Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dick Harfield

Showing posts with label Dick Harfield. Show all posts

Monday, November 28, 2022

Factuality of the Bible - Dick Harfield

Factuality of the Bible: answering Earnest Farr · Guestpost · answering Dick Harfield · Answer on Acts (to Dick Harfield)

Q

On what grounds have secularist historians concluded Pentateuch, Ruth, Daniel, Esther, and Acts are not factual?
https://www.quora.com/On-what-grounds-have-secularist-historians-concluded-Pentateuch-Ruth-Daniel-Esther-and-Acts-are-not-factual/answer/Dick-Harfield

Answer requested by

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dick Harfield

Lives in Sydney, Australia

Updated Fri 25.XI.2022

St. Catherine of Alexandria

This is a wide-ranging question that could justify a whole book to answer fully, so I can only summarise—with the risk that some may say that I have not provided enough detail to make my case.

Pentateuch

Presumed authorship by Moses is key to a claim to authenticity, as this would make much of the Pentateuch an eyewitness account written by its principal participant, who was in regular communication with God. That was challenged already the twelfth century by Abraham lbn Ezra, who considered it strange that Moses would have said: "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" (Genesis 12:6), when he should have said, "The Canaanites are now in the land," because they were still there when he travelled from Egypt with the people of Israel. This was not just the view of a “secularist historian” but of one of the great rabbis of medieval times. Modern scholars have established from a study of linguistics that the books of the Pentateuch actually had multiple authors.

Science tells us that life on earth is far older than suggested in Genesis and that there was never a time in human history when there were only two people on earth. Likewise, science tells us that there was never a time in human history when the whole world was covered in water.

Elliott Rabin says, in Understanding the Hebrew Bible: A Reader's Guide:

There is considerable uncertainty whether the patriarchs in the Bible actually lived or are instead legends of ancestral founders…Genesis tells us both too little and too much about the patriarchs: too little in that no recognizable figures are explicitly mentioned; too much because details mentioned often cannot be made to fit into the historical timeline given in the Bible.

The Book of Genesis contains many anachronistic details that are hallmarks of fiction. One is its reference to “Ur of the Chaldees”, although the Chaldeans did not arrive in Ur until a thousand years after Abraham would have lived. It also refers to the Philistines, who did not arrive in the Levant until about 1180 BCE.

Nearly all historians now regard the biblical Exodus as an Israelite national foundation myth. There is good evidence that the Israelites were never in Egypt and never invaded the land of the Canaanites. The renowned archaeologist William G. Dever investigated every site that could be identified from the Exodus itinerary and came up with a blank every time. Various archaeologists have established that the Israelites were actually rural Canaanites who never left their ancient homeland, but were a splinter group who left the region of the Mediterranean coast and fertile valleys, to settle peacefully in the hitherto sparsely populated hinterland,

Ruth

Ruth 1:1 places its authorship long after the story is set, simply because it informs the reader that the events occurred in the days when judges ruled. In their own time, Naomi and Ruth would have been women of no particular interest to others, so there would be very little chance of anyone recording and passing down any of their life story, let alone the rich detail that is actually in the book. It is either pure legend or a literary creation. Evidence of its fictionality is in the names of the two husbands who died so young: Mahlon means ‘Sickly’ and Chilion means ‘Wasting away’ – hardly names a parent would give a child, but helpful to the story.

Christopher Gilbert says, in A Complete Introduction to the Bible:

Although the Book of Ruth is set in the period of the Judges (1:1), and may be based on a story that dates to that period, scholars believe that it was written in the post-exilic period (around 400 BCE), for a number of reasons. First, the Hebrew in which the Book of Ruth is written was heavily influenced by the Aramaic language. As we have already noted, Aramaic influences on the Hebrew language were uncommon until the Persian period, when Aramaic was the official administrative language of the Persian Empire. Second, the author explains the custom of attestation – an ancient Israetite means of confirming a transaction by the exchange of a sandal – as though it is an obsolete practice with which the author does not expect the audience to be familiar (4:7). Third, and most important, the story recounts a marriage between a Jewish man and a Moabite woman. As we have already seen, intermarriage was a hot-button issue of the postexilic period; Ezra and Nehemiah both campaigned against it. The fact that the Book of Ruth presents a Moabite woman as a virtuous daughter-in-law, a faithful wife, and the great-grandmother of King David strongly suggests that this book was intended as an attack on postexilic efforts to prohibit intermarriage.

Finally, we should note that the Book of Ruth seems to have been regarded as a fictional short story rather than an historical narrative even by its ancient Jewish audience.

Esther

Esther’s uncle Mordecai was supposedly sent into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, but this would have taken place over a century before Xerxes became king, so this part of the story must be fictional at least. Christopher Gilbert says (ibid):

Like Ruth, the Book of Esther is thought to be a fictional short story rather than an historical account. Again, a number of considerations support this assessment. First, there is no extrabiblical record of Xerxes I or any other Persian king having a Jewish wife; indeed, extrabiblical sources agree that the wife of Xerxes I was a Persian woman named Amestris. Second, the book seems to contain the sort of exaggeration that is characteristic of imaginative fiction, suggesting that both the author of Esther and her readers approached the book as literature rather than as a factual record. For instance, the king holds a banquet that lasts six months (1:4); the candidates for the position of queen receive a yearlong beauty treatment (2:12); the bribe that Haman offers the king is roughly $18 million (3:9); and Haman's gallows are eighty-three feet high (5:14). Most staggering, however, is the claim that 75,510 Gentiles were slain by the Jews in a single day (9:6-9, 16), a massacre that could hardly have escaped the notice of extrabiblical writers.

Moreover, many scholars suspect that the Jewish holiday of Purim was initially a Babylonian holiday that the Jews adopted during the Babylonian Exile. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the names of the main characters in the story are of Mesopotamian origin: Esther's name derives from Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess of love; Mordecai's name derives from Marduk, the chief deity of the Babylonian pantheon. If the Jews of the Exile did celebrate a Gentile holiday, the religious reforms of the postexilic period certainly could have motivated an effort to explain and justify that holiday as having a uniquely Jewish origin.

The New American Bible says, in its Introduction to the Book of Esther:

The book is a free composition - not a historical document, despite the Achaemenian coloring of the narrative. Its time of composition may well have been at the end of the Persian Empire, toward the close of the fourth century B.C.

Daniel

One very good reason to regard the Book of Daniel as fiction is that it contains historical errors that a person, alive at the time of the supposed events, would never have made. Moreover, the prophecies in the story do become more accurate as the approach 167 BCE, consistent with the author being more likely to have accurate information about more recent events. Nothing further is prophesied after 167 BCE, suggesting this must have been the time of writing. There is evidence of at least two authors of the Book of Daniel, with the second author adding to an earlier, more primitive book. Leonard J Greenspoon says in ‘Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period’, published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, that, “at least in its finished form”, the Book of Daniel was a Jewish novel, and that “all but the most conservative interpreters agree that the final chapters date from the time of the Maccabean revolt”. He says:

The Hebrew form of Daniel neatly divides into two parts: chapters 1 to 6 consist of a collection of tales, in which Daniel and his companions demonstrate the superiority of their God and those who obediently follow him over the worshippers of false, empty and powerless deities.

The sudden changes of heart, through which foreign rulers acknowledged the sovereignty of God, did not really happen, but exemplify what should be the reaction of all people when confronted by the monotheistic faith of Israel.

Acts

Acts of the Apostles used to be regarded as an accurate and reliable history of the early church, At the beginning of the twentieth century, Sir William Ramsay stated:

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.

New Testament scholars have reviewed the evidence and no longer hold that to be the case, generally regarding the book as propaganda rather than actual history. Acts contains some errors that can be demonstrated to be inaccurate. A well known historical error has Gamaliel speak of the rebel Theudas, whom the first-century Jewish historian Josephus assigns to the time of the procurator Cuspius Fadus (44-46 CE) several years after the death of Gamaliel. Acts of the Apostles also places Theudas before Judas the Galilean, who “arose in the days of the census” which had occurred decades earlier. Internal evidence demonstrates that the author of Acts relied on Josephus’ account in Antiquities of the Jews, but misreported the chronology because of the roundabout prose in Antiquities.

Acts can also be checked for accuracy by comparing its account with Paul’s epistles. Bart D. Ehrman writes, in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings:

In virtually every instance in which the book of Acts can be compared with Paul's letters in terms of biographical detail, differences emerge.

Richard Carrier says, in On the Historicity of Jesus, that the author of Acts

rewrites Homer several other times.

