Historicity as Benchmark for the Bible - a New Book

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Realspiritik

I’m of the firm opinion that Jonah was written by the same person who wrote the Book of Job, and for the same reason: to counter the claims of exceptionalism made by Ezra.

Evangelical OT scholar Carmen Joy Imes recently stirred up a hornet’s nest on Twitter when she suggested Ezra and Nehemiah cherry-picked the Torah. She cited Malachi as a contemporary voice who pushed back on their policies.

The Torah is Pro-Immigrant. Nehemiah Was Not.

@Vinnie

I’m asking what is inspired about it? … The message of the Bible seems to be whatever lens and culture we want to see it through. no matter what it seems any and all interpretation is based on the fickle whims of our culture. It seems the whole concept of “inspiration” might just be superfluous which brings me back to my point. Why not just drop a term so heavily diluted?

The term is useful because of its history, which makes it a shorthand reference to a whole bundle of related theological concepts. Word meanings change over time and with usage. “Inspiration” will likely always be used in theological discourse, but it’s connotations will mean something slightly different to each succeeding generation of speakers. The conversation has moved from verbal plenary inspiration (word-for-word dictation) to Enns and “incarnational” inspiration. I’d call that an advance, not “blowing with the cultural winds.”

The same applies to theology and exegesis in general. Of course the present conversation centers on our present cultural concerns. It can’t be otherwise. But what you see as a mark against inspiration, I see as something in its favor. The Bible has managed to speak to the heart of many generations over thousands of years. When it has been misused, it was in service of states, emperors, and the religious institutions in their thrall, all in the name of commerce/greed.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. Lots and lots of other stuff to comment on, but I’ll make it a separate post.

Edit: To be clear, I don’t endorse Dr. Imes’ historical readings of earlier passages (below), but I did find it interesting her own conservative audience freaked out about even her lukewarm criticism of Nehemiah/Ezra.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Jay313

To be clear, I don’t endorse Dr. Imes’ historical readings of earlier passages (below), but I did find it interesting her own conservative audience freaked out about even her lukewarm criticism of Nehemiah/Ezra.

This (Imes’ take on Malachi) caught my eye too. Do you think it is over-reach on her part to see implicit (or otherwise) criticism of the Ezra/Nehemiah policies in the book of Malachi?

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

There may have been some form of an Exodus about a group of people leaving Egypt but I’d wager on it not really looking like the stories in book of Exodus at all because it looks like polemic agains Egyptian gods and the details (e.g. numbers) are logistically troubling.

Recent work has shown that at the least there was an exodus of Levites and probably one of other groups (which may not have been at the same time).

And are you familiar with the work that indicates we’ve been reading those numbers all wrong, that where we’ve been reading “thousand” we should be reading “company” (in a military sense)?

Taking these together and adding in that there were closely related groups in what the Romans later called Palestine makes for a lively tale that shows what Israel was meant to be, namely a nation that welcomed new additions into God’s people.

@Vinnie

The speeches are not consonant with the orations found in histo­ries, for those tend to comment upon or explain decisions . . .
The quantity of direct speech, c. 51% of the book, has no paral­lel in history or biography.

One of my professors commented about this, noting that histories of the time rarely concerned people whose main business was talking, and speeches were invented to show the individual’s thinking; thus biographies concerning people who main business was talking would inevitably have more speechifying.

@Vinnie

The nature and quantity of “supernatural” activity-miracles, visions, and divine guidance-differs in quantity, nature, and perspective from that found in Greco-Roman historians

That’s an argument in favor of historicity; invented miracles would have followed the existing pattern.

= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =

@jpm

Ezra wrote his book advocating racial separatism

I’ve thought Ezra was a bit of an ass ever since the first time I read his book.

[St.Roymond]

@Terry_Sampson

American Christianity is, in my experience taught in each sect and denomination–as a rule–by people who are quick and ready to say: “Don’t argue with me, just do and repeat what I say.”

