Are we being consistent?

[Jase]

I was just thinking of this due to how often Creationists claim if you don't take Genesis literally, how do you know anything else in the Bible is true.

We apply so much scrutiny to Genesis because of scientific advancement showing that it can't be taken literally ( and it many regards, the Hebrew text would support that as well). But why don't we apply that amount of scrutiny to anything else in the Bible? Just because science can't say anything about it? Well, what about history and archaeology.

One thing I've struggled with a lot is the almost total lack of extra-biblical evidence for the accounts in the Bible. One would be hard-pressed to find enough evidence to stand up in court to even show that a historical Jesus existed, nevermind evidence supporting his divinity and miracles. What about the evidence for the Exodus in Egypt? No one's found convincing evidence that millions of jews ever wandered in the desert. We don't even have evidence supporting the existence, life, and death of the Apostles in any substantial regard. Our only sources are some questionable historians who wrote about these things many years after the fact, and whose trustworthiness is to be doubted (i.e. Josephus).

So considering that we have about as much extra-biblical evidence supporting everything outside Genesis, as YEC's have in support of Genesis, are we being inconsistent? Shouldn't we put as much intellectual inquiry into the Gospels, or Exodus, or prophecy as we do Genesis, or should we throw up our hands, say I believe it purely with faith, despite the lack of evidence, and pretend we are somehow different from creationists in ignoring evidence or lack thereof?

 

[crawfish]

Wow...I was thinking of starting a thread right along these lines. Good way to anticipate me! I think this is a valid criticism from the creationist group, and one we should address.

It might be helpful if we could establish the criteria by which we judge the historical authenticity of scripture.

For instance: I would put higher veracity on the books written about histories that occurred within the lifetime of the author(s). This criteria would exclude much of the historical content of the OT, which were written hundreds (or thousands) of years after the history they documented.

Those books are very likely based on true events and true characters; however, over time they would lose much accuracy as they were orally retold from generation to generation. However, just as our stories today, although the details may change, the moral center stays consistent - meaning that God's purpose for telling the story is every bit as valid as if the story was 100% true.

I find support in this idea in that some items in the bible go against known history - such as, the Philistines that David fought represent the state of that nation hundreds of years in the future; as the story was told, they applied elements of the Philistines they knew to the Philistines of old.

Even stories we can be very sure actually happened - like the events in Nehemiah - were written with a purpose other than historical record. They are a dramatization, in other words.

We should believe that all scriptures are God-inspired, and put there for His purpose. We should strive to read those stories for that purpose, and not as a representation of history or science.

 

[gluadys]

Shouldn't we put as much intellectual inquiry into the Gospels, or Exodus, or prophecy as we do Genesis, or should we throw up our hands, say I believe it purely with faith, despite the lack of evidence, and pretend we are somehow different from creationists in ignoring evidence or lack thereof?

Yes, we should, and that can be disconcerting because for much of the bible, NT as well as OT, there is no extra-biblical evidence of the people, places and events.

But do note the big difference between lacking evidence and ignoring evidence.

It is one thing to lack evidence that Moses, or David, or Peter or Jesus existed. That does not make them non-historical. After all, most people in most of history have left no evidence of their existence.

It is another thing to have evidence that directly contradicts an account in scripture. Such evidence should not be ignored.

For example, if it could be verified that the bones recently found in the so-called Jesus family tomb really are the physical remnants of Jesus of Nazareth, that would directly contradict a physical resurrection. But all we have is a statistical anomaly, and while some people may find it suggestive, it is not enough to establish certain identity.

There is a lot we do need to take purely on faith. I don't see any need to apologize for that. Quite the contrary, I wonder why any Christian would downplay the need for faith. I expect that if we had been present to see certain events recorded in scripture, we would not have been any more certain that God was acting through those events than we are of any events in our own history.

Take the collapse of apartheid in South Africa, for instance. Was that a work of God or not? I am quite certain that it was. But I have no means of proving God's action in bringing about justice for non-white South Africans.

I very much doubt that Jeremiah or Ezekiel or any of the prophets could actually point to the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and prove that God had brought this about. They believed it, just as I believe God acted against apartheid. And believing it, they wrote that God had done this and explained the geo-political disaster of Judah in terms of Judah's breach of their covenant with Yahweh. And enough of the Jews believed them and kept faith through the exile to restore the fortunes of Judah after the fall of Babylon. But any skeptic can say "You have no evidence of anything here other than human political change." The only reason we have to believe this event came about because of God is that the prophets believed it and preached it. Our faith is grounded in their faith.

