Another Look at the Biblical Canon

don · 05-17-09 1:22 am

Another Look at the Biblical Canon Christians from way back have met concerns over the Hebrew Scriptures and their depiction of God. Some here on this forum find the idea of a loving God and the God of the Hebrews to be impossible to reconcile. Nobody said it would be easy. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> I have been asked why I rely on the Bible, especially the Hebrew scriptures. There are several reasons:<ul><li>I have inherited the Bible from my parents. <LI>I have examined the messages involved and, unlike some on this forum, I can organize my life around the basic principles I see in Scripture. <LI>As I contemplate the perplexity expressed by some, I conclude that people have to deal with what they have, or reject it. I deal with it.</li></ul> What does it mean to hold to the Biblical canon and "deal with it?" Well, for me, it starts with the assertion that God is Love. Then, I examine the canon looking for support for this basic precept. If I find unloving portrayals of God, I don't take the stories at face value, but try to organize them within the loving God motif. Sometimes, I fail to reach a solution. Rather than rejecting the canonical story, I shelve my concern for later (If Alfke brings up his concerns, I may take the problem off the shelf and reexamine it, but I still accept these books as my life-organizing canon.) Afterall, who says that this body of writings must be problem free to be useful to me. It has served me well, thus far. What about the writings of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc? I have come to view all writings, including the Hebrew scriptures, as school masters bringing people to Christ. The difference is that the Hebrew Scriptures have my acceptance into the base of my thinking. I examine all "sacred" writings to see how they convey the God is Love theme. When they do so, I accept it, no matter the source. If they convey an unloving, vengeful diety or works-oriented diety, I do not accept it at face-value. This kind of analysis is new to me, and certainly will be revised as time goes along. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, represent main stream Adventist thinking. Oh well, that's no surprise. I have been told that I am not really an Adventist; that I am just being tolerated or ignored. (I disagree). I have also received emails from silent guests to this forum expressing appreciation for my ideas but warning me that I should be careful for my job's sake. Actually, I have considerable appreciation and confidence in the creative side of Adventism and as long as the pillars are not dismantled, new ideas are welcomed. So, the Biblical Canon is my Canon; my body of sacred writings, valued, examined, organized and expounded. I don't view them as inerrant or infallible but as inspired and immanently useful. .

bob_2 · 05-17-09 2:13 am

Don, the concepts are inerrant not the words, of any given era. What were the writers trying to say, with their description of a dome and foundations over and under the earth. The concept is inerrant. Not modern science.

john8verse32 · 05-17-09 11:18 am

I have been asked why I rely on the Quran, especially the later interpretations. There are several reasons: I have inherited the Quoran from my parents, and they told me it was not only inerrant, but necessary for my salvation. I have examined the messages involved and, unlike some on this forum, I can organize my life around the basic principles I see there. As I contemplate the perplexity expressed by some,as to whether or not we need to convert unbelievers with the sword of divine justice, I conclude that people have to deal with what they have, or reject it. I deal with it. I examine all "sacred" writings to see how they convey the Allah is Justice theme. When they do so, I accept it, no matter the source. If they convey a loving, forgiving diety or reward/works-oriented diety, I do not accept it at face-value. The concept is inerrant. I can pick and choose those passages in the Holy Scribblings which agree with me, and reject those which do not. And that is why we cannot wait for Allah to provide His all knowing justice later...we must separate all unbelievers from their sinful beliefs, and wastefull wallets if not their entire heads...now. "together..we can!!" ...OBL <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/1264.jpg" alt="">

