Support for ancients not viewing their stories as literal history

[California Tim]

In short, I think that the manner in which the earliest readers thought about Genesis is a very important factor in how WE should read it, but not conclusive. I think it provides us with the best "default" position to start from, and we should depart from that only upon convincing evidence, as Augustine tells us, that a different interpretation is more likely what God intended.

In otherwords, modern science ultimately trumps any intent demonstrated by the original authors.

 

[Vance]

In otherwords, modern science ultimately trumps any intent demonstrated by the original authors.

Why do you say modern science alone? That is just one factor. I am talking about taking ALL evidence into account and balancing their relative values. How certain are we of the authors' intent and how important of a factor is that? How certain are we of the internal evidences from the text itself, or from that of other Scripture? How sure are we of the evidence from God's Creation and how important would that factor be? What are the theological implications and how are they best resolved by the various possibilities?

Each of these requires varying degree of research and consideration, balancing and prayer and seeking the guidance of the Spirit. One thing is for sure, it is NOT simply a matter of taking a simplistic reading based on our own prejudices, mindsets and upbringing. I know that at times revisiting and reconsidering long-held assumptions is like breaking from a concrete mold.

 

[California Tim]

Given your lack of knowledge on this subject to start, my guess would be that you would simply have gone out to seek an opposing view, rather than reviewed the subject in some detail and reached a conclusion. If so, it is a matter of course that you can find somebody to say what you want to hear. My understanding on this subject is based on my own education on the subject over many, many years. I have a degree on this stuff, and have learned under those who are experts in the field. That is why I took the time to ask one such expert, and one who is a Christian.

You cannot seriously expect me to believe you seek out the "whole truth", alone free of any personal bias. I can see you place a high esteem on the level of education you obtained and use it like a battering ram to discredit any opposing point of view, but that is not conclusive in and of itself. You seem to feel you've already learned all there is to know on the subject. First of all, I can rather confidently assume much of your college exposure was slanted to the liberal-skeptic orientation. It is the nature of higher education in the world today. "Start from the premise that nothing is as it seems. Question everything. Reject objective truth and build your ideal from a blank slate." In this case I will use your own quote to demonstrate how hypocritically you throw your accusations of narrow-mindedness while in violation of the very same:

"I took the time to ask one such expert, and one who is a Christian."​

I doubt I need to elaborate. It sure looks like you're an awful lot like those you discredit, having your own guarded preconceptions which must periodically be bolstered. You seek out the answers to support your conclusions, ala Augustine, C.S. Lewis and others ad infinitim. In the reference above you found one Christian scholar who happened to agree with you. When others are produced, equal in academic stature who refute that, you simply reject them offhand. So please drop the rhetoric and remain focused on the issues at hand. The strawman keeps rearing it's ugly head otherwise.

 

[Vance]

Ah, but Tim, you are forgetting that I did NOT enter into this investigation with a bias against literalism. I WAS a literalist when I started. I WAS a YEC when I started. So, any bias I had was on that side.

And, no, it is not just one source, one professor, etc. I have been studying these areas in great detail for two decades, and my conclusions are based on the whole of that investigation. I have not just sought out sources which support my view, since I developed these views over the course of time, considering sources from all sides. No one can be entirely objective, but it is definitely possible to purposefully review sources from all sides in order to get a decent perspective. This I have done.

My point here was that, in addition to the conclusions reached through this long process, I thought you might want to hear from someone else, someone whom I happened to just take a lecture course from. Do you really think he is the only one who holds this position? No, his is the general consensus among Biblical scholars of all but the most fundamental persuasion. Yes, you will always find those who disagree, but if you gathered 100 of the top experts in a room and asked them, a large majority would agree with what he has said, and what I was saying even before taking his courses.

As for my education. I spent half of it being taught things from an evangelical, fundamentalist perspective. So, I have definitely heard from both sides.

Now, all of this does not mean that I have THE answer, just that I have a very solid ground for my conclusions, a wide foundation. I could still be wrong, of course, and it is a given for all of us that we WILL be wrong on a wide variety of details about a wide variety of subjects. But just as Glenn feels confident about his conclusions in geology due to his broad investigation of those matters, I feel equally confident about my conclusions about the ancient world and how that effects my interpretation of Scripture, since that is what I have spent time with.

 

[California Tim]

Ah, but Tim, you are forgetting that I did NOT enter into this investigation with a bias against literalism. I WAS a literalist when I started. I WAS a YEC when I started. So, any bias I had was on that side.

That's like saying "I actually voted for the $87B package before I voted against it". Or maybe like telling me Ted Kennedy actually grew up in a conservative family. The starting point does not always dictate the bias. But I appreciate the fact you have at least a usable understanding of the truth of Genesis due to your exposure early in life.

 

[Vance]

That's like saying "I actually voted for the $87B package before I voted against it". Or maybe like telling me Ted Kennedy actually grew up in a conservative family. The starting point does not always dictate the bias. But I appreciate the fact you have at least a usable understanding of the truth of Genesis due to your exposure early in life.

Speaking of conservatism. I started out a conservative when I was a fundamentalist and a YEC and remained a conservative throughout, in morality, religion and politics. So, conservatism is not just for the fundamentalists!

 

[gluadys]

No, Genesis 1 is in a different writing style. Genesis 2 on is not.

Actually, both styles are found in the rest of Genesis and throughout the Torah.

The JEDP theory is a case in point. Those sources are no where mentioned in the Bible and they are nowhere mentioned in extrabiblical ancient literature. One doesn't KNOW how the Bible came to be because we have NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, LEENG evidence. So your statement is an assumption and needs to be treated as such.

This is where I have to disagree with you,perhaps because I do know a bit about language and linguistics. It is ironic you would dispute this, because linguistics IS a scientific discipline and the JEDP thesis is grounded in the historical linguistic analysis of the Torah.

