The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

don · 11-11-09 12:57 pm

This thread is for commentary on Karen Armstrong's The Bible, A Biography.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Yturi7B … q=&f=false

Armstrong, K. (2007). The Bible, A Biography. Vancouver, Douglas and McIntyre. 320 pp.

don · 11-11-09 1:13 pm

The Introduction

I have found little to disagree with in her introduction. Her statement that people did not intend for the Bible to be taken literally seemed untrue. However, I have note her emphasis on the word "exclusively". In other words, people certainly took the Bible literally, but they also found other ways to derive meaning from the sacred text.

She asserts that contradictory texts were intentionally placed side by side to create a spiritual experience in attempting to relate to both of them. Again, I don't see an immediate problem with such a view.

don · 11-11-09 7:08 pm

Chapter One, Torah

I am still studying this chapter, but thought I would start with an observation. Karen Armstrong is not a historian who leads the way in creating hypotheses to help piece together the evidence. She takes the conclusions of others and weaves them into a rather easy flowing narrative. I assume that what she presents can be considered almost a consensus of "liberal" scholars regarding how the various texts came to be the Bible. Armstrong writes as though there is no doubt about how these things happened. It is an interesting tale she tells, but I remain unconvinced.

don · 11-12-09 2:26 am

Chapter One, Torah - part 2

As a warrior, Yahweh was unsurpassed, but he had no expertise in agriculture, so when they wanted a good harvest, it was natural for the people of Israel and Judah to have recourse to the cult of the local fertility god Baal and his sister-spouse Anat, practising the usual ritual sex to make the fields fertile.

Karen Armstrong's book should perhaps be viewed as historical fiction. Active imaginations at work.

don · 11-12-09 6:40 pm

How does Karen Armstrong's Story Compare With Others?

From what I have read of Armstrong's work so far, I have concluded that she lines up with the right hand column.

Overview:
Christians, Jews and archaeologists hold diverse beliefs about the historical accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
Christians can be divided into at least two groups: conservative and liberal. Each holds very different beliefs. Judaism is similarly divided. These religious beliefs do not necessarily coincide with religious denominations or traditions. You will find both religious conservatives and liberals in the Presbyterian Church (USA), for example. These differences can be largely traced to their fundamental beliefs about the nature of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Events recorded in the Pentateuch:
Considering the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) the most extreme views are:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_arhs.htm

jag · 11-12-09 10:06 pm

Don,

I am not familiar with the book. Perhaps I should read it, as whenever you quote from it, it is something I find it hard to disagree with.

However, not sure how you can call it historical "fiction" if the author shares the views represented in the right column, as they seem to be a view of modern archeologists and historians. I'd say a lot of fiction and active imagination is involved when you want to hold beliefs of conservatives and maintain, for instance, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, when the text itself proves otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. How could an archeologist maintain that the exodus and 40 years in the desert happened, when not a shred of evidence exists? It would be fraud, not scholarship to do so. Generations of archeologists have searched for the evidence and have found nothing, even though with modern tools we can find evidence for something as small as a thousands of years old overnight bedouin camp! How could a historian maintain the same and claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Did Moses suffer from memory loss, or otherwise how to explain the he forgot the name of the pharaoh he was struggling against?

A historichal scholar must stick to the evidence, not conjecture. Armstrong may be more of a populariser of knowledge than a scholar, but as far as I know she used to be a nun and remains a Christian. Guess she's one of those honest Christians and not those who "lie for Jesus".

don · 11-13-09 7:42 am

A historichal scholar must stick to the evidence, not conjecture.

I don't think that is how historical scholars work. They certainly begin with the evidence. But, part of historical work is to develop a hypothesis. I think such reaching into the unknown, or between the lines, is a necessary part of the historian's work. But, it inevitably reflects the historian's world view. As I read Karen Armstrong's work, she goes beyond the evidence; as I presume do the peer-reviewed scholars she has read.