Paul's resurrection of the fallen Eutychus is based on the fallen Elpenor.5
The visions of Cornelius and Peter are constructed frorn a similar narrative about Agamemnon.6
Paul's farewell at Miletus is constructed from Hector's farewell to Andromache.7
The lottery of Matthias is constructed from the lottery of Ajax.8
Peter's escape from prison is constructed from Priam's escape from Achilles. 9 And so on.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things, also finds parallels to Greek mythology:

In the third of the legendary accounts in Acts, Jesus is supposed to have remarked to Paul as he lay on the ground, “It hurts you to kick against the goad” (25:14).

This is a quotation from the Bacchae by Euripides (d. 406 BCE). The only peculiar thing is that Jesus should quote a Greek proverb to Paul while speaking Aramaic ("in the Hebrew language").

The really strange thing is that with both Jesus and Euripides we have the same “familiar quotation” and the same situation. In both cases we have a conversation between a persecuted god and his persecutor. In The Bacchae the persecuted god is Dionysus and his persecutor is Pentheus, king of Thebes. Just like Jesus, Dionysus calls his persecutor to account, “You disregard my words of warning . . . and kick against necessity [literally 'against the goads'] a man defying god.” Jesus even uses the same plural form of the noun (kentra) that Euripides needs for the metre of his line.

Thomas Kazen says, in ‘The Christology of Early Christian Practice’, originally published in Journal of Biblical Literature, 2008:

When dealing with Luke’s descriptions of practice in the early Jesus movement in the first chapters of Acts, we find ourselves both earlier and later in time than with Paul. Earlier, because the narrative concerns the earliest post-Easter followers of Jesus in Jerusalem; later, because the narrative is shaped [written] toward the end of the first century. While it would be naïve to take Acts as a historical report of early Christ-believers in Jerusalem, it would be equally simplistic to read Luke’s narratives as representing general Christian practice and belief in his own time and environment. Rather, we should regard these descriptions as revealing what some late-first-century Christians, such as the author of Acts, thought about practice and belief in the earliest Jerusalem community of Christ-believers during the thirties.

Answered

ideally five times, Pentateuch, Ruth, Daniel, Esther, and Acts. When redacting this, I am on the first two answers.

Pentateuch

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat, 26.XI.2022

I’ll respond one by one. First this one:

Pentateuch

"Presumed authorship by Moses is key to a claim to authenticity, as this would make much of the Pentateuch an eyewitness account written by its principal participant, who was in regular communication with God."

Indeed, and what's more, who could prove it to his surroundings by his miracles.

Suppose no one had seen any miracle except his talking to a God invisible to everyone else, why would they have bought his claims to have brought them out of Egypt through the Red Sea, since in that case this would have jarred with their actual memories? Why would they have trusted his claims to be in communication with God, if that God told him things they knew were nonsense?

"That was challenged already the twelfth century by Abraham lbn Ezra, who considered it strange that Moses would have said: "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" (Genesis 12:6), when he should have said, "The Canaanites are now in the land," because they were still there when he travelled from Egypt with the people of Israel."

1) That Canaanites "are now in the land" is irrelevant to Abrahams situation back "then".
2) Moses can have taken over a resumé by Joseph.
3) Moses can have written down the overall narrative before checking Canaanites were still in the land.
4) There can be a redactor who changed "are" to "were then" in an update that remained licit for Cohanim while the tabernacle and temple stood.
5) Canaanites can here mean - se below - actual patrilinear descendants of Canaan, son of Ham.

"This was not just the view of a “secularist historian” but of one of the great rabbis of medieval times. Modern scholars have established from a study of linguistics that the books of the Pentateuch actually had multiple authors."

Or redactors. Tegnér who died in 1846 and published Frithiofs Saga in 1825 would not have written "Där växte uti Hildings gård" or "Frithiof tager arv efter sin fader" but, writing before 1870's he wrote "Der vexte uti Hildings gård" and writing before 1906 he wrote "Frithiof tager arf efter sin fader." The Cohanim were free to change the linguistic shape at copying.

"Science tells us that life on earth is far older than suggested in Genesis and that there was never a time in human history when there were only two people on earth. Likewise, science tells us that there was never a time in human history when the whole world was covered in water."

This is definitely not an argument that Genesis wasn't taken as history, just that it was wrong history, if what you say is true. However, not having Science as my religion, and being read up on Creation Science, I feel no special urge to believe you on that one.

"Elliott Rabin says, in Understanding the Hebrew Bible: A Reader's Guide:

'There is considerable uncertainty whether the patriarchs in the Bible actually lived or are instead legends of ancestral founders…Genesis tells us both too little and too much about the patriarchs: too little in that no recognizable figures are explicitly mentioned; too much because details mentioned often cannot be made to fit into the historical timeline given in the Bible.' "

I disagree with his distinction between "actually lived" and "legends" - I consider most legends are about poeople who actually lived, and in the few cases where this is not the case, non-actuals are composites of several people who actually lived. If Japanese believe that Bodda had been incarnated as Krishna before being incarnated as Siddharta, their Bodda is a very superficially stitched together composite of the actual Krishna, the actual Siddharta and some wrong claims about them in theology and philosophy, one of them being reincarnation.

"The Book of Genesis contains many anachronistic details that are hallmarks of fiction."

I don't think this is the case.

"One is its reference to “Ur of the Chaldees”, although the Chaldeans did not arrive in Ur until a thousand years after Abraham would have lived. It also refers to the Philistines, who did not arrive in the Levant until about 1180 BCE."

Before which they were where?

Perhaps in NorthWest Mesopotamia, if Urfa (Edessa) is the correct identification and Woolley's Ur is outside Genesis.

"Nearly all historians now regard the biblical Exodus as an Israelite national foundation myth."

Do you regard the story of George Washington as a United States foundation myth? I do. But I don't believe that equates to non-factual. Just that, to Americans, he looms somewhat larger than life, together with Paul Revere and Lafayette.

"There is good evidence that the Israelites were never in Egypt and never invaded the land of the Canaanites."

Or lack of specifically archaeological evidence that they were and did, identified as such.

"The renowned archaeologist William G. Dever investigated every site that could be identified from the Exodus itinerary and came up with a blank every time."

1) some places should leave a blank if the Bible was true - none of their tools or clothing wore out and they didn't build houses
2) some places would not leave a blank if you took the right time - right Biblical chronology along with right calibration of C14.

The latter meaning - not the uniformitarian one, and the former meaning not the Masoretic one.

"Various archaeologists have established that the Israelites were actually rural Canaanites who never left their ancient homeland, but were a splinter group who left the region of the Mediterranean coast and fertile valleys, to settle peacefully in the hitherto sparsely populated hinterland,"

The oldest DNA carbon dated in the land is dated to 3500 BC - meaning 1935 BC, when Abraham was there - and is close to the Israelite one - perhaps because Abraham's men took over the nations in Canaan with their descendants, while Israelites were in Egypt. If so, the men whom Joshua was beating didn't mainly descend from Canaan, on the patrilinear side, but from renegade Hebrews whose ancestors had been 318 men of Abraham.

Dick Harfield

Sat, 26.XI.2022

Hi Hans-Georg

One take-away from this is that you believe the Book of Genesis may have been altered by Cohanim or redactors, so that the Book we now have does not reflect what was first written. I suppose that from now on, I should assume that whenever there are problems with Genesis, you believe these result from ancient changes to the original text.

Another take-away is that we should ignore the analyses of people like Abraham lbn Ezra and Dever, because they are not as intellectually rigorous as you are. I wish you well at the next Nobel awards.

Yet another is that you regard science as a religion, which explains why you see “creation science” as the ultimate form of science.

It seems you do not understand the meanings of words in common use, so let me help you. I regard the story of George Washington as chopping down the tree and unable to tell a lie to be a legend, but George himself otherwise to be part of history—not of legend. A myth is a legend with supernatural elements, and I do not believe any common legends about George Washington incorporate supernatural elements. Now, when scholars say the biblical Exodus story is a national foundation myth, you do not have to be clever about it: we both know what they mean, no matter how ambiguous the words may be. Their view is that the story we see in the Bible did not happen, even if there might be some legendary aspects behind it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Lord's Day 27.XI.2022

First of Advent

“so that the Book we now have does not reflect what was first written.”

More like it was changed to reflect it more clearly to more recent audiences.

“I suppose that from now on, I should assume that whenever there are problems with Genesis, you believe these result from ancient changes to the original text.”

Linguistic and terminological updates are not problems.

“we should ignore the analyses of people like Abraham lbn Ezra”

Because his conclusion was hasty …

“and Dever,”

Because he looked for wrong things at wrong times.

“I wish you well at the next Nobel awards.”

I am a Swede. I know the Swedish establishment. Believe me, it is very improbable that the Nobel committee would be so marginalised people in Sweden, that they could be outstanding by some balance and sanity on the matter.

