“Remember, Marcion wanted to ditch the Old Testament god, but the Church would not have any of it.”
Ark, I would suspect Josh to be Catholic, and as such, maybe he doesn’t know about Marcion. Marcion was a second-century (100+ AD) scholar and evangelist who claimed to have discovered the true teachings of Christianity in the writings of Paul – that Paul, rather than the band of 12, was the real apostle of Jesus, as he advised all to discard Jewish law.
Marcion believed that the OT god was an evil god, and that Jesus was the one, true god, who had come to save us from him. He believed that Jesus was not material, that he hadn’t been born of humans, and in fact, had no material body – he only made it look as though he did – and in fact, he didn’t actually need to eat or drink, but only did so, not to arouse suspicion. He further maintained that Jesus didn’t die on the cross – being immaterial and immortal, he couldn’t have – but only APPEARED to die, in order to maintain his cover.
Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But if Marcion’s followers has won the argument at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, HIS beliefs would be the ones you would be defending today, and not the other group who actually prevailed, ultimately, because Emperor Constantine decided it would be so.
If you have a belief, Josh, surely, if it is strong enough, it will withstand scrutiny – examine it, study it, see what respected critics of it have to say. Your belief will either strengthen or evaporate – either way, you’re better off.
I must repeat: Jesus tomb was unguarded and unsecured for over 12 hours during the dark of night!
With this statement coming from the ONLY source who says anything about there being guards at the tomb at any time during the three days after Jesus death, how can any Christian use “the empty tomb” story as support for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead—when anyone or his grandmother could have stolen the body!
You notice that Matthew doesn’t say that when the Roman soldiers arrived at the tomb (over 12 hours after the stone had been rolled in front of the tomb) that they rolled the stone back to confirm that the body was still there. All Matthew says is that the Roman guards showed up to the tomb at some point the day after the crucifixion (for all we know they showed up in the late afternoon, making it almost 24 hours since Jesus’ placement in the tomb) and then sealed the tomb. That’s it!
Jesus body could have been long gone by then. Whoever took the body (Jesus’ disciples, Jesus’ family, grave robbers, who knows who) rolled the stone back in place so as not to alert anyone to the crime of grave robbing, and if the soldiers did not roll the stone away to confirm the presence of a body, but simply sealed the stone. No one would ever know!
However, on Sunday morning, Jesus followers are running all over Jerusalem saying that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that he ate a broiled fish lunch with them, so the Roman guards break the seal on the tomb to prove the disciples wrong, find no body, and in great fear, flee believing that the body was stolen under their watch!
This NATURAL explanation to the finding of an empty tomb is MUCH more probable than that a zombie walked out of his tomb to teleport into outer space!
I’m way behind and this may have been addressed, but Josh, if Jesus were real and divine and he knew that Moses wasn’t a real person, then it does look suspect. After all, if he were divine, his audience was not just the people in front of him but everyone who’s come after, us included. You have to wonder why he would have allowed so many unnecessary stumbling blocks for us today…
“I can’t speak to whether God actually stopped the sun in order to facilitate a killing spree”
Sure you can, Josh, because unlike the scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age anonymous authors who wrote of that event, you know that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the sun revolving around the earth. You also know that the earth rotates on it’s axis, something those clowns never dreamed, despite being “inspired” by the god they said created it all, and that it’s that rotation, not the movement of the sun, that is responsible for day, night, and all hours in between, and consequently, there is absolutely nothing about the sun standing still that would have any effect on the length of the day.
Of course, if you’re looking for wiggle-room, you could say that what they really meant was that the earth stood still. But you must realize that such an event would cause the oceans, people, and anything else that wasn’t tied down, to rush eastward at slightly over 1000 miles per hour.
So don’t sell yourself short, Josh – you CAN speak to that. There are probably a lot of other things you could speak to as well, if you would just give it some thought.
“This NATURAL explanation to the finding of an empty tomb is MUCH more probable than that a zombie walked out of his tomb to teleport into outer space!”
You’re as happy as a hog in a slop store, aren’t you Gary? But you’re right, that’s definitely an “Aha!” moment!
