of the story in which Yahweh suddenly asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - after all that has proceeded it. We should not be surprised if Abraham had gone through with it, and the Promise was fulfilled in some other manner. Some Jewish Tradition says that Isaac WAS sacrifice, actually - and a close reading of the text and its seams does point to the fact that only Abraham and the two lads returned from the mountain. Isaac is missing. The account even says "because you DID this thing"... But this is for another time. I merely point out the growing tension of the account that we hae taken for granted.
I guess your question about whether Abraham kept the commands, etc 100% needs some more looking into, perhaps. It might not be as simple as saying "well, he did lie that one time - so...." We do not know WHAT commands and laws the narrator is referring to. The various later laws of the Torah are not automatically pointed to, but that is what later Jewish Tradition adduced them to be. But this is reading a lot more into the text than is actually there. This is how much tradition works, however: a problem is found - a seeming contradiction - and then Tradition steps in to explain it away nice and easy. It happens even in the Biblical text among the authors - like the Samuel/Chronicles example from above.
Again - have to go. I am enjoying our discussion.
I think we agree with most here. I do want to mention that Abraham did laugh at God telling him Sarah was going to give birth to the seed. That in and of itself isn't bad, because it could have been a friendly laugh and not a "Man you must be crazy" laugh. (Both Abraham and Sarah laughed) However once you combine the laughter in his heart and then Abraham's strong presentation of Ishmael being the seed after hearing God's plans, Abraham straight up doubted God there. There's no question. Yet God didn't reject Abraham because of it, nor did He make Abraham unable to speak until the child was delivered (see the contrast of the priest Zechariah, father of John the Baptist), but He gracefully told Abraham Ishmael wasn't the promised seed. God reassured Abraham the seed would come from Sarah, and then told him to name the child "Isaac". He even gave grace to Abraham in telling him Ishmael wouldn't be forsaken, but that princes would come out of him.
The testing of Abraham pretty much established Abraham's trust in God. How can Isaac be the seed of promise, and yet he's dead? Yet Abraham, already seeing all of what God has done, including the impossible birth of Isaac, proved he trusted God by following Him fully.
Again, I think we agree concerning how traditions tried to explain these things. Yet I would again say, Christian tradition best seems to answer these things. For instance, did Abraham believe God would resurrect Isaac had he been sacrificed? The text doesn't say that was on Abraham's mind, but that is very logical thinking if Isaac is the promised seed. If the seed stayed dead, the one God already mentioned as the promised seed and there was no other, how would the promised be fulfilled that God made to Abraham? If Isaac died and stayed dead, that would make God's promise a lie. So it is plausible if this is a depiction of real events, Abraham expected for Isaac to be raised again. Now we have Abraham's statement to Isaac when he questioned his father about the sacrifice, that God would provide the lamb for sacrifice. It was a prophetic statement, and I don't think I'm reading my personal views into the author's intent here. However, what God provided Abraham on that mountain, wasn't a lamb, but a ram. If Abraham's comments were prophetic, the author would have had a lamb show up. This tells us Abraham's statement didn't totally refer to what was going on here, but as it is said, "In the mount of the LORD it will be seen."
So from that, even though the authors of the Pentateuch (who's work I believe is based on solid writings of Moses) didn't necessarily had Jesus on their mind, that they sought to seek salvation from sin and such, Jesus best answers their writings. I can understand the scholar's view of Scripture, and the textual criticims, but I think I can provide some historical evidence for my hypothesis. Also some thought experiments concerning what the writers could have had in mind, to present my case. I'll stop right here for today, and let you finish responding to my other posts. Then I'll try to respond to all your posts in a more condensed form.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.