“you regard science as a religion,”

I see an actual difference between sciences - often enough legitimate intellectual endavours - and Science with a capital S, where these are lumped together with things like Evolution (also capital letter E, way beyond finches or pepper moths). The latter, which some think we “should believe” is in fact the positive religion of Atheism, and one of the two positive religions of a certain type of Syncretists called Modernist Christians.

“It seems you do not understand the meanings of words in common use, so let me help you.”

It’s more like I refuse to accept the misuse of the term legend now prevailing. I’m trying to help you or at least our readers.

“I regard the story of George Washington as chopping down the tree and unable to tell a lie to be a legend, but George himself otherwise to be part of history—not of legend.”

Nice. I think all the hype on him can be classified as legend - and most positively mentioned things (including the cherry tree) as probably factual. I do not make a counterdistinction between legend and factual, since legends are usually based on fact, and facts that become legends are often but not necessarily somewhat but not all that much distorted. Where does this US origin myth come short of factuality? In people not Southron and Jefferson Davies of their loyalties, it comes short of factuality in neglecting that GW was a slave owner and part of his taunt against George III was that the latter was listening to Wilberforce, preparing to free slaves, which happened in 1830. That, back in England, Tories were the early abolitionists, like Dr. Johnson, Whigs sympathising with GW were pro-slavery, like Boswell.

Hope this makes clear to you, or at least someone who reads us, why your usage was faulty. Common as it is.

“A myth is a legend with supernatural elements, and I do not believe any common legends about George Washington incorporate supernatural elements.”

To imagine that supernatural elements have any bearing on the factuality of a legend in one specific direction of falsehood only is begging the question how YOU pretend to know the supernatural doesn’t exist.

But the presence or absence of the supernatural is not all the triggers the word choice “myth” there are also phrases - as highly relevant to Exodus as to George Washington - like “foundation myth” or “myth of origins” where the whole phrase (including the word myth) is used because of such and such a story being the popular narrative behind a change leading up to the present state of affairs on some level.

“Now, when scholars say the biblical Exodus story is a national foundation myth, you do not have to be clever about it:”

The only thing that is clear about what they can legitimately mean, and say without rational hesitation is, the Exodus is to an Israelite in such and such a time the popular narrative behind a change leading up to the present state of affairs on some level.

“we both know what they mean, no matter how ambiguous the words may be.”

I don’t pretend to know what a writer means unless I actually read him.

“Their view is that the story we see in the Bible did not happen,”

If they base this on the obvious role that Genesis and Exodus have as “origin myths” and “foundation myth” that is very clearly in and of itself falling victim to reasoning from popular associations of a label.

If you intend “origin myth” and “foundation myth” to exlude factual accounts or such as you consider factual, which would be necessary for their case, if you wish it to exclude George Washington whom we both agree existed or Abiogenesis which you believe happened, well, the role these narratives have as “origin myth” and “foundation myth” are simply not enough.

Ruth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Lord's Day 27.XI.2022

First of Advent

Second part of answers - and I intend to answer all before the debate on the Pentateuch is finished and have debates in parallel.

Ruth.

As I recall, I actually already posted an answer on this one yesterday, where did it go?

The FIRST thing to note is this one, from your quote by CG:

"Finally, we should note that the Book of Ruth seems to have been regarded as a fictional short story rather than an historical narrative even by its ancient Jewish audience."

It would be interesting to find out whether CG concluded this from a Talmudic or even post-Talmudic source LATER than St. Matthew, or whether his view on how it was regarded is more based on some subjective impressionistic takeout on it.

Because, you see, the reason I don't take Silmarillion or Beren and Luthien as history is, I live in a society known to be the FIRST audience of Tolkien, preceding for instance a hypothetic future audience which 200 or 500 years from now could have a view on the matter, and this FIRST audience takes Beren and Luthien as fiction.

Meanwhile, the reason I take The Assisi Underground as historic is, it was to its first audience (to which roughly speaking we still belong) presented by the journalist Alexander Ramati as a documentary.

I believe the process by which history gets relegated to "fiction" category is just a question of a fashion of scepticism. But the process by which fiction is elevated to history is, as far as I am concerned, unknown. This makes "earliest KNOWN audience" a standin for FIRST audience" in assessing a text as historic.

I am very sceptical of CG getting hold of some writer in an even earlier audience than that to which St. Matthew belonged and in which he used the genealogy of the book of Ruth as providing historic genealogy of Christ Jesus.

"Ruth 1:1 places its authorship long after the story is set, simply because it informs the reader that the events occurred in the days when judges ruled."

Not necessarily authorship, perhaps a redactor's touch. But possibly also a collecting of the family history of King David into an actual book.

"In their own time, Naomi and Ruth would have been women of no particular interest to others, so there would be very little chance of anyone recording and passing down any of their life story, let alone the rich detail that is actually in the book."

Except obviously they were of very great interest to Obed. He was resourceful enough for his family to keep the record the few generations remaining up to King David. And King David had resources to get it written down into a book and the book put into the temple.

"It is either pure legend or a literary creation."

Pure legend in my book means things usually historical. Like King Arthur (though the exact title might not have been rex).

"Evidence of its fictionality is in the names of the two husbands who died so young: Mahlon means ‘Sickly’ and Chilion means ‘Wasting away’ – hardly names a parent would give a child, but helpful to the story."

1) Ben-Oni is hardly a name a parent would give a child for life, but this was the name Rachel spontaneously gave her second son. The father changed this to Ban-Yamin. It is clearly possible that Naomi's first reaction on seeing either was "Mahlon" or "Chilion" that the father Elimelech then changed the names and that Naomi's and Ruth's memory changed it back when the first given names turned out to be prophetic.
2) It is also possible that the actual names were forgotten, perhaps deliberately, and replaced by Mahalon and Chelion. As aliasses. Code-names. If you had had the youtube account with the moniker "Bimbelibimm" - would you consider our debates were a fiction because such is not a real name?

"Christopher Gilbert says, in A Complete Introduction to the Bible:"

Here I'll return to GC.

"Although the Book of Ruth is set in the period of the Judges (1:1), and may be based on a story that dates to that period, scholars believe that it was written in the post-exilic period (around 400 BCE), for a number of reasons."

We'll take them one by one.

"First, the Hebrew in which the Book of Ruth is written was heavily influenced by the Aramaic language. As we have already noted, Aramaic influences on the Hebrew language were uncommon until the Persian period, when Aramaic was the official administrative language of the Persian Empire."

A Cohen made a linguistic update later on.

"Second, the author explains the custom of attestation – an ancient Israetite means of confirming a transaction by the exchange of a sandal – as though it is an obsolete practice with which the author does not expect the audience to be familiar (4:7)."

A Cohen inserted what amounts to a footnote.

"Third, and most important, the story recounts a marriage between a Jewish man and a Moabite woman. As we have already seen, intermarriage was a hot-button issue of the postexilic period; Ezra and Nehemiah both campaigned against it."

Here is good old wiki, with a Swede correcting the spelling of a Swedish name:

"Gösta W. Ahlström argues the inconsistencies of the biblical tradition are insufficient to say that Ezra, with his central position as the 'father of Judaism' in the Jewish tradition, has been a later literary invention."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra#Historicity

I obviously disagree, but why don't you? You are so heavily into believing "legends actually didn't happen" and things like that.

Perhaps because you find historicity of Ezra as a useful copout to argue non-historicity of other things - one here will claim Ezra wrote the Pentateuch and attributed it to Moses and now you will cite another guy pretending Ezra was being argued against by the author of Ruth.

In Ezra 10, I can find no precision that the "foreign" women are singled out in any single case as Moabites.

I do find the word Moab - as the name of a Jew.

"The fact that the Book of Ruth presents a Moabite woman as a virtuous daughter-in-law, a faithful wife, and the great-grandmother of King David strongly suggests that this book was intended as an attack on postexilic efforts to prohibit intermarriage."

Because obviously, real older events never become topical later on ...

Seriously, believing both Ruth and Ezra to be inspired, I will definitely consider both as inerrant, and God as seeing no problem if a single Moabite woman wants to follow the law of Moses, but a very big problem if lots of women were together exercising a kind of infiltration pressure against lots of husbands against the law of Moses.

Esther

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Lord's Day 27.XI.2022

First of Advent

Answer part III

Esther

"Esther’s uncle Mordecai was supposedly sent into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, but this would have taken place over a century before Xerxes became king, so this part of the story must be fictional at least."

Let's see the relevant verse:

Esther, chapter 2:

[5]There was a man in the city of Susan, a Jew, named Mardochai, the son of Jair, the son of Semei, the son of Cis, of the race of Jemini, [6] Who had been carried away from Jerusalem at the time that Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon carried away Jechonias king of Juda,

What if the meaning is, Cis (or Jemini) had been carried away, rather than Mardochai himself?