“Most certainly, providing you answer truthfully, confronting the questions with honesty and integrity showing no ambiguity and no sidestepping.
Do this and you have my word.”
Hi Ark, thanks for that. I can see a few loopholes there – like if you THINK I am not answering truthfully when in fact I am – but I will go ahead in good faith. I can reassure you I have never answered untruthfully as I see it, not have I any fear of any questions so no reason to sidestep, so I hope you don’t make any wrong assumptions about me.
Most of your questions are about the OT, so I need to outline a few things first.
1. I like to distinguish between facts and opinion. Facts are based on evidence and while they may not be certain (few things are) they are probable, and all reasonable people should accept them. Opinions may be based on facts, or not, but they are much more personal. All of us have both facts and opinions in our beliefs (= the thoughts in our heads). It is best if we determine facts first and then choose our opinions.
2. On most issues, I am not expert enough to determine my own facts, but need to rely on experts in that field – think brain surgery, quantum physics, the best way to grow a carrot, or human psychology ….. and history. So if we want to know about the OT, we need to start with expert conclusions – and only determine our opinions after that.
3. Here’s where we get into difficulties. For there is a wide range of expert conclusions on the OT, and specifically on the Pentateuch – from maximalists like James Hoffmeier to minimalists like Israel Finkelstein, with many in between these “extreme” views. I am interested to note that you (and Arch) always quote the minimalist view, and Finkelstein, as if that and he are the only view or the only possible correct view. (And you also overstate what the minimalist view is.)
I suggest this is not a fair way to proceed. At the very least, you should acknowledge the range of expert opinion so people understand that, instead of giving a false impression. And for myself, I think it is generally safer to choose experts in the middle of the range, while acknowledging the full range.
So, I will take notice of both the minimalists or the maximalists, but I will take more notice of more moderate viewpoints like those expressed by William Dever, Yosef Garfinkel and Peter Enns, for example.
I would be interested to see your explanation and justification for preferring the most extreme view and never explaining to anyone that there is a wide range of other views.
4. My broad view as a younger christian was influenced by CS Lewis, who was an expert in ancient literature and history, though not specifically in this period. He wrote this:
“The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical — hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate.”
So I am quite comfortable with that view, and have known about it for maybe 40 years. So now to your questions, which are about both fact and opinion:
“Then please address the issue of the Pentateuch and in particular, the Exodus and the character of Moses, for which the overwhelming scholarly and scientific consensus accepts as historical fiction.”
Like I said, you have overstated the consensus. That is one end of the range. I think the consensus on the Exodus & Moses would be more like this (very briefly).
There is little evidence for anything that long ago, so to most questions we will have to answer “we don’t know”. From a historical viewpoint (and disregarding the OT text), we don’t know anything about any of the characters in the OT story, and we wouldn’t expect to. What we can say is this. No archaeological evidence has been found for the Exodus, the stories read like similar stories from other ANE cultures, and the numbers in the Exodus are clearly impossible (marching 100 abreast, 1m between each row would make a column 6 km long just of the men, more if we assume the count only included males). It is hard if not impossible to fit the Exodus into Egyptian history, and there are only a few possible references to a Hebrew exodus in other sources.
So, the minimalists say with that little evidence, it’s all fiction (though even Finkelstein agrees that Moses could have been historical, we just don’t know), the maximalists say with that little contrary evidence, we have to go with the text. And those in the middle say (more accurately I suggest) that we just don’t know.
That is all pretty factual stuff representing the range of views. My own opinion (based on this factual evidence, or the lack of it) is that it doesn’t matter. My christian faith isn’t built on this stuff (my reasons to believe in Jesus, which are quite extensive, don’t ever mention the OT) and I could happily believe any of the range of views. I would probably be least comfortable with the literal view. So my tentative opinion is that all or most of these characters were real people and the exodus did occur, but the stories have been fictionalised to a degree that we can never fully know and which I don’t have to know. It could be history, it could be fiction, I can read it anyway. But I also think that God is revealed through the stories, because God can be revealed through stories, parables, poems, dreams, myths, etc, just as much as through history.
“Without Moses there is no Sinai covenant and all this encompass.
