Given that the Tanakh (Old Testament) is ancient literature, it naturally flows out of a different worldview, and uses different literary types. Both of these entail different concepts of what constitutes truth: truth is an aspect of worldview, and different forms of literature present truth in different ways (e.g. poetry, parable).
It is frequently noted here in discussions that many modern readers of the Bible impose a modern, including scientific, worldview onto the scriptures. The primary way this is done is by demanding that the scriptures be read using a MSWV concept of truth, i.e. that it intends to state objective facts of history and of science. Yet a fair reading just of the Torah/Pentateuch is enough to see that the ancient Hebrews did not operate with a concept of truth anywhere similar to that.
So let’s tackle the question of just how the ancient Hebrews understood what “truth” is, especially in terms of literature. I’ll start off by noting that the primary criterion was whether a piece of literature came from God.
You are using the acronym ‘MSWV’ about the modern western worldview. This expression may cause misunderstandings because the modern worldview is a mixture of materialistic ontology and possible theological or spiritual beliefs.
Materialistic ontology is a philosophical framework stating that matter is the fundamental substance of nature. If something exists, it is either matter or energy. When modern westerners are speaking about the start of this universe or our planet, the scientific knowledge informing about the events are based on materialistic (or mathematical) approaches for a simple reason: scientific study is limited by the methods it has. As we do not have any tool to measure God or spiritual creatures, these entities remain outside the field of science. Science cannot tell about God or spiritual creatures for this simple reason. We can study the materialistic reality using the methods of science and simultaneously believe that there is also an invisible reality that is beyond the current reach of science and that there is a Creator.
Scientific research can study claims about the materialistic reality. If a theological or spiritual belief system makes claims about the materialistic reality, scientific research can study if the claims agree with what is observed. This does not tell about God or the spiritual creatures, it only tells if the claims seem to be true.
In the Ancient Near East (ANE), the worldview was not materialistic and there was no knowledge of scientific research. The realm of gods and other spiritual creatures was an essential part of the worldviews and often considered to be more real than the visible reality. OT was not only written in ANE, it is fundamentally ANE texts, part of ANE world. The context and the ways how matters were told follow ANE worldview and customs.
Trying to translate the ANE expressions into the language of modern science is a futile attempt. The expressions in the ANE texts were never founded on a matter-based view of the reality. It is not just using different language or forms of expression (different genres), it is describing a different reality with a language that fits to the reality.
Why limit the discussion to ANE or MSWV. it would seem that there is an underlying principle about “Truth” that needs to be addressed. How something can be true in one circumstance and not in another, be it due to world view, knowledge or even culture.
There is a fixed view of “truth” that needs to be addressed. Changing one understanding to another and then claiming that as the only “Truth” would seem a little presumptuous, or even fallacious. Once you admit that truth is not static or fixed you open a massive can of worms.
According to the correspondence theory an idea or statement is true if it matches real life or actual facts.
According to the coherence theory a statement is true if it fits logically into a larger system of beliefs and other true statements.
Christians have an additional concept of truth, Truth as a person (Jesus).
We could also discuss how the concepts of truth fits in the stories that are narrative teaching. The message (teaching) may be truthful but presented through a story that includes mythological elements or figurative speech. If we look at the details of the narrative teaching, we may claim that all the details are not what happens in nature or exactly as happened in history. Yet, the narrative may tell a message (teaching) that is true.
Some think that ‘truth’ is relative; what is truth for one may not be truth for another. I would not call such a relative concept truth, although I understand that people may look at a matter from different viewpoints and describe what they observe with different words.
Edit:
Comparing worldviews as different as ANE and MSWV adds an interesting twist to the question. If someone looks the world through the philosophical framework of materialistic ontology, that framework clashes with the ANE framework where the ‘heavenly realm’ is an essential part of reality. According to the ANE framework, what happens in the invisible realm of God/gods is even more real than the observable realm because the observable realm is just a reflection or consequence of what happens in the invisible realm.
Sticking to the materialistic ontology would lead to the conclusion that any claims about an invisible realm or invisible God or invisible spiritual creatures are not true, unless these are or have measurable energy. That is a philosophical conclusion that would be false if the philosophical foundation of the materialistic ontology does not describe the whole reality.
The definition of truth changes from one culture to another. For example, in first century Rome, oral testimony was considered to be more true than anything that was written, but that is not the case in the West today.
That’s not the question: the question is how a culture & worldview defines truth in the first place. For example, to an ancient Sumerian if a god told a story it didn’t matter whether it had happened in a modern objective sense, it was true regardless, and indeed it was regarded as more true than what a person might observe with his own eyes.
And who is going to ask them? (The ancient cultures I mean.)
if the only way to learn abut them is by their literature or art, then you end up with the ludicrous paradox of how to understand what you are trying to learn from if yo udo not know what the culture is in the first place to decipher the truth!
i am sorry, but you take academic knowledge too far and try and impose it where it doesn’t belong. Faith and religion are not about academia
It’s a basically scientific process: make a hypothesis about the culture, then check that against everything known about it. When new evidence comes along, it may or may not fit the hypothesis, so adjustments may be required.
That’s like saying that books aren’t about words – on one level it makes sense, but the reality is that without knowing what the words mean (which involves knowing the literary form) there is no book anyway, just scratchings on a page.