The lack of evidence is a scientific fact. The "J and E authors" are part of a hypothesis treated by Armstrong as fact. The idea that the Canaanites became the Israelites is also a historical hypothesis treated by Armstrong as a fact. Hypotheses such as these bend the mind, especially if the historian becomes a "believer" in them. Then the structure of hypotheses becomes "confessional" in nature; a new story of scripture is born.

There are different historical viewpoints. I strongly support the holding to scientific data no matter what it seems to imply.

The science of history is not quite as productive as the science of physics and mathematics. The correct use of mathematics can determine astronomical facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Historical science is not so. This is why there is so much speculation to fill in the gaps where the facts are missing.

I have come to support Armstrong as a person who can explain the ideas of "modern" scholars. She has a gift for grasping what is taught in the stuffy halls of academia and explaining those ideas for the everyday person.

as far as I know she used to be a nun and remains a Christian

It would be inappropriate for me to judge her heart. I think her obvious motivation is commendable; i.e. to seek for peace among the great religions of the world.

(Message edited by Don on November 13, 2009)

george · 11-13-09 12:18 pm

Why don't we just admit that we ALL begin with a hypothesis to prove, or at least to verify. Where that premise comes from might be the more important part of the search. Karen Armstrong comes to this from a religious background that let her down and she has some things to sort out for herself. I think all her research is part of that sorting out process. And that's OK. At least she's listening and sorting without obvious prejudice - or at least not more than any of us. We have to start somewhere. I'd rather hear from a whole host of people who are doing honest research than one person claiming to be the only true voice from God.

john8verse32 · 11-13-09 12:20 pm

I strongly support the holding to scientific data no matter what it seems to imply.

how about "rational data"

how is it that moses could be the author of the Pentateuch, when it describes his own demise and burial?

possibly among many factors leading to a "right" understanding of that table you posted!!!

btw...according to the story, wasn't Moses the first one to "break" all ten commandments?

and Babylonian history would suggest they were written on cuneiform clay tablets...not on stone...that's why they were so "breakable" by throwing them down....which history tells us was the way a Babylonian could break a contract...:
throw down the clay tablet with the contract and "break" the contract!!!

elaine · 11-13-09 12:53 pm

The column: Common Conservative Beliefs is rightly named: "Beliefs."

The right hand column is based on EVIDENCE, as that is what all academics must use, not beliefs.
This agrees with what Christian Hayes teaches: one can hold a belief, but to teach the facts and evidence, beliefs must not be taught as academic subjects.

To confuse the two is to be unable to distinguish the vast differences between beliefs and known facts. Remember, at one time the church believed that the sun revolved around the earth. This was a religious belief. Once the facts overwhelmingly disproved that belief, the church finally capitulated to scientific evidence. Those who refuse to accept evidence, must rely on beliefs. But those beliefs should never be considered evidence: evidence must be supported and no longer merely beliefs.

don · 11-13-09 12:56 pm

throw down the clay tablet with the contract and "break" the contract!!!

You may be acquainted with the Abraham movie

I use this and other similar movies in my religion classes. "These movies serve as visual commentary," I tell my students. At one point, they depict Terah's family coming before the King of Haran to renew their covenant with the city. The clay tablet is thrown down to the ground and breaks into pieces. I am convinced that they do this to allude to Moses and the Ten Commandments. I concur. When we reach this part of the video, I pause the movie and explain the connection.

how about "rational data"

how is it that moses could be the author of the Pentateuch, when it describes his own demise and burial?

Yes, the obvious "rational" data is very useful; incontrovertable. The Moses authorship question is presented in the Grade 9 NAD Curriculum as obvious that Moses could not have written it all. (I understand that Alden Thompson played a significant role in developing the Grade 9 material.)

At least she's listening and sorting without obvious prejudice - or at least not more than any of us.