Without the Pentateuch there is no Fall, no sin, and thus, no need for a saviour.”
This is a very strange argument Ark. Let’s illustrate with a parallel. Suppose someone said Abraham is the father of the Jews, and since they believe Abraham didn’t exist, then the Jews don’t exist either. The argument is laughable, but why? Because we have more current information that shows the Jews do indeed exist.
It is the same here. The reasons to believe in the saviour are based in the NT, which has strong historical evidence.
Besides that, even if the story of the Sinai covenant is fictionalised, or even totally mythical, that doesn’t in any way logically show that there was no covenant, only that the story we have is not accurate.
So on both counts that argument has no force and no value to me, though doubtless it would to some christians who hold to the full historical reliability of the OT. You are claiming way more than logic or the evidence allows.
I think I will stop there, this comment is already too long, and I’ll get to your other two questions in another comment. Thanks.
My entire point is this: my speculative but natural-based scenario has a much, much, much higher probability of being the explanation of an empty tomb than the Christian supernatural explanation that a zombie and his angels did it.
It is possible that unicorns and leprechauns exist. That doesn’t mean that it is reasonable and rational to believe they do.
I just showed above that the empty tomb claim cannot be used as “strong” evidence for the resurrection as there was a significant period of time that the tomb was unguarded and unsecured (if the tomb even existed at all), giving someone the opportunity to steal or move the body.
Secondly, I and others have shown that there is no “strong” evidence that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. Third, I and others have shown that the growth of Christianity is not a unique phenomenon. Mormonism can make the same claim regarding rapid growth of a new faith enduring significant persecution. Fourth, we have no evidence that any alleged eyewitness to the Resurrection during the forty day period after the crucifixion was executed for refusing to recant his or her testimony of talking to and touching a walking/talking dead man.
Therefore, I predict that UnkleE’s “strong” evidence will consist of a convoluted string of assumptions, second century hearsay, and a recurring appeal to “majority opinion” of New Testament scholars…the majority of whom are fervent believers in this 2,000 year old supernatural tale.
But let’s see if he even chooses to present his “strong” evidence…
Gary, that chapter from Mathew has just added a lot of value to a post I had written on the evidence for the resurrection. Thanks.
@Unklee, I see you have been busy and may still be answering Ark’s questions maybe someday you will get to mine. I am not going to cite any hypothesis or consensus, you see am a man of common sense mainly.
Now in Deuterenomy we have
And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to his day no one knows where his grave is. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.
I don’t think we need any scholarship to tell us Moses didn’t jot this part down. So is their a way of knowing which parts he wrote and he didn’t write? And if he wrote the others why tell the creation story twice for example?
My christian faith isn’t built on this stuff (my reasons to believe in Jesus, which are quite extensive, don’t ever mention the OT) and I could happily believe any of the range of views. I would probably be least comfortable with the literal view. So my tentative opinion is that all or most of these characters were real people and the exodus did occur, but the stories have been fictionalised to a degree that we can never fully know and which I don’t have to know. It could be history, it could be fiction, I can read it anyway. But I also think that God is revealed through the stories, because God can be revealed through stories, parables, poems, dreams, myths, etc, just as much as through history.
A position that would have been consistent with Marcion.
i, too, is interested in the strong historical evidence for the NT
“1.How do you justify preaching ”sin”, and what you regard as truth, however tacitly, and the need for ”salvation” through belief in the character, Jesus of Nazareth when the Pentateuch is fiction?”
Sin is manifestly obvious in this broken world. I don’t have to “preach it” and I rarely do.
The justification of believing in Jesus as the truth is the historical basis of the NT and has nothing to do with the Pentateuch. Salvation is part of that package.
“2.How do you explain the character, Jesus of Nazareth whom you claim is the creator of the universe ,acknowledging the character Moses and Mosaic law and appearing with Moses in the transfiguration?”
Remember I said we start with the experts and then draw our conclusions.
Firstly, we don’t know if Moses was a historical character or not, so the question makes an enormous assumption from the start.