Blows that argument out of the water.

"Christopher Gilbert says (ibid):

'Like Ruth, the Book of Esther is thought to be a fictional short story rather than an historical account.' "

Yeah, I was aware of his bias.

"Again, a number of considerations support this assessment. First, there is no extrabiblical record of Xerxes I or any other Persian king having a Jewish wife; indeed, extrabiblical sources agree that the wife of Xerxes I was a Persian woman named Amestris."

1) Is Xerxes I the real match for Assuerus?
2) If yes, was Amestris Vashthi?
3) How complete are "extra-Biblical sources"?

"Second, the book seems to contain the sort of exaggeration that is characteristic of imaginative fiction, suggesting that both the author of Esther and her readers approached the book as literature rather than as a factual record."

Tell that to the guys who support the idea that Auschwitz killed 2 million Jews.

But suppose this could be laid down to the style of narration? However, I will try to give actual answers for the honour of inerrancy.

"For instance, the king holds a banquet that lasts six months (1:4);"

It actually says a feast for boasting that many days. However, this would not necessarily be one banquet. It could involve voyaging around through the realm.

"the candidates for the position of queen receive a yearlong beauty treatment (2:12);"

Could be a kind of project of impregnating the skin, every pore. Plus a kind of education project for the role going on alongside this.

"the bribe that Haman offers the king is roughly $18 million (3:9);"

That's perfectly realistic. If you want to bribe the "king of kings" you had better make a real juicy offer.

"and Haman's gallows are eighty-three feet high (5:14)."

I recalled it as fifteen cubits, seems LXX has fifty as well.

"Most staggering, however, is the claim that 75,510 Gentiles were slain by the Jews in a single day (9:6-9, 16),"

6 And in the city Susa the Jews slew five hundred men:
15 And the Jews assembled in Susa on the fourteenth [day] of Adar, and slew three hundred men, but plundered no property.
16 And the rest of the Jews who were in the kingdom assembled, and helped one another, and obtained rest from their enemies: for they destroyed fifteen thousand of them on the thirteenth [day] of Adar, but took no spoil.

500 + 300 + 15 000 = 15 800

"a massacre that could hardly have escaped the notice of extrabiblical writers."

Supposing we had any left and they were free to express such losses. Did you know the Babylonian cuneiform accounts of Alexander certainly paint him as victorious, but do not tell he's a foreigner, and he's simply "the king of Babylon" ...

"Moreover, many scholars suspect that the Jewish holiday of Purim was initially a Babylonian holiday that the Jews adopted during the Babylonian Exile."

Purim was in March this year ... a month before Pesakh, in fact. 14 Adar is a month before 14 Nisan. I have for the moment no source saying that Babylonians celebrated anything in Adarru.

"This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the names of the main characters in the story are of Mesopotamian origin: Esther's name derives from Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess of love; Mordecai's name derives from Marduk, the chief deity of the Babylonian pantheon."

In France a very famous Jew is called Eric Zemmour. In case you didn't know, Eric is a Pagan and Catholic Norse name - not a Jewish one. He's Eric to outsiders and Moyshe to his family.

If this custom of external adaptation was already there, and if Mordecai and Esther were common names among Babylonians, this could explain why Jews were in fact called Mordecai and Esther.

"If the Jews of the Exile did celebrate a Gentile holiday, the religious reforms of the postexilic period certainly could have motivated an effort to explain and justify that holiday as having a uniquely Jewish origin."

Or suppress it.

"The New American Bible says, in its Introduction to the Book of Esther:

'The book is a free composition - not a historical document, despite the Achaemenian coloring of the narrative. Its time of composition may well have been at the end of the Persian Empire, toward the close of the fourth century B.C.' "

Nice to have their point of view, it's presented without argument, and so I dismiss it without argument.

Daniel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Lord's Day 27.XI.2022

First of Advent

Part IV here:

Daniel

"One very good reason to regard the Book of Daniel as fiction is that it contains historical errors that a person, alive at the time of the supposed events, would never have made."

Would, if true, be the case with lots of actual histories as well.

However, considering the errors to be on Daniel's side rather than that of the other sources to me seems to be an overrating of the other sources.

"Moreover, the prophecies in the story do become more accurate as the approach 167 BCE, consistent with the author being more likely to have accurate information about more recent events."

If I were to disbelieve the prophecies, this is where I would put the prophecies down to "vaticinium post eventum" - but as I don't, I would rather say that the completion of the four beasts (with Antiochus Epiphanes representing Rome) in the OT context was what was needed to make Daniel useful for the endtimes.

"There is evidence of at least two authors of the Book of Daniel, with the second author adding to an earlier, more primitive book."

Not any precision on what this evidence is. Apart from the "two parts" argument, see below.

"Leonard J Greenspoon says in ‘Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period’, published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, that, “at least in its finished form”, the Book of Daniel was a Jewish novel, and that “all but the most conservative interpreters agree that the final chapters date from the time of the Maccabean revolt”."

Count me as one of the most conservative ones, then.

"The Hebrew form of Daniel neatly divides into two parts: chapters 1 to 6 consist of a collection of tales, in which Daniel and his companions demonstrate the superiority of their God and those who obediently follow him over the worshippers of false, empty and powerless deities."

Does not the least imply these tales didn't happen.

"The sudden changes of heart, through which foreign rulers acknowledged the sovereignty of God, did not really happen, but exemplify what should be the reaction of all people when confronted by the monotheistic faith of Israel."

Or Nebo-Chadnezzar made some Monotheistic decrees about Nebo, which is what the author considered as equivalent to the summary in Daniel.

On this one, as well as for Esther, I refer to the works of Damien Mackey.

Acts

Note

I actually had planned to add the answer on Acts on Monday. When in the evening I went on to it, I saw this:

"Adding comments disabled" - saw it 22:36 on November 28th, 2022. This was to me, or perhaps to all, by the man who had answered a question I posed.

The point is, I had told him, instead of making one post with all the books he dealt with, I was answering one by one. He had enough with 4 comments answering, and couldn't take a fifth.

It looks like cancel culture to me. Feel free to ask him whether it was the fact I intended to answer in five comments or whether he was so dissatisfied with my first one.

Friday, October 28, 2022

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

Own answer to Q

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-the-writers-of-Genesis-didnt-make-it-up/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

28.X.2022

Sts Simon and Jude

For any given text, if it is a narrative, the alternative “made up” or “history” is best decided by the following question:

Did the earliest known audience (ideally the very first audience if it is still known to us) consider it as made up or history?

An author who made a story up would have trouble convincing people around him it was history that they all remembered. One shot would be “history that was lost and that NN” (the actual writer who made it up) “rediscovered” (miraculously or by archaeology). But that would leave the “scar” in the later memory of this author becoming very important as rediscovering it. Like Joseph Smith, to Mormons, “rediscovered” Book of Mormon.

This means, if the earliest known audience think of it as history and do not think of a particular man as having rediscovered it, chances are that it actually was not an invented story.

Does this by itself mean it is accurate? No, any historic text can contain some amount of error.

As a Christian, I do not accept Genesis could this, since God’s inspiration cancels out this possibility, but if I were to look on it from the perspective of the non-Christian I was my earliest years - Genesis bears more marks of accuracy than lots of other accounts.

1. It has full genealogies from the first man to the Flood and from then to times when continuous well documented history begins (in Genesis 12 - the rest of Genesis is at least as well documented as heroic generations up to Trojan War and nostoi in Greek legend);
2. Its Flood account has an Ark which is adequate for the logistics, and other accounts either lack the description or give descriptions of vessels inadequate for logistics (when the survivan wasn’t transferred from a vessel to a mountain, as in the Andes).

So, in sum, we have pretty good evidence, even before being Christians, that Genesis is history rather than fiction, and for the parts that concern the fate of mankind up to splitting up into nations, better preserved history than other nations’ histories about such times.

Darryl's Answer to Q

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-the-writers-of-Genesis-didnt-make-it-up/answer/Daryl-Hubber

Daryl Hubber

Mon 24.X.2022

St. Raphael's Day

Because in some instances they used identifiable sources, although there was certainly latitude for creativity in their reuse. We know that the Mesopotamian flood myth was the basis for the biblical deluge account, and the story of Eden is probably an amalgam of the tale of a wild man and a prostitute in the Gilgamesh epic and an older Canaanite myth about the punishment of one of the “Sons of God”. There may also be a faint literary echo of the Atrahasis plagues in the story of Moses and the plagues of Egypt. Similarly, it’s possible that the names of the patriarchs from the time of Abraham onward might depend on ancient genealogies, although there is no evidence that any of the patriarchal narratives are based on historical events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.X.2022

“We know that the Mesopotamian flood myth was the basis for the biblical deluge account,”

No, we definitely do not know that.

