An Introduction to the Old Testament: Lecture 2

A very interesting lecture. If Kaufmann is correct in his interpretation of Jewish monotheism (or what is referred to as Biblical religion in the lecture) I wonder how he perceives Christianity. Does it, in his view, represent a retrograde step towards paganism, with its emphasis on afterlife, the devil and incarnation?

Professor Hayes quotes Kauffman: "God can't be manipulated or coerced by charms or words or rituals." But the Hebrew bible is full of rites and prayers! What was Abel's sacrifice to God if not an attempt to curry favor?

As she points out later on in the lecture, Kauffman has to work hard to make some of the less convenient passages fit his theory.

My own feeling is that monotheism originally evolved from polytheism, and the two peacefully co-existed for many years. The revolutionary monotheism that Kaufmann espouses would be a product of later, more sophisticated thinking, that was then layered over the original signs and stories of the Old Testament.

Will take a good look at this over the weekend, and post Monday. It looks very interesting.

GV

Tat_Tvam_Asi

" "God can't be manipulated or coerced by charms or words or rituals." But the Hebrew bible is full of rites and prayers! "

Without writing a thesis on prayer (!), and without having watched all of this second lecture, I'll simply say in reference to this that prayer does not seek to manipulate or conform the will of God to one's own end, it is, ultimately, the reverse; by it, I am conformed to God. I could say more but it's probably off topic. Apart, perhaps, from throwing in the words, covenant relationship.

When I pray I am not summoning a deity.

On Abel, "What was Abel's sacrifice to God if not an attempt to curry favor?"

A thank you.

Will be watching Sunday and commenting after.

I didn't think Abel made a curry - more of a barbecue. Kaufmann's points are interesting, but as I mentioned somewhere else, hardly unique. Furthermore, this doesn't suggest that the Israelites *in the stories* were monotheistic - just the redactor who put it all together, often centuries later than the purported events. It's interesting to note the little echoes of poly and henotheism (a term I first came across when writing an assignment about the religion of Akhenaten) present in Genesis and beyond. Monotheism came *late* - certainly NOT with Abraham or Moses (assuming they even existed).

Still reading the background material so comments on the lecture itself will have to wait but the first thing I get from The Religion of Israel is how utterly 'pagan' (as Kaufman would see it) the actual historical practice of Christianity has been.

"Kaufmann's points are interesting, but as I mentioned somewhere else, hardly unique."

Can you elaborate on that point Helio? I'm not really sure what you mean here. Do you mean that Akhenaten was more or less monotheistic? Because I think that Kauffman was arguing that there was a huge gap between Henotheism and Ethical Monotheism. Or have you a different point in mind?

I think that Hayes sees Monotheism as a late development - the product of a Jesrusalem elite. But I'm reading between the lines of her lectures.

I think that one problem with this view is that Genesis One should be given a very early date.
1) It is very simple compared to the "Enuma Elish" and co. Greater simplicity usually implies greater antiquity [ceteris paribus (-; I know how you love that phrase]
2) If "polytheism" was actually a complex worldview then it's hard to see why an equally complex but different worldview could be produced around the same time.
3) And creation myths ceased to be *produced* around 1600BC (although they were still copied, they changed little in content).

GV

Hi Graham,
I'm afraid giving Gen1 an early date has lots of problems. This is not a case of simple preceding complex; as Prof Hayes points out, it is highly structured as a text; it contains repeating elements and nods to a far more ancient myth that the Israelites would have recognised. The story has been stripped down and re-packaged. Secondly, it is simply not true to say that writing the myths "stopped" - myths are mutable things, and Gen1 is a prime example of that. It is late, it is derivative, it is worked-over.
Now this does slightly go against what I argued elsewhere - I have previously noted that Genesis is folklore. It's actually more sophisticated than that - it is a conscious composition, a theological apology in some ways, although based on mythic elements. At least that's my take on what Prof Hayes is saying.

No?

Helio

Quick response.
I'm taking it one lecture at a time - so I'm not sure what Hayes position is.
Gen 1 is certainly simple *compared* to Enuma Elish etc. And while it does respond to other myths - including Egyptian - that doesn't make it derivative.

GV

Hi Graham, I don't mean it is derivative in any simple fashion. It's a theological statement, if you like, using standard NE mythology as its foil. What it is NOT is an independent story.

Helio

That is your take on what Prof Hayes is saying?

What is Prof Hayes' take on what Prof Hayes is saying?

Does she realise she is not producing any evidence to justify these assertions?

The course seems to be mainly focussed on reading books about theories, but only theories from a liberal view point.

The first lecture majored on challenging a list of widely held beliefs, some of them articles of faith from traditional orthodox Christianity.

But she never even hinted that there is a whole world of scholarship out there that contradicts here - and neither did our tutor.

Helio, as a scientist I would be very interested to see you present the evidence for the case you are making about Genesis.

I call to mind that Christ quoted the creation story of marriage verbatim in answering questions on divorce; he obviously believed it to be real history. And so did the other authors of the NT who quoted it at length throughout the NT.

Take warning students, if you allow Prof Hayes to trip you up now, you will find difficulties believing anything NT authors say, as they quote genesis so much.

Once again, I suggest the IVP New Bible Commentary from Amazon as a scholarly counterpoint to the line of the course.

OT

OT, open your mind. Live a little. Or are you a teeny bit *scared*?

-H

Helio

What is there to be scared of, a Sphinx? Giza break!

"It's a theological statement, if you like, using standard NE mythology as its foil."

And what's to stop me saying that it's a deliberate (revealed and inspired) theological rebuttal to NE mythology.

Like the plagues in Egypt, theological rebuttals! Gotta go. Frog in my throat. Not Hapi about it at all :-)

OT

I hear your concern. It is a concern similar to that I noted at the beginning of the first thread about this series.

