Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Since I woke up early this morning, I decided to read 
some from "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by
Josh McDowell.  For those of you unfamiliar with this
book, it is chock full of quotes from other books on
the dating and authorship of Scripture.  Essentially no
new material is presented; it is only a reference guide
to existing material.

Since I believe strongly that an awareness of the evidence
is helpful in arriving at the best conclusion, I'll enter
a note or two today highlighting some of what I believe is
very convincing evidence that the Old Testament books were
written at the time that they claimed they were written.

Opposing evidence welcome and encouraged.

Collis

When I read this section from the book, I knew that
I had to enter it as this is, in my opinion, a profound
question.

G. Ernest Wright states:  "Equally surprising is the
prohibition against images.  'Thou shalt not make unto
thee a graven image' or any 'molten gods' (Exodus 20:4;
37:17).  This is a significant commandment since there
was nothing like it in the world about.  Archaeology offers
support for the antiquity of this commandment in Israel
in that a figure of Yahweh has yet to be found in debris of
an Israelite town.  The interesting fact is that Canaanite
cities possess quite a series of copper and bronze figurines
of male deities, most of which are identified with Baal.
But when we come to Israelite towns, the series gives out.
Yet Israelites were familiar with such images, as we know
from the denunciations in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Habbakuk,
and Isaiah.  In the city of Megiddo, for example, a tremendous
amount of debris was moved from the first five town-levels
(all Israelite), and not a single example has been discovered."

"At the same time, however, large numbers of figurines
representing the mother-goddess are found in every excavation
into Israelite houses, indicating that many homes had one or
more of them.  To be sure, they are no longer as sensuous as
the Canaanite examples (cf. Fig. 72), but they are nevertheless
indisputable evidence of the widespread syncretism, verging
on polytheism, among the common people.  They probably owned
them, however, not so much for theological as for magical
reasons, using them as 'good luck' charms.  It would not be
surprising to find an occasional image of Yahweh among such
unenlightened and tolerant circles in Israel, but the fact
remains that the people seemed to understand that God was simply
not honored in that way.  The antiquity of the Second Commandment
thus receives support, and by implication also the First
Commandment; and these two prohibitions are certainly among the
distinguishing features of Israelite belief."

This is the type of incompatibility that I mentioned when
discussion the initial entry in 554.  Where did the prohibition
against idols come from?  And why was it followed, even by those
who in other ways did not obey the Mosaic Law?

We are dealing here with a command that is foreign to the culture
and environment that the people found themselves in.  If the
critics are to be consistent, they would claim that such a command
would never have been given in the first place.  But the fact is,
there are no idols.

Is this a case of 5th century B.C. historians rewriting history?
Or perhaps the Jews really did believe that there was a God who 
claimed to be the *only* God and insisted that no graven images of 
Him be made?

One other piece of evidence of this morning.

Exactly how good were these 5th century forgers?
(I call them forgers since what they wrote, they
wrote as someone else and then managed to to pass
down a tradition throughout history that the "original
authors" wrote the writings.

Let's look at the Mosaic covenant in Deuteronomy.

Again, it is G. Ernest Wright that provides this quote,
"Another major discovery within the realm of law which I
venture to predict will stand the teste of time is George
E. Mendenhall's pioneer work on the formal background of
the Mosaic covenant.  This background, he has shown, is not
to be found in the covenants of Bedouin society, as Johannes
Pedersen had supposed.  Instead it is to be found in the
realm of international law, specifically in the suzerainty
treaties of the Late Bronze Age found among Hittie archives...

"The God if Israel was not the head of a pantheon which
represented the primary powers of the natural world.  He was 
first and foremost a suzerain, not a king among kings but the
Emperor, the 'King of kings and Lord of lords' who had no equal...

"The suzerainty of Israel's God concerned the whole world, and 
the focus of attention was not on the life of nature but on the
administration of a vast empire."

There are 6 characteristics of a suzerain treaty from the
13th and 14th century.  These are:

  1)  preamble or title
  2)  historical prologue
  3)  stipulations
  4a)  deposition of a copy of the covenant in the vassal's sanctuary
  4b)  periodic public reading of the covenant terms to the people
  5)  witnesses, a long list of gods invoked to witness the covenant
  6a)  curses invoked upon the vassal if he breaks the covenant
  6b)  blessings invoked upon the vassal if he keeps the covenant

"Nearly all the known treaties of the fourteenth/thirteenth centuries
B.C. follow this pattern closely.  Sometimes some elements are omitted,
but the order of them is almost invariable...  Earlier than this, the
pattern was apparently somewhat different."