Both being based on the fact is clearly also an option, and given descriptions of the Ark, the one in Genesis is more adequate to take on one couple of each kind and adequate food for them.

Daryl Hubber

27.X.2022

The older dictum of Wilfred G Lambert is still true: the flood remains the clearest case of dependence of Genesis on Mesopotamian legend (Bill Arnold, prominent evangelical scholar, Genesis, 2009, p105)
Most scholars agree that the biblical versions [of the flood story] are descended from the Babylonian versions (Ron Hendel, high profile Jewish scholar, The Book of Genesis: a Biography, 2013, p26)
Because the flood episode in Gen 6–8 matches the older Babylonian myth so well in plot and, particularly, in details, few doubt that Noah’s story is descended from a Mesopotamian account (Andrew George, leading cuneiform scholar and expert on the Gilgamesh epic, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Vol. 1, 2003, p70)
…the closest parallels to the biblical account are found in Mesopotamian flood traditions, especially the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh and its earlier form in the Atrahasis story (Andrew Steinmann - a conservative Christian scholar, Genesis, 2019, p109)
Genesis 1–11 will show extensive interplay with ancient near eastern [mythological texts including the] flood story (especially tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic)… (Tremper Longman III - another conservative-leaning biblical scholar, Genesis, 2016)
Since the time of George Smith [who was first to decipher parts of the Atrahasis flood story in the late 1800s] it has become increasingly clear that the biblical text is a relatively late Hebrew-language version of a literary mythic tradition of great antiquity. One of the earliest representatives of that tradition is the Sumerian flood tablet… The story is also told on the third tablet of Atrahasis and, in its most compete form, on the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh… (Joseph Blenkinsopp - prominent Catholic scholar, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation, 2011, p132)

Answered twice

by me, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.X.2022

Bill Arnold, prominent evangelical scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate
Ron Hendel, high profile Jewish scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate
Andrew George, leading cuneiform scholar and expert on the Gilgamesh epic, - argumentum ex autoritate plus probably somewhat superficial such when it comes to Genesis plus there is no Mesopotamian parallel to Tower of Babel
Andrew Steinmann - a conservative Christian scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate plus he didn't deny (in the cited words) that the Hebrew version could be more faithful to actual events plus there is still no Mesopotamian parallel to Tower of Babel
Tremper Longman III - another conservative-leaning biblical scholar, - same as previous on all counts
Joseph Blenkinsopp - prominent Catholic scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate, plus he is unfaithful to Catholic teaching (Council of Trent Session IV and Biblical commission from 1905 under Pope St. Pius X).
Wilfred Lambert, George Smith, most scholars - also argumentum ex autoritate.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.X.2022

You also gave no answer on the argument from Ark models.

Daryl Hubber

3.XI.2022

Hi Hans-Georg, that’s a lot of arguments from authority! If I cited just one scholar then perhaps your argument might be valid, but the weight of scholarly opinion suggests otherwise. The conventional spelling is auctoritate - not autoritate, by the way.

It may surprise you to know that an argument from authority is not automatically invalid, particularly if the authority represents a majority opinion of experts. I have deliberately chosen scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds to rule out the possibility of representing a narrow interest group, and perhaps you missed it but according to Hendel ‘most scholars’ believe that the Genesis flood story is dependent upon the older Mesopotamian ones. These sentiments are echoed by Arnold (‘the clearest case’), George (‘few doubt’) and Blenkinsopp (‘increasingly clear’). Rejecting a majority opinion of experts places you in the same camp as climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, Jesus mythicists and conspiracy theorists.

If you want to examine the evidence for this position, I refer you to the peer-reviewed works cited. However, there are multiple parallels between the two stories appearing in an almost identical order - thus meeting the normal scholarly criterion for literary borrowing. The highly anthropomorphic description of the deity/or deities enjoying the sweet savour of the post flood offerings rules out the notion of a tribal memory, since it describes the mind of the God/gods, thus indicating a literary rather than a historical relationship. The episode of the sending out of the birds is another striking parallel that makes literary dependence practically certain.

Since you seem to enjoy thinking in terms of logical fallacies, your suggestion that there can be no literary relationship between the Mesopotamian and Genesis flood stories because ‘there is no Mesopotamian parallel to the Tower of Babel’ is a non-sequitur. There is no reason why the authors of Genesis could not borrow from Babylonian mythology in their deluge story and draw on other sources completely for the remainer of the work.

In actual fact, the story of the city of Babel is steeped in Mesopotamian lore since it lampoons the founding of the city of Babylon (the Hebrew word translated “Babel” is the same word used for “Babylon” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) and its monumental architecture. The likely target is the Babylonian Creation Myth (Enuma Elish) that describes creation by violent conquest on the part of Babylon’s patron deity and ends with the establishment of a great ziggurat and the founding of Babylon as the gateway of the gods and head of the nations. Scholars almost invariably mention the building of the ziggurat Etemenanki in conjunction with this story since it was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II during the period of the Babylonian exile - the time when the early chapters of Genesis were probably composed. This would also explain the authors’ access to Mesopotamian lore and literature but would make little sense in earlier periods since Babylon was not a traditional enemy of Judah. Another work that is commonly cited here by commentators is the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a Sumerian story that describes the efforts of an ancient king of Uruk to build a temple for one of its patron deities and involves the unification of language as a tool of conquest and imperial control.

Tremper Longman, incidentally, does not believe in a global flood but submits that the Genesis account goes back to a local flood in the ancient near east that is ‘described by figurative language as a global flood in order to communicate an important theological message’. See this link: Genesis and the Flood: Understanding the Biblical Story - Article - BioLogos [not linked to here] This is very similar to the suggestion that the Mesopotamian flood myth goes back to a historical flood that wiped out the city of Shuruppak and some neighboring cities around 2900 BCE (since Shuruppak is the home of the flood hero in both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis), then was later exaggerated and mythologised in the Mesopotamian epics.

As for citing centuries-old Catholic pronouncements on the historicity of Genesis, you obviously haven’t kept up to date with current Catholic theology. In 1905 most Catholic theologians still believed that Daniel was composed in the sixth century BCE! The majority now, of course, accept a second century BCE date. Just a little later in the 20th century Pius XII states:

“In simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured,” the first eleven chapters of Genesis “both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis 38 - emphasis mine).

The general tenor of Catholic teaching these days seems to be that belief in historical and scientific reliability is permitted, but that the creation stories do not contradict scientific discoveries on human evolution and are theological rather than historical accounts. Similar leniency is applied to the flood account, with modern Catholic teaching leaning towards an ancient local flood rather than a global event.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.XI.2022

"The conventional spelling is auctoritate - not autoritate, by the way."

Classic, I'm more into Medieval.

"If I cited just one scholar then perhaps your argument might be valid, but the weight of scholarly opinion suggests otherwise."

No. It is still called argumentum ex autoritate - or auctoritate if you prefer the Classic spelling.

"It may surprise you to know that an argument from authority is not automatically invalid,"

Some would say wikipedia is a good starting point, but one needs to see the authorities cited. I find that over the top, mostly wikipedian articles will cite correctly.

Expert opinion is like wikipedia. The important issue is not the outlet, but the arguments that outlet refers back to.

"I have deliberately chosen scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds to rule out the possibility of representing a narrow interest group,"

I fully admit that the group think you are referring to is from a numerically wider group by now.

It is still group think.

"and perhaps you missed it but according to Hendel ‘most scholars’ believe that the Genesis flood story is dependent upon the older Mesopotamian ones."

I didn't. "Most scholars" is definitely an argument from authority. And one should not ask, how many scholars believe this, but why they do so.

"Rejecting a majority opinion of experts places you in the same camp as climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, Jesus mythicists and conspiracy theorists."

I am a moderate antivaxxer. If the vaccine is against bacteria or if the viruses were cultivated on cells not from human feti, and if there is no coercion about the vaccine, then, and only then, is the vaccine morally licit. It is still a question of individual prudence.

"If you want to examine the evidence for this position, I refer you to the peer-reviewed works cited."

No. You don't. If you cite a work, you kind of pretend you have read it or read reasonable portions of it. At least you pretend to have a reasonable certainty what you cite is knowledge. If I cite a Latin grammar, "ludimagister" means school teacher in primary school years, I would have a decent view on where that came from, like all the poems and prose texts from such centuries, including Horace complaining of his own such, the plagosus Orbilius. If I cited a historian on Christophe de Thou living from 1508 to 1582 (I grabbed this from wikipedia), I would have a reasonable inference that a historian had seen documents calling him "barely 40" in early 1548, or the noble family had a family record citing him as born 28.X.1508. I'd be perfectly willing to debate the reliability of this kind of information. So, if you cite "most scholars" you need to be able to see what kind of arguments they use, not how many they are.

