Apologetics and the Old Testament

[Adrift]

The origins of the Old Testament has been quite a hotbed for Apologetic debate around here recently, and I thought it might be valuable if Christians on this forum put some of their ducks in a row on the topic.

An introduction to current archaeological scholarship and theories on the OT I imagine is the best place to start. For those who don't have time to pick up a book on the subject, I highly recommend the almost 2 hour long 2008 PBS NOVA documentary "The Bible's Buried Secrets" which can be streamed in its entirety at the following link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient...d-secrets.html

You can find the same documentary on Hulu, and also on Youtube (though be careful you don't confuse it with the similarly named documentary from the BBC, which is also probably very good. I have a copy of the BBC doc, but haven't watched it yet).

Also, here is some general background details on what modern scholarship is theorizing currently (Some of this may not be quite accurate. Please correct me if you know it to be the case).

Scholars believe that, based on the lack of evidence, the Exodus from Egypt never happened, and that the "Israelites" were simply local Canaanites.

To explain away the apparent shift away from polytheism to monotheism, and the drastic change in behavior that included dietary and ritualistic customs, scholars theorize that native Canaanites were originally broken up into a class or caste system of high and low born peoples. The low born group, tired of being the work force for the higher ups possibly maybe rose up and revolted against their masters, and migrated south. They then, scholars theorize, took it upon themselves to create a completely new identity to distinguish themselves from their Canaanite cousins which included new customs, religious beliefs, and ritualistic laws.

To explain the story of the Exodus, some scholars theorize that there may have been a very small group of slaves who escaped Egypt, and traveled north. On their journey they detoured and took refuge in Midian where they may have run into a nomadic group of people called Shasu. The Shasu were broken into a number of tribes, and one of these tribes was called the "Shasu of Yhw". According to the theory, its possible that the name of the group, "Yhw", derived from their worship of a god by the same name. The fleeing group then continued north having accepted "Yhw" as their own protector god, when they ran into the ex-Canaanites who later became Israelites. There, this group was welcomed, and so was their new god "Yhw" who eventually became YHWH. I don't know how much of this theory is actually rooted in anything solid (other than there apparently was a Shasu of Yhw tribe as indicated by an Egyptian inscription).

Also good to know is some background on JEPD or The Documentary hypothesis, which hypothesizes that certain books, and certain parts of books of the Pentateuch were written in different historical periods based on how passages use certain themes.

Below is the general breakdown of the theory by Julius Wellhausen who advanced the theory.

the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BC by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.

I believe this model is facing a number of challenges because archaeologists occasionally dig up new writings that predate the established sources in the model, but anyways, its still extremely influential on modern scholarship.

Finally, I think Christians should understand that, from a secular point of view, scholars obviously don't see Judaism as a progressive revelation of God's work on a stubborn people, but instead an evolving style of religion that changed drastically from its roots as it picked up new ideas from regional neighbors, and dominating empires. I think Hess' note to showmeproof is important to repeat here,

"Old Testament theology studies what ancient Israel should have believed about the Bible. Israelite religion(s) studies what ancient Israel actually did believe. While these are related, they are two different areas of study. So, while you may see some interaction of Israelite religion theories by some theologians (e.g., ch. 2 of Routledge’s OT Theology), the assessment of the data often moves the two areas of study in different directions."

Its the "should have believed" that's important to Christians who presuppose that God actually had a direct hand in working on these people, and why someone who doesn't presuppose God's work on them will state, as smp has,

"They shouldn't have believed anything about the bible, as much of it wasn't written yet or assembled into the format we currently have it. He projects the monotheistic theology backwards, when they were quite unaware of such a theology."

There's a lot of stuff I'm leaving out, and a lot more I'd like to discuss, but this post is running too long as is, and I don't think many people even read this forum. I'd love to hear some discussion from other Christians though, and I hope others will share their knowledge of the topic. I also hope that people will go beyond the documentary and pick up some books on the subject. SMP's list has a lot of popular names in the field including Dever, Finkelstein, Coogan, Tov, etc. And of course, I think everyone would benefit from picking up Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (you can pick it up used for approx. 20 bucks on Amazon).

[robrecht]

I highly recommend Richard Elliott Freedman's, Who Wrote the Bible?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060630353

It was written at a time when many thought the documentary thesis was all but dead, but it's not, and this book is remarkably well written and very accessible for nonspecialists.

More recently, narrative criticism has been much more dominant, at least in many universities. Here there is little interest in actual history but rather how the narrator and characters interact with each other and the reader. Typically postmodern, which I must say I do enjoy, but I never abandoned an interest (without expertise) in the various historical theories. A colleague wrote her thesis on midrash and her work convinced even a skeptic like me that there is a standard for appreciating a 'good' midrash insofar as it genuinely arises out of a textual difficulty.

Insofar as the historical theories are very hypothetical and based on random archeological findings, the literary hypothesis still has a strong following insofar as it is largely derived from indications in the text. But regardless of whatever diachronic process is hypothesized, the reader still has to come to terms with the final text as it has been assembled and handed down to us.

Thanks, Robrecht

[Adrift]

I highly recommend Richard Elliott Freedman's, Who Wrote the Bible?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060630353

It was written at a time when many thought the documentary thesis was all but dead, but it's not, and this book is remarkably well written and very accessible for nonspecialists.

More recently, narrative criticism has been much more dominant, at least in many universities. Here there is little interest in actual history but rather how the narrator and characters interact with each other and the reader. Typically postmodern, which I must say I do enjoy, but I never abandoned an interest (without expertise) in the various historical theories. A colleague wrote her thesis on midrash and her work convinced even a skeptic like me that there is a standard for appreciating a 'good' midrash insofar as it genuinely arises out of a textual difficulty.