Kline writes, "In the light of the evidence now surveyed, it would seem
indisputable that the Book of Deuternonlmy, not in the form of some
imaginary original core but precisely in the integrity of its present
form, the only one for which there is any objective evidence, exhibits
the structure of the ancient suzerainty treaties in the unity and
completeness of their classic pattern."

D. J. McCarthy, who is identified with the radical critics, writes,
"Is there, therefore, a text in the Old Testament which exemplifies
with sufficient fullness the treaty form?  For an affirmative answer
we need only look at the basic elements of the Book of Deuteronomy."

Regarding the preservation of this treaty form, in 1954 Mendenhall
wrote that this covenant type "cannot be proven to have survived the
downfall of the great empires of the late second millennium B.C.
When empires again arose, notably Assyria, the structure of the
covenant by which they bound their vassals is entirely different.
Even in Israel, the writer submits that the older form of the
covenant was no longer widely known after the united monarchy."

Note that it is the claim of the radical critics (a technical, not
derogatory term) such as the author in 554 that this treaty form was
perfectly duplicated many centuries after the treaty was no longer used.
If the treaty form was generally not known in the 10th century B.C.
(the fall of the United Monarchy), our hypothetical 5th century
author was surely inspired to have duplicated this form exactly
(to put it mildly).

Collis

Collis,

It's too bad you didn't enter this in GRIM::RELIGION; I'm sure Ann
Broomhead would do a better job of presenting the "radical critic" point
of view than I could.

I haven't bought/borrowed the Friedman book that Ann suggested I get, so
I can't really speak for the radical critics.  Just to understand what
you've written, though...

Re: .2

In other words, the Israelites had mother-goddess figurines and did not have
Baal icons.  But weren't the mother-goddess icons "graven images" and thus
in violation of the 2nd Commandment?  As G. Ernest Wright himself states:

>"At the same time, however, large numbers of figurines
>representing the mother-goddess are found in every excavation
>into Israelite houses, indicating that many homes had one or
>more of them.  To be sure, they are no longer as sensuous as
>the Canaanite examples (cf. Fig. 72), but they are nevertheless
>indisputable evidence of the widespread syncretism, verging
>on polytheism, among the common people.

I don't understand this conclusion:

>The antiquity of the Second Commandment thus receives support,

But didn't the existence of the mother-goddess figurines violate the
Second Commandment?

>This is the type of incompatibility that I mentioned when
>discussion the initial entry in 554.  Where did the prohibition
>against idols come from?  And why was it followed, even by those
>who in other ways did not obey the Mosaic Law?

But it wasn't followed, right?

>We are dealing here with a command that is foreign to the culture
>and environment that the people found themselves in.  If the
>critics are to be consistent, they would claim that such a command
>would never have been given in the first place.  But the fact is,
>there are no idols.

Even if the early Israelites had no graven images, that would just mean
that they had one religious law that differed from that of the surrounding
people.  The similarities would remain?

>Is this a case of 5th century B.C. historians rewriting history?
>Or perhaps the Jews really did believe that there was a God who 
>claimed to be the *only* God and insisted that no graven images of 
>Him be made?

I believe the radical critic point of view is that the 5th century B.C.
historians collected oral and written traditions and combined them into
the Bible we have today.  They didn't just make up everything out of thin
air.  If they said that idol worship was prohibited, this might be
reflecting an earlier oral tradition, i.e. the early Israelites really
didn't worship idols.

				-- Bob

Re: .3 Collis

>Exactly how good were these 5th century forgers?
>(I call them forgers since what they wrote, they
>wrote as someone else and then managed to to pass
>down a tradition throughout history that the "original
>authors" wrote the writings.

Are the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible also forgers?

>"Another major discovery within the realm of law which I
>venture to predict will stand the teste of time is George
>E. Mendenhall's pioneer work on the formal background of
>the Mosaic covenant.  This background, he has shown, is not
>to be found in the covenants of Bedouin society, as Johannes
>Pedersen had supposed.  Instead it is to be found in the
>realm of international law, specifically in the suzerainty
>treaties of the Late Bronze Age found among Hittie archives...

>Note that it is the claim of the radical critics (a technical, not
>derogatory term) such as the author in 554 that this treaty form was
>perfectly duplicated many centuries after the treaty was no longer used.
>If the treaty form was generally not known in the 10th century B.C.
>(the fall of the United Monarchy), our hypothetical 5th century
>author was surely inspired to have duplicated this form exactly
>(to put it mildly).

If the Bible we know today was based on earlier written and oral
traditions, part of that written tradition might have been documents that
followed the ancient format.  The persons who put together the Bible may
have followed the format of their source documents.