Otherwise you could be citing a Pope for Christ NOT rising from the dead (not even stated in such terms by recent anti-popes), which is nonsense, since Popes are just outlets for a particular kind of evidence called Bible and Tradition. Now, scholars and their publications are just an outlet for evidence and analyses of it.

"However, there are multiple parallels between the two stories appearing in an almost identical order - thus meeting the normal scholarly criterion for literary borrowing."

The criterium is being misused, if you forget that:

A may be borrowing from B
B may be borrowing from A
A and B may both be borriwing from a third source, including actual event.

So, Bible borrowing from Sumerian and Akkadian sources is one option.
Sumerian and Akkadian sources borrowing from Genesis is another one - and I add, it is certainly less likely.
Bible and Sumero-Akkadian sources both inheriting a factual account is the third option.

If all scholars alive today overlook the third option, or reject it on Hume's antimiraculous prejudice, that would invalidate the reasoning process of all scholars alive today and does invalidate the reasoning process of the scholars you are referring to.

"The highly anthropomorphic description of the deity/or deities enjoying the sweet savour of the post flood offerings rules out the notion of a tribal memory, since it describes the mind of the God/gods, thus indicating a literary rather than a historical relationship."

Ooh, what a blooper! Even if the theology were wrong (which is the case with one of the versions mentioned, the Sumero-Akkadian one), the historic memory is very certainly transmitted in literary ways and usually involves reference to God or to gods.

You reasoned as if:

all reports of God speaking to man were ruled out in advance from facthood
and all real tribal historic memories were automatically formulated like the ones of Atheistic modern Marxist historians.

The first is a blooper in philosophy, the second a blooper even in common sense. The Iliad contains Diomede wounding a goddess, not because Homer was writing a poem, but because Diomede misunderstood what had happened, involving his views on the theology of Greek gods and goddesses. Or someone misunderstood what Diomede had said.

"The episode of the sending out of the birds is another striking parallel that makes literary dependence practically certain."

Unless birds were in fact sent out, of course.

"Since you seem to enjoy thinking in terms of logical fallacies, your suggestion that there can be no literary relationship between the Mesopotamian and Genesis flood stories because ‘there is no Mesopotamian parallel to the Tower of Babel’ is a non-sequitur."

I did not say "there is no literary relationship" (directly or indirectly), I said the Hebrew account was not borrowed from the Sumero-Akkadian one.

"There is no reason why the authors of Genesis could not borrow from Babylonian mythology in their deluge story and draw on other sources completely for the remainer of the work."

There is no reason why they would need to borrow Babylonian mythology in their deluge story in the first place. Unless you start out with what you are trying to prove with "literary borrowing" namely that there was no such event.

"In actual fact, the story of the city of Babel is steeped in Mesopotamian lore since it lampoons the founding of the city of Babylon (the Hebrew word translated “Babel” is the same word used for “Babylon” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) and its monumental architecture. The likely target is the Babylonian Creation Myth (Enuma Elish) that describes creation by violent conquest on the part of Babylon’s patron deity and ends with the establishment of a great ziggurat and the founding of Babylon as the gateway of the gods and head of the nations."

If Moses, via Abraham and Peleg's father Heber, was heir to the real story, Enuma Elish is explainable as Amorrhaeans / Amorrhites wiping off the dishonour of the original Babel, by making a facsimile far from the original location (but about same distance in each case from Niniveh), and using this to obfuscate any memory Babylonians could have of abandoning the original Babel. In this context, Graham Hancock has referred to an object found in Ur, namely a model closely mirroring Göbekli Tepe. Babylonian pagans were suckers for Nimrod's project, which explains both the wiping out of this memory and the remake of the story in Enuma Elish.

"Scholars almost invariably mention the building of the ziggurat Etemenanki in conjunction with this story since it was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II during the period of the Babylonian exile - the time when the early chapters of Genesis were probably composed."

Or Nebuchadnezzar II peeped into a Hebrew scroll, and tried to wipe off the old dishonour.

"This would also explain the authors’ access to Mesopotamian lore and literature but would make little sense in earlier periods since Babylon was not a traditional enemy of Judah."

Traditionally, Judah had been kind of harrassed from both Egypt and Babylon. After King Solomon, and taking a mild side for Babylon in the time of Hezechia. This is obviously not in any way shape or form an argument against King Solomon already having a scroll of Genesis in the Temple.

The argument being made is in fact presuming, once again, what needs to be proven - that the lore doesn't go back to actual events.

I know sufficiently of modern academia to know this is a model actively pressured onto researchers these days.

"Another work that is commonly cited here by commentators is the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a Sumerian story that describes the efforts of an ancient king of Uruk to build a temple for one of its patron deities and involves the unification of language as a tool of conquest and imperial control."

Precisely - it does not involve any explanation of why there were different languages (unlike Babel of Genesis 11), it only involves a desire to unify language. So not a model.

"Tremper Longman, incidentally, does not believe in a global flood but submits that the Genesis account goes back to a local flood in the ancient near east that is ‘described by figurative language as a global flood in order to communicate an important theological message’."

Since you are referring to BioLogos, reminds me, it was a few weeks since I took on Richard Middleton, who is also one of their team.

There is a problem when you refer to a team which has as actual policy to presume Genesis as non-historical. And especially if it regularly reasons "text A has theological message I, and can be explained as expressing that theological message, therefore not historical, text B has theological message II, and can be explained as expressing that theological message, therefore not historical" - the underlying presumption that real history would not neatly fit a theological message is incompatible with Christianity. If they were at least atheists, openly.

"This is very similar to the suggestion that the Mesopotamian flood myth goes back to a historical flood that wiped out the city of Shuruppak and some neighboring cities around 2900 BCE (since Shuruppak is the home of the flood hero in both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis), then was later exaggerated and mythologised in the Mesopotamian epics."

Satan knew in advance how carbon dates would work out (having been told so by God) and was able to arrange both the destruction of Shuruppak and its inclusion into Sumero-Akkadian lore in what would carbon date as 2900 BC. The Sumero-Akkadians holding on to real chronology of the Flood in the written sources, since the Flood actually happened, world wide, in 2957 BC. But that’s carbon dated 39 000 BP.

However, all the sources we have for Atrahasis or Utnapishtim getting on an "ark" in Shuruppak also involve his landing c. 800 metres higher up above sea level, which would not happen in a local flood.

The reason for the exaggeration or how it would be even remotely believable in the face of populations not descending from Atrahasis, if just a local hero, is left in blanks.

"As for citing centuries-old Catholic pronouncements on the historicity of Genesis, you obviously haven’t kept up to date with current Catholic theology. In 1905 most Catholic theologians still believed that Daniel was composed in the sixth century BCE!"

I believe in Catholic theology. I do not believe in "current Catholic theology" that being a contradiction in terms. The theologians who were a majority in 1905 are still the ones who are truly Catholic now ...

"The majority now, of course, accept a second century BCE date."

... as I just mentioned under a video by The Crusader Pub, Evolutionists are not Catholics. The community accepting "Pope Francis" as its Pope may still contain Catholics - I consider The Crusader Pub as one - but it is a by now largely non-Catholic community and it is not identic to the Catholic Church.

"Just a little later in the 20th century Pius XII states"

Pope Michael considered that Pius XII had his problems, if I did not accept him as the last pope we had (he died Aug 2 this year), I would tend to consider Pius XII as a non-Pope. But not for what you quoted, which doesn't float your non-Ark boat.

Using metaphors doesn't mean telling a story which is non-literal as a story.

Let's take §38 bit by bit:

"Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies."

Note, wrongly. Perhaps they were prone to take the "metaphoric" part as meaning the story as a whole were metaphoric, for instance?

"This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes;"

I would not agree with it's being historic only in a vague sense needing further study, and I also would not consider Homer and Pliny as excluded from the best Greek and Latin writers.

"the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people."

The part you just quotemined. And probably the part quotemined by those wrongly citing it.

"If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."

I'd go even further. Even without divine inspiration, trusting a popular narration because it is already that of one's people, would hit historic general factuality, if not necessarily accuracy of detail perhaps 90 % of the time. The remainder being fan fictions inserted into bigger pictures that weren't fictional.

"The general tenor of Catholic teaching these days seems to be that belief in historical and scientific reliability is permitted"

The problem is, the "Catholic teaching these days" you cite is not Catholic.

But thank you very much for "permitted" - though I am far from being treated that way in practise!

"but that the creation stories do not contradict scientific discoveries on human evolution and are theological rather than historical accounts."