Languages DO change over time. Vocabulary, morphology, syntax, letter formation, background social/economic/political frameworks, DO provide evidential keys to the time of writing.

Language DOES change regionally, especially in ancient times when lack of direct contact between one community and another encouraged the formation of dialects. A writer from Samaria uses terms peculiar to the northern kingdom of Israel while a contemporary writer from Jerusalem uses equivalent but different terms peculiar to the southern kingdom of Judah. For example, one writer consistently refers to the mountain where the Law was given as Sinai. Another, just as consistently refers to it as Horeb.

And language DOES reflect idiosyncratic uses personal to the writer, not only in the choice of theme, imagery and major vocabulary items such as nouns and verbs, but even in such fine details as how frequently the writer resorts to the use of interjections such as "Lo!" or interlocutory phrases such as "Now it came to pass.."

So to say there is NO evidence for how the bible came to be reflects a lack of understanding of the science of linguistics as deep as saying there is NO evidence for an old earth reflects a lack of understanding of the science of geology.

How do you write Genesis 1:1 with a different purpose other than telling us that God created the heavens and the earth?

You don't. But that still doesn't tell us that the writer was intentionally writing a historical narrative. Everything in Gen. 1 points to the intential crafting of a literary work in support of theology---not to a historical account. It is the theological point that the God of Israel (and not the gods of the pagans) is the creator that is the writer's major theme. Not when and how God created.

There is no reason why the JEPD sources should be mentioned in the bible or in ancient literature. In ancient times sources were usually anonymous, and did not reference themselves. And during most of biblical history, the concept of the Torah as a written document did not exist, since the document itself did not exist. By the time you get rabbinical and other documents referring to the Torah, it had already been assembled into a single work and was referred to as such---as if it had always been a single document.

It was never analyzed linguistically, as the science of linguistic analysis was not developed until the 18th century CE and not applied systematically to the bible until the 19th century.

Then you really haven't looked at what is said about ancient literature written in admiration of a person. During Jesus' time it was quite common to have the stars proclaim the birth of a noble personage. You are applying one standard to Genesis but another to the gospels. I know several atheists who can argue the case quite well that the Gospels were no different than the adorational literature written to praise a bigwig politician in that era. Why don't we apply the same standard to the Gospels that we apply to Genesis?

I agree with you on this point. As it happens, I also agree with Gardner. Matthew's birth story is midrash, and Luke's is modeled on the birth stories of Greek heroes such as Hercules. And both are written to herald the birth of an important person---the Messiah, the Son of God.

 

[grmorton]

Glenn, you are being too much the scientist here! :0) You are being, ironically, somewhat uniformitarian in your view of Scripture. You are a trained scientist, so it is even harder for you to place yourself in the mindset of the ancient writer or reader. We are all products of a post-Enlightenment upbringing in which empirical data establishes "truth" and "falsity", and we have come to discount any literary vehicle other than strict historicity or accurate narrative for the conveyance of essential truths, both of in events and spiritual truths.

I am enjoying this. What you are suggesting is that we apply one standard to reality when it comes to nature and another to theology. To me that is absolutely no better than what the YEC does. They apply one standard to scientific data which supports their position and another to scientific data which doesn't support them. It is a methodology which I will never return to. I used differing standards when I was a YEC and now that I left that flawed approach, I will never return.

And don't think of me as only a trained scientist. I did graduate work in philosophy--hardly a hard science. I have a minor in Latin, have taken some Greek, so I am familiar with some of the classics (or at least used to be)
I also had to choose between going into art or going into science as a young person. I chose right.

Genesis IS true in the sense that it tells us a lot of very true things and conveys many great "truths", but this is not at all dependent upon it being literal history.

Let me paraphrase

The Gospels are true in the sense that they tell us a lot of very true things and conveys many great "truths", but this is not at all dependent upon it being literal history.

Why is that false, given that many atheists think the Gospels are no better than genesis?

Consider the book of Job. Most Christians of all stripes do not consider that to be telling literal history.

No, lets consider the gospels. Job is irrelevant. Are you aware that there are about 27 different religions with resurrected Gods? Are you aware that the Lord's supper has an eerie similarity with a ritual from a first century Osirian Mystery religion?

Edelen's World

Easter Pathology

by William Edelen

The image of a god, buried in a tomb, being withdrawn and said to live again, is thousands of years older than the Jesus stories. Of all the resurrected savior gods that were worshipped before and at the beginning of the Christian myth, none contributed so much to the mythology developing around Jesus as the Egyptian Osiris. Osiris was called "Lord of Lords," "King of Kings" and "the good Shepherd." He was called "the resurrection and the life," the god who made "men and women to be born again." He was the "god man" who suffered, died, rose again and lived eternally in heaven. They thought that by believing in Osiris they would share eternal life with him. Egyptian scripture reads: "As truly as Osiris lives, so truly shall his followers live also."

The coming of Osiris was announced by Three Wise Men. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat. Only through Osiris could one obtain eternal life, they believed. The much loved 23rd Psalm of the Bible is a modified version of an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris, "the good shepherd," to lead the dead "to green pastures and still waters," "to restore the soul" to the body and to give protection in "the valley of the shadow of death."

http://www.banned-books.com/1997archive/124_1/81_edelens.html

accessed 8-19-04

Anything you can say about Genesis, I can mirror with facts and documentation about the Gospels. You must tell me why the Gospels are to be taken seriously and Genesis isn't, without resorting to ad hocism.

But would you say that it is not telling us the Truth? Would you say that the messages God is giving us in that book are equally true regardless of of whether it is historically accurate?

If the Bible says something about nature or history which isn't true, then it is false. It isn't true by virture of being twistable into truth. We aren't dealing with Cinderella's slippers and the step-sisters here.

Now, look at Genesis 1, what are the Truths that are undeniable in that account, whether it is being told as literal history or a figurative account.

Please tell me how you make "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' figurative? How is that possible? What is the interpretation?