				-- Bob

Re:  635.4

  >It's too bad you didn't enter this in GRIM::RELIGION; I'm sure Ann
  >Broomhead would do a better job of presenting the "radical critic" point
  >of view than I could.

Feel free to cross-post.  I'm not going to get in there right now.

  >In other words, the Israelites had mother-goddess figurines and did not have
  >Baal icons.  

In fact, there are large numbers of Baal icons (although perhaps not at the
site mentioned) that have been found.

  >But weren't the mother-goddess icons "graven images" and thus in violation of 
  >the 2nd Commandment?

Clearly.

  >I don't understand this conclusion:

    >>The antiquity of the Second Commandment thus receives support,

  >But didn't the existence of the mother-goddess figurines violate the
  >Second Commandment?

Yes.  The question is, where are the *Yahweh* icons?  All major gods
had their icons - with one exception.  Why?  Why?  Why?  Of course
the Bible answers this question quite clearly.  God told the people
through Moses not to make an icon of Him, that this was absolutely
forbidden.  But the contention in 554 is that this is NOT what
happened.  Well then, what plausible explanation exists for the
total absence of an icon for Yahweh?  According to the author of
554.12 (I think the number was), the people did not consider Yahweh
to be supreme among the gods (much less the only god).

     >>Where did the prohibition against idols come from?  And why was 
     >>it followed, even by those who in other ways did not obey the Mosaic Law?

  >But it wasn't followed, right?

It was followed in respect to Yahweh, but not in respect to other "gods"
Why this uncharacteristic behavior with respect to Yahweh?

  >Even if the early Israelites had no graven images, that would just mean
  >that they had one religious law that differed from that of the surrounding
  >people.  The similarities would remain?

O.K., How did this law come into being?  And why was it apparently followed
by everyone - even those who freely worshipped other gods?  How?  Why?

  >I believe the radical critic point of view is that the 5th century B.C.
historians collected oral and written traditions and combined them into
the Bible we have today.  They didn't just make up everything out of thin
air.  

  >If they said that idol worship was prohibited, this might be
  >reflecting an earlier oral tradition, i.e. the early Israelites really
  >didn't worship idols.

Every source we have including the Bible says that the early Israelites
worshipped idols.  And if idol woship came in later (as you suggest), then
why wasn't an idol for Yahweh made?  Why?

As you can see, I still have a few questions  (why, how) that, in my
opinion, need to be well-explained in order to believe those who contend
that there was not a Yahweh movement in Israel which insisted that Yahweh
was the only God and above all other gods.

Re:  635.5

  >Are the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible also 
  >forgers?

Are they claiming to be the original authors?

I was told that the writing happened in the 5th century.  That makes
them forgers.  If indeed much of the writing was earlier and they
worked these writers into a whole (as redactors), then that act in
and of itself does not make them forgers (depending on what they
redacted).  However, that simply leads us back to asking, who did
write the documents?  Did the claimed author write it or someone
else?  (In other words, were they redacting a forgery or were they
redacting a work by the claimed author?)

If the radical critics wish to claim that the works were written
by the original authors, they'll get full support from me  :-)
(even if they do also want to claim significant redaction, which
I don't believe).

  >If the Bible we know today was based on earlier written and oral
  >traditions, part of that written tradition might have been documents that
  >followed the ancient format.  The persons who put together the Bible may
  >have followed the format of their source documents.

Perhaps even written by Moses?  And to think that some of us wish to
believe that these works either never existed or were never passed
down.  :-)

Indeed, it is interesting the conclusions that the evidence can push
us towards.

Collis

Collis,

Before I can defend the radical critics' point of view I need to do some
more reading to understand what that point of view really is.

				-- Bob

    Tomorrow, i.e., Friday, April 9th, The Learning Channel (TLC) is
    starting to re-run "Testament", a six-part series on the history
    of the Bible, produced by John Romer, a delightful archaeologist
    who loves his work.  (Some of you may remember his "Ancient Lives",
    a short series on the history of the people who decorated the tombs
    in Egypt's Valley of the Kings.  (He's balder in "Testament".))
    
    If you pay attention, you will hear his recount a little story
    about himself.  (The following are approximate.)  ~When I arrived
    in Jerusalem, I went to see <Name>, and he asked me why I had come.
    'I've come to find the City of David,` I replied, and we both laughed,
    because no trace of King David has ever been found anywhere.~
    
    He then goes on to describe the earliest written fragment of the
    Bible ever found, ~a tiny sheet of silver, rolled up tight, and
    probably used as an amulet for a child, and scribed on it in tiny,
    tiny letters is this prayer from Isaiah.  It was found here, in
    Jerusalem, and it dates back to the eighth century.~
    
    I did a double take when I heard that.  No King David?  Why isn't
    that better known?  (Now I get and read "Biblical Archaeological
    Review", and I'm paying closer attention to what it doesn't say
    about the `City of David'.)
    