I would say they are theological because they are historical. By the way, anything beyond Genesis 2 is after the creation account.

I would also say the "scientific discoveries" are not discoveries, and are not scientific. At least those that are on human evolution.

Discovering a Neanderthal or Denisovan doesn't contradict the creation stories any more than discovering Negros or Chinamen - meant Black Gentlemen or Gentlemen of Colour for the first, and not to exclude Japanese from the second - discredits all of us descending from Noah's three sons.

Daryl Hubber

Tue, 18.VII.2023

Well, Hans, it’s reassuring to know that leading experts on the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform literature are all wrong, that the origin myths of Genesis are all based on historical fact (suggesting that most of the world’s paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists and physicists are also wrong - although this doesn’t really matter since citing any of them would simply amount an argument from authority), that the Catholic church is not really “Catholic”, that Christians who disbelieve in the creation and flood stories are not really Christian, and that Satan not only deliberately meddled with the carbon dating method but also - displaying God-like foreknowledge and power - sent the flood that destroyed the city of Shuruppak to undermine the Genesis flood story! I’ll leave you and your wild imagination to the judgement of others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue, 18.VII.2023

"reassuring to know that leading experts on the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform literature are all wrong"

I did not say all experts were wrong. While you seem to want to make it sound like that, I can however not pinpoint you to directly saying so.

If you had said "experts on x are all wrong" you would have attributed that to me. But you resumed my position as "leading experts on x are all wrong" ... sure. The ones who are leading in the direction you think of, they are wrong and misleading ...

"that the origin myths of Genesis are all based on historical fact"

Well, who says origin myths can't be historical facts? Isn't "Declaration of Independence" an origin myth about the USA?

"suggesting that most of the world’s paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists and physicists are also wrong"

Most of people overall are wrong today, which means most of the experts will be so too.

It's a vicious circle involving schools as third party.

"that the Catholic church is not really “Catholic”,"

You mean that the Vatican II Sect is not really Catholic? Link to very relevant video at the end.

"and that Satan not only deliberately meddled with the carbon dating method but also - displaying God-like foreknowledge and power - sent the flood that destroyed the city of Shuruppak to undermine the Genesis flood story!"

No need for Satan to meddle with the carbon dating method. It's enough that he knew of it, and could meddle with a much smaller destruction in Shuruppak plus the bad record keeping of Babylonians in history (prior to Assyrians).

EDIT : “displaying God-like foreknowledge and power”

Causing a local Flood with God’s permission and being told things by God which he used for planning the end times deception do not add up to being godlike.

[very relevant video]

Sedevacantism Visualised
TVC, 30 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ArKXEuY_48

Same Question

Friday, April 15, 2022

Dick Harfield Went After the Flood on the Q "why did not other boats float?"

Q: In the Bible story of Noah’s flood, why did no boats, other than his Ark, float?
https://www.quora.com/In-the-Bible-story-of-Noah-s-flood-why-did-no-boats-other-than-his-Ark-float/answer/Dick-Harfield
Dick Harfield: lives in Sydney, Australia
Answered Sep 8, 2020: If one man could build a massive boat such as Noah’s Ark, then it is logical that other people had been building other boats that they could have used to escape from the biblical flood. However, myths have to be kept simple, and one of the necessary compromises in the telling of this story is that no one else in the world had a boat capable of saving any other humans on earth.
I
Terry Terril
1y: The whole story is so weak, I still can’t believe I ever fell for the concept. Even into adulthood I never paid much attention to the now known myth. I was like so many others when it comes to religious stories. Brain washed as a child. Never question anyone telling me such nonsense, and never taking the time to check the facts.

Now I believe religions are a business. They sell a product for profit. There is good and bad in all of them.
Keith Twort
1y: And it is not even biblical. Cherry picked from a Sumerian legend. An earlier version was found on a cuneiform tablet, with instructions how to make one! It was round!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon: And would, unlike the Ark, have been drowned quickly in a world wide Flood.

Oh, before you consider the Sumerian legend deals with a local flooding, such as still happen, their “Ark” is supposed to have started from a city that’s 28 meters above sea level and gone to a mountain that’s 800 meters above sea level.

[Take off : Shuruppak, landing : Mount Nisir]

[Mon and Tue in the previous and following mean Monday and Tuesday of Holy Week, namely 11.IV and 12.IV.2022]
Keith Twort
Mon: Except that it was big! See the ark before Noah by Irving Finkel on youtube. And Ararat is a district, not a mountain.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon: Even big, that round shape would not have been ideal.

I never mentioned Ararat being “a” mountain, the Bible says MountainS (pl) of Ararat = of Armenia.
Keith Twort
Mon: Whether it is ideal or not, it corresponds to the round craft of the time. Why would it not be ideal? Nobody would be going anywhere! And there is the matter of feeding the animals. You mention A mountain specifically 800m above sea level!!! And collecting and delivering animals and birds from other continents. And killing all the plants. Nope a complete fantastic fable in common with much other biblical nonsense.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon: “of the time”

Remains to be proven.

“You mention A mountain specifically 800m above sea level!!!”

It so happens, a river can’t flood to several hundred meters above normal level. From Shuruppak to Zagros mountains.

So, even with the Babylonian preference, it could not be the kind of naturalistic flooding you had in mind, that source too is speaking of a world wide one.

“And collecting and delivering animals and birds from other continents.”

Here is the Biblical one - but who says they were living on other continents before the Flood or indeed that there were oceans between continents before the Flood?
Keith Twort
Mon: And how do you explain other civilisations that never even noticed a “world wide flood”? Or the complete absence of a geological record? No it is pure fiction.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon: It seems you have dropped the argument “why didn’t all the other boats sink” and are in for a general debate. Fine with me.

Chinese Emperors didn’t have to deal with a world wide flood because it happened before Fu Hsi (not sure of the Pinyin spelling) came along in Palaeolithic post-Flood conditions.

Egypt’s creation account matches parts of the Flood account.

Hinduism took Flood and early post-Flood Ramayana adventure and transposed them to before the pre-Flood Mahabharata wars that match parts of Genesis 4 and 6.

Japan starts its mythology with the creation of Japan in post-Flood times, even if Jimmu came from elsewhere.

Peru and Babylon and Altai mountain plains all have stories of the Flood.

And the geological record from the Flood is disguised by being divided into very many differently labelled “geologic recordS” supposed to be from different times, like Permian or Palaeogene.
Keith Twort
Mon: And when exactly do you think the “flood” happened? When the “creation” was supposed to be 6000 BCE or so?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon: I think that the creation was 5199 BC and the Flood 2957 BC.
Keith Twort
Mon: And the Cishan culture arose in China from 6500–5000 BCE. They don’t seem to have noticed a flood, or even a creation!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Tue: Would you mind telling me what remaining Cishan chronicles tell us, we are now 8522 after founding of Cishan and in 3543 after same epoch, they noticed no Flood?

Ah, wait … you mean in “carbon dated” 6500 to 5000 BC … carbon dates coincide with real dates from c. 1180 BC (fall of Troy), and before that are inflated.

Carbon dated 6500 BC would be somewhat post-Babel.
Keith Twort
Tue: Haha. If the flood fable is to be believed, the Cishan culture would have ceased to exist. Or are you postulating a Chinese ark!

Carbon dating ties up with several isotopic dating techniques and also ties up with geological dating. Sorry!

Consider coal measures a mile underground dating around 300 million old. Nicely debunking creation!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Tue: “ the Cishan culture would have ceased to exist”

Supposing it really existed as far back as 6500 or 5000 BC. If these are carbon dates of the outer limits, this gives the real dates 2355 - 2153 BC for the outer limits according to this extract from my carbon tables:
2355 B. Chr.: 0.596678 pmC/100 (or 59.6678 pmC) , so dated as 6605 B. Chr.
...
2153 B. Chr.: 0.706677 pmC/100 (or 70.6677 pmC), so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

What carbon dating is supposed to tie up with is much less interesting than the carbon dates themselves - as they tie up with Biblical chronology.
II
Geoffrey Walden
1y: I don’t think even the pope believes the flood story
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon: Have you asked him?

Welcome - Vatican in Exile

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

... on Catholic Church supposedly Changing Position (esp YEC, feat. Limbo and Filioque) (quora)

Q

Why does the Catholic Church constantly change its position on issues when God doesn't change?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Catholic-Church-constantly-change-its-position-on-issues-when-God-doesnt-change

C on Q

For example, the Pope and Catholic Church accept evolution when the Bible clearly states Biblical Creationism.

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered just now

Does the Catholic Church constantly change?

Does the Pope and does the Catholic Church accept evolution?