I don't fear a trip up though. To be honest there's more to doubt than a liberal, atheistic reading of the bible. Many of these debates have been had before, and many atheists remain atheists and christians remain christians.

What I find is that the people most shaken by a broader reading of the text are those who only ever read it in a literalist way. You know those who read about the foundations of the earth and think, 'poured concrete' or something or people who read Proverbs 26: 4 and 26:5 and can't see (or don't want to see) perspective and then cry contradiction.

None of this stuff challenges the idea of 'revelation'.

Kaufman's thesis, in its general argument, is a monumental work of scholarship and a profound insight into what Prof Hayes calls the "theoretical" bases of polytheism and monotheism; it is painful nonetheless to witness his attempts to make it fit the Biblical record of the actuality of Israelite-Judean religious observance. It is very, very hard to make any kind of sense of the Hebrew Bible if one eliminates the almost constant tension between practice and paradigm, between the people and the prophets. I was heartened to see Prof Hayes broadly acknowledge this and look forward to getting into the detail of the text - that's usually where the fun lies.

The big question arising from this lecture for me, just touched upon near the end, is that of the source of evil and the nature of God. Kaufman raises some interesting points on this issue. What do people make of: "While it is axiomatic that sin is man's doing, the religious consciousness of the Bible was unable to reconcile itself entirely with this restriction of God's dominion. There is a tension here between the moral demand that sets limits to the working of God and the religious demand that subjects all to divine control"? Is Kaufman's idea of an eschatological resolution satisfactory?

Graham - # 8 above - your point 2 - why?

Peter - I do very much hope that was a slip of the keyboard above (# 15)! I would wish to protest most strongly that a liberal reading of the Bible is emphatically not necessarily an atheistic one!

Parrhaisos, I dunno - it was largely reading the bible that made me an atheist! :-) I'm imagining Kaufman's problem there is essentially theodicy. It is an issue that has never been resolved - the theistic excuses for how *their* particular omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient god is consistent with earthquakes, tsunamis and holocausts fall very very flat, and often re-hash the same tired old "free will" nonsense. So when we see this tension between creed and practice, in the Hebrew bible or elsewhere, we are seeing many layers of incongruity - a disconnect between the beliefs of the people in the stories and the (much) later writers, as well as a logical disconnect (which cannot be bridged, despite the inventive whimsies of the likes of Lewis and Swinburne) between a god with certain alleged characteristics and the way the universe actually works.

So the question (for Kaufman) still remains - in the Hebrew bible are we seeing a corpus of stories that have monotheism at their core, or are we seeing earlier more loosely theistic stories that have had a monotheistic strait-jacket applied?

Helio - I assume you commenced your reading of the Bible as an evangelical? Do you still read it at all now you are an atheist?

I think Prof Hayes, very persuasively, comes down on the side of "loosely theistic stories that have had a monotheistic strait-jacket applied" - it is hard really to conceive of the HB as being anything else.

Hayes notes that survival after death is not an early concept. If the early Israelite people were not essentially ethical monotheists they would not have had to deal with the problem of evil. Kaufman sees the eschatological promise as answering this problem (to some degree at least) - might we wonder if the introduction of of the idea of the survival of the soul to a community where it appeared originally not to have existed was as a response to the tension we have observed?

Parr

haven't had time to read all the comments (hopefully get a chance after school)

Quick response to your question> I think an unpsoken assumption is that ethical monotheism is more sophisticated than polytheism as polytheism is popularly perceived as a series of "just so" stories.

In fact the Polytheism of the ANE is a sophisticated worldview. So the idea that it would have taken centuries of refelction to make the advance to ethical monotheism seems unfounded.

GV

GV - just a quickie - does that assume ethical monotheism is an advance on a sophisticated polytheism?

Graham, good point. Remember, however, that ethics was not always couched in religious terms. Piety and good behaviour don't always correlate (as Cherie Booth should have known).

Will, do you think OT is perhaps looking for excuses to ignore or dismiss scholarship of the bible that has moved beyond his slightly naive view?

H&P

Very roughly...

*I* think monotheism is an advance on polytheism as it can account for ethics, and so forth. However, I suppose that a modern might argue that the 'pagans' got it right when they proposed an emergence of order from chaos, that human life is a fairly random affair, and that there is no deep purpose to our universe.
I think ANE polytheisms kept "ethics" relatively distinct from religion, like H says.

GV

So...

1) Monotheism is not an ancient idea
2) Life after death is not an ancient idea
3) Theistic ethics is not an ancient idea

Any debate?

Didn't I just say otherwise?!!

(:

William, ref post 21.


Please :)


Now you have made this a "scientific" study of the bible?

Does that explain why Prof Hayes has forbidden people from asking questions about her lectures which assume that God exists?

:)

Prof Hayes has challenged at length the idea that the bible is scripture and also majors on the idea that the Israelites created God as "an idea".

I dont have any problems with this as an academic pursuit, but if no contrary arguments are presented (which they weren't) then it is a very one sided lecture / seminar.

No problem with that either, but let's not anyone be embarassed at us naming the elephant in the room.

Ref post 13 William - are ad hominems now part of this thread or not?


Helio

I ask you - a scientist - for evidence and your reaction is to ask me if I'm scared??

:)

Nice one.


OT

OT, my old adversary. You are a little paranoid here today. This is very simple: one can't make theological assumptions before approaching an academic study of an ancient text. So, anything which does make such an assumption is the "elephant in the room", not the other way around! You are accustomed to approaching the bible with all these baked-in assumptions and therefore it seems strange to you that they would not be made by Hayes. In fact the only ones assuming that the things believed of the bible by evangelicals (for example) are true before approaching the bible are evangelicals themselves, and therefore the only places you'll hear these evangelical assumptions of the text in an academic context are evangelical universities!