A good solid argument also is represented by the Torah as the right way to address God, that is, as an act of enormous devotion. The founder of eternal Israel, Abraham, argued with God to save Sodom. Moses time and again argued with God. Many of the prophets took up the argument as well, Jeremiah for example. So ours – the Torah’s – is a God that expects to be argued with…

I’m trying to remember if David ever argued with God. He certainly approached God with arguments sometimes; maybe that counts.

But this is a bit of a shocking assertion, that God expects us to argue with Him and that doing so is “an act of enormous devotion”!

[Rob_Brewer (Robert Brewer)]

@St.Roymond

Stop right there

@St.Roymond

the amazing thing is how often Jesus claimed to be Yahweh and got away with it!

Exactly, speak to any Jew and you will understand that it is extremely doubtful that he would have done such a thing, if not impossible, unless he was a Hellenistic infiltrator that suggested that he was a demi-god like Hercules, Achilles, Aeneas, or Castor.

@St.Roymond

Those “final generations” were the prophets, and they didn’t challenge prior teachings

The Midrash is expansive Jewish Biblical exegesis using a rabbinic mode of interpretation prominent in the Talmud.

@St.Roymond

To the contrary, the historical reliability of the Old Testament has been pushed back to Solomon, and perhaps to David.

“The biblical narrative, which begins with the creation of the world in Genesis and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in the book of Kings, evolved over the ages from smaller, originally independent pieces. Generations of anonymous scribes collected these pieces, embroidered them with new details, and wove them into an elaborate literary tapestry. This work narrates the histories of the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, portraying their tragic ends. As it does, it blends their separate stories, setting them in relation to an earlier “United Monarchy” from the time of David and Solomon, and beyond that, to a nation that evolved from a single, extended family, beginning with Abraham and Sarah.”

Wright, Jacob L. (2023-08-16T23:58:59.000). Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins . Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

[Rob_Brewer (Robert Brewer)]

@Realspiritik

Judaism has its own strains of rigid orthodoxy, just as various schools of Christianity do. It’s up to each of us, as individual children of God, to carefully study the texts of our respective traditions and learn to be honest about the passages that try to suppress our questions.

The difference is that an atheist Jew is still a Jew, whereas a Christian is a religious identification. According to Wright, the OT enabled a nation building without necessarily being a state. Jews can have a different reading of the OT to the orthodox Jews, and remain Jews. In Christianity, that isn’t possible and the worse scenario was being burnt at the stake for expressing different views. I can’t remember that being prominent in Jewish history.

[Realspiritik (Jennifer Thomas)]

@Rob_Brewer

Jews can have a different reading of the OT to the orthodox Jews, and remain Jews. In Christianity, that isn’t possible and the worse scenario was being burnt at the stake for expressing different views.

I can say with a considerable degree of certainty that despite my abundantly heretical views on Christianity, I have not yet been burned at the stake

It’s not only possible for a Christian to challenge small “o” orthodox interpretations of the Bible (with different interpretations holding sway depending on which Christian branch or tradition you’re aligned with), it’s absolutely essential, if you want to follow in the steps of Jesus, to accept full responsibility for how you use your free will.

Of course, many orthodox Christian doctrines pay scant attention to what Jesus actually taught, especially around doctrines such as Original Sin.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Rob_Brewer

Jews can have a different reading of the OT to the orthodox Jews, and remain Jews. In Christianity, that isn’t possible and the worse scenario was being burnt at the stake for expressing different views.

• I not sure why anybody would find that surprising, unless they happened to be unaware of the fact that one can be a Jew by birth and anything from a non-theist to an ultra-orthodox Jew, or even a Christian Jew, a.k.a. “Messianic Jew”. Conversion to Judaism, gets sticky, but “good intentions” help a lot, and there’s alway’s a Reformed Rabbi, willing to help ease the transition, I’m sure.
• And, in their eagerness to reduce anti-semitism, there are rabbi’s who will explain how you can become a Noahide, see Noahidism.