Either way, it is STILL telling us that God created the whole universe, that He is in control of everything, that it was "good", that He created with a plan and with an orderly progress, that He created Man in His image, etc, etc.

There are probably 1000 gods in this world or more. What the Bible is saying is that Jehovah the God of the Jews created the universe. What if it is Shiva? or Krishna? The typical TE position is only tenable IF and ONLY IF one ignores the inconvenient fact that there are other God's out there who might have created the universe instead of Jehovah. Logically your position puts us in a very weak position in relation to that objection. The other God's all have mutually exclusive demands upon our lives. and there is no indication of who is THE god unless we can find him saying something TRUE (not figurative) about the universe. That is why I reject the figurative viewpoint. I think it is ill-thought out even though lots of people accept it.

These would have been seen as absolutely true statements derived from this account, regardless of whether the literary vehicle of the "days" and the exact order of events (which is set out in a two tiered poetic format) is historically accurate. That is why there is a big difference in the ancient mind between "true" and "historical". They can, and did, accept all of these important truths in Genesis without knowing or caring whether the details were historical.

You keep saying this but it isn't a mantra. Please provide documented evidence of this assertion. I have read large parts of the Talmud and I don't get the feeling they thought it was figurative. I asked for documentation in my last note but don't see it here.

I understand this is difficult for our modern minds to accept, but it is simply the truth about how they thought. And they were the ones who wrote it, so we need to understand and respect where they were coming from.

I would disagree. I think it is difficult for modern minds to accept that they actually thought it was true. I have cited the Babylonian Talmud as evidence. What is yours?

Now, where you are having a problem, I think, is in grasping that even a figurative story can tell many literal historical truths as well. Such as the historical fact that God DID create everything. That He DID create Man in His image, etc. These are both historical truths and theological truths and they are powerfully conveyed in an overall figurative account. This is not inconsistent at all, it is just a matter of seeing the essential truths within the story. For some reason, these are very obvious to me, and I have no problem accepting them AS wholly true events even while realizing that the structure of "days" and chronology are not meant to be historically accurate or scientifically accurate.

I don't think I have the problem here. I accept what the ancients said about their own document. They accepted it as historically true. Otherwise why would they think that Adam and Even when first created were like 20 year olds? That isn't the beleif of someone who thinks it is figurative.

Now, turning to the second Creation account, and the Adam and Eve story. First of all, this is also NOT written in the same literary style as the Patriarchal stories. In fact, starting with Abraham, there is a very clear shift in style and presentation. Again, this is greatly muted in our modern translations, but it is still pretty obvious. The Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel and the Flood all fit into a very different style and genre than we see starting with Abraham.

Not according to the Hebrew experts I have consulted.

As for the multiple accounts of stories, this is true of Hittite and Sumerian cultures that I can recall off the top of my head, possibly Egyptian as well. Not to long ago I completed a university level course on Neareastern Mythology, and was reminded of these accounts, and I can dig up those exact examples again, if you like. Otherwise, it has been 20 years since I got my degree in ancient history, which is why I confirmed by recollection on these points from one of the leading scholars in the area, and a Christian to boot.

You said I was acting like a scientist. In some way I am. I ask for documentation of claims, not merely listing of cultures. Point me to sources, tell me where you got thiese ideas. In apologetics today there is simply too much making it up as we go along.

In regards to the Gospels, yes, there are those who want to argue that those can not be read as historically accurate, and I do not find this very persuasive. Remember, this is my area of study, it is what I have a degree in, so I am not just spouting off without a great deal of background. I have taken lecture courses from professors who have taught those types of minimalist approaches and know their arguments thoroughly and just find them unconvincing. If you would like a further explanation as to why, I can do that in a separate thread. Further, there is the "check" of theological consistency. Christian theological essentials require that these Scriptures be historically accurate in the salvation essentials.

citing a degree is nothing but the argument from authority. That is a logical fallacy. If you have a degree, great. You should be able to actually put flesh on the bones of your views. But your degree is really irrelevant to the issue of whether or not your views are correct.

Now, this is not some newfangled idea, held on to by modern, liberal, marginal Christians.

Actually you haven't documented that yet. You keep saying it, but never presenting actual data.

It is actually how most Christians around the world read Genesis. That does not make it correct in and of itself, but I keep getting the impression that here in the U.S. Christians really think that the literal/historical approach is just what Christians believe.

I agree that many Christians around the world read it that way. But have you been to a European Church recently? I have. They are kinda empty. People see little reason to believe that the Bible is relevant to their lives. And if Jehovah's claim of creation isn't true, then they would be right.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Grmorten, do you believe in the literal six day creation but not the flood story or are you doubtful of both. I'm confused or not reading your posts well.

 

[Vance]

Glenn, so that we can clarify a bit here, the original post presented the idea that the peoples of the ancient near east would not have viewed the stories about the past as strictly historical, but would still have thought of them as very "real" in that they conveyed truths about many issues (see my "thought experiment" thread on this point). This concept is one I first learned in my undergraduate studies many moons ago, but had recently come across again in two lecture series I listened to by prominent experts in the relevant fields. So, in support of that point, I cited a quote from one of these experts, Professor Johnson. I also presented separate evidence in that ancient cultures often had multiple and conflicting stories about their past, but believed both of them. Thus, they could not believe them both to be true history, since they were conflicting.

Why is this important? Because if the ancient writers and readers of these stories did not view them as strict literal history, then why should we?

I am still not sure whether you accept this premise, that ancient cultures would have viewed them non-historically, but questioned my point that ancient cultures had conflicting stories. I went back and re-listened to the relevant parts of the lecture series entitled "Ancient Neareastern Mythology" by Shalom L. Goldman. Here is his bio:
"Shalom L. Goldman is an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature in the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies at Emory University. He completed his undergraduate work at New York University and received his M.A. from Columbia University. He went on to earn his Ph.D. in the study of Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern texts from New York University. Prior to taking his position at Emory, Professor Goldman taught at Dartmouth College. He has been a visiting professor at Brown, Case Western, and Ohio State.