Insofar as the historical theories are very hypothetical and based on random archeological findings, the literary hypothesis still has a strong following insofar as it is largely derived from indications in the text. But regardless of whatever diachronic process is hypothesized, the reader still has to come to terms with the final text as it has been assembled and handed down to us.

Thanks, Robrecht

Thank you for the recommendation Robrecht, I'll add it to my growing list.

[Xru]

So I should made sure I take my anti-emesis medication before watching those video's. Okay . . . I can do that.

I'll try my best but I'm already put out at suggestions God was "married" because someone found a fertility idol some where.

[Adrift]

So I should made sure I take my anti-emesis medication before watching those video's. Okay . . . I can do that.

Well, both the PBS and BBC documentaries offer the secular historian's take, if that's what you mean. It seems important that we know how mainstream scholars understand the subject before we can approach it from an apologetic angle. As a Biblical literalist, I obviously disagree with some of the theories laid out by secular historians, but there are certain historical facts that I don't think can currently be denied, and we have to see how that parses with our understanding of scripture (or the understanding of the data). I think its also important to realize that historical research is a bit of a soft science, and its constantly shifting under the weight of new discoveries. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, X never, ever marks the spot, except when it does.

[Chrawnus]

I like Glenn Millers articles on the Old Testament regarding these issues, they usually tend to be pretty insightful. I think this subject index would be pretty helpful for anyone interested, especially if one does not have the time to delve into the issue as deeply as Miller has done.

[Adrift]

I like Glenn Millers articles on the Old Testament regarding these issues, they usually tend to be pretty insightful. I think this subject index would be pretty helpful for anyone interested, especially if one does not have the time to delve into the issue as deeply as Miller has done.

Thank you Chrawnus. I appreciate the link.

[Chrawnus]

Thank you Chrawnus. I appreciate the link.

No problem. Also, I've never used it myself, but there's an index of all the sources he references in his articles (in general, not only Old Testament issues) here, if one is interested in reading the sources for himself and not just the parts that Miller cites.

[Xru]

Okay . . . I watched the flick and although I retched a couple times I kept my lunch down.

I could do a pretty good flame of their bias' but just really don't care that much right now . . . . in some ways it was interesting. Interestingly, stating that there is no evidence of the Exodus is not quite right as I saw a film about divers in the Rea Sea who found remains of chariots, especially of the wheels. Some were real hard to recognize while others were a slam dunk.

I found a web page on it but it give short rift to the full film. I'll see if I can find a reference to the full documentary.

[Xru]

Well that was easy . . . go to http://www.messianic-literary.com/chariots.htm

It has a link to a YouTube video on the documentary I recall

That's it Bob poke at that chariot wheel with that knife and destroy the archeological evidence. . . nice!

There is a series of about eight videos on the page mentioned above. There is a picture on the web page of one chariot wheel covered in gold which is unmistakable as a chariot wheel. The wood that the gold encases is of course rotted away. This is a great site.

[Xru]

No problem. Also, I've never used it myself, but there's an index of all the sources he references in his articles (in general, not only Old Testament issues) here, if one is interested in reading the sources for himself and not just the parts that Miller cites.

I checked the link out nice;)

Confirms my belief that smp is still a zipper-head.

[pancreasman]

Well that was easy . . . go to http://www.messianic-literary.com/chariots.htm

It has a link to a YouTube video on the documentary I recall

That's it Bob poke at that chariot wheel with that knife and destroy the archeological evidence. . . nice!

There is a series of about eight videos on the page mentioned above. There is a picture on the web page of one chariot wheel covered in gold which is unmistakable as a chariot wheel. The wood that the gold encases is of course rotted away. This is a great site.

Um, you might want to investigate fully Mr Wyatt's claims. According to him he's found nearly everything in the Bible.

see here for example: http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm

[Xru]

Um, you might want to investigate fully Mr Wyatt's claims. According to him he's found nearly everything in the Bible.

see here for example: http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm

I'm surprised at you pan . .. that's rather close to an ad hominy

[pancreasman]

I'm surprised at you pan . .. that's rather close to an ad hominy

Just asking you to check out his claims and delve into his history. Ask another Christian if you think I'm biased.

[Adrift]

This is crazy. I was just going to comment that I actually read a book by a guy named Ron Wyatt on the supposed discovery of Noah's Ark in the late 90s that I thought was fascinating. Hollywood was supposedly going to make a film about the adventure that this guy had with his cop buddy, and it read like something out of an Indiana Jones sequel (betcha couldn't tell I'm an Indy fan ). But then I never heard anything about it ever again, and so I assumed the whole thing was just sorta... fluff. I look at the video, and it turns out its about Ron Wyatt. Weird. I haven't even read that name in probably 10 years.

Anyways, I plan on watching the vid Xru, and I really hope there's something to it, but I think we have to be discerning about what we take in, even (or especially) from Christians who may mean well, but could be chasing shadows. Even those trained in the subject like David Rohl, who I think possibly may be on to something here and there, I take with a grain of salt because I realize his theories are considered fringe. Again, not that, as a literalist, I don't think the mainstream theories are, you know, fringe in their own way, but I think its important for Christians to be, as Jesus put it, wise as serpents. You know, we just got to be smart about this i think.

pancreasman, I generally love reading your posts, and under other circumstances it wouldn't be a big deal, but this is Christianity 201, which is a subforum primarily for Christians. I sort of wanted to separate this subject so that Christians could discuss this topic among themselves without being in debate mode. I'm sure you understand.