[Realspiritik (Jennifer Thomas)]

Sorry, I’m not sure why you’ve addressed this to me. I was responding to Rob’s rather black and white comments about Christians. Am I missing something?

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Rob_Brewer

The reason I ask this is because, as Jacob L. Wright suggests in a new book, when you look at the final generations of Old Testament writers, they made a surprising move and produced books and texts that encouraged their readers to challenge teachings that their predecessors had developed over centuries.

The apostles didnt challenge the revealed beliefs/doctrines of the Old Testament.

They challenged the corruption of revelations given by the prohets at the hands of greedy and power seeking religious leaders and a “stiff necked people”(to recall what God said to Moses about them over thousand years earlier)!

The Jews in Christs time had become so corrupted, the very gospel they were supposed to preach to the world had become a burden even to themselves!. This was a ongoing argument Christ had with the pharasees, sadducees and Priests (turning over money changers tables in the temple, the parable of the good Samaritan…these were 2 examples He used in that endeavour to correct their corruption)

The author you quote has it backwards!

[Vinnie]

@Jay313

The term is useful because of its history, which makes it a shorthand reference to a whole bundle of related theological concepts. Word meanings change over time and with usage. “Inspiration” will likely always be used in theological discourse, but it’s connotations will mean something slightly different to each succeeding generation of speakers. The conversation has moved from verbal plenary inspiration (word-for-word dictation) to Enns and “incarnational” inspiration. I’d call that an advance, not “blowing with the cultural winds.”

The term can be useful but unless it’s defined very precisely it’s just going to be confusing and misleading each times it’s used. I still don’t even know what it means or how it applies to so many key issues in Biblical studies. As I said it can go anywhere from “God wrote the very words” to “human work that God uses.”

I also see a false dichotomy in your response: the conversation has moved from verbal plenary inspiration (word-for-word dictation) to Enns and “incarnational” inspirstion” [in some circles] because inspiration is “blowing with the cultural winds.” I get changing in response to science. Getting new information should encourage change. But morality is a fickle thing. Different groups in the world have vastly different opinions on specifics of what is right and wrong. And this can change for better or worse. Take a thought example:

If something crazy happened like a Nuclear was and in the aftermath slavery started again Christian groups or the dominant ones in power would probably just go back to quoting the pro-slavery passages. Mark Noll has written some good works. Some very heavyweight theologians put out a lot of work justifying slavery from the Bible. I honestly think we all just hopelessly bring our culture and beliefs to the Bible. Isn’t it supposed to work the other way? The Bible informs us?

@Jay313

The same applies to theology and exegesis in general. Of course the present conversation centers on our present cultural concerns. It can’t be otherwise. But what you see as a mark against inspiration, I see as something in its favor. The Bible has managed to speak to the heart of many generations over thousands of years. When it has been misused, it was in service of states, emperors, and the religious institutions in their thrall, all in the name of commerce/greed.

And I ask you for the first time, what do you mean by the term inspiration? I can take a horoscope for Gemini and change the information and give it to people born at anytime of the year and they will find meaning in it. That doesn’t mean the horoscope isn’t junk or just vague.

The Bible can speak to the heart of many generations because God uses it. Nothing special needs to be in its pages for this to happen. God can inspire a work by writing its very words or just putting it on a person’s heart to write or anywhere in between. God can also just use a purely human work. Just as we believe God accommodated the text of scripture, maybe it’s actually scripture itself that is accommodated. Maybe God chose to simply roll with the church and use the documents they collected. He said okay, “I can work with this.”

My Bible comes from a publisher, before that a translation committee, before that a critical Greek and Hebrew edition from teams of textual scholars, and before that some clearly human hands writing, redacting and collecting these works in an oral culture as the stories [not created at the time of wroting] were told and retold many times before being codified. No one knows what the “original” oral stories looked like and certainly no one knows what the original texts exactly looked like. Hundreds of years separate some NT manuscripts. For some of the OT I’m guessing even longer.

I ask again. If we can change the Bible to fit morality, if we can change what we want and say “that’s cultural,” if we can put the Bible against itself to disagree with parts we dislike (as Jesus and many Biblical authors did), what is inspiration?

It features the gospel and God uses it to mediate the sacred and transform hearts. Check. What else does inspiration mean? Walton is an evangelical so I am assuming he is bringing a bit of baggage with him on that account. But I’ll keep reading.

[Realspiritik (Jennifer Thomas)]

@Vinnie

It features the gospel and God uses it to mediate the sacred and transform hearts. Check. What else does inspiration mean?

I hope you won’t mind if I weigh in on this question – it’s an issue that’s near and dear to my heart.

Inspiration is a difficult, difficult topic which science has done little to help with (though science could be doing a lot more to help than researchers realize).

First, full confession. I’m a practising Christian mystic (using Bernard McGinn’s definition of mysticism), and I take the neuroscience of mysticism very, very seriously. You might think that because I’m a mystic, I’m inclined to go easy on those who make claims about inspiration. But, in fact, it’s the opposite. I have zero patience for anyone who presents unsubstantiated claims of revelation, inspiration, prophecy, or “The Right to Be Right.”

It’s really hard work to get your brain balanced enough to be able to reliably pick up messages from God or God’s angels (sorry, I believe in angels), let alone be able to understand such messages within the context from which they’re being delivered, so to speak. To be able to do it voluntarily, on a free will basis, you have to look after your biological brain as if it’s the fussiest, most demanding “smartphone receiver” on the planet. (So no alcohol, no psychotropics, no still-point meditation, no feeling sorry for yourself, no attempts at prophesying, no second-guessing what the evidence supports, and humbly accepting that you can’t go out in the evenings as a general rule because you need more sleep and contemplative time than most other people.)

It’s not good enough to be able to pick up messages, though. It usually takes me about 5 minutes to get a major insight from Mother Father God, and then another 5 years going through research papers, online conversations, trips through Nature, and generally paying attention to the patterns around me to be able to say with some reasonable measure of confidence that I may possibly be okay trusting what I first heard (while always being mindful of the scientific reality that the biological brain has so many biological limits and constraints that it’s a very poor receiver of messages from the Divine – even if you don’t have a history of major mental illness, which would complicate matters a hundredfold).

Having said that, I also know perfectly well, based on many years of observation, that if God really wants to get a message through, God will get a message through (biological constraints notwithstanding).

And that’s what inspiration is, in my view.

When you put inspiration on the same page with solid research (pun intended), you get a much clearer picture of what God is saying to us in the present than you would get by using either contemplative work or academic research alone. One speaks to the Heart, the other speaks to the Mind.

This is reflected in the Dual Process Theory of how the human brain operates. This theory goes by different names, and there are differences of opinion about which brain processes fall within System 1 and which brain processes fall within System 2. The general idea, though, is that if you really want to speed up your brain’s ability to sense God’s presence in your life (because you can’t bypass your brain in all this), you have to balance both Heart and Mind, System 1 and System 2 as best you can in your daily life. Perfection isn’t required, but a sense of humour is indispensable.

One more important thing I’ve learned over the years . . . there is almost nothing God can’t use to communicate a message to you as an individual. God seems to be the Great Recycler of movies and books and trips to the doctor and the food that’s in your fridge. God creates “conversation starters” everywhere.

[St.Roymond]

@Rob_Brewer

@St.Roymond

the amazing thing is how often Jesus claimed to be Yahweh and got away with it!

Exactly, speak to any Jew and you will understand that it is extremely doubtful that he would have done such a thing,

You say “Exactly” but then contradict what I wrote.

Read the Gospels in the original and with an understanding of first century Judaism and the times that Jesus asserted that He was Yahweh pop up repeatedly. I’ll give another example: stilling the storm. That reaches back to Psalm 65 and Psalm 89 as well as echoing Psalm 107 and Jonah 1:4.
And another: Jesus asserted that He was the one Who sent the prophets, something the prophets attributed to Yahweh (see Jeremiah 7:25, 25:4, 26:5, and others).

@Rob_Brewer

The Midrash is expansive Jewish Biblical exegesis using a rabbinic mode of interpretation prominent in the Talmud.

The Midrash doesn’t appear until the second century.

The rest of your post isn’t even related to what I wrote.

[St.Roymond]

@Realspiritik

Of course, many orthodox Christian doctrines pay scant attention to what Jesus actually taught, especially around doctrines such as Original Sin.

I think it’s worth noting that the Orthodox reject Original Sin as well as other doctrines that are considered orthodox in the West.

= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =

@Terry_Sampson

one can be a Jew by birth and anything from a non-theist to an ultra-orthodox Jew, or even a Christian Jew, a.k.a. “Messianic Jew”.

I knew a couple of Messianic Jews in my university days, both from a fairly conservative Jewish background. They were pretty awesome guys and took the flak they got from other conservative Jews in stride.

[St.Roymond]

@Realspiritik

if God really wants to get a message through, God will get a message through (biological constraints notwithstanding).

And that’s what inspiration is, in my view.

A message from God equals inspiration? I think the term as used in the New Testament is a bit “higher” than that – a message from God intended for everyone.

[Realspiritik (Jennifer Thomas)]

Messages from God have many roles. One role is for the individual. Other roles include messages intended for everyone. Sometimes there are many layers to one message. I consider any message from our beloved God to be a blessing that has the potential to heal if we choose to listen.

And the message doesn’t have to come through me, be about me, or have anything directly to do with my life for me to consider it a blessing.

[Vinnie]

@St.Roymond

Read the Gospels in the original and with an understanding of first century Judaism and the times that Jesus asserted that He was Yahweh pop up repeatedly.

I would challenge this on historical grounds. Aside from the highly questionable, self-referential sayings material in the Gospel of John, where are these constant claims to be God? Jesus has to pause in the first written Gospel (Mark) and ask his disciples who they think he is? Kind of odd when a Johannine Jesus constantly tells everyone who is. Peter says God’s messiah and he cautions them not to tell anyone. Hardly a portrait of someone going around frequently claiming to be God.

Also, in the gospels Jesus is accused of eating with tax collectors and sinners, he is accused of being a drunkard and a glutton, he is attacked over his disciples of not washing their hands…. If he actually came out and walked around telling people I am literally 100% true God the flesh he would have been killed a lot soonr and there would be more accusations showing up in the record towards this effect.

Even things like Jesus pronouncing sins forgiven does not equate to Christian Trinitarian ideology. The high priest could pronounce sins forgiven no? Jesus may have been seen simply as acting above his station (a woodworker from Nazareth pronouncing sins forgiven?). He is not claiming to be God but working on behalf of God. The former would have probably led to his execution a bit earlier.

Tracing claims to divinity by Jesus is extremely difficult on historical grounds because most scholars are not viewing the “I am” material in John as historically accurate. If you are going to try to analyze those claims in a historical setting, maybe the first thing we need to do is establish those self-claims historically.

We read the gospels through a modern Trinitarian lense which I accept but to think the historical Jesus walked around claiming to be God in the flesh is not sustainable. No doubt he had a very high view of himself as a special agent of God and the very early church also believed this in a very special sense (God’s son, God made flesh).

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

Aside from the highly questionable, self-referential sayings material in the Gospel of John, where are these constant claims to be God?

I’ve given a half-dozen examples so far – none of them from John. Mostly they’re not plain to western thinkers but in the context of first century Judaism they were pretty plain.

@Vinnie

The high priest could pronounce sins forgiven no?