However, in addition to those matters for which we have only faith, I would say we also have matters where historicity is probable. Archeology, for the most part, can only confirm generalities--what were the typical ways of life at different periods, what were the laws in force, what religious and cultural rituals existed, how did people dress, what did they eat, how did they make a living. For the most part it cannot identify individuals other than a few notables whose names were put on inscriptions. It can also verify the existence of some places, and some events. But it cannot verify the religious interpretation people put on events.

So a lot of archeology provides no certain proof e.g. that Amos lived in Tekoa and tended sycamore trees and took a trip to Bethel where he denounced the idolatry of the Israelites.

But it can confirm that Bethel existed and that it was the centre of a religious cult in Israel. It can confirm the existence and use of sycamore trees and that some people made their living in this way. It can confirm that the language of the prophecy attributed to Amos is consistent with the form of Hebrew used in that era. So although certain proof is lacking, we don't have to rely solely on faith either. We do have a text attributed to Amos that is consistent with what we do know was happening at the time. So it is probable that Amos was an actual historical figure and that the book of Amos represents an actual event in Israel's history.


The same principles can be applied to Jesus. We cannot confirm that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived, but what is recorded about him is consistent enough with what we do know of the times that we can consider his historical existence probable. But some of gospel stories, notably the resurrection, we have to take solely on faith. "Blessed are those that have not seen, yet believe."

 

[Jase]

Yes, we should, and that can be disconcerting because for much of the bible, NT as well as OT, there is no extra-biblical evidence of the people, places and events.

But do note the big difference between lacking evidence and ignoring evidence.

It is one thing to lack evidence that Moses, or David, or Peter or Jesus existed. That does not make them non-historical. After all, most people in most of history have left no evidence of their existence.

It is another thing to have evidence that directly contradicts an account in scripture. Such evidence should not be ignored.

For example, if it could be verified that the bones recently found in the so-called Jesus family tomb really are the physical remnants of Jesus of Nazareth, that would directly contradict a physical resurrection. But all we have is a statistical anomaly, and while some people may find it suggestive, it is not enough to establish certain identity.

There is a lot we do need to take purely on faith. I don't see any need to apologize for that. Quite the contrary, I wonder why any Christian would downplay the need for faith. I expect that if we had been present to see certain events recorded in scripture, we would not have been any more certain that God was acting through those events than we are of any events in our own history.

Take the collapse of apartheid in South Africa, for instance. Was that a work of God or not? I am quite certain that it was. But I have no means of proving God's action in bringing about justice for non-white South Africans.

I very much doubt that Jeremiah or Ezekiel or any of the prophets could actually point to the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and prove that God had brought this about. They believed it, just as I believe God acted against apartheid. And believing it, they wrote that God had done this and explained the geo-political disaster of Judah in terms of Judah's breach of their covenant with Yahweh. And enough of the Jews believed them and kept faith through the exile to restore the fortunes of Judah after the fall of Babylon. But any skeptic can say "You have no evidence of anything here other than human political change." The only reason we have to believe this event came about because of God is that the prophets believed it and preached it. Our faith is grounded in their faith.

However, in addition to those matters for which we have only faith, I would say we also have matters where historicity is probable. Archeology, for the most part, can only confirm generalities--what were the typical ways of life at different periods, what were the laws in force, what religious and cultural rituals existed, how did people dress, what did they eat, how did they make a living. For the most part it cannot identify individuals other than a few notables whose names were put on inscriptions. It can also verify the existence of some places, and some events. But it cannot verify the religious interpretation people put on events.

So a lot of archeology provides no certain proof e.g. that Amos lived in Tekoa and tended sycamore trees and took a trip to Bethel where he denounced the idolatry of the Israelites.

But it can confirm that Bethel existed and that it was the centre of a religious cult in Israel. It can confirm the existence and use of sycamore trees and that some people made their living in this way. It can confirm that the language of the prophecy attributed to Amos is consistent with the form of Hebrew used in that era. So although certain proof is lacking, we don't have to rely solely on faith either. We do have a text attributed to Amos that is consistent with what we do know was happening at the time. So it is probable that Amos was an actual historical figure and that the book of Amos represents an actual event in Israel's history.


The same principles can be applied to Jesus. We cannot confirm that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived, but what is recorded about him is consistent enough with what we do know of the times that we can consider his historical existence probable. But some of gospel stories, notably the resurrection, we have to take solely on faith. "Blessed are those that have not seen, yet believe."

I know what you mean. Maybe it's just because as I've mentioned here once before, I've been going through a crisis of faith for the past 6 months, so having no extra-biblical evidence just makes faith such a bigger struggle for me.

 

[gluadys]

I know what you mean. Maybe it's just because as I've mentioned here once before, I've been going through a crisis of faith for the past 6 months, so having no extra-biblical evidence just makes faith such a bigger struggle for me.

Hang in there. Remember that faith is essentially trusting that God is, and that he loves and cares for you. It is not primarily about believing this or that statement from a creed, or even scripture, is an evidenced fact.

The biblical writers wrote of God's dealings with Israel, because their faith taught them to see events in their history from the perspective that this was how God related to them. If they had not had faith to begin with, they would have described those events differently, without reference to God. They chose to see God in their history and therefore they did. The disciples chose to see God in Jesus of Nazareth and therefore he became a revealer of God to them.

A skeptic will call it self-delusion. A believer will call it the Holy Spirit. Ever read Kierkegaard? He was the philosopher who developed the concept of the leap of faith, of faith as a risk. Without risk, without accepting that you may be wrong about what/whom you choose to believe, there is no faith. Yet faith is the only way to God.

 

[shernren]

The Gospels display a remarkable standard of overall historical accuracy even as they differ here and there in circumscribed details about Jesus' ministry. The problem is that there simply isn't enough time in a lifetime to investigate the whole Bible, start to finish, cover to cover, word by word, and to learn and delve into each and every single societal context that the words were written into.

To fully and strongly analyze Genesis 1-11 would require a good grasp of ANE culture. That would to me require at least a working knowledge of Ugaritic and Mesopotamian languages, working knowledge of ancient cosmologies, the extent of their technologies, their culture, their myths (the myths of all surrounding nations as well), and their imagery. Furthermore primary and important cities often elevated their gods above other nations' gods, thus leading to a cosmological evolution that parallels sociopolitical development of the region in that time. You see? We are all playing at the edge of the sand here. And to criticize the scientism-based, reductionist view of creationism requires in addition an in-depth working knowledge of geology, biology, physics, and pretty much almost everything else.

You see? I am sure there is plenty of scrutiny applied to other areas of the Bible, and I am vaguely aware of how it goes on. But I've chosen my paths of specialization (namely origins) and because of that it would be impractical for me to pursue anything else major on the side. I can cite you facts OTOH here and there about the historicity of the Gospels and Acts (e.g. Luke using a technical term for the leaders of a particular city, which was only rediscovered in modern archeology), but I can't hope to get as in-depth in there as I would like to.

Is that wrong? We put our faith in people who have spent their lives doing things we can't hope to do, every day. We can't afford to learn everything possible about our bodies (hence doctors), or about cars (hence mechanics), or about technology (hence IT assistants), or about lying (hence lawyers and politicians - oops). So we trust those who say they have put their lives in those areas, and they trust us for our areas of expertise. We should not be surprised if the same specialization occurs in our faith investigations as well. I take the word of others that the Gospels are historically trustable. And many people trust scientists' findings that evolution is real. There is a reciprocal trust that you should not at all feel guilty about.

Feel free to wander off and explore any area you want to explore, but remember that you'll always have family here, whatever conclusions you reach.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't think we've found convincing evidence that millions of Jews (actually Hebrews) wandered around in the desert even in Scripture...

Because when it talks about 600 thousand or whatever, 'thousand' is actually a Hebrew word that is also translated 'units' or even 'military units' in Joshua.

It might just be 600 families.

And considering that we're just now unearthing Middle Kingdom sites at Tel el-Borg near the Suez Canal- an entire fortress complex, no less!- I think it will be quite some time, if ever, before we find evidence of a small group of desert nomads living there.

To answer the post as a whole- I think I am consistent. I don't take Genesis as literally, completely, historically true because literal history did not exist as a literary genre when Genesis was written (even according to text-critical dates). The closest we get is 'epic,' which is a highly mythologized account.

And I don't think there's a sudden break at Genesis 11, either. I think that the account gets more and more historical, and less and less mythologized, from Genesis 1 all the way through 2 Kings 25 (I'm using the original Jewish order of narrative, excluding law codes and geneaologies, of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1-2, Kings 1-2).

That's my overall hermenutical opinion on the 'Great Documentary-Deuteronomic History.'

Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles are literal history; Ruth, Job, and Esther are stories with moral points and it doesn't matter if their core is historical or not; the prophets are prophecy, the apocalyptic books apocalyptic, the psalms and wisdom literature are psalms and wisdom literature; Paul's epistles and others are absolutely literal; and the gospels and Acts are mostly literal history (perhaps organized thematically instead of chronologically) with some amazing symbolism interwoven.

Anyway, that's my view.

 

[hithesh]

I know what you mean. Maybe it's just because as I've mentioned here once before, I've been going through a crisis of faith for the past 6 months, so having no extra-biblical evidence just makes faith such a bigger struggle for me.

In the words of Paul Tillman "Doubt is not the enemy of faith but an essential element within it."