elaine · 05-17-09 7:11 pm

Don, your position is possibly held by the majority of Christians, although not many would admit it. By selecting parts of the Bible that agree with your chosen oncept that God is love, then one can proceed from there an eliminate or set aside those that do not comform to your ideal. Perhaps, if we were truthful, that is the position taken by most all Christians, including SDAs. It is quite impossible for the human mind to accept two disparate principles for long: one must be rejected. Paradoxes are difficult to maintain as an on-going principles of life. Human logic and reasoning will not allow us to accept such conflicting ideas: God is love, but he orders killings and human sacrifices and destroys what he wishes (Job ?). OTOH, I also accept that position, although from perhaps a different perspective. I have come to learn that the Bible is not "God's Word" but humans record of their God, and as humans, there were many perceptions of God throughout its pages. We should not expect them to all agree, as we humans never do, either. Writing about a divine figure does not also mean that the book is divine. If that were the case, the hundreds or thousands of books written about Jesus would be classified as divine. Reading the Bible as the feeble attempts of humans to come to grips with a god they needed to explain, results in a very contradictory and confusing picture of God. Plus, Christians, born out of Judaism and fostered by Jewish followers of Jesus, needed desperately to understand His relation to the God of the Hebew Scriptures, something he never claimed. In attempting to juxtapose the two figures into one, there lay a difficult paradox: how can the God of the OT be God as represented in Jesus? He always, according to the writers, claimed to be the "Son of Man, and even then, the writers wrote that as we have no record of anything that he said. Of course, it was not believed that Jesus was God while he was here but an idea that began soon afterward and grew increasingly with the first to the latest NT writers to be incorporated into the canon. The canon writers were also influenced by the non-canonical books which is seen in some of the text and the choices made by those who formalized our NT today. Even the Gospel writers had differing ideas and versions of similar events and all wrote based on previous oral stories. We all know today that oral stories are gradually changed progressively as the years pass (Playing telephone or Gossip demonstrates that fact). They also were not attempting to write historical biography but to convince their readers that Jesus was a divine miracle worker and had performed many miracles and he should be honored. Worship of Jesus came later and not until four centuries after his life did the church accept and form into doctrine that he was part of the Godhead and equal to God; was incarnated through his virginal birth to Mary; that he lived a sinless life; that he was both divine and human. None of those doctrines can be explained; they must be accepted on faith--faith that the church fathers made the right decisions. Which is why moderns today have great difficulty accepting such concepts that were ordinary ideas when first adopted.

don · 05-17-09 8:16 pm

something he never claimed Elaine, you have said this more than once. All we know of Jesus is what is written of Him by the Gospel writers and they record His claims (what you deny he claimed). Whether one accepts the Gospels as inspired of God, or not, isn't the record of the His claims a matter of literary fact; a fact of literature. Of course, it was not believed that Jesus was God while he was here but an idea that began soon afterward and grew increasingly with the first to the latest NT writers to be incorporated into the canon. The canon writers were also influenced by the non-canonical books which is seen in some of the text and the choices made by those who formalized our NT today. I realize that there are historians who make such claims, but who can really know, once the debate begins. All we have from these scholars is the speculation of what was known at first and what was not; a conclusion based on a particular worldview, as I see it. then one can proceed from there an eliminate or set aside those that do not comform to your ideal. I still believe that "all scripture was inspired of God and is profitable" for spiritual purposes. But, my view of inspiration must allow for cultural flavoring of the text including "misunderstandings" about God. Inspite of all this, I still consider the total "Word of God" spiritually powerful, even those sections which "misrepresent" God. I believe strongly in the transforming power of the "Word of God" rightly understood. I treat the "inconsistencies" much like I would the inconsistencies in science or in the stories of witnesses who all witnessed the same event. Systematic Theology is the organizing of the assertions about God into a comprehensible whole. I have learned to distinguish between Biblical theology and Classical theology. Biblical theology comprises the theological views of the writers. Classical theology deals with the broad issues of omnipotence, onniscience, onmipresence, the Love of God, the Justice of God, the Inspiration of Scripture, etc. In Adventism, we have Maxwell's theology, the 1888 Message Committee's theology, Reformation theology, Sorenson's, Ford's, LaRondelle's, Hasel's, etc. They all seek to organize their view of God. I am not opposed to all these efforts and I cannot deny my God's involvement in the giving of the Scriptures. Then there are other people who want just a simple Biblical "word" that can transform their lives. At our Sabbath School round table we sometimes get into too technical a back and forth on certain matters. There are people in our group who get exasperated with the debate. They want some inspiration for how to live their lives for the coming week. They don't want scholasticism. I don't blame them and have to catch myself when I get too analytical. My Ph. D. friend, the United Church of Canada minister I have mentioned before, still finds inspiration in all the Scriptures, even though he holds to a very "liberal" view of the Resurrection as "myth". Yet, he celebrates the "myth". If he can organize his life around the "inspired" Scriptures, certainly we can as well, even Alfke. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 05-17-09 8:47 pm

Don, this is what I wrote: Jewish followers of Jesus, needed desperately to understand His relation to the God of the Hebew Scriptures, something he never claimed. We have no record other than what the Gospel writers and Paul chose to leave us. Perhaps you can show me my error, but I don't recall Jesus claiming to be God, the God of the Hebrews, but that he was the "Son of Man" or even the "Son of God" a label also given some Hebrew characters, not unique with Jesus. Did I misunderstand what you wrote that you do not accept everything written within the Bible as a guide to your life, and that you do choose what inspires you or reject it? You mention Maxwell and other SDA theologians. Do you also accept their historical accounts of the early practice of Christians in observing the first day? They do not support a first-day worship, but their integrity demands that they recognize and report, historically, what they records show. My positions are not based on faith or a chosen theological position, but an attempt, however, poor, to recount history insofar as I have studied early Christianity. And always, being receptive to different perspectives when I am persuaded that someone makes better reason based on his or her studies. Yes, the SS class is not usually interested in pursuing technical or historical details. It all depends on the students. I the class of 20-25 where I regularly participate, there are some well-informed students who are appreciative of Bible studies. As you and I know, simply reading a text does not always give an answer as there are ways of interpreting how it should apply to us today. There's the difficulty. Yesterday, we were studying stewardship: of the environment, money, time, etc. Concordances can give texts, but how should we apply stewardship to us and our world today?

don · 05-17-09 9:27 pm

Did I misunderstand what you wrote that you do not accept everything written within the Bible as a guide to your life, and that you do choose what inspires you or reject it? Not quite. I am not content to reject anything out of hand. For example, one of the most difficult passages in Scripture is the one where the dead soldier is thrown onto the bones of Elisha and he comes back to life. I don't know why, but this miracle-story bothers me more than other ones. But if my students ask me if I considered it inspired, I will say, "Yes, but it makes me uncomfortable. But to keep to the integrity of the Word, I accept it. I just don't know what to do with it." Of course, I can find spiritual value even in that story. Even the dead men of God have influence. The writings of the men of old can raise the dead, spiritually-speaking. Perhaps you can show me my error Doesn't the Gospel of John contain many such claims? Do you also accept their historical accounts of the early practice of Christians in observing the first day? While at Southern in the early 70's I studied what the early church "fathers" wrote about the Sabbath and Sunday and concluded that long before Constantine the practice of Sunday observation had begun. My professor, a Dr. Wohlers, expressed interest in my conclusions by saying, "So you agree with Strand on this?" I had no idea who Strand was but understood from his comment that my conclusions were part of a larger debate. And always, being receptive to different perspectives when I am persuaded that someone makes better reason based on his or her studies. My concern is that you, and perhaps the scholars you admire, speak too knowingly of things that cannot be known categorically. If I am going to discuss history, as social science, I want to be conservative in my assertions. When I was much younger, at the beginning of my birdwatching career, I quickly stated what I had seen in the field, too sure of myself. Then, I realized that the really good birdwatchers would say things like, "I think I saw...", or "It may have been...". Of course, sometimes they were sure, amazingly so. Once in Belize, I met two photographers for Encyclopedia Brittanica. They had just come back from the jungles out near Guatemala. "Did you find anything new out there," I asked. (A typical birdwatcher's question.) They looked at each other, smiled, and said, "We think we have." Benjamin Franklin reported how he learned to be careful in his assertions, especially in his business dealings. He let off being aggressively assertive and couched his discussions in "I could be wrong, but...", or "It seems to me...", etc. I submit, that historians ought to be humble in their assertions especially when dealing with matters that cut against the "faith" views of others. That being said, it is a much more fun discussion when people state their controversial views as though they were uncontestable. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 05-17-09 9:58 pm

It would seem quite superfluous if we prefaced each statement we make with "this is what I believe today." That should be understood, as every time we express ourselves it is a personal opinion, and depends greatly on the speaker or writer. Most of us try to share informed, rather than uninformed opinions based on our studies. There are certainly people who have made a lifetime of studying the Bible and its history that none of us is capable of doing. We do our best to synthesize the many we have read and studied, don't we? Each of us makes tentative statements and no one, certainly not you and me <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0> are considered an expert, only a student, which is what we all are. As to Kenneth Strand: yes, he and Gerhardt Damsteegt and C. Mervyn Maxwell have written on the Sabbath-Sunday observances in the early church. When ALL scholars present something it is their hypothesis and subject to newer discoveries or concepts. Just as the Nag Hammadi and Qumram discoveries have greatly added to Bible scholarly conclusions, we should always be open, as I believe you are, to conclusions that may disagree with formerly held opinions.

pilgrim99 · 05-17-09 10:24 pm

Elaine, I'm a little curious as to what you believe that the Nag Hammadi discoveries have added to orthodox Christian knowledge and theology.