Actually no – he pronounced sins forgiven only at prescribed times, and he never did it in his own name or on other occasions.

@Vinnie

We read the gospels through a modern Trinitarian lense which I accept but to think the historical Jesus walked around claiming to be God in the flesh is not sustainable

I believe the Trinity doctrine precisely because Jesus asserted His identity as God, not the other way around.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Do you think it is over-reach on her part to see implicit (or otherwise) criticism of the Ezra/Nehemiah policies in the book of Malachi?

Not really, especially when the prophet says the Lord hates divorce.

@Vinnie

The term can be useful but unless it’s defined very precisely it’s just going to be confusing and misleading each times it’s used. I still don’t even know what it means or how it applies to so many key issues in Biblical studies.

I don’t think that’s true. We’ve talked quite a bit about inspiration without either of us needing a technical definition. We’re not doing biblical studies or writing theological treatises here. It’s just a conversation.

@Vinnie

I also see a false dichotomy in your response: the conversation has moved from verbal plenary inspiration (word-for-word dictation) to Enns and “incarnational” inspirstion” [in some circles] because inspiration is “blowing with the cultural winds.” I get changing in response to science. Getting new information should encourage change. But morality is a fickle thing. Different groups in the world have vastly different opinions on specifics of what is right and wrong. And this can change for better or worse.

Actually, I said a changing definition for inspiration was not blowing with the cultural winds. The concept is simple. Every generation of theologians faces its own cultural challenges. New questions are asked; opponents raise new objections; historical situations change. In addressing those challenges, theology itself changes and breaks new ground. Some will bear fruit, some won’t. History will judge.

The problem with your thought experiment is that we’re talking about a theological definition of “inspiration,” which is a different category altogether than a theological justification of chattel slavery. The two aren’t remotely comparable. (IOW, a category error.)

@Vinnie

I honestly think we all just hopelessly bring our culture and beliefs to the Bible. Isn’t it supposed to work the other way? The Bible informs us?

I agree with the first statement. But how would it work the other way? No one comes to the Bible as a blank slate. Sure, afterward the Bible can expand our horizons and inform our thinking and conscience, but the act of reading the Bible doesn’t wipe the slate clean and allow us to start from scratch, either. (Sanctification is “already, not yet.”) That’s why I say “original sin” is transmitted by culture, not genetics or genealogy.

@Vinnie

And I ask you for the first time, what do you mean by the term inspiration?

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? haha. Inspiration isn’t whether someone finds meaning in the text, whether they call it scripture or a horoscope. Are you asking which theological construct I lean toward? Be glad to answer that, but I’m not inclined or qualified to invent a definition on demand.

@Vinnie

I ask again. If we can change the Bible to fit morality, if we can change what we want and say “that’s cultural,” if we can put the Bible against itself to disagree with parts we dislike (as Jesus and many Biblical authors did), what is inspiration?

After many words not in dispute … Who is “we” here, and why am I responsible for answering for them?

[Vinnie]

@St.Roymond

I believe the Trinity doctrine precisely because Jesus asserted His identity as God, not the other way around.

I accept it on the basis of creeds and I think it’s the essential message of Christianity. God become flesh. A full trinity honestly makes little sense to me logically and I can think of a few views now deemed heresies that seem to make more sense than the Trinity.

It is not at all clear the historical Jesus believed this. I’d say a much better historical case can be made for the opposite conclusion. It is clear the author of the Gospel of John believed this and decided to reframe synoptic material teaching it. We can also find this view developing in places outside John of course. In the great commission in Matthew we see “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

It might not make Christians comfortable to know that the gospels and acts are creative and non historical to very significant degrees but I’m sure that is how conservatives feel when we inform them the Old Testament is mostly made up.

Critical scholarship is clear on this. Historical details about Jesus have to be carefully reconstructed from the Gospels. Reading the Gospels like YECs read Genesis 1-11 is problematic for similar reasons.

Vinnie