At some point in my life I lost all belief in God,
but it wasn't because I did not want to believe,
I just could not understand how the world could be this way, and a God can exist.
I've long been a skeptic, but not to the point that I deny the truth,
just for the sake of maintaing that I am a skeptic.

At the time in my life when all the evidence and reason within me
led me to throw my hands up and say: "God does not exist", it was only then that God found me,
in a way that I never expected. What returned me to belief, perhaps will not be the same for you,
but I do know that we should never be afraid of doubt, and that we should ask all questions.

All roads to the truth, lead to God, even when we have made it quite far and assume otherwise.

Your doubt is what God uses to guide you..

 

[lucaspa]

I was just thinking of this due to how often Creationists claim if you don't take Genesis literally, how do you know anything else in the Bible is true.

We apply so much scrutiny to Genesis because of scientific advancement showing that it can't be taken literally ( and it many regards, the Hebrew text would support that as well). But why don't we apply that amount of scrutiny to anything else in the Bible? Just because science can't say anything about it? Well, what about history and archaeology.

One thing I've struggled with a lot is the almost total lack of extra-biblical evidence for the accounts in the Bible.

Depends on what you mean by "accounts". This confusion shows up in your next statement:

One would be hard-pressed to find enough evidence to stand up in court to even show that a historical Jesus existed, nevermind evidence supporting his divinity and miracles.

Those are 2 different things. Jesus as a person and theological claims about Jesus being divine. You cannot connect the two. Look at the Iliad. Archeology supports the history. Do we take that as support for the existence of Zeus, Athena, and the rest of the Greek pantheon?

So, getting support for the history does not mean support for the theology.

As to the existence of Yeshu ben Joseph -- the human -- there is decent historical evidence. See Hoffman's Jesus Outside the Gospels.

What about the evidence for the Exodus in Egypt? No one's found convincing evidence that millions of jews ever wandered in the desert.

Again, you are confusing claims. There is
1. the claim of an Exodus
2. the claim that 600,000 or more people were involved.

#2 can be false but #1 true.

Militant atheists like to tie claims together just as much as creationists. And for the same reason: it's the only way they can falsify theism. There is no historical evidence to falsify the Exodus as such. Therefore tie a minor claim to it as essential and then falsify the minor claim. It's not valid.

In science, it's known as "essential statements" and "auxiliary hypotheses". In evolution "descent with modification" is an essential statement. Phyletic gradualism is an auxiliary hypothesis. When punctuated equilibrium was proposed, it challenged phyletic gradualism. Creationists tried to pretend that PE refuted evolution. Instead, all PE did was challenge the auxiliary hypothesis of how most speciation happens, not descent with modification.

Our only sources are some questionable historians who wrote about these things many years after the fact, and whose trustworthiness is to be doubted (i.e. Josephus).

Since when did Josephus become untrustworthy? Historians use him as the major source for the rebellion of 70 AD. The only people I know who cast doubt on Josephus are militant atheists and that is because they don't like the 2 passages in Josephus that attest to the existence of Yeshu ben Joseph.

So considering that we have about as much extra-biblical evidence supporting everything outside Genesis, as YEC's have in support of Genesis, are we being inconsistent?

No. You are comparing apples and oranges. Or rather, you are mistating the reality of the evidence.

1. You are saying that both YEC and Judeo-Christianity has a "lack of evidence". That isn't true. YEC has positive evidence against it. That is, evidence that exists but that should not be there if YEC were true. In science, this is called "falsifying" evidence. YEC is a falsified scientific theory, not something that has "no evidence".

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Another scientific principle. Unless an idea is positively falsified, it stays on the table. So, since Jesus' miracles and resurrection are not falsified, they stay on the table. So does the Exodus, which does have some archeological evidence to support it. See Werner's The Bible as History.

 

[garbledepoch]

One thing I've struggled with a lot is the almost total lack of extra-biblical evidence for the accounts in the Bible. One would be hard-pressed to find enough evidence to stand up in court to even show that a historical Jesus existed, nevermind evidence supporting his divinity and miracles.

Miracles aside, weren't the accounts of Luke and Acts written by a Lawyer (Luke) for a pretrial?

Our only sources are some questionable historians who wrote about these things many years after the fact, and whose trustworthiness is to be doubted (i.e. Josephus).

What about the hundreds of copies of the Gospel and the original letters written to the churchs?

 

[Melethiel]

Luke was a doctor.

 

[shernren]

He's referring to the theory that Luke and Acts were written up as a documented history of the Christian movement, to be submitted as evidence in the trial of Paul in Rome. Luke would have acted in the capacity of a lawyer and historian then, even being a doctor.

I haven't seen too much that proves this theory, although it is certainly plausible.