1. The Catholic Church does claim not to be changing;
2. There are men claiming to be Pope other than “Pope Francis” who are Catholics and who do clearly not accept evolution.
3. Even “Pope Francis” has so far not tried to dogmatise evolution, just to give an impression in sermon like conditions that it is hunky dory. Bad even that, of course, exactly like Pius XII on November 22 1951, when accepting billions of years as coming from a reliable source.

Not only does the Bible clearly state Creationism (and its statement of it is obviously Biblical), but the Church Fathers also do so, and the Catholic Church has dogmatised agreeing with Church Fathers when they agree. At the Council of Trent, between 1547 and 1563, this was in Session IV, I think.

This obviously also has a bearing on whether the claim of “Pope Francis” to be Pope of the Catholic Church is credible.

Actually, the impression Bergoglio has been giving on more than one occasion is not just that evolution is hunky dory, but that Creationism is for some obscure reason not hunky dory. That is a pretty bad move for someone claiming to be Pope of the same Church which convoked Trent.

Other answers

such as I commented under, all of them.

Amanda Ol

Catholic

Answered Apr 30

The Catholic Church has unchangeable doctrines on faith and morals. People who are Catholic, including the Pope, have opinions on science (like the particular way God created the world), art, medicine, mathematics, technology, history, psychology, philosophy… We claim we know some things with the certainty of divine revelation. We don’t claim to know everything. We don’t even claim to know everything theological. If Catholic theologians could never debate each other for lack of disagreement, the Dominicans and Franciscans would die out for lack of fun.

The Pope can accept evolution, as a private person. Catholics can accept or reject evolution, as private persons, and in any numbers. (There are Catholics who believe in a 7-day Creation, and that does not make them heretics). The Church herself has no stance on the issue, beyond the doctrine that God created the universe, and the value of seeking the truth.

Doctrines themselves can develop. Not in the sense of a puppy developing into a cat, but in the sense of a puppy developing into a dog. [Chesterton] By becoming clearer and more complete versions of themselves without contradicting what they have always been.

Fundamental truths also apply differently in different circumstances, and so often look different while remaining the same. A juniper may be a ground-creeping bush or a bonsai, and still be a juniper. A complex equation may be algebraically manipulated to the point where it takes some study to recognize it as the same thing. And Newton is still admired for being able to equate inertial mass, which affects how much a given force accelerates an object, with gravitational mass, which determines the motion of the planets. It’s not the most intuitive thing in the world if you haven’t been brought up with it. So the discipline of the Church changes, not to follow the times, but to teach people how to live according to those unchanging truths in the present circumstances.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wonderful.

In that sense, a primitive Catholic and implicitly doctrinal Six Calendar Day Creationism can develop to a full fledged dogma of Six Calendar Day Creationism, or the matter can stay even draws with One Moment Creation.

It cannot develop into the catma (!) of Theistic Evolution.

Andrew Michael Lenihan

Retired

Answered Apr 29

Well, Im not sure that the Catholic Church changes its positions more than other religions but lets not quibble about that.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ said that after his Ascension, the Comforter (Holy Spirit) would come and teach and guide the Church.

So its no shock that based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church attempts to understand and interpret Christianity with greater clarity over time. The scriptures stay the same, but the interpretation is refined and modified. What’s wrong with that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“So its no shock that based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church attempts to understand and interpret Christianity with greater clarity over time. The scriptures stay the same, but the interpretation is refined and modified.”

You have a problem.

Does the Holy Spirit change between First Pentecost and now?

No.

If He doesn’t change, why would His guidance change?

In fact, the Catholic Church has clearly forbidden this theory when saying the Holy Spirit was not given to Papacy so that, Him revealing, the Pope might teach a new thing, but only so that, Him preserving, the Pope might stay faithful in maintaining the same sense.

Al Lundy

Practicing Catholic for 60 years, Diaconate Candidate, Sacristan, servant of God

Answered Apr 29

Upvoted by Linda deMerle

I see the problem you think creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive and they aren't, which is what the Church says. There are parts of evolution that are still scientifically up for discussion but does all of evolution exclude the creative influence of God? No, not at all. Is this a change in doctrine of the Catholic Church, no not at all.

This view in no way changed or conflicted with the existing Church doctrines.

Perhaps you have another misconception that we can clear up for you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“ does all of evolution exclude the creative influence of God?”

The Biblical and Patristic truth is very much NOT limited to “creative influence of God”.

And how we must deal with Bible and Fathers was defined at Trent, Session IV, I think.

Johnston Robert

homespun pastoraliaist

Answered Apr 29

This is a good point. The Roman Church proclaims it is 'semper eadam' - always the same. It is not. Throughout history it has chopped and changed: Apart from the more recent case of a creationist stance to one favouring evolution, there is the most striking one of insisting on the filoque clause in the creed which it had previously disagreed with. If anything it has drifted further and further from the biblical norm and sound tradition to fit in with the world and even things like total clerical celibacy (and we know the abuse that has lead to) At the reformation Queen Mary I asked bishop Cramner ,'What do you mean by all these innovations?' The reformer replied that it was Rome that had changed things in a way that people like her hadn't noticed. Of course even Protestant churches are still stuck with the filioque clause.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“there is the most striking one of insisting on the filoque clause in the creed which it had previously disagreed with.”

You can document some side changed the formulation of the creed of Nicea and Constantinople, but there is some doubt on whether that is the Greek or the Latin side.

You cannot document that the Catholic Church as a whole, previously to accepting the filioque clause in the creed, had been disagreeing with the content of said clause.

Dick Harfield

Answered Apr 30

The time comes when the Catholic Church can no longer ignore reality. Any change in position is couched in terms that, as far as possible, need not be read as a change in doctrine, but once it was indisputable that evolution is real, the Church finds a way to change its position.

There have been other changes that have been introduced gradually and in such a way as to be consistent with an unchanging Church. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church firmly taught that babies who die before they can be baptised go to a place or state called limbo. The Church no longer teaches this and its position is that limbo was never an official doctrine of the Church. Many of the accepted teachings of the Church were never accepted as formal doctrine, often because they were considered so self-evident that this was an unnecessary step, but that omission is one way the Church can abrogate a former teaching when it no longer suits modern thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sure that the man you call Pope Francis neither believes in Limbo nor in Six Calendar Day Creation.

I am also sure Pope Michael (whom you might perhaps call Bishop Bawden, by now : he was consecrated on Gaudete Sunday 2011/Church Year 2012) does believe Six Calendar Day Creation and find it at least probable he also believes in Limbus Infantum.

While Six Calendar Day Creation is not a formal doctrine as compared with One Moment Creation, it is contained in a formal doctrine as to compared with Creation over Millions of Years.

Council of Trent, I think Session IV, formally ruled that whenever a point is agreed between all Church Fathers, it must be believed.

St Augustine advocated one moment creation, but was as firmly as the rest against a very prolonged and protracted one or against a world older than the Biblical Chronology.

Michael Lalla

Answered Apr 29

This is a fishing question. Which issues are you talking about? Which position was changed? An inherently poor and nonspecific question…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A good method on quora is to not just read the question, but also comment to the question.

At least by now, you will find in the questioner’s own comment these words:

“For example, the Pope and Catholic Church accept evolution when the Bible clearly states Biblical Creationism.”

My own disagreement involves not accepting Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” or “una cum papa nostro Francisco” as the correct Catholic communion, I am accepting Pope Michael.

Linda deMerle

more experience than most people need. Catholic revert.

Answered May 1

First of all, the Catholic Church most certainly does not constantly change its position. Do your homework and go back 1800 years and start reading, Secondly, God and his kingdom are far bigger than the few books which made it into the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bigger, not smaller.

And 73 books are nearly all of the candidates, as per other Christian bodies (Russians have also “I Esra” renaming our I and II Esra - the latter a k a Nehemia - II and III Esra, thus a prequel to Esra, Romanians have III and IV Maccabees, Ethiopians have 151 or even more psalms and also Henoch, Nestorians and Ethiopians each have an extra Baruch, that is about it).

Not smaller means, obviously, ALL truths within the 73 books need to be believed.

Paul Brocklehurst

works at Self-Employment

Answered Apr 29

Yes it also changed it’s mind about limbo too & several other issues. It’s because it became to embarrising to pretend it knew things which it became clearer & clearer it really didn’t!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I take it you are not Catholic, and at least your position is honest about your impression of what has happened on Limbo and YEC fronts.

I am a conservative on both matters, esp. YEC.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Monday, November 28, 2022

Factuality of the Bible - Dick Harfield

Friday, October 28, 2022

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

Friday, April 15, 2022

Dick Harfield Went After the Flood on the Q "why did not other boats float?"

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

... on Catholic Church supposedly Changing Position (esp YEC, feat. Limbo and Filioque) (quora)

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers