Archive - Bible RSS Feed

The Bible’s Sources Revealed

October 6, 2011 in Bible, Book Reviews with 0 Comments

Book CoverRichard Elliott Friedman offers a very sensible and even-handed approach to a very old and complex question. Sages have been wrestling with the issue of the Bible’s own testimony of itself versus the accumulated traditions and myths about the Bible for centuries. My own confidence in the Bible’s inspiration has been greatly enhanced by studies such as the one offered here by Professor Friedman. I know that many other believers will balk at tackling this issue with anything even approaching the sincerity and honesty that Friedman displays and I find this to be a tragic loss for the church and synagogue.

To fully appreciate the “discoveries” of the modern Documentary Hypothesis we must be willing to separate the things that the Bible actually says about itself from the things that religion has said about it. (I put the word “discoveries” in quotes because these are actually things that the Bible has been saying all along). Friedman’s approach does this while showing great respect for the texts and for those who hold other opinions as well. And make no mistake about it, the issues discussed here focus entirely upon what the Bible says about itself along with expert analysis of the various stages of the Hebrew language. This is “Higher Criticism” of the highest order.

The Bible with Sources Revealed by Richard Elliott Friedman makes an important contribution to the library of any serious Bible student. This is a very easy to use book. The introductory remarks and notes alone make this a great buy. But, having the Pentateuch clearly divided into its various sources along with references to further contributions by these sources to other books of the Bible makes this work indispensable.

For those unfamiliar with the writings of Professor Friedman, his analysis of the Pentateuch follows the “JEDP” format that was popularized by such scholars as Graf and Wellhausen in the early 19th Century. An important contribution by Friedman and other more contemporary scholars such as Harvard’s Frank Moore Cross, Jr., has been to disprove the assertions of Wellhausen’s modern disciples; a movement known as “Biblical Minimalism” which denies the existence of the Israelite religion prior to the Second Temple era and even questions the existence of the ancient Kingdom of Israel & Judah ruled by the House of David. Another book by Professor Friedman, “Who Wrote the Bible?” explores the evidence of the antiquity of the Israelite culture and demonstrates from clues within the text of the Bible itself, how portions of Scripture such as the Priestly Code clearly predate the Exile and Second Temple periods.

This issue becomes important for a number of reasons. If the “Biblical Minimalists” are correct, then the modern nation of Israel’s claims to holding the land of Israel in antiquity is shaken. Moreover, if the Old Testament was truly written in toto, only around 516 BC; then its claims of of the nation and religion of Israel having actually been established almost 700 years prior must be regarded not only as fiction, but a fraud.

Fortunately for our attempts to treat the Biblical texts in a scholarly manner, as opposed to an unquestioning sycophantic Fundamentalism, this old Book does tell us of its own history. As many a Bible educator has said before, “The Text has a history and the Text itself tells us of that history…” Too many of my fellow believers have treated the Documentary Hypothesis and other scholarly tools of inquiry as taboo because “some guy” who died over 100 years ago either lost faith over the issue or rejected the tools out of fear. The knee jerk reaction of the Fundamentalists of the last century and a half displayed a glaring lack of discernment and very little commitment to learning. Instead of waiting before deciding on the question of the Documentary Hypothesis, they took Wellhausen’s bait and slammed their Bibles shut.

Time and a lot of hard work, however, has vindicated the very plain statements that the Bible makes about itself. Writing in the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), Yosef Garfinkel recently was able to declare the “… Death of Biblical Minimalism” (requires subscription for the full length article). He did so, not because of the arguments of the Fundamentalist; but because of the labors of fellow scholars along with the spade of the archaeologist had proven that the “Minimalist” approach to the Bible had been misguided. Meanwhile, Fundamentalism offered not one word to help tip the scales in the debate.

There are many important debates and discussions going on concerning matters of faith and in particular, faith in the Bible. Fundamentalism takes us out of the discussion. Professor Friedman’s scholarship, on the other hand, and his books such as “The Bible With Sources Revealed” gives us tools with which we can win those debates.

Genealogies in Conflict

June 14, 2011 in Bible with 0 Comments

Fundamentalists of the Bible will tell us that the genealogies recorded in the Bible are to be understood as literal accounts of father-to-son lineages. They will further assert that when lifespans and other temporal measures are stated, that these numbers are a trustworthy guide to dating events in the Bible and even dating the age of the earth itself. But, just how reliable of a guide are these genealogies and most importantly, did the writers of sacred writ ever intend them to be taken so literally? Let’s take a look first at the New Testament genealogies given as the lineages of Jesus Christ. These do not have any dates or spans of time assigned to them but perhaps we can find some useful guidelines for understanding this type of material.

Matthew (Matthew 1:1-16) gives us the reckoning of Christ’s ancestors in a father-to-son lineage going back to Abraham. This is in keeping with Matthew’s theme of Jesus Christ being the fulfillment of the Hebrew Messianic prophecies and also fulfilling the promises to Abraham and his descendants.

Luke (Luke 3:23-38) goes a bit further and incorporates the genealogies found in Genesis to take us all the way back to Adam. This too is in keeping with the writer’s interests because Luke portrays Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind with a particular emphasis upon the Gentiles. Both genealogies differ in who the grandfather and great-grandfather of Jesus was. Some explain these differences as being the result of Levirate marriages along the way. That’s plausible, though the numbers of such marriages required to fill this need are a bit unlikely. (See here for a side-by-side comparison of both genealogies).

Another tactic employed by the Fundamentalists is to say that Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, the husband of Mary; and that Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary herself. This too is plausible, despite the fact Scripture makes no such claim and it does fly in the face of the fact that Luke plainly tells us the “Heli” (Eli) was the father of Joseph. Mary is not mentioned as being associated with these genealogies in any way. Also, none of this clears up the contradictions and other problems to be found much earlier in the genealogies.

Matthew shuffles his list around to force a pattern of 14 generations between significant events and ancestors. This means that he leaves out some names such as Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim that are mentioned as being in the line of David’s descendants. It seems that Matthew’s “agenda” of arriving at the 14 generation pattern demands that he drop these names. But, anyone reading Matthew’s gospel, even in antiquity, would surely have been able to see this. For this reason, I have concluded that Matthew was not mistaken nor was he composing a “pious fraud.” Such things would have been immediately found out. Rather, he (or if you wish, “the unknown author of the gospel traditionally attributed to Matthew”) obviously never intended that his accounting of these genealogies be taken as literal father-to-son genealogies.

Matthew had a point to make with the genealogy he provides, but that point did not involve a literal accounting of each generation of the ancestors of Jesus Christ. We can see that Luke had similar motives. Luke tells us that Jesus was descended not from Solomon, but from Solomon’s brother Nathan. This of course would be impossible if both genealogies were intended to reflect Joseph’s ancestry, so this is where the advocates of Luke giving Mary’s genealogy chime in.

However, go down the lists to the name Zerubbabel. You’ll remember this Bible character from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Zerubbabel would have been the “King of Judah” had it not been for the Babylonian captivity. Zerubbabel is named in BOTH genealogies. We know his place in history. However, just how could Zerubbabel be descended from BOTH Solomon and his brother Nathan through the paternal line? Yet another Levirate marriage, perhaps? Not likely. No Levirate marriage is presented in Scripture involving Solomon, and Solomon had a lot of marriages that were described. Also, in Matthew, there are 11 generations between Zerubbabel and Jesus. Luke almost doubles that by giving us 20 generations. That’s quite a difference. Too much of a difference to be reconciled by appeals to Levirate marriages, alternate maternal lines or anything else.

The thing that stands out to me is that I am hardly the first person to “discover” these inconsistencies in a literal interpretation of the genealogies (and there are a lot more to be found!). So, given the fact that these “problems” have been observed since antiquity, why didn’t a scribe attempt a “pious fraud” to “correct” the problems? It must have been because the ancient readers saw no “problem” with these apparent “inconsistencies.” In other words, the ancients did not interpret the Bible with the literalism that is demanded by modern Fundamentalists nor did the Bible’s writers intend that their words be interpreted that way either.

 

Who Wrote the Bible?

June 13, 2011 in Bible, Book Reviews with 1 Comment

"Who Wrote the Bible" book cover.Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman

Who Wrote the Bible? is available from Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and other booksellers.

Following a very long line of previous investigators, Professor Richard Elliot Friedman gives us an excellent treatment of the field of Biblical Criticism, in particular, the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch. Over the past several years a group of scholars known as “Bible Minimalists” seemed to have attracted most of the attention in this field. They argued that the sources behind the Bible were written rather late in history and their views which discounted or offered reinterpretations of the archeological record earned them the monikers “Biblical Minimalists” and “Revisionists.” They held a great deal of influence in academia.

Friedman takes on this school of thought in a gracious and informative manner. He helps his readers to understand the controversy as well as the history of Biblical Criticism. He then offers compelling and convincing evidence supporting the view that the Bible’s underlying source material is in fact much older than Second Temple Judaism. This is an important consideration for Bible believers because so many have been turned off from using the Documentary Hypothesis precisely because it has been perceived as undermining one’s faith in the Bible’s inspiration. Friedman helps us out here. Good scholarship need not be sacrificed for faith.

One does have to get past the tradition that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, however. Interestingly, this isn’t something that the Bible itself has ever claimed. In fact, the text of Scripture has a history and the Bible is rather plain about providing clues to that history. From “anachronisms” like Genesis 14:14, to explicit evidence such as Deuteronomy 34:5-6, even a casual reader will come away from reading the Pentateuch wondering just how Moses could possibly have been the sole writer. Friedman provides much more evidence for a later author than Moses while also sharing clues with us as to which passages are far older and were the source material for the conventionally recognized sources (J,E,D and P).

Our Material Nature

June 11, 2011 in Bible, Origins with 0 Comments

Michelangelo's Creation of Adam
I had composed the following brief paragraphs a while ago as the introduction for a longer essay dealing with the material nature of the human condition.

“Let us first stop at the shrine of Materialism, for we are material beings. Our consciousness arises from the activity of millions of cells, all of them firing off electrical and chemical signals to one another creating this thing we call the Human Mind.

The first aspect of the mind that we note is the Ego. This is self-awareness. The ground where Rousseau stood when he said, “I think, therefore I am.” Jacques was looking for the most basic and elemental thing he could say about himself. It wasn’t how tall he was nor did it have anything to do with his native country. Instead, he posited the idea that even if he should doubt his own existence, this doubt would serve as evidence of a mind at work. Ergo: “I think, therefore I am.”

If we were to alter the chemistry of our brains we could change our moods and even at times, change our opinions. A cup of coffee does this for millions of people every morning. So we must confess that the fact we are thinking at all is the result of material processes and not the result of some sort of spirit intrusion or alien invasion into our realm. As one writer put it, “Man is of the earth, earthy” (1 Corinthians 15:47). We are dust and water mixed into a miry clay.

This is a humbling thought, but it also provides the basis from which we may elevate our own thoughts and even ourselves, for this “dust” and all of the other elements which comprise our being were manufactured in the fires of the stars themselves. We are “dust;” but that dust is actually “star-dust.” It is something from the heavens.

Having settled and coagulated into a somewhat smooth paste it is easy to ignore our fiery beginnings. The evidence is ample and conclusive, however. Our atoms were forged in the fires of a supernova. They then collected themselves and arranged themselves according to a pattern that still mystifies the minds of our greatest scientists. Life began. We began. And, somewhere along the way, we began to think and ask questions.”

I Will Not Lie To David – Part II

May 19, 2011 in Bible, Origins with 1 Comment

V838 Monocerotis exploded over 20,000 years ago.

V838 Monocerotis exploded over 20,000 years ago.

This is a series of photographs taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of a star in the constellation Monoceros (The Unicorn). On January 6, 2002, this particular star was observed to brighten considerably and the Hubble Telescope was turned toward it to investigate what was going on. This particular star is approximately 20,000 light years away. This means that the “explosion” we are seeing actually happened over 20,000 years ago. It took that long for the light to travel from  V838 Monocerotis to us here on Earth.

Light travels at 186,282 miles per second through the vacuum of space. This is one of the physical constants of our universe. Though the speed of light can be slowed down by directing it through different mediums like a crystalline matrix, you cannot “speed up” the speed of light in a vacuum. When Young Earth Creationists (YECs) attempt to confuse their followers concerning the speed of light, they will almost invariably refer to the fact that light can be “slowed down” as I have mentioned, however they will almost always leave out the fact that slowing down the speed of light would actually make the age of the universe much, much older and not younger as they desire. Their tactic is simply to confuse and not to educate. This series of pictures tells us conclusively that the universe is at least 20,000 years old.

Supernova 1997A exploded around 169,000 years ago.

Supernova 1997A exploded around 169,000 years ago.

This next picture is of a supernova that was observed and then photographed by the Hubble back in 1997. This particular shot is actually from a few years after the 1997 observation and shows a ring of stellar material that was ejected by the star and is expanding through space. This star is located in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a companion galaxy to our Milky Way. It is approximately 169,000 light years from Earth.

What we are seeing in both of these pictures isn’t just “beams of starlight.” We are observing actual events and we can see that these events progress and develop over time. However, we are seeing these events and their complex consequences many, many thousands of years after they occurred. YECs have argued in the past that “God could have created those stars thousands and millions of light years away and AT THE SAME TIME created the ‘beams of light’ seen radiating from the stars.” This is one part of an argument known as “The Appearance of Age.”

But what we are seeing aren’t just “beams of light.” We are seeing complex events. I have had to ask myself, “Just how far would God go in creating an ‘Appearance of Age’ before His own moral character would come into question?” At what point will we have to invoke “deception” as being one of God’s attributes? I’m not at all comfortable with these implications. Did God actually create these phenomena merely 6,000 years ago and did He do it in such a way as to make it appear that the universe is actually around 13.5 billion years old? Why would He deliberately deceive us? For many YECs I have come to the conclusion that their “god” may really be Loki, the Trickster God of the Norse and not the Yahweh of the Bible.

Many have responded with the plea that “God can do anything!” But, this is key… The question is not ‘What Could God Do?” The question is “What Did God Do?”

Did God create our cosmos 6,000 years ago? He could have done it and then made it look billions of years old just to jerk us around. For that matter, He could have created everything about five minutes ago, including my previous posts in this blog, just to make it look as though everything was really older. What kind of a God do we serve?

Supernova in NGC 266 exploded some 215 million years ago.

Supernova in NGC 266 exploded some 215 million years ago.

This is another Hubble photograph. The galaxy you see is NGC 233. It is some 215 million light years away. The arrow in the picture is pointing at a star which was observed to have gone supernova in 2005. This is a record of an event which occurred 215 million years ago.

As we will explore in other posts here, none of this evidence of the universe’s vast age contradicts anything the Bible itself is telling us. It does however, conflict with much of what some people are telling us about the Bible.

In evaluating this evidence and the contradictory claims of Fundamentalists I have found a great deal of confidence and comfort in Psalm 89:35. “God will not lie to David.”

That star really did blow up 215 million years ago. The Creator is not “jerking us around.” Our world is real and we can confidently reach many conclusions about its general age as well as the conditions that we observe.

*You can read Part 1 here: http://xcomplex.com/?p=47

Page 1 of 212»