Graham, I may be wrong, but you seem to suggest that the only credible evolutionary path monotheism might have taken is one which places it on a continuum with first primitive polytheism, then a more sophisticated polytheism, and then perhaps henotheism.

I don't think, however, that such a sequence is at all persuasive and am far from sure that monotheism is in any sense an advance on the more sophisticated pagan philosophies. Might it be more plausible to suggest that ethical monotheism developed in parallel with an increase in the sophistication of polytheism? Both may have shared a common ancestry which one strand modified by elaboration and the other by concentration.

Kaufman contends that Israelite-Judean religion does not comprehend the niceties of paganism which, if correct, is surely indicative of an origin, not in developed theologies, but in earlier attempts to understand the world and man's place in it. If this is correct we might expect to see in the Bible, as the course progresses, fragmentary remains of crude polytheism in the beliefs and practice of the early Hewbrews but little trace of its maturer forms.

I'm not sure, too, why you think monotheism provides a more convincing basis for ethics than polytheism - on what grounds do you make this contention? I know next to nothing about ANE religions but would query you assertion that they did not have a marked ethical dimension. Examples to the contrary surely abound??

Parrhasios

#17

I do apologise for my haste in typing, "...liberal, atheistic...". I was not seeking to imply that all, or even any, theological liberals were atheists. However... now that you mention it!!

What surprises me, of course, is your concern about my choice of words, I mean, can't you have them mean what you want them to mean?!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

:-)

Helio

Personal question. Hope you don't mind. You say, "it was largely reading the bible that made me an atheist! :-)"

I had sort of picked that up before, but what interests me is what it was about the bible which made you an atheist. Was it the (I'm not being sarky this time!) 'double donkey', or Proverbs 26, kind of 'contradiction' (which to be honest I don't see as a problem at all), or was it something of more substance, something altogether more challenging, like the theodicy issue you raise?


OT

Can I chip in and say the following about your concerns. I'll give you a bit more of a 'here's what I'm thinking' personal approach than has been done so far.

I have said I share your concerns, but there is another important aspect to this.

Why do you or I believe the bible to be the word of God? How have we arrived at that position? Do others who are not Christians presume the bible to be God's revelation? Should they? How might they arrive at that conclusion? Could they arrive at that conclusion before reading it? How much of the bible would we have to know before accepting it as divine revelation?

These, and others like them, are reasonable questions. We should, I think, seek to have some answers.

Others simply do not think like you or me on this issue. How should we relate to them?

Those questions are some of the reasons I'm prepared to try to stick with this series. You see, there is one thing which Helio has said on occasion which is important. If Christianity, the bible, is about truth, then can I believe by deceiving myself? I need to be honest with me.


And generally,

Apologies for the more random comments so far. I have listen to the second lecture but it was more than a week ago and I need to listen again before commenting further. So, if it's OK, just responses so far.

and Helio

I didn't mean to imply that there was only one thing that you'd ever said which was important!!

:-)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hmmm. Modded. Let's try again with a toned down version...

Posting:
Peter, not a problem :-) You ask how my reading of the bible was important in me progressing to atheism. It's not even the contradictions (and there are many) or absurdities (and there are many of those) or the just-plain-bonkers (and it's awash with that). As I read the bible (and I do still pick it up from time to time, nowhere near as often as previously!), what comes out is entirely HUMAN stories. People wrote these things; often they believed what they were writing, but their motivations were no different from those of Shakespeare, Dan Brown or JRR Tolkien. They were just people. There is nothing in the bible that would lead us to believe it is the word of any deity. Putting the bible in its near eastern context, understanding its evolution as part of the community it informed and drew from - all this is a human story.

My grandmother sadly died recently, and I had the misfortune of sitting through a Baptist sermon which said very little about her life, and a whole lot about a fake pre-packaged "Christianity" that would have raised a serious Huh?!??! from the *real* Jesus (assuming he existed) and inane Baptist hymns that are all "power in the blood" and sausage rolls being called up yonder, and if anything the HUMANITY of the bible's story has been lost, and reduced to a series of pre-digested boli that the pastor coughs out into the gaping cheeping beaks of the greedy scraggly jostling nestlings in his "flock".

But all that is what humans DO. Even if god existed (and she doesn't, of course - I recently upset a philosopher by suggesting that Aquinas's "five proofs" were simply pants, and philosophy should move on), we would not be mature enough to handle it; we would forge religions around populist pap, and like the little interloping cuckoos we are, Jesus gets kicked out of the nest, while we gape our voracious beaks ever wider and cheep ever louder.

Time to break the cycle of nonsense.

Par


"I don't think, however, that such a sequence is at all persuasive and am far from sure that monotheism is in any sense an advance on the more sophisticated pagan philosophies. Might it be more plausible to suggest that ethical monotheism developed in parallel with an increase in the sophistication of polytheism?"

That's more or less what I'm suggesting, It seems as plausible as cultural evolution.

"Both may have shared a common ancestry which one strand modified by elaboration and the other by concentration."

I'll disagree because I believe in Revelation, but that seems to be as plausible as anything else on offer.

"we might expect to see in the Bible, as the course progresses, fragmentary remains of crude polytheism in the beliefs and practice of the early Hewbrews but little trace of its maturer forms."

Of course we might expect the religious language of the region and era to be used in the Bible, and we might expect and engagement with Poytheism. What fragments do you have in mind that show more than this?

"[ANE Religions} did not have a marked ethical dimension"
I'm willing to be proved wrong here, of course. my reading in this area is slight. However my understanding is that the gods could only be offended by cultic or magical slights. They were not interested in the offences humans commit against each other.
Human interactions are governed by law. These laws are authorised by a god - they get the gods seal of approval - but they are human creations. They reflect no divine or transcendent standard that the gods created or conform to. Ethics is just a mater of keeping the community in order.
The gods want that to keep the sacrifices going, and to keep chaos at bay.

Gilgamesh can resist the advances of Ishtar and Enkidu can rip a leg from the bull of heaven and throw it into Ishtar's face. The results are tragic, as Ishtar demands vengeance. But the acts of Gilgamesh and Enkidu are not unethical. Neither is Ishtar's desire to devour her lovers. The gods face the threat of chaos just as we do, and are just as internally conflicted. So worship has no ethical consrquences.

Or so I've read.

GV

H

I appreciate you making those comments. I appreciate it a lot.

It's been 5 years now since my own grandmother died, I still miss her. We used to talk about faith, and church, and God and she often said how pointless it all was if we couldn't figure out how to treat each other. "You'd be as well walking round that back field with the cows," she would remark as she nodded towards the kitchen window and out to the hedge.

I hear you when you say what you do: when you complain about forging religion, about loosing humanity, about kicking out Jesus. Perhaps it's similar to what I've meant when I've complained about the 'sub-culture'.

There's an odd thing going on here. You're an atheist, I'm a Christian yet I suspect that we'd both roll our eyes, stroke our chins and pull a face palm at more or less the same churchy stuff. And I suspect we'd even laugh.

There are more important things than pre-packed religious experiences, and I'd bet Jesus would agree... if he were alive ;-)

All the best.

There's a link here somewhere to the topic of this thread, I'm sure of it! :-)

I'm sorry William, John Wright and Peter Morrow.

But you have completely misunderstood my point and therefore drastically mispresented my position and that of this Yale course, I believe.

William said I would rather a course that made theological assumptions that I would agree with.

No, No NO NO NO NO!!! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!

It is entirely William's business what courses he puts on his blog.
But it is my business if he wrongly describes my motives and misrepresents my observations.

Please watch my lips very closely.

If I had a choice I would rather a theological course......THAT MADE NO ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL!

But everything I have read so far on this course and all the feedback from William has not challenged my understanding that this course proceeds with assumptions that would have been rejected wholesale by CS Lewis, John Wesley and Billy Graham, for example, not to mention the founders of all modern denominations.

In lecture 1 this course explicitly accuses those who created the bible of "manipulating" the texts/stories and "imposing" monotheism on it.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS?

There has not even been a suggestion of such evidence and this is stated as a bald fact. It implies dishonesty and deception in the creators of the bible. If it is true we should all know.

Show us the evidence.

John Wright, please note, I would be genuinely interested to see the evidence for this before such a conclusion is asserted at me, but this course has started with the conclusion. I call that an assumption.

BTW I recommended the IVP New Bible Commentary here. Certainly the IVP New Bible Dictrionary is written by conservative scholars at secular universities. Dont presume you cant be a scholar and believe in divine inspiration :)

From the outset the course is explicit that it will use the "historical-critical" approach which is widely known to frequently engage in grand and radical speculations without attempting to present reasonable evidence.

My problem with this is that Prof Hayes has engaged in some hugely sweeping assertions in this regard in the first lecture, but has not offered a shred of evidence for them.

Helio picked up on this and advanced her arguments (above) and when I asked him as a scientist what evidence his arguments were based on he accused me of being "scared", a word William also threw at me at the start of the course.

Please.

Asking for evidence in an academic "scientific" course (as Will describes it) cannot be construed as fear.

To me it smacks of academic integrity and the people trying to close down or misrepresent observations / questions might want to have closer look at the word themselves.

Likewise for the New Testament section of this course where Professor Martin says;-

"Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture."

In other words Peter Morrow, the belief in whether or not the bible is scripture and an examination of the pros and cons of the debate will not be examined at all on this course.

Do I need to repeat that?

I have already made this point 3-4 times on these threads.

I repeat, I would not prefer a course that simply assumed the bible is divinely inspired and leave it at that.

Like Peter Morrow, I would have actually have preferred a course that seriously examined the issue to see how well it stands up.

But Prof Hayes says she "leaves this issue aside" in her course while Prof Martin says he "does not attempt" it.


Prof Hayes in Lecture 1 says that

1) "The Bible itself doesn't claim to have been written by God,"
But there is not even an attempt to refute the relevance of 2 Tim 3:16. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&version=NIV
It is a one sided argument. An assumption which is a foundation of the course. She nowhere says she will consider the issue again;-

2) She says;- "...I leave aside here the question of divine inspiration, which is an article of faith in many biblical religions.... "
In other words Peter Morrow, she is not going to examine this issue again... so the questions you wanted to see critiqued in a balanced manner will not be raised at all.

3) She says;- "Religious faith simply isn't the topic of this course.....it has been my experience that from time to time students will raise a question or ask a question that is prompted by a commitment, a prior commitment to an article of faith. Sometimes they're not even aware that that's what they're doing.... on those occasions I'll most likely respond by inviting you to consider the article of faith that lies behind that question and is creating that particular problem for you. I'm not going to be drawn into a philosophical or theological debate over the merits of that belief, but I'll simply point out how or why that belief might be making it difficult for you to read or accept what the text is actually and not ideally saying, and leave you to think about that."

In other words Peter Morrow she is refusing to discuss any questions which presume faith in God or the supernatural.

Are your valid questions really going to be discussed on this course? I don't think so.

Peter Morrow says he is sticking with the course because he wants to see these questions answered;

"Why do you or I believe the bible to be the word of God? How have we arrived at that position? Do others who are not Christians presume the bible to be God's revelation? Should they? How might they arrive at that conclusion? Could they arrive at that conclusion before reading it? How much of the bible would we have to know before accepting it as divine revelation? These, and others like them, are reasonable questions. We should, I think, seek to have some answers."

I agree entirely Peter.

And I stand to be corrected and apologise to all, however from what I have seen so far, I think the broad strokes of what I am saying is correct.