I agree. There is something that happens among "secular" historians. They, like "confessional" ones, tend to view their conclusions as sacrosanct. Notice this rather wordy, yet insightful, comment:

The other confessional history : On secular bias in the study of religion
GREGORY Brad S.
University of Notre Dame, ETATS-UNIS
Abstract

The rejection of confessional commitments in the study of religion in favor of social-scientific or humanistic theories of religion has produced not unbiased accounts, but reductionist explanations of religious belief and practice with embedded secular biases that preclude the understanding of religious believer-practitioners. These biases derive from assumptions of undemonstrable, dogmatic, metaphysical naturalism or its functional equivalent, an epistemological skepticism about all truth claims of revealed religions. Because such assumptions are so widespread among scholars today, they are not often explicitly articulated. They were overtly asserted by Emile Durkheim in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), however, and arc implicit in the claims of two other thinkers influential in the study of early modem Christianity in recent years, namely Clifford Geertz and Michel Foucault. The use of such theories in the history of religion yields secular confessional history, parallel to traditional religious confessional history only with different embedded metaphysical beliefs. If scholars want to understand religious persons such that the latter would recognize themselves in what is said about them, rather than impose their own metaphysical convictions on them, then they should reject metaphysically biased reductionist theories of religion no less than confessional religious assumptions in the practice of their scholarship. Instead, a study of religion guided not by theories but by the question, "What did it mean to them?" and which is particularized in metaphysically neutral ways offers a third alternative that avoids confessional history, whether religious or secular. When carried out consistently for multiple traditions, such an approach can reconstruct disagreements that point beyond description to historical explanation of change over time.
History and theory ISSN 0018-2656
2006, vol. 45, no 4 (150 p.) [Document : 18 p.], [Notes: ref. et notes dissem.], pp. 132-149 [18 page(s) (article)]
Publisher:
Blackwell, Malden, MA, ETATS-UNIS (1960) (Revue)
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18349146

jag · 11-15-09 5:24 am

Don,
Please define your understanding of "secular" in the context of this discussion:
= non-denominational?
= atheistic?
= agnostic?
= non-funadamentalist?
or maybe something else?

Also, are you suggesting that Armostrong is "secular"? If so, on what basis?

don · 11-15-09 8:02 am

Please define your understanding of "secular" in the context of this discussion

I used the term loosely. Let's examine how someone, like Dr. Gregory, uses the term.

A secular scholar:

1. has rejected any confessional committment in favor of socio-scientific or humanistic theories of religion.
2. gives reductionist explanations of religious belief and practice with embedded secular biases that preclude the understanding of religious believer-practitioners
3. assume undemonstrable, dogmatic, metaphysical naturalism or its functional equivalent
4. hold to an epistemological skepticism about all truth claims of revealed religions.
5. hold to a secular confessional history, parallel to traditional religious confessional history only with different embedded metaphysical beliefs.

Gregory asserts that if the "secular" historian would become metaphysically neutral they could avoid confessional bias, both religious and secular.

Regarding Armstrong, it seems that she has bought into the historical view of what Gregory calls historians of secular confessional bias.

A secular bias in the modern media has been noted, as well:

IN THE NEWS:
Eastern European activists have a lot to tell us about how God rescues people from the depths of personal and political hell, but, somehow, much of the press has decided the public has no right to know this.
The Rev. Laszlo Tokes, the Hungarian pastor who sparked the Romanian revolution, told me of how the day before the hated Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown, Tokes was being prepared for a show trial. He expected to be executed. Through "divine intervention," he and his pregnant wife can look forward to their baby--Esther or Joseph--being born in a freer Romania. While Tokes put God at the head of Europe's liberation movement, the media are missing the message, he told me. "Eastern Europe is not just in a political revolution but a religious renaissance."
Another example: References to "Jesus," the "Christian spirit," and Czechoslovakia's role as the "spiritual crossroads of Europe" were omitted from excerpts of President Vaclav Havel's New Year's Day address. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Newsweek were among the sinful censors.
What does the press have against Jesus? Is there a bias against Christianity? Why are people who identify God--not politics or human endeavor--as responsible for changing world events not taken seriously by the media? In concluding that God isn't important, the press is trying to play God itself.
Source: Reynolds, Barbara. "Religion is Greatest Story Ever Missed." USA Today, March 16, 1990.
http://www.godsdesigns.com/pdf/5_Secrets_10%20-18. pdf

A strong case can be made that historians leave out the role of faith in the making of history especially if that faith is positive and helpful.