Professor Goldman is the editor of Hebrew and the Bible in America, and the author of God’s Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination."

I also sent the same question to Dr. Goldman (although I did not follow up with the Paul inquiry since Professor Johnson is the real expert on NT times), and he also agreed with my position. He also referred me to a book about the ancient mindset regarding such matters, which I have ordered used from Amazon. In the meantime, here are two quotes from that lecture series (which is excellent, btw):

"Now, the gods in those creation stories [speaking here of the Egyptian creation stories] appear in multiple and conflicting accounts. There is no attempt at consistency either within any given account or across accounts."

He then goes on to compare this with the similar contradiction between the two Hebrew creation accounts. Then, later:

"Among the Hittites and among the Caananites, in those cultures, there are mulitple and sometimes conflicting accounts [of creation]. There is no attempt at consistency and no claim to consistency."

And, yet, these ancients still believed these stories, and told them all even though they conflicted. They were still "real" in a very important sense even though they realized these various accounts could not all be strictly historically accurate. Those factual inconsistencies didn't seem to bother them in the least.

So, my question is whether this is sufficient evidence for the idea that cultures in the ancient near east had conflicting accounts of their past?

And, if this is sufficient, do you dispute that this is some evidence that the Hebrews also would not have considered their own stories to be literal history, even if still very "true" and "real", as both of these professors (and my own earlier studies) have confirmed?

As for the Gospels, yes, people make all those arguments, and I have heard them all. But we MUST take each text on its own merits, and argue the likelihood of historicity separately. The fact that the ancients would have the early Genesis stories figuratively, and even the fact that Paul would have viewed those same Genesis stories that way, does not argue AT ALL that the Gospels should be read that way. And, conversely, if one concludes that the Gospels should be read as literal history, this says NOTHING about whether the early Genesis stories should. As I said, I have considered all those arguments regarding the Gospels and have concluded that they should be read as literal history. We can start a separate thread on that very issue if you like, but the point here is that these are two separate texts and the arguments must be considered and conclusions drawn separately. Just because "there are arguments" in regards to both texts does not mean that we have to reach similar conclusions regarding both of them.

And I do think Job can't be left out of this comparison. Do you take Job as literal history? If not, why not? Are the messages any less true? Does that mean you take it less "seriously"?

We need to see Genesis and the Gospels as different types of texts, as we should take Job, Revelation, the Epistles, the histories and Wisdom literature all as different types of texts and consider how God intends us to read them.

What disturbed me a bit is your description of taking the Gospels seriously and not Genesis. This is a very deep misconception of how I (and others of the same approach) view Genesis. We DO take it VERY seriously. Every bit as seriously as the Gospels in fact, since it tells essential facts us about God, about Man and their relationship and many other incredibly important things. The fact that God is telling us these truths in a figurative manner does not lessen their seriousness or their truth. They are still Holy Scripture, God's messages to us.

The fact that I believe this approach about Genesis does not mean that I take the same approach to the Gospels for one simple reason. There are factors which argue in favor of literalness in the Gospels which simply don't apply to Genesis, which I discuss in some detail in an ealier post.

 

[grmorton]

Glenn, so that we can clarify a bit here, the original post presented the idea that the peoples of the ancient near east would not have viewed the stories about the past as strictly historical, but would still have thought of them as very "real" in that they conveyed truths about many issues (see my "thought experiment" thread on this point). This concept is one I first learned in my undergraduate studies many moons ago, but had recently come across again in two lecture series I listened to by prominent experts in the relevant fields. So, in support of that point, I cited a quote from one of these experts, Professor Johnson. I also presented separate evidence in that ancient cultures often had multiple and conflicting stories about their past, but believed both of them. Thus, they could not believe them both to be true history, since they were conflicting.

I have no doubt you got this from your college studies because it is a quite common view. What I am challenging is the factual veracity of that common view. Common views are often wrong. When I was in college I took a course in OT history. The prof presented the standard JEDP theory throughout. Being the questioner even then, about half way through the course, I asked the prof if any of these sources still existed. The answer: No. I then asked if any of these sources were mentioned in ancient Hebrew literature (this was not a question about the Todoliths). The answer: No. I then asked how on earth he was so certain that they actually existed and that the whole thing wasn't based upon the literarily false assumption that a writer couldn't use synonyms (Yahweh, elohim etc). The prof simply said it was a good question and moved on.

The point is, we all have to challenge the assumptions upon which we base our views. What I am asking for is not hearsay from your professor but actual documented statements from the ancients that they didn't take it as real. You have provided only one, Jerome, but he wasn't a Hebrew. I would prefer to hear from the ancient rabbis. From what I have read, they seem to believe it is real history.

Why is this important? Because if the ancient writers and readers of these stories did not view them as strict literal history, then why should we?

And that is why it should be easy to cite ancient writers by the bucket load to that effect--something I have yet to see. Just because you believe what you beleive, doesn't make it so.

I am still not sure whether you accept this premise, that ancient cultures would have viewed them non-historically, but questioned my point that ancient cultures had conflicting stories. I went back and re-listened to the relevant parts of the lecture series entitled "Ancient Neareastern Mythology" by Shalom L. Goldman. Here is his bio:
"Shalom L. Goldman is an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature in the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies at Emory University. He completed his undergraduate work at New York University and received his M.A. from Columbia University. He went on to earn his Ph.D. in the study of Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern texts from New York University. Prior to taking his position at Emory, Professor Goldman taught at Dartmouth College. He has been a visiting professor at Brown, Case Western, and Ohio State.

Professor Goldman is the editor of Hebrew and the Bible in America, and the author of God’s Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination."