I am not condemning the course. It is interesting and I will keep an interest in it.

All I am doing is making observations which I have made 3-4 times already and which nobody has refuted.

The course's core values are ONE SIDED teaching;-

1) It is engaging in wild assertions about how the bible was formed without showing evidence, but impugning improper motives to its creators.

2) Prof Hayes will exclude supernatural possibilities entirely for all aspects of the course, which necessarily mean that if supernatural explanations cannot be believed for the text, then the text cannot be believed as true, within the confines of this course.

3 ) Nobody and least of all me has anything to fear from actual solid evidence proportionate to claims made about the bible.


Okay let the show go on (but preferably with evidence).

:)

OT

OT

I said:

#11 'An Introduction to the Bible' thread

"Professor Martin explains in his overview that "This course approaches the New Testament not as scripture", and students are therefore, "urged to leave behind their pre-conceived notions of the New Testament and read it as if they had never heard of it before." Fair enough. I can try to do that. If however that is what I am urged to do then others who already hold this view must, surely, consider that it might be "authoritative". Whatever one's view of the bible, that is how it has been read by many, many people for many many years. At the very least though, if I can ask, 'What if?' others can too."


#29 'An Introduction to the bible' thread

" I do not expect the course to presume 'holy scripture', and its not that there isn't anything to learn, but when we kick off with the concept that Israel were a group of people with a big idea and understand that everything will be interpreted through that lens I'm just not sure how I'm supposed to respond. Yes I can read the text as never before, yes I can run with reading it as a rehash of a shared cultural experience and so on is but if everything is going to be interpreted through the lens of 'big idea' it means there will never be room for the question, 'what if God'."

#41 'An Introduction to the Bible' thread (to William)

When, Professor Hayes says, (regarding questions prompted by a commitment, a prior commitment to an article of faith.) "I'm not going to be drawn into a philosophical or theological debate over the merits of that belief, but I'll simply point out how or why that belief might be making it difficult for you to read or accept what the text is actually and not ideally saying, and leave you to think about that." How would you say that someone deal with her use of the word 'actually'. "

#12 Lecture 1 Thread (in answer to William)

"I'm not just so sure though about her use of phrases like, "the Bible is not a book of theology", "They're not an account of the divine" "

# 32 Lecture 1 thread (to William)

"Depends what we mean by theology. At its simplest, theology just means, words about god, be those words human or divine."

see # 35 Lecture 1 thread (to Helio)

This thread #4 # 14

# 15 (to you)

"I hear your concern. It is a concern similar to that I noted at the beginning of the first thread about this series."

"None of this stuff challenges the idea of 'revelation'."

# 32

"Others simply do not think like you or me on this issue."


OT, we're on the same side!!

I thought this was funny:

If I had a choice I would rather a theological course......THAT MADE NO ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL!

Like not assuming that a god exists? Which would make it an interesting "theological" course!

OT- It's Hayes' job to pass on scholarly findings to a new class of students, which in this case includes you and I. The course material includes all the references to the "evidence", if you take a look at it. That neither Hayes nor Will nor ourselves feel the need to cite this material every time we rely upon it doesn't mean that the points being made are invalid. Surely you must acknowledge that it would be a huge waste of our limited time to continually challenge the basis upon which scholars came to their conclusions, at least in those cases where such conclusions are (virtually) unanimous among leading scholars? In those cases where scholars disagree (as in the case of this very lecture), Hayes discusses both approaches to the material. This is appropriate.

In this case, she discusses the findings which support the view that monotheism emerged out of polytheism in ancient Israel. (Did you watch the lecture?) At question is whether this was evolutionary or revolutionary. In this question Hayes gives consideration of both views.

Aaah, it must be time for a kit kat and tea break again.

Maybe Dr Hayes backs these assertions up in later lectures. If she doesn't OT is correct; they are just assertions that we can take or leave according to taste. It'll be interesting to see if OT is correct.


We're on to the third lecture tomorrow, so can we forget about justifying the course and maybe get back to the course itself? I can't see what is left to be said here.

GV

If you want Evangelical courses on the Old Testament try:

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/

For Dr. Douglas Stuart's Old Testament Survey. (I've listened through all of Dr Stuart's lectures, and can recommend them to other Evangelicals. I doubt others would have much interest.)You'll need to register to listen.

Reformed Theological Seminary also have their lectures online.

https://itunes.rts.edu/

I've listened to (the rather unfortunately named) Dr Pratt's. He's not quite as interesting in these lectures, or as easy to listen to, as Dr Stuart. The other OT lecturers are a mystery to me, as I haven't had the chance to listen. Again the target audience is fellow evangelicals.

GV

The issue here seems to be whether Bible is the product of God's revelation or human thinking. You could teach the Old Testament from the assumption that it is revelation, you could teach it from the assumption that it is human thinking, or you could start by assessing the merits of the two arguments and then proceeding with what seems like the most likely case.

If I understand OT correctly, he believes it is the product of God, would be happy with a course that examines the two possibilities, but thinks Professor Hayes is assuming that it is the product of man.

If I understand John Wright correctly, he is saying that Professor Hayes is being fair and neutral without making assumptions by discussing different viewpoints when there is scholarly disagreement. However the case cited as a disagreement about the mechanism by which one human world view replaced another. OT's issue is with disagreements about the origin of the worldview not being discussed and there he surely has a point. Professor Hayes seems happy to discuss possibilities offered by 'liberal' scholars, without acknowledging explanations from 'conservative' ones.

If I understand Will correctly, he is saying that Professor Hayes is ‘merely’ not assuming that the Bible is revelation. However this argument falls down because she does not even consider it is a possibility and in fact states at the start of the second lecture that ‘And they had a specific worldview and they imposed that worldview on the older traditions and stories that are found in the Bible.’ That is stated as a fact and is mutually exclusive with the possibility of the Bible being revelation from God.

Concerning Will’s second point about “creating” God, he seems to be arguing that other worldviews influencing the Hebrew believers and their idea of God is not the same as saying that God was “made up”. However if these other worldviews arise purely out of human thinking, rather than a revelation of God, then surely the idea of God is made up - just not by the Hebrews.

In lecture one, Professor Hayes said “So when we compare the Bible with the literature of the Ancient Near East, we'll see not only the incredible cultural and literary heritage that was obviously common to them, but we'll see the ideological gulf that separated them and we'll see how biblical writers so beautifully and cleverly manipulated and used these stories, as I said, as a vehicle for the expression of a radically new idea … Those who were responsible for the final editing, the final forms of the texts, had a decidedly monotheistic perspective, ethical monotheistic perspective, and they attempted to impose that perspective on their older source materials; and for the most part they were successful.”

It’s assumed here that Genesis isn’t a record of God acting in history, but a man-made mish-mash of stories from a polytheistic mindset to further a new monotheistic worldview. A God who is one and really was responsible for these stories as the text as we have it claims, is ruled out as a possibility. In fact he isn’t even considered.

Will can say all he wants about there being no assumptions, but the bottom line is that the text is never taken at face value - it is always assumed to be a ‘clear’ manipulation and that is an assumption that directly opposes a traditional understanding of God and Scripture, rather than a neutral examination of the Bible (if such a thing is possible). Surely it would be better to acknowledge that and proceed, rather than pretending otherwise - that just gives ammo to people who want to say that there’s an agenda here.

Graham #44

Interesting links, didn't know about them.

Like you I don't know the OT lecturers but they are on a teaching list with, John Frame, Don Carson, Wayne Grudem, Derek Thomas, Steve Brown, Tim Keller and Jim Packer so I suppose we could say that they're keeping good company!

RE:45

I see your point Jonathan, but even in an Evangelical Old Testament Course you don't spend a lot of time justifying inspiration, inerrancy, revelation, illumination and so forth. These are categories that belong to Systematic Theology.
And Will and I had a brief exchange on this. And Peter Morrow had already pointed out that Prof Hayes assumptions aren't kosher for evangelicals.
But to be honest, I actually feel I've gained ammunition for a conservative 'reading' of the Bible. The discussion on the blog so far has leant towards the conclusion that we can't assume that monotheism 'evolved' from polytheism. And I haven't seen any reason for assuming that montheism is a late development.
And I don't want to give the impression that my only response to non-evangelicals is 'you have to presuppose the text is God's Word' or 'you need to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to see the Bible for what it is'.
Of course mere 'evidence' alone can never establish those conclusions. I don't think we'll ever reach evangelical conclusions But I think that Faith should seek Understanding. And if, after seeking, Faith gains no Understanding, no facts that confirm it or that Faith can illuminate, then Faith is undermined somewhat.
I've also an interest in Historical Jesus research. Reading EP Sanders and JD Crossan - and thinking through responses to their critiques of the NT text - has actually deepened my understanding of certain Scriptural passages. It's certainly increased my confidence in the historicty of the Gospels.
I think the Church Father Cyril of Alexandria called this "plundering the Egyptians". (ie. nick the skeptics good ideas, and use skeptical critiques to your advantage. Don't be afraid of them.) Luther said that God can "stike a hard blow with a crooked stick". So he recommended paying attention to heretics. And Paul stole/borrowed ideas from the Pharisaism he left behind. Especially Jewish Wisdom theology. Proverbs borrows freely from Egyptian thought. And so forth.

So yeah,
(1)she's not Evangelical.

(2) that doesn't make her neutral.

(3) she makes assertions that irritate me, but maybe she'll back some of them up.

(4) I don't think her arguments will cause me sleepless nights.

(1-4) sum up my attitude so far.

But I'd add

(5)She's using the same information and arguments I've found in Evangelical textbooks. She's drawing different conclusions. But at least I knwo evangelical scholars aren't living in a subculture that refuses to deal with the data. That's reassuring.

and
(6) She's forcing me to do a good bit of thinking and reading on the Old Testament.

But do 1-4 at least sum up the attitudes of Evangelicals following the course to Prof Hayes? Do 5&6 indicate that the course may be worthwhile to some evangelicals?
Can we move on?

(:

Will- I agree, but we must deal with the fact that it is possible for an evangelical, then, to simply retort to every attempt to deal with the text on those human, cultural, historical and literary bases that no, we're wrong to even consider that monotheism may have grown out of polytheism, because if God inspired the bible then we can rely on its divine revelation, etc.

The fact that such a retort comes from a prior theological commitment and not from academic study is an important distinction to make. I hope we don't spend all our time defending Hayes' comments from those who are committed to particular opposing ideas for religious reasons! (Though I think it's inevitable that these kinds of objections come up at this point.)

I think the choice of course was a good one. Just to make that clear. It's interesting and challenging.
And I'd find things to disagree with if an Evangelical was taking the course. It would just be boring to everyone else.

If Prof Hayes were to compare her views with every take on revelation Prof Hayes would have to compare secular views with neo-orthodox, Post Vatican II Roman Catholic, conservative Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestant views of revelation. Barth, Rahner, Nicholas Wolterstorff and Richard Swinburne would all disagree.
And within evangelicalism - NT Wright and John Piper, Enns and Beale, ATB McGowan and Paul Helm would all disagree.
And then Muslim, Mormon and New Age teachers would see *some* inspiration in the Old Testament.

Now how in the name of goodness do you keep them all happy?

Now I can think of three occasions when I 've diagreed strongly with Will. So I'd be happy to stick the boot in if I felt there was some unfairness that needed to be pointed out.

But I can't see one.
And I'm not sure it isn't the Beeb, or Sunday Sequence, or something or someone else who is under attack, and not Prof Hayes.
And this is getting ridiculous and boring.

Can we just get on with the course? Please?!

G Veale

Incidentally, speaking of Cyril of Alexandria (plundering, raping and murdering the Egyptians), the gorgeous Rachel Weisz stars as Hypatia in "Agora", due for release in the UK soon. Hypatia, as many of you will know, was a mathematician and philosopher in 4th Century Alexandria, who was hacked to death by a Christian mob, and the library of Alexandria was destroyed (together with untold documentary wealth from antiquity). It represents undoubtedly one of Christianity's lowest moments. Quite a feat for that particular cult.

Will, when it opens here, why don't we all arrange to go see?

[Trailer on Youtube; website AgoraTheMovie dot com]

Perhaps I should clarify my statements. When I posted about assumptions, I was referring to the theological assumptions that were being discussed, so when I said that you can't say there are no assumptions, in that context I meant that you can't say there are no theological assumptions. In post 30, Will seemed to be saying that this course is as close to theological objectivity as possible and does not make theological assumptions. As I indicated in post 45, I don’t see how that can be true.

Please note that I’m not objecting to people studying the Bible in this way or saying that Will made a poor choice of course. I don’t think that OT is saying those things either, which other people seemed to be accusing him of. I was just trying to be helpful in pointing out why OT might have concerns about the accuracy of Will’s description of the course.

Regarding what Will said about divine revelation and human involvement not being mutually exclusive, I quite agree. However the kind of human involvement Professor Hayes is talking about does seem to exclude it. At the very least it is saying that a monotheistic understanding of God was not revealed to the ancient Hebrews and that any such claims about God are inventions and suppressions of what really happened.

Regarding Will’s comments about the appropriateness of a university course restricting its analysis, isn’t that something of a red herring? I don’t think anyone is denying that - I’m certainly not. What I am saying is that if a university course does do that, it doesn’t make it more objective than a Christian understanding of the Bible.

To summarise, I’m not objecting to the course or questioning it’s value - I’m simply questioning Will’s claim that it is the closest to objectivity that we’re likely to get. As far as I can tell, OT’s objection is on similar grounds.

When I pointed out how the professor went to some lengths in her first lecture to 'appease' those who might be arriving in her classroom with 'all the answers', I underestimated her.

Maybe she also foresaw that we could also all get gooed up in 'all the questions'. How do you ever set a course title for such a subject and not already have a list of questions before you have even flipped over the first page? Do we have to ask all of them?

Maybe she was simply asking for intellectual maturity from her class. Maybe Will is simply asking the same.

Helio

I know questioning is good. What about relentless, microspective, self-indulgent, mind numbing, boring, backside dry up and drop off, questioning, is that good too?

#54

"One could argue that God used various cultural relationships to bring Hebrew believers to a monotheistic understanding."

Which is exactly the kind of thought which has been in my mind this last couple of weeks. Now, it's not something I've particularly heard argued for, especially in church circles, yet this idea of, can I get away with the word 'providence'? is, in many ways, a biblical theme.

It's kind of like I was saying on some other threads, the idea of learning, growing, maturing in knowledge or faith.

On a slight aside, I have to say that the whole issue of how, in practical terms, God makes himself known to people (and I know that's a presumption of faith) is one which fascinates me.

What does it mean to know God, to know about God, and is there a difference?

So does that mean, Peter, that you know God in the biblical sense?

William

I certainly recognise your distinction between "belief in" and "belief that", it's most definitely a significant difference within the Christian tradition. However I wonder if I can push this idea of knowing a little further?

I seems to me (and again I'm thinking within the Christian tradition) that in some churches there is a sustained effort to move people from "belief that" to "belief in", indeed I might suggest that this is what some might describe as conversion, 'putting one's faith in Jesus, or, more simplistically 'asking Jesus into your heart'.

But what is our understanding of how this happens, what is the process? Is it mental or intellectual assent, is it an acknowledgement of a set of doctrine or dogma; what do we think is happening when people express 'belief or faith in' God? Can I 'believe that', without 'believing in'? Is this as much of an issue in a secular world which no longer 'believes that'?

And what did it mean for an ancient Hebrew to know God, to live by faith, and how would this be recognised?

Any thoughts anyone?


Helio

Is there any other way to know God? ;-)

Mind you, read some modern worship songs and it does make you wonder.

Will,

You don’t need to be so defensive about the choice of course - no-one is saying it doesn’t have it’s place or wasn’t a good choice. As a matter of fact, I’m finding it quite interesting seeing where a secular approach o the OT leads.

I think that you’re being simplistic when you say ‘But the benefit of this course for us is that it brackets off confessional-theological commitments in order to embark on a study of the historical, literary and cultural issues relating to the Old Testament.’ Theology and history for instance are not independent issues - depending on your theological assumptions, you’re going to read history differently. An orthodox Christian will assume that the events of Exodus are real history and God’s revelation of himself as the one and only God throughout the Pentateuch is what God actually revealed back then. Prof. Hayes’ version of history on the other had seems to be that God’s revelation is a late imposition on earlier stories. Those are radically different views of history that come directly from the theological assumptions (or lack thereof). Again, I have no problems with such a course, indeed I’m finding this interesting, but better to present it as a high quality secular view of the OT rather than a comparatively objective course.

Incidentally, university courses and courses that teach the Bible as Scripture surely aren’t mutually exclusive? Certainly that hasn’t been the case historically.

Regarding monotheism, I agree that the Hebrew faith developed and changed and was certainly syncretistic. Even a fundamentalist reading of the OT would say that large chunks of Israel did not conduct faithful monotheistic worship for large chunks of time - that failure is one of the running themes of the OT. Where I would disagree with Prof. Hayes is the revelation of God. I think that God revealed himself as one early on, rather than the Hebrews developing a monotheistic faith gradually then going back and putting words in God’s mouth. Yes, God could work through interactions with other cultures and over a long period of time to develop of the Hebrew faith, but I don’t see how that would include changing the ‘facts’ of what he himself said at various points in history.


Peter,

Is the issue of believing that and believing in an issue of appropriation and commitment in much the same way that James talks about demons being able to intellectually assent to facts about God without having faith? A demon cannot appropriate the facts into their life in a way that makes a tangible difference and affects their relationship with God and leads them to act differently. For demons, knowledge isn’t power, because there is no way that knowing about God can change where they stand with him, whereas for us, there is the possibility of responding to knowledge with faith and becoming committed disciples such that our relationship with God changes and we live differently. ‘Belief that’ doesn’t require a response, whereas ‘belief in’ does, if it is genuine.

Regarding the ancient Hebrew, I wonder if David’s life would be instructive, given what God says about his heart. In some ways he provides the archetype for a faithful relationship - loving God’s word, desiring to be faithful and abounding in contrite repentance when he is unfaithful. Certainly his emphasis on contrition over sacrifice seems to be a corrective to what may have been the prevalent religious practice of the time, buying God off with sacrifice instead of genuine inward repentance.

But maybe that’s not ancient enough for your question. If we go back to Joshua and Moses, I guess the Shema gives a summary of what is most important in following God and combines truth claims with practical action.

Going further back, God’s relationships seem to be with individuals and families rather than entire people groups, so I’m not sure how relevant it would be to your question.

Will, I get the impression that you're chasing your own tail. Again you've said that you're defending the approach of the course against 'endless methodological complaints' but I'm not sure who you're defending it against or where these complaints are. You say that I've 're-issued' some complaints, but I can't seem to find where I've done that - perhaps you could highlight the parts of my comments that you feel are complaining about the methodology? To my recollection I have objected to your description of the methodology, but not the methodology itself.

I don't have a problem with the methodology. I have no problem with it not being objective - I'm not even sure you could have an objective course and you seem to agree because you said that objectivity is a myth. I have a problem with calling the methodology objective as this could suggest to people that it is the most scholarly or most accurate way to approach the OT or that the course presents things that no-one should be able to agree with. Note that I'm not claiming that Prof. Hayes has come remotely close to suggesting this or that it is your intention either; I am simply concerned that in calling the course objective, you could mislead people.

The definition of orthodoxy is something of a red herring. My point was that whatever theological assumptions you do or do not make colour your interpretation of the text and impact of the history, etc. Who is or isn't orthodox is neither here nor there; the point is that you can't take the theology out and end up with a objective reading of history that everyone should be able to agree on. History without theology and history with theology are radically different things. Do you agree with that or do you think that it is possible to have a historical reading that a conservative evangelical, a liberal and a purely secular academic would all be able to agree on?

By orthodox, I was referring to an understanding that when the Bible says God said something, it's recording the revelation of God at a point in history rather than a story that people put in much later to fit their new view of God as monotheistic i.e. God has always revealed himself as one, rather than people later deciding that God is one and changing the details of a story to fit in with their view. As I have repeatedly said, I have no problem with the methodology of the course or your choice of it. My 'complaint' is that you are holding it up as the closest thing to objective when it's not.

Johnathan

I agree with your words, "appropriation and commitment" and that 'faith in' is concerned with response or repentance. But I'm pushing at something more in asking about our understanding of how this movement from 'faith that' to 'faith in' happens. And I'm hearing the question 'appropriate what?', 'commit to what?'

I have no gripe whatever with the words you have used, or William's explanation of 'personal acquaintance'. (yet I hear the question, 'acquaintance with what?!) I have no problem either with the idea that what is most important in following God (faith in) is a combination of truth claims with practical action. But I'm pushing at more, at the concept of process.

Is there anything we can learn from the Ancient Hebrews about the 'arena' in which faith is 'learned', described, in which it grows?

How do we understand this mechanism 'providence'. How did they understand it? Have we an adequate communal understanding of what it means to live by faith, beyond the trappings of our own religious sub-culture, or individual commitments?

I'm thinking back here to lecture 1 and the idea that the bible contains something more than systematic theology, that, (if you were an Ancient Hebrew), "you entered into the historical community of Israel by accepting that their fate and yours should be the same. It was sort of a process of naturalization", and I'm just curious to see if others have any thoughts.

You see, sometimes I get the impression that some evangelicals think Abraham put his hand up at the end of a church meeting, and said a version of the 'sinner's' prayer'!

Will, that was all very clear from the start. The problem isn't understanding (at least, not on my part) - it's your premise that a course with no theological assumptions is the closest we're likely to get to objectivity. We both agree don't we that academic enquiry is always going to be conducted within a particular worldview and that worldview will colour the interpretation - hence the statement we both agree on that objectivity is a myth.

Why can't we just agree that the course is representative of the best scholarship that results from viewing the Bible through the interpretative lens of a secular worldview? Why the insistence on calling it objective when we both agree it can't be?

As an aside, do you have any plans to follow this up by looking at any other courses? Personally I'd be interested after this series in going through a similar series with a course that has a different worldview: Conservative Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or whatever. The comparison in approach and conclusions could be interesting. Is suspect that quite a few of the more frequent posters here are already sympathetic to or acquainted with the material we're currently looking at. There may be potential for learning something new in asking 'What do serious evangelical scholars really say' or 'How do Easter Orthodox Christians academically approach the Bible?'

I think we both understood OT differently - which is partly why I posted what I did. Glad that we've reached some sort of consensus though. The great advantage of this current course is that it provides both video and transcript, whereas many of the faith-based courses I can think of just provide video or audio e.g. Reformed Theological Seminary on iTunes.