    Oh, yes.  According to Friedman, Isaiah (Chapters 1 through 39, that
    is) *was* written in the eighth century.
    
    						Ann B.

    .9
    
    I saw several episodes of "Testament" when I had cable.  I found it
    extremely enlightening.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  Welcome, Ann!
    

Re:  .8

Thanks for sharing that, Ann.

I expect that the problems of a living, dynamic city
make archeological digging difficult, especially in
the temple area which has a Mosque on it and is
considered the most holy spot on earth.

Collis

    What *are* you talking about?
    
    						Ann B.

I expect that archeological evidence of David, Solomon,
etc. would be more available if Jerusalem were a big
archeological dig instead of a living, thriving city.

Of course, your expectations may differ.  :-)

Re:  .9

Hi Ann,

Perhaps you can shed some light on what is known about
Israel from this period of time (the time of King David).

It certainly would be interesting to compare this information
with the Bible and see how these writings stack up.

Collis

Re:  .9

BTW, there is more than simply a trace of King David -
in the Bible.  Admittedly, it is not an original trace
(has been copied many times) and also, admittedly, some
believe it was written many years after the fact.  But,
on the other hand, the Bible does seem to be quite
archeologically sound from the evidence so far found.
So maybe it's not simply someone's conjecture.  :-)

Collis

    RE:  .9
    
    From what I've heard, they didn't find any evidence that Pontius Pilate
    existed until 1967.  David predates him by quite a while.  I think the
    optimum word you're missing when you write "because no trace of King
    David has ever been found anywhere" is the word YET.
    
    Jill  :-)

Re:  .9

I didn't pick up on what I think is the most important piece
of information in what you wrote.

The earliest original piece of the Bible we have is from the
eigth century B.C. and contains part of Isaiah - which many
scholars believe wasn't written until hundreds of years
after that time.

That's a useful fact to know.  :-)

Collis

    	If Moses really wrote the Pentaeuch, I now understand why the
    	Israelites, in their 40 years of wandering, only mangaed an
    	estimated 40 yards a day.  Those stone tablets are *very*
    	heavy.  :-)
    
    	(By the way: another couple of 40's for the 'Numbers' topic).
    
    	Greeting, Derek.

Re: .17 Collis

>The earliest original piece of the Bible we have is from the
>eigth century B.C. and contains part of Isaiah - which many
>scholars believe wasn't written until hundreds of years
>after that time.

"Believe" or "believed"?  Could you be more specific about which scholars
believed that Isaiah was written hundreds of years after the 8th century
B.C., and what those scholars now say in the light of the latest evidence?

				-- Bob

    I think most scholars believe that there were at least two parts to
    Isaiah, with Second Isaiah (starting around chapter 40) having been
    written well after First Isaiah.
    
    -- Mike

    In fact, some scholars report a Third Isaiah.
    
    Richard
    

    That was why I said "at least" two.  :-)

Believe, believed, it makes no difference.  The
day will come when it will all be believed anyway.  :-)

Collis

    It'll be interesting to see whose eyes will be opened, especially
    since we all seem to agree that it'll be "the other guy." :-}
    
    Richard
    

  >It'll be interesting to see whose eyes will be opened, especially
  >since we all seem to agree that it'll be "the other guy." :-}
   
Yes, but who has the Scriptural support that it will be
the other guy?  :-) :-) 
    

    My assurance comes from the Author; not the Book.  But I am glad
    that the Bible provides you with the support you feel is important - truly!
    
    Richard
    

    To be more a little more specific on the question of the dating of
    Isaiah, scholars generally believe that First Isaiah (or at least most
    of it) was written during the eighth century B.C.  Second and Third
    Isaiah are dated in the sixth century B.C.  Thus it is not entirely
    accurate to say that many scholars believe that Isaiah wasn't written
    until hundreds of years after the eighth century.  Scholars definitely
    accept that parts of it *were* written during Isaiah's lifetime, which
    occured during the eighth century.  Of course, the dating of the
    *compilation* of Isaiah into its present form would be much later than
    the eighth century, but that's a different story altogether.   The
    significance of an eighth century manuscript would really depend on
    which part of Isaiah it came from; finding an eighth century manuscript
    of First Isaiah would probably be consistent with accepted dates for
    its composition.

    -- Mike

Thanks for sharing that, Mike.

Collis