I also sent the same question to Dr. Goldman (although I did not follow up with the Paul inquiry since Professor Johnson is the real expert on NT times), and he also agreed with my position. He also referred me to a book about the ancient mindset regarding such matters, which I have ordered used from Amazon. In the meantime, here are two quotes from that lecture series (which is excellent, btw):

"Now, the gods in those creation stories [speaking here of the Egyptian creation stories] appear in multiple and conflicting accounts. There is no attempt at consistency either within any given account or across accounts."

He then goes on to compare this with the similar contradiction between the two Hebrew creation accounts. Then, later:

"Among the Hittites and among the Caananites, in those cultures, there are mulitple and sometimes conflicting accounts [of creation]. There is no attempt at consistency and no claim to consistency."

And, yet, these ancients still believed these stories, and told them all even though they conflicted. They were still "real" in a very important sense even though they realized these various accounts could not all be strictly historically accurate. Those factual inconsistencies didn't seem to bother them in the least.

Citing modern authorities who are stating their conclusions does not constitute evidence of what the ancients believed. The only thing that will count is to cite the ancients stating their beliefs about these accounts. I am always skeptical of what conclusions people reach until I can see the data. I had a supposed expert in church history tell me that YECs didn't exist in the latter part of the 19th century. Everyone on that list agreed with him. I went on a buying binge of 19th century creationist books to see if he was right. He wasn't. He still won't admit it but you can see the results of my research at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/nineteenth.htm

So pardon me if I don't accept the conclusions of guys who might have an ax to grind. Give me raw data, not gummed up pablum.

So, my question is whether this is sufficient evidence for the idea that cultures in the ancient near east had conflicting accounts of their past?

No, I asked for raw data from the ancients in my last post so this isn't sufficient. I don't care what the 20th century historians beleive ABOUT those ancient people. I care what those ancient people believed THEMSELVES. That can only be determined by citing them, not modern historians.

You probably aren't used to having your views challenged in this way but to me the whole issue is very very important. Because I can mirror anything you say about Genesis to the Gospels, the hermeneutical approach is very very important. If the gospels are not historically true, we are lost. If Genesis is does not at base say something historically true about creation, then Yahweh isn't the creator in which case we need to find the one who did do the creating. For something as important as this, I want raw data not selective quotation of modern peoples.

And, if this is sufficient, do you dispute that this is some evidence that the Hebrews also would not have considered their own stories to be literal history, even if still very "true" and "real", as both of these professors (and my own earlier studies) have confirmed?

Why would you think it is sufficient when you haven't given me what I asked for--ancient quotations.

Ramban was a prescientific 12th century rabbi

“G-d informed Moses first of the manner of the creation of heaven and earth and all their hosts, that is, the creation of all things, high and low." Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p. 9

Doesn't sound like he is taking it figuratively.

Maimonides another prescientific rabbi citing 1st century rabbis:

Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed Part 2 Chapter 30

“Accordingly they assume that God created with the heavens everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words," I call unto them, they stand up together" (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, all things were created together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile : We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. According to this interpretation, which is undoubtedly correct, the difficulty is removed, which led R. jehudah, son of R. Simon, to utter the above saying, and consisted in the doubt as to the thing by which the first day, the second, and the third were determined. In Bereshit Rabba, our Sages, speaking of the light created on the first day according to the Scriptural account, say as follows: these lights [of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the same that were created on the first day, but were only fixed in their places on the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] has thus been clearly stated.”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp.htm

Doesn't sound like he believes it is figurative--either of them.

As for the Gospels, yes, people make all those arguments, and I have heard them all. But we MUST take each text on its own merits, and argue the likelihood of historicity separately. The fact that the ancients would have the early Genesis stories figuratively, and even the fact that Paul would have viewed those same Genesis stories that way, does not argue AT ALL that the Gospels should be read that way. And, conversely, if one concludes that the Gospels should be read as literal history, this says NOTHING about whether the early Genesis stories should.

I see no argument on your part. Good argumentation entails the presentation of evidence of why one account is different than the other. Haven't seen that. Good argumentation requires the presentation of what the ancients themselves say about what they beleived, not what modern professors say that they beleived. My view of your position, a position held my many in this day in age, is that it is no less ad hoc than is the YEC position. You just do the ad hoc thing in a different place.

As I said, I have considered all those arguments regarding the Gospels and have concluded that they should be read as literal history. We can start a separate thread on that very issue if you like, but the point here is that these are two separate texts and the arguments must be considered and conclusions drawn separately. Just because "there are arguments" in regards to both texts does not mean that we have to reach similar conclusions regarding both of them.

Once again, you provide only your conclusion. Conclusions don't count. What is the data, the raw data upon which you based your conclusion. One simply can't have conclusion first data later, you know. Why is it so difficult to get out of you the reasoning that went into your conclusion--reasoning including the raw data not what a professor said.

And I do think Job can't be left out of this comparison. Do you take Job as literal history? If not, why not? Are the messages any less true? Does that mean you take it less "seriously"?

I see no reason to say that Job is not based upon some guy's life.

We need to see Genesis and the Gospels as different types of texts, as we should take Job, Revelation, the Epistles, the histories and Wisdom literature all as different types of texts and consider how God intends us to read them.

I don't care what you see. I want to know what your data is upon which you base what you see. Until you do that, I will consider the position you hold ad hocism.

What disturbed me a bit is your description of taking the Gospels seriously and not Genesis. This is a very deep misconception of how I (and others of the same approach) view Genesis. We DO take it VERY seriously. Every bit as seriously as the Gospels in fact, since it tells essential facts us about God, about Man and their relationship and many other incredibly important things. The fact that God is telling us these truths in a figurative manner does not lessen their seriousness or their truth. They are still Holy Scripture, God's messages to us.

I have 13 different interpetations of Genesis 2 all of which claim to be true, all of which are promulgated by modern professors, most of which are mutually exclusive. Which interpretation is THE interpretation of Genesis 2? I will post them separately.