john8verse32 · 05-18-09 9:47 am

I am not content to reject anything out of hand. For example, one of the most difficult passages in Scripture is the one where the dead soldier is thrown onto the bones of Elisha and he comes back to life. I don't know why, but this miracle-story bothers me more than other ones. But if my students ask me if I considered it inspired, I will say, "Yes, but it makes me uncomfortable. But to keep to the integrity of the Word, I accept it. 2 kings 13: 21 Once, while some Israelites were burying a man's body, they saw a group of Moabites. The Israelites quickly threw the body into Elisha's tomb and ran away. As soon as the man's body touched the bones of Elisha, the man came back to life and stood up. so what are the problems with this text? 1) it claims that a guy was raised from the dead, long before Jesus own resurrection, and the Gospel of John claims that Jesus was the FIRST to be so raised.... 2) the simple fact that a guy was raised form the dead is a "miracle" that we cannot understand... 3) and what is most puzzling, is the reason for this supernatural event...there is none given.... did anybody benefit other than the guy brought back to life? why is this not mentioned elsewhere as a miracle? what is the purpose of this isolated tale? on the positive side, it attempts to demonstrate how much power Elisha had as a prophet of God...extending even after his death.... and this power was internal to the prophet himself, via his dead bones, as it is not claimed that God performed the miracle. the best news? God is not even involved here in this story, unlike the other tale told about Elisha where, at the beginning of his mission, he worried that he would not have the power of his predecessor, Elijah... ...so when confronted by kids making fun of his bald head, just to see if he had powers, and in an angry mood, he called on our loving God who responded by sending bears to KILL/TARE UP precisely 42 kids. Good news: in the dry bones resurrection, at least God is not being an angry tyrant...and while no reason is given for the event, at least it is not a negative thing no matter how unbelievable. Bad news: in the 3 bears tale, God is directly responsible for the "taring up" and probable killing of 42 children. And the reason? just to prove to Elisha that he had the force with him. Our loving Hebrew God? killing kids again? but the good news is that the number 42 gives away the probability that this tale is just that: a tale, written long after the alleged non-event, designed to prove to Hebrew kids listening to stories around the campfire, that they should pay attention and honor their elders. Especially the prophets, even if bald. The number 42 is such a "round", made up number that anytime it is used, we should suspect that the rest of the story may have been made up!!! take the perfect number 7, representing the gods in the sky, the 5 planets visible to the naked eye plus the sun and moon. Then name the 7 days of the week after them. Then to make 7 doubly perfect, double it to 14....like matt divided his generations into groups of 14. Like Jacob had to work 2 x 7 yrs to get his wives while cheating his Uncle Laban with the striped stick theory of how to modify breeding results. Then to make 14 even more perfect, multiply by 3, and presto, chango, you have the magic 42.... which becomes such a made up number, that any story it is associated with should be looked at carefully!!!! So it is my contention that the story of Elisha and the three bears killing 42 kids is a made up story to prove the powers of Elisha the prophet, tho in the process, it sure casts doubt on the potential for loving tenderness on the part of our Heavenly Father... If this type of exaggeration could have worked its way on purpose into Gods inerrant word, why could not somebody have inserted the tale of Elisha's dry bones having divine power....just to glorify the then dead prophet and celebrate his greatness.... after all, the story starts out like all our other mythical tales.... Once upon a time while some Israelites were burying a man's body.... why not finally admit what the evidence indicates, and "modify" this: it makes me uncomfortable. But to keep to the integrity of the Word, I accept it. to "the story told by the ancients was to impress on their children the importance of.... and today we honestly recognize that,and look for the value of the story and the motivation, the meaning, and the morality behind it", as we continue to value and study the Written Word as one of our guides to life.

don · 05-18-09 10:40 am

"the story told by the ancients was to impress on their children the importance of.... This makes sense. However, to deny that it actually happened takes the lesson still further. I will not do that. For these reasons:<ul><li>Jesus treated the Hebrew stories as though they happened; including the story of Jonah. <LI>The other NT canonical writers also wrote of the Hebrew stories as historical stories. If they approached the Hebrew Bible that way, I am most comfortable, faithwise, if I do the same. <LI>The conservative Christian communities still believe these stories to have actually happened. If the whole of the Christian faith communities, including my own, agreed that these were mere moralistic campfire stories, the switch to such a view wouldn't be that hard. <LI>In the past, stories considered myth were found to be supported by paleological discoveries. <LI>I derive more spiritual value from these stories if I view them as historical accounts, at least within the ball park of authenticity.</li></ul>and today we honestly recognize that, The conservative Christian community is not ready to do so, including, and especially, the Adventist community. and look for the value of the story and the motivation, the meaning, and the morality behind it" Yes, we should do all these things, even to the stories which challenge our credulity. I believe that all of this must be done, even though I believe in the historicity of the account. This makes my task re: "God's Love" more difficult. So, I search for explanations in other areas. as we continue to value and study the Written Word as one of our guides to life. John, you must have noted how I will ask where you stand on this. Do you value and study the Written Word as one of your guides to life? On this forum you provide the most eloquent expression of this viewpoint. Can you report on what life is like as you try this out? You also must be aware that there are faith groups who have adopted the Bible view you have described. .

elaine · 05-18-09 2:08 pm

In the past, stories considered myth were found to be supported by paleological discoveries. Did you mean archaeological? Paleology is the study of fossils. What does that study contribute to biblical understanding? The only paleological findings that I can recall is that there were no pig bone fossils found in that area, indicating that the former inhabitants did not consume this meat. Yes, but not all of the stories. Where is there archaelogical evidence of Moses leading milions across the Red (or Reed) Sea to Canaan? Where is the evidence of Joshua's marching around Jericho and causing the walls to collapse? Archaelogical evidence shows this did not occur according to the time the Bible recorded it. If you haven't read Finklestien's The Bible Unearthed you should do so to correct some misconceptions. As to the discoveries in Egypt and the Sinai desert, most Bible scholars consider them to be of enormous significance showing that there were writings used giving much information,although they were not all included in the canon we have today. Just as the apocryphal books are of great historical value, but decisions were made (inspired?) not to include them, either. For the estimated 3000 years before printing, the Bible was orally transmitted, and was not made available for the common people until the 15th century and when literacy became more common. All was related orally, as few could read, and the rabbis and clergy read AND interpreted for the people. This is why the Mishna and Talmud are considered sacred to the Jews. So, when you refer to the "Written Word" you are limited to any of many translations, also the Jerusalem translation that contains many aporcyphal books that were also considered sacred. IOW, Christians have accepted the decisions of the Church (which was the Roman Catholic Church then) for what books are now included in the Bible, along with other doctrines that this church adopted long ago. However, that also is a selective process as how were decisions made by the SDA church to decide which were dogma and which were no longer doctrinal? Was the one Christian church inspired to choose? Is you decision to accept those also inspired?

don · 05-18-09 5:08 pm

Paleology is the study of fossils. Well, kind of. I am not used to the use of the term, but noted its definition (British). <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paleological" target="_blank">Paleology</a> is the study of antiquities and can include the study of fossils but not just that. I decided to use the term rather than archaeology so as to keep the meaning as broad as possible. For example: <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paleography" target="_blank">Paleography</a> is the study of ancient writings. The exact term for the study of fossils is <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paleontology" target="_blank">paleontology</a>. Biblical Archaeology, in its heyday, thrived on discovery after discovery. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls rolled back the perceived accuracy of the Bible 1000 years, or so. The strong statements of "fact" had to be rethought. But, after all is said and done, one still has to accept or reject the Bible as having any inspiration from God. I have decided to accept it claims to inspiration. I have also decided not to reject scientific inquiry. Thus, John thinks I may need lithium, or perhaps ativan. I rather enjoy facing (drug free) the various dragons which have tagged along in my life, thus far. . (Message edited by Don on May 18, 2009)

john8verse32 · 05-18-09 5:17 pm

Jesus treated the Hebrew stories as though they happened; was this out of "respect" for ancient traditions? or belief in their literal truth? and when the devil marched or teleported Jesus to a mountain so high that they could see ALL the kingdoms of the earth, was this another literal happening which today we know is not possible on a round earth, or was that either: A) a parable...and thus Jesus went along with the devils parable in order to make a point, not to recount a literal event, or B) Jesus actually was as confused about the nature of the earth as the scientifically ignorant people around him, and went along with the plan resulting in the story to be told about him.... or C) the whole tale is just an exaggeration, like a number of stories which we are increasingly understanding as 'figurative" and not literal, since "all the kingdoms of the earth" could not have been seen at once even from the Space Station, including the Maya, the Chineese, the Japaneese, Harrapan civilization in India, etc... its ROUND... right? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/1304.gif" alt="">

don · 05-18-09 5:29 pm

was this out of "respect" for ancient traditions? or belief in their literal truth? Point taken. Thus, I too, do the same. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 05-18-09 9:02 pm

Even the Jews today accept that many such stories are allegorical, not literal. Just as the Greeks refer to their ancient gods and traditions (Trojan war?) but that does not mean they were literal, only that they are part of their cultural history. Greek mythology influenced the Jews of Jesus' time and Hellensitic ideas are seen in the NT. No culture or nation lives in total isolation, particularly in such a trade route as most of the Middle East. One can accept the stories of Jesus and the patriarchs just as we have today in Aesop's fables and such tales have a moral that outlives the story. How can the others be accepted as "moral tales" while the Bible is all literal? If the Hebrews didn't take the Creation stories as literal facts, but explanation for how their world began and how people separated and tribes developed, why have Christians taken them all as literal and factual? The "deeper" perspective sees beyond the literal.

don · 05-18-09 9:35 pm

Even the Jews today accept that many such stories are allegorical, not literal. Judaism has its liberals and conservatives just like Christianity. In my readings of Jewish thinking, I have found Jews who believe the Bible stories as literally as Adventists do. If the Hebrews didn't take the Creation stories as literal facts, but explanation for how their world began and how people separated and tribes developed, why have Christians taken them all as literal and factual? You have not convinced me that the Hebrews did not take their stories a literal history. The "deeper" perspective sees beyond the literal. This I can agree with. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 05-18-09 9:59 pm

You have not convinced me that the Hebrews did not take their stories a literal history. An Orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholar, James L. Kugel is worth a reading. His How To Read the Bible: A guide to Scrpture Then and Now is one of the finest explanation of how the Jews have read and interpreted their history.

elaine · 05-18-09 10:01 pm

Doesn't it make sense to let the Jews tell us how they wrote and interpreted their Scripture, rather than Christian appropriating their own understanding? Christians have taken great liberty with the Hebrews' accounts.

don · 05-18-09 10:23 pm

Doesn't it make sense to let the Jews tell us how they wrote and interpreted their Scripture, rather than Christian appropriating their own understanding? I agree. But, my statement earlier is that there are Jews who believe the literal stories just as Christians do. How many Jews would tolerate someone telling them that the Israelites did not take part in the Exodus from Egypt or receive the Ten Commandments from God at Mt. Sinai, or that Moses was the figment of campfire story-tellers imagination? What does Kugel say about the literalness of these stories? Isn't their claim to the land tied up with a belief in the literalness of the promise to Abraham, etc. .

don · 05-18-09 11:33 pm

An Orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholar, James L. Kugel is worth a reading. His How To Read the Bible: A guide to Scrpture Then and Now is one of the finest explanation of how the Jews have read and interpreted their history. Kugel does not represent the rank and file of Orthodox Judaism, at least not on the surface. He claims solidarity with them. Notice this excerpt from his website: <a href="http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php" target="_blank">Kugel at YU</a> by James Kugel Note the highlighted sections:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:I realized that in so doing I ran the risk of being misunderstood – as if I were advocating that people adopt modern scholarship's views on the Bible as their own. I did try to warn readers on this point. In the book's preface I wrote that, “In reporting on this [modern biblical scholarship], I may seem like an advocate of [it],” but that this is actually not my position (p. 46). In my final chapter I was more explicit: “My own view, therefore – though others may disagree – is that modern biblical scholarship and traditional Judaism are, and must always remain, completely irreconcilable... Nothing in the present volume is intended to suggest otherwise” (p. 681). I'm quite sure that those who found my speaking at YU disturbing would have seconded these sentiments – if only they had gotten that far in their reading of my book (indeed, in some cases, if only they had tried to read it at all). But while I in no way espouse the marriage of Judaism with modern biblical scholarship, there is no denying that this scholarship is simply out there, in books and magazines, the media and the Internet. One of my aims in writing this book was thus to reach a particular sort of Jewish reader (as I also said, p. 46), someone who, having encountered bits of modern biblical scholarship here and there, feels the need for some sort of reasoned response to it, based on a sustained, unflinching consideration of its ideas. I know from a considerable amount of e-mail that I have received since the book's publication that there are many such Orthodox Jews, and I doubt that their numbers will decrease in the foreseeable future. So it was in part for them that I wrote this book, and I hope that they will find in it (and in particular in its last chapter) some help as they try to think through this difficult issue.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Kugel seems to be saying, I have written how "modern scholarship" deals with the Bible but I don't agree with this "modern scholarship" approach. I rather like Kugel's approach. He eloquently explains the thinking of modern scholarship, almost like an insider. Yet, in that last chapter he refers to, he lets his true colors be known. It seems that his goal is to help the Orthodox Jew understand the thinking of the "Modern Scholar", not to advocate it but to inform of it. I will compare Kugel to Desmond Ford: Kugel is to Orthodox Judaism what Desmond Ford is to Traditional SDAism. Both are controversial within their communities. Kugel, like Ford, lays claim to the orthodoxy of his faith community. Both have been severely misunderstood by their opponents. I submit that: Traditional Orthodox Judaism looks at the historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures much the way Adventists and other conservative Christians do. (Message edited by Don on May 18, 2009)

john8verse32 · 05-19-09 12:01 am

Did the Exodus Really Happen? Knowing the Exodus is not a literal historical account does not ultimately change our connection to each other or to God. <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=2" target=_top>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Di d-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=2</a> begin quote: Three years ago on Passover, I explained to my congregation that according to archeologists, there was no reliable evidence that the Exodus took place--and that it almost certainly did not take place the way the Bible recounts it. Finally, I emphasized: It didn't matter. Some argue that there is no evidence to back my assertion. Endlessly reiterated is the mantra "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." In other words, the fact that we have never found a single shred of evidence in the Sinai does not mean the Israelites were not there. This is nominally true. We have found Sinai evidence of other people who predated the Israelites, and while it is improbable that 600,000 men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago without leaving a shard of pottery or a Hebrew carving, it is not impossible. (Together with women and children, that makes a couple of million, who could actually fill the distance between Egypt and Israel by standing in line.) One rabbi quoted to me the mystical tradition that one tribe was deputized to clean up every trace, which at least shows the Jewish tradition's unease with Sinai's preternaturally clean slate. However, the archeological conclusions are not based primarily on the absence of Sinai evidence. Rather, they are based upon the study of settlement patterns in Israel itself. Surveys of ancient settlements--pottery remains and so forth--make it clear that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500-1200 BCE). Therefore, not the wandering, but the arrival alerts us to the fact that the biblical Exodus is not a literal depiction. In Israel at that time, there was no sudden change in the kind or the volume of pottery being made. (If people suddenly arrived after hundreds of years in Egypt, their cups and dishes would look very different from native Canaanites'.) There was no population explosion. Most archeologists conclude that the Israelites lived largely in Canaan over generations, instead of leaving and then immigrating back to Canaan. Some people tendentiously seized on my words and used them to deny that today's Israelis have a right to their land. This is equivalent to saying, "I don't own my house because I have lived in it forever," rather than having moved from the next town. If the Israelites grew up among the ancient Canaanites, they have an unassailable historical claim. They have been there for longer than recorded history. The probability is, given the traditions, that there were some enslaved Israelites who left Egypt and joined up with their brethren in Canaan. This seems the likeliest scenario, a beautiful one that accords with the deeper currents of biblical tradition. The Exodus was a very small-scale event with a large, world-changing trail of consequences. Some people are surprised, even upset, by these views. Yet they are not new; such views have been a staple of scholarship, even appearing in popular magazines, for many years. Not piety but timidity keeps many rabbis from expressing what they have long understood to be true. As a scholar who took me to task in print told me privately over lunch, "Of course what you say is true, but we should not say it publicly." In other words, tell the truth, but not when too many people will be listening. There are three primary reasons this is important to talk about: 1. A tradition cannot make an historical claim and then refuse to have it evaluated by history. It is not an historical claim that God created us and cares for us. That a certain number of people walked across a particular desert at a particular time in the past, after being enslaved and liberated, is an historical claim, and one cannot then cry "unfair" when historians evaluate it. For well over a century linguists, archeologists, historians and Bible scholars have been looking at the Bible in a new way. They understand how much of it is a product of history; how many stories were shared with other cultures whose languages and histories we have just come to understand. We can now appreciate how the vast canvas of the Bible shows different levels of Hebrew language, as would be expected of a work that developed over time. Most people are not aware that there are different manuscripts of the Bible, which show a "transmission history"--that is, constant recopying and variation. Our earliest complete manuscripts of the Bible are only 1000 years old. Even the Talmud (completed some fifteen hundred years ago) sometimes quotes verses differently from the verses as we have them. That God's hand is in the Bible is a pillar of belief for many, myself included. That human hands are in there as well does not detract from its sanctity, but reminds us that God and human beings are partners in this world in ways that we did not, when we first learned our Bible lessons, even imagine. 2. Truth should not frighten one whose faith is firm. As the Israeli Orthodox rabbi and scholar Mordecai Breuer writes: "Unable to withstand the contradiction (between faith and modern biblical scholarship) most men of faith consciously avoid biblical scholarship in order to safeguard their traditional belief." Those who hold that people should never explore such questions have very circumscribed notions of why God gave us brains. The Talmud ringingly declares: "God's seal is truth" (Shabbat 55a). 3. Knowing the Exodus is not a literal historical accounting does not ultimately change our connection to each other or to God. Faith should not rest on splitting seas. At the Passover Seder we declare: "In each generation, each individual should see himself as if he (or she) went forth from Egypt." The message does not depend upon whether 3 or 3 million individuals left. In a book explaining how orthodox scholarship views the Torah, Rabbi Shlomo Carmy writes that he was always troubled by the omission of the exodus from Egypt in the book of Chronicles. Why does the concluding book of the Hebrew Bible elide this central story? His answer is in a prophecy by Jeremiah (16:14-15) that one day the liberation from Babylonian captivity will be more important than the liberation from Egypt. History will give way to messianism. In the future the very story of the exodus is omitted, for it is not the specifics of history, but the theme of liberation and of God's providential care that is the theological center. The Torah is not a book we turn to for historical accuracy, but rather for truth. The story of the Exodus lives in us. Standing at the Passover Seder, I see in my mind's eye the Israelites marching out of Egypt, the miracles at the sea, and the pillar of fire leading them through the fearful night. I feel an enormous gratitude to God. For although we cannot know exactly how God has saved our people, we have been saved. Despite unimaginable odds and opposition, the Jewish people have seen nation after nation buried under the debris of history while our nation lives. Here is where archeology, history, scholarship and scripture meet. end quote final question for us Christians: if a Jewish scholar/rabbi can admit this so readily, how can we continue to believe it all so literally? and use the tales to make God into one of the worlds worst mass murderers (of Egyptian kids, of the whole world in a flood for which there is no good evidence, ....)