But Gregory's complaint seems to be that "secular" biased historians think they know "religious" people of history and fail to do justice to people of faith in history.

elaine · 11-15-09 3:35 pm

A "secular historian SHOULD not teach any faith, period! That is for theology, and has no part in history. They can, and should approach it from the historical aspect: how a religions began, their growth, and how they were practiced.

The press in many countries is government controlled. However, in the U.S. there is freedom of the press and in the public classrooms,
teachers are FORBIDDEN to teach a faith: any faith.

As a teacher in a denominational college, you have both the right and privilege to teach your faith as long as it conforms to your employer's.
Surely, you are not allowed to teach a Roman Catholic belief; while Catholic schools are expected to teach the catechism and their faith.

In the U.S. (what is Canada's position?) public education is considered under the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since the U.S. taxpayers fund public schools, and there can be no consensus on a particular religion that should be taught, the schools may only teach religion in comparative religions, or the unique American religions, but never favoring one over the other.

don · 11-15-09 6:30 pm

In the U.S. (what is Canada's position?) public education is considered under the First Amendment:

In Canada, we don't have a constitutional separation of church and state. Rather, we have a clause guaranteeing freedom of religion. In practice, the protections are similar. Except, if the very constitution trumps it as it does in the support of Catholic schools in Ontario.

Not teaching a "faith" is different than teaching about a "faith". For example, some textbooks when dealing with Thanksgiving report the connection between the Europeans and the Natives but will leave out the Europeans' thankfulness to God as the chief motivator for the the holiday. This neglect to teach about the role of faith in history distorts the historical account.

(Message edited by Don on November 15, 2009)

elaine · 11-15-09 7:40 pm

Don, this is the distinction you are making: teaching about a faith is not indoctrinating a particular faith.

All history must include the impact and influence of religion. When teaching on China, both Daoism and Buddhism is important; for the Middle East, Islam is the main religion, with its various branches. For western Europe, and NAD and the former English colonies, Christianity plays a very important role. The Spanish Conquistadores settled much of South America and Mexico so it must be taught.

However, history should not favor any one religion as that is now the place in teaching history. It should be easy to discriminate between preaching and endorsing} a particular faith and between teaching about a faith.

jag · 11-15-09 10:12 pm

I find Gregory's definition of secularism rather convoluted. I think he may be stretching it so that it can cover anyone he doesn't like!

In any case, I will certainly not be adopting his definition. And I do not see any reason to imagine Armstrong is particularly "secular" in her books. She is simply non-conservative (and non-denominational), and this is all.

I find naturalism a very useful approach method. We once believed that every time there was a thunderclap, it was god(s) throwing down their spears at someone. Now we know better, and are better for it. There is no reason to assume divine intervention every time we cannot explain something. To me that doesn't have to equal secularism.

Also, being denominational is very dangerous. You cannot be a denominational scholar/scientist. Only apologists are denominational. There is always a risk that you will discover something that doesn't agree with your denimination's credo, and what should you do then?

don · 11-16-09 12:22 pm

When first reading Gregory's piece, I noted his complaint that "secular" historians have a "secular" confessional agenda.

Further, recently I read of the mean-spirited words said between Dever and Thompson, as reported by Dever. There is something more than objective history going on among the historians of Palestine.

History can be a messy business, it seems.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 11-11-09 12:57 pm

The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#2 11-11-09 1:13 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#3 11-11-09 7:08 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#4 11-12-09 2:26 am

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#5 11-12-09 6:40 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#6 11-12-09 10:06 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#7 11-13-09 7:42 am

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#8 11-13-09 12:18 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#9 11-13-09 12:20 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#10 11-13-09 12:53 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#11 11-13-09 12:56 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#12 11-15-09 5:24 am

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#13 11-15-09 8:02 am

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#14 11-15-09 3:35 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#15 11-15-09 6:30 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#16 11-15-09 7:40 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#17 11-15-09 10:12 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

#18 11-16-09 12:22 pm

Re: The Bible, A Biography - Karen Armstrong

Board footer