The fact that I believe this approach about Genesis does not mean that I take the same approach to the Gospels for one simple reason. There are factors which argue in favor of literalness in the Gospels which simply don't apply to Genesis, which I discuss in some detail in an ealier post.

Why should the time factors matter. Those who argue against the Gospels say that the people in the Roman empire at the time (which was being swept by mystery religions) were gullible. Time doesn't answer that charge.

 

[Vance]

Ah, I see, you want a statement from the ancients that says "I don't read that as literal, I read that as figurative". Now, this is actually very unscientific for a scientist. Very often you will not have direct evidence of something, and the conclusion has to be inferred from the evidence. We see this all the time from YEC's in regards to evolution, since the evidence is often not direct, but logical inferences from the evidence we see. And, we rightly turn to experts in each field (like yourself for geology) to provide insights as to the proper inferences that can be drawn.

The evidence that the ancient Hebrews would not have viewed their texts as literal history is that other cultures did not view it that way. The evidence that they did not view it that way is that they had conflicting accounts, followed by a similarly conflicting account in their own text. Now, is your problem with the existence of the conflicting accounts (for which I can gather the exact examples) or in the usefulness of that evidence in determining what the ancient Hebrews thought?

As for your two quotes, the first does not make any statement at all about whether that creation story is to be read as literal history, and the second seems to be saying what Augustine later proposed, that all things were created together, but they did not all show up at the same time, while still providing meaning to the "days". Bt then, we are starting to see the writing of histories and attempts to make them accurate. That is why we can have some viewing it both ways. Augustine, using Philo, for example to NOT read it as strict literal narrative.

Really, though, we are not going to get a clear statement about literalness from the actual first writers and readers (1000 years earlier than your quotes), so we will have to draw inferences from the evidence. The fact that WE read it is narrative history with our modern minds is of little evidence at all, since we are so far removed. We have to determine how ancient people thought and how they would have likely felt about such writings.

 

[grmorton]

Ah, I see, you want a statement from the ancients that says "I don't read that as literal, I read that as figurative". Now, this is actually very unscientific for a scientist.

Sorry Vance, that is the sorriest statement I have seen you make. Asking for direct evidence of something is 'unscientific'? Get real. I would accept a totally figurative interpretation from lots and lots of ancients as evidence as well. They don't have to say the words. But you keep ignoring the fact that you are saying something about the ancients for which there is hardly the slightest bit of evidence IF one actually goes and reads the ancients.

Evidence is what makes both history and science work. For you to act as if the statements of a few of your favorite profs are sufficient to prove the case is, frankly, weak.

We agree on 99% of things, but on this, we don't. You wouldn't accept this kind of reasoning from a YEC so why do you accept it for yourself?

Very often you will not have direct evidence of something, and the conclusion has to be inferred from the evidence. We see this all the time from YEC's in regards to evolution, since the evidence is often not direct, but logical inferences from the evidence we see. And, we rightly turn to experts in each field (like yourself for geology) to provide insights as to the proper inferences that can be drawn.

Fine, present the evidence upon which you inferred things. My suspicion is that you personally haven't read that evidence are are thus just believing what you were taught without having thought about it. If that wasn't the case, I suspect you would have laid the data out for me to see. So far we haven't seen anything from the ancients supporting your view--inferred or otherwise. As that old lady used to say in the Wendy's ad, Where's the beef?

The evidence that the ancient Hebrews would not have viewed their texts as literal history is that other cultures did not view it that way. The evidence that they did not view it that way is that they had conflicting accounts, followed by a similarly conflicting account in their own text. Now, is your problem with the existence of the conflicting accounts (for which I can gather the exact examples) or in the usefulness of that evidence in determining what the ancient Hebrews thought?

That isn't evidence that they all thought what they had was figurative. My reading of the ancients is that all cultures thought their story was true and the others false. That is certainly different than having everyone think of their own story as figurative. Are you aware that most primitive tribes think they are human and all others are not? A case in point, the Inuit.

'In 1959 I collected mosses at Point Barrow (then considered the
northern- most place on the North American Continent, later the
most northerly point was found to be in Canada) which for many
centuries was used by the Eskimos (who now prefer to be called
"Inuit", which in their language means 'The People") as a place to
prepare and store seal, bear, walrus and fish meat." Robert R. Brooks, And Dieter Johannes, Phytoarchaeology, (Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press, 1990), p. 110


The greeks considered themselves as the true humans and all others were barbarians. The European Pope had to address the issue of whether or not the Native Americans were really descendants of Adam. This view that we are the people and all others are not people is a widespread view in humanity. I am familiar with mainland Chinese culture and I can guarantee you many a Chinese mother would cry her eyes out if her daughter married a European.

If that is all you got, it is mighty inconclusive, and, I might add, mighty speculative. How exactly did you get into the minds of the ancients to see their views if you can't cite any writings supporting that view?

As for your two quotes, the first does not make any statement at all about whether that creation story is to be read as literal history, and the second seems to be saying what Augustine later proposed, that all things were created together, but they did not all show up at the same time, while still providing meaning to the "days". Bt then, we are starting to see the writing of histories and attempts to make them accurate. That is why we can have some viewing it both ways. Augustine, using Philo, for example to NOT read it as strict literal narrative.

I am doing what you above said you wanted--I am inferring from their statements that they acted as if the accounts were real. I cited the Bereshith as commenting that the newly formed Adam and Eve looked like 20 year olds--Why would someone who believed it was figurative say that?

You didn't read the second quotation very carefully. They didn't say all things were created simultaneously. Maimonides and Rambon thought that God put a force into the earth which came forth at an appropriate time. Hint: pay attention to Maimonides talking about the seeds. They were trying to explain the genesis account historically, not treat it as figurative. And the Talmud--here is another piece of evidence that they took it historically:

"Adam was created with two bodies, one of which was cut away from him and formed Eve." Charles F. Horne, The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, Vol 4, Medieval Hebrew: The Midrash, The Kabbalah, transl. By W. W. Westcott et al, (New York: Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb, INC, 1917), p. 47

Really, though, we are not going to get a clear statement about literalness from the actual first writers and readers (1000 years earlier than your quotes), so we will have to draw inferences from the evidence.

For someone who says he studied ancient literature, you should know that the Talmuds are 1st century thoughts put into final form in the 5th century. Maimonides cited the Talmud when he cited the 'sages'. That is what he was referring to. So part of that statement IS 1000 years yearlier than what you assume.

The fact that WE read it is narrative history with our modern minds is of little evidence at all, since we are so far removed. We have to determine how ancient people thought and how they would have likely felt about such writings.

I agree that we must determine what they beleived. But you can't do it by avoiding actually studying their literature and you can't get there by only citing 20th century profs. Lay out the data. The lack of it forthcoming from you shows me that you don't have it and have just accepted what you were taught. It is ok to do that, except that when challenged, it makes it really hard to defend the point.

If you can't cite the ancient texts, even those upon which you INFER your conclusion, then this discussion can't go much further. It tells me you haven't actually got the data at hand (and I would be very interested in seeing the data) but to just hear you say that so and so said it, isn't very interesting or convincing. Neither is the one evidentiary thing you did try to say--that they thought it was figurative because each tribe had their own story.

My goal is not to make you an enemy so I will cease now. If you ever come up with data to support your assertion, please post it. I would be very interested in it, even if it is the passages you use to infer your position. ONe doesn't need and I was not asking for a statement "I believe this is figurative". But some data from the ancient world would be very nice.

You can have the last word. I am through with this discussion.

 

[Vance]

Well, Glenn, your post is very disappointing. Of course I have read the texts! How can you get a degree in ancient history without having read the texts? I told you I could provide examples if you would like them, but what I have found is that it is important to first determine whether such an investment of time and energy is worth the effort. What is the point I am making about the conflicting texts? That this is evidence that they did not view their stories as strict literal history. That they did not expect them to be factually accurate. Now, before I go to that trouble, I need to know that you would find this persuasive as evidence for which they are presented. You have seen already from your time here that you can present the evidence, but if the hearer is determined not to be persuaded, you feel as if you have wasted your time and energy in gathering and presenting it.

If I describe the various ancient texts about creation from different cultures which are held and believed despite being contradictory in the facts, would you find this persuasive evidence that ANE cultures did not view the stories about the past as strict literal history? And, would you also find this persuasive that the Hebrews probably viewed their stories the same way? If not, then it would be a waste of time and energy.

Before you respond, I would urge you to read this article if you have the time. I think you may be a bit familiar with ASA :

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html#Making%20Sense%20of%20Genesis%201

Now, to address a couple of your points. First you say that cultures thought their stories were true and other false. Yes, of course this is true. But you are still mistaking "true" with factual accuracy and literalness. Until you see this distinction you will continue to impose modern mindsets on ancient people. The did, indeed, think that their story was the correct one, not because it conveyed accurate history (they could not think this because they believed factually conflicting stories), but because it conveyed the correct truths and ideas about what happened.

As for Maimonedes, you are still talking about "sages" many, many hundreds of years after these stories were first told and then written down. As I said earlier, during these later times, we are having the first attempts at actual history, and so a "historical mind" is developing among some. There is a reason why we call Herodotus the father of history (although even he did not insist upon strict historicity in his stories). Before him, people were just simply not attempting to approach the past in that way. When they told stories about the past, they were at best stories developed out of historical events or people, but with no pretense to actual historicity (as in the Epic of Gilgamesh). Now, when people start developing this "historical mind" and placing a value of the writing of actual history, it would be very natural to take your own sacred texts and read them in this light, in order to make it valuable to you with your new mindset. This is what many Christians do today. We place a high value of accurate historicity (as against the focus on the message alone), and so for the Bible to be "valuable" to us, it must be historically accurate. This seems to make perfect sense to our modern minds, but even we are not consistent with this. We can read a story like Job and accept that it is not strict literal history, but still find it every bit as valuable and "true" in its message as an historical account like Acts.

Now, back to Maimonodes, I do not know which sages he is referring to, but compare what he is describing to Augustinian thought. Augustinian also thought that all was created simultaneously, then developed from "seminal seeds". In doing so, he was rejecting a literal, strictly historical reading of the six days of creation. It sounds like Maimonodes is referring to this same approach by these early sages. By saying that they are reading it historically and not figuratively, you are mistaking what I mean by these phrases. I believe that the Genesis accounts are referring to historical events, but telling about those events in a figurative way. God DID created the universe, but not in six literal days. God DID create mankind in His image, that is an historical event, but the method of telling about this event is in figurative language. If the ancient sages believed, as Augustine later, in a simultaneous creation (and the words are VERY reminiscent of Augustine's), then they would be accepting that God created all things, but rejecting the historical literalness of the six days.

Now, you can find during this transitional period, I am sure, many who began to view these stories as literal history. But have you any evidence that ANY people prior to, say, 500 B.C., actually believed their stories were literally accurate history? Who, in 1500 B.C. was attempting to write actual history in the ANE? Why should we be applying a different standard to the Hebrews?

 

[Vance]

I think something for any YEC who reads this forum to see is that even someone who is so staunchly in favor of a literal reading STILL accepts an old earth and evolution.

 

[Vance]

. . . continuing my post above, #34.

A bit more on Maimonides and the view of Jewish community regarding literalism:

"The feverish concern of the "scientific creationists" to protect a literal reading of the story in Genesis 1 reflects a conviction that devotion to the Bible requires one to interpret it -- particularly Genesis 1 -- literally and accept it in its literal sense. But, as Steven Katz notes in his "Afterword" to Jastrow (p. 159), "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.
In the Middle Ages, Saadia Gaon argued that a Biblical passage should not be interpreted literally if that made a passage mean something contrary to the senses or reason (or, as we would say, science; Emunot ve-Deot, chap. 7). Maimonides applied this principle to theories about the creation. He held that if the eternity of the universe (what we would call the Steady State theory) could be proven by logic (science) then the Biblical passages speaking about creation at a point in time could and should be interpreted figuratively in a way that is compatible with the eternity of the universe. It is only because the eternity of the universe has not been proven that he interpreted the verses about creation at a point in time literally (Guide, II, 25), but he still insisted that the creation story as a whole was written metaphorically (Book I, Introduction).

. . .

This approach urges us to probe more deeply into the Biblical accounts of creation and to search for the intention of the Bible's compilers in presenting these accounts. By compilers I mean those who gathered all the sources and books together and produced the Bible in the form in which it was canonized in classical Judaism. In critical terms these are the redactors of the Bible; in Franz Rosenzweig's terms, rabboteinu.15 Whatever the intention of the individual accounts of creation may have been, it is clear from the Bible as a whole that its compilers were not overly con-cerned with the details of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis. They incorporated several accounts of creation in the Bible even though no two accounts agree in detail with Genesis 1 or with each other. Genesis 1 tells about the creation of the world in 6 days. The second account of creation is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2). Several other accounts are found in poetic form in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.16 Genesis 1 says that man was the last living creature created, while Genesis 2 says that he was the first. Genesis 1 speaks of the prehistoric waters in purely naturalistic terms and says that God merely commanded that they gather in a single spot so that dry land could appear. But in the poetic passages the ancient waters are personified as rebellious sea-monsters which threatened to swamp the dry land, until God subdued them and created the seashore as a boundary which they were prohibited from crossing. The most notable difference between Genesis and all the other accounts is that none of the others mentions the idea that the world was created in six days. This idea -- which is the centerpiece of the whole creationist movement -- was apparently not considered important enough in the Bible to be repeated in other accounts of creation.

The fact that so many differing accounts were all accepted in the Bible shows that its compilers were not concerned about these details.17 They undoubtedly assumed that the differences could be reconciled, but they left this task to the ingenuity of exegetes. This virtually assured that different reconciliations would be proposed and that some of the passages would have to be interpreted non-literally.18 What the Bible as a whole insists on is not these details but only what the stories have in common. In other words, these stories are regarded as poetic statements of certain basic truths, not as literal scientific accounts of how the universe developed. What matters in Judaism is the concepts shared by all these stories: that the world was created by God, that He planned it carefully and designed it to be hospitable to man. These are the very conclusions to which astronomy now points. The other details of the Biblical accounts should not be taken literally but metaphorically or poetically. To give but one example: the six days of creation culminating in the Sabbath on the seventh symbolize how God guided the development of the world stage by stage according to a well-thought-out plan. The process is described as taking place over a period of seven days because seven was regarded in the ancient world as the number of perfection and seven days were regarded as the ideal length of a process.19 The seven days are more a statement about the perfection of the process than a chronological statistic. Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally. "

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/sci.htm

I would add that Maimonides' view of the single instance of time approach, to the extent it draws from Augustine (which is likely since he was very willing to accept Gentile viewpoints), is itself a denial of the literal six days. So, he not only had a willingness to read it figuratively, he DID read it so as to some aspects of the text.

 

[California Tim]

I think something for any YEC who reads this forum to see is that even someone who is so staunchly in favor of a literal reading STILL accepts an old earth and evolution.

Let's just say he's "halfway home" while most TE'ists remain in the starting blocks.

 

[grmorton]

Well, Glenn, your post is very disappointing. Of course I have read the texts! How can you get a degree in ancient history without having read the texts?

The only thing I will say, and I really did intent to cease with my last post. If you have read them THAN DARN WELL CITE THEM. As I said, when you can actually present evidence rather than a compendium of 20th century sources, I will pay attention. Until then, the condenscention won't help cover the lack of citation. But your condescention is not appreciated when you are the one who hasn't cited ancient literature but only modern literature ABOUT ancient literature.

 

[grmorton]

Let's just say he's "halfway home" while most TE'ists remain in the starting blocks.

Maybe it is my night to make enemies of one and all. BUt I really don't care. Tim, don't even think I am halfway 'home' You yecs told me absolutely NOTHING which was true about geology. NOTHING.Every poppycock and lamebrained scheme spouted by YEC leaders turned out to be 100% false and then they claim they are doing it in the cause of Christ. You guys take the infallible word of God and tie it to a dead and rotting skunk of an idea which was disproven 160 years ago. This duplicity, this prevarication on the part of YEC leaders, caused me to nearly become an atheist. I have many atheist friends who are former YECs so this is not an uncommon result of the perverse YEC teaching. YEC is totally unthinking, uncaring and devoid of reality. I stand with Vance on many more things than I do with y'all because I won't live in the fairytale world you YECs live in. With Vance, I don't think he is thinking logically or scientifically about the ancient literature. But with you, your concepts of the way the world works is so divorced from reality yet you are so sure you are correct. It is truly truly bizarre and sad.

 

[California Tim]

This was obviously a poor night to attempt a lighter, more humorous appoach in this forum. I've seen more angst among the TE crowd than ever before. If you wish to talk about the truly bizarre and sad, it's the extent to which the evolutionists take this subject to the personal level and resort ever-increasingly to the insulting tactic of dismissing the perceived intelligence or sincerity of those who'd question man before God. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how intense this latent need seems to be to "educate" us backwoods, barr-foot, inbred simpletons in such a way as to practically force us into confrontation.

As for me, I will excuse myself from this particular forum. I now see completely the lack of respect, the intense emotion and the practical impossibility of remaining civil on this subject. I will continue to research the issues you raised for personal enrichment, but I will not comment nor will I needlessly expose you to further intellectual torture by suggesting we measure "science" by the word of God.

Perhaps we can meet in other unrelated forums where we share a common ideal to the glory of Christ before the unsaved and saved alike. Till then,

God Bless