elaine · 05-19-09 12:04 am

It is not a matter of Jews tolerating this, but here is an example from Kugel's book. "No ancient Egyptian text dicovered so far describes anything like the ten plagues that are said to have afflicted Egypt in the biblical account, nor is there any mention of a mass exodus of foreign slaves at that time." "Quite apart from the miraculous events recounted--the ten pagues and the splitting of the Red Sea--people have wondered how six hundred thousand male Israelites, along with their wives, childen, flocks, and herds, could have survived in the desert for forty years; the numbers seemed impossibly large for a group traveling together from tiny oasis to tiny oasis. In our own day, the silence of ancient Egyptian records has been compounded by the silence of archaeologists: many of the sites mentioned in the account of the Israelites' desert wanderings have been identified and excvated, but none of them has yielded anything that coud be construed as attesting to the presence of such a mass of Isralites (or even of a considerably smaller group). What is more, the possibility of a subsequent mass entry of Israelites into Canaan is equally difficult to support, both with regard to the arachaeological record and in view of some apparent contradictions with the Bible itself. On top of this, archaeologists have found no evidence of Egyptian influence in the earliest settlements in Canaan identified as Israelite. There is nothing to indicate that the earliest Israelites had had any sustained, firsthand contact with life in Egypt. The conclusion....that the exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible...seems irrefutable. Not only is there no arachaeological evidence for an exodus, there is nothing to posit such an event." The book is only 689 pages, but this is how the author summarizes: "In Judaism, Scripture is ultimately valued not as history, nor as theology nor even as the great, self-sufficient corpus of divine uterrances--all that God had ever wished to say to man. Judaism is not fundamentalism, nor even Protestantism. What Scripture is, and always has been, in Judaism is the beginning of a manual entitled To Serve God, a manual whose trajectory has aways led from the prophet to the interpreter and from the divine to the merely human...As a matter of fact, a fossilized, petrified meaning would, soon enough, end up betraying this purpose of Scripture by making it outmoded and obsolete.

elaine · 05-19-09 12:06 am

Who ya gonna believe?

don · 05-19-09 1:06 am

Who ya gonna believe? Yes. Kugel or Kugel. Hmmmm.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 05-17-09 1:22 am

Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#2 05-17-09 2:13 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#3 05-17-09 11:18 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#4 05-17-09 7:11 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#5 05-17-09 8:16 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#6 05-17-09 8:47 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#7 05-17-09 9:27 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#8 05-17-09 9:58 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#9 05-17-09 10:24 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#10 05-18-09 9:47 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#11 05-18-09 10:40 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#12 05-18-09 2:08 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#13 05-18-09 5:08 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#14 05-18-09 5:17 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#15 05-18-09 5:29 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#16 05-18-09 9:02 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#17 05-18-09 9:35 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#18 05-18-09 9:59 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#19 05-18-09 10:01 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#20 05-18-09 10:23 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#21 05-18-09 11:33 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#22 05-19-09 12:01 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#23 05-19-09 12:04 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#24 05-19-09 12:06 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#25 05-19-09 1:06 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

Board footer