Secondly, the experts tell us that first century Jews felt quite free to adapt old traditions and legends and be quite free in their interpretations. They apparently didn’t see their scriptures as some infallible set of rules as you and some christians do, but as a source to be creatively “mined” for meaning and new ideas. In Acts 7:21-22, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Galatians 3:19, Acts 7:52-53, Hebrews 2:2-3, 2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9 and 2 Peter 2:5 we see references to events or people or ideas that are not part of the OT but are mostly found in Jewish non scriptural writings and legends.
So it is quite feasible that Jesus referred to something that was legendary. If he did, whether he knew it was legendary or not I have no idea – after all, Jesus was a man and a man’s brain can only hold a finite amount of information. He even said quite specifically there were some things he didn’t know, and Philippians says he “emptied himself” in coming to earth. So if he built his teaching on local beliefs, I have no issues – it would make less sense to get diverted into a discussion of such peripheral things.
So this question starts at the wrong place. The right place is to look at what the scholars say about Jesus. Once we understand what they say, we can then ask, in the light of that information, why did Jesus say this?
So my question back to you is this – as I am willing to recognise the range of scholarly opinion about the Pentateuch and hold to a view that avoids the extremes, are you prepared to do the same for the New Testament and Jesus?
“Unklee I see no problems with your conditions, am just wondering why you think it is necessary to have such a caveat.”
Hi Makagutu, thanks for that. I explained everything in my large comment. Briefly, I choose not to engage with people if discussion becomes unpleasant, futile or fact-denying. I had withdrawn from most discuss here for that reason. But in a somewhat surreal outcome, lots of people here chose to discuss me and my (in their eyes) unwillingness to discuss difficult questions – when in reality it wasn’t the difficulty of the questions but the attitude of the protagonists that I was reacting to. So I explained.
“Do you believe in miracles because they are in the bible?’
I believe that miracles are possible because if God exists as I believe, then he can obviously do miracles. But I don’t believe every miracle claim by any means.
I believe in Jesus’ miracles because there is good historical evidence for them and I believe as the “son of God” he could do them. I believe in some miracles today because there is good medical evidence for them. I am agnostic about many other miracle claims because I don’t see enough evidence to decide.
“What do you think of Mo’s journey from Mecca, to Jerusalem to heaven and back aboard a Pegasus? Do you think it is believable? Why not?”
I’ve never read it, only heard people talk about it. Have you ever read it in the Koran? I disbelieve it, probably for the same reasons you do, because I have seen no evidence for it.
“Do you consider the Koran divinely inspired scripture? Why not?”
No, probably for the same reason that you don’t, because I don’t see any evidence for it. That doesn’t mean I think it is totally wrong, just not very right.
Marcion actually had quite a large following if history is correct, including churches and wotnot, and it was largely because of him that prompted the church to get its arse into gear and sort out a ”proper” bible.
So they gave him his money back told him to sod off and later declared him and his brand of Christianity as heresy.
Now, the real question abut Marcion that is not touched by hardly any scholars as far as I can judge is this:
Why did Marcion, a devout Christian, not consider Jesus to be a real live human being.
It also demonstrates that this issue – and others – were not cut and dry by a long chalk; never mind the centuries it took to iron out all the doctrine and reasonably successful campaigns to liquidate all opposition.
It also demonstrates how powerful the church became to eradicate virtually all inquiry regarding the humanity/ veracity of the character Jesus of Nowhere.
But once the Ebionites were a non-entity,
the Marcionites sent packing and the Arians and semi-Arians declared heretics, besides a few attempted liquidations – Cathars etc – it was almost plain sailing after this.
”Our version or die. Choose, sinner”
And most people , especially Christians, are completely ignorant of this.
Was Jesus-the-human ”made-up”?
Marcion thought so. And so did plenty of others.
What do you think?
I have serious doubts that he ever existed, at least there is no evidence that he did. No one wrote about him during his lifetime, nor for forty years thereafter. I believe that the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem may well have been the catalyst for the rash of Gospels – and the four that are in the NT are not the only ones there were, by far – that began that year and continued well into the next century.
I concur.
And I also sense there is a minuscule shift in the scholarly leaning towards the age-old belief that Jesus was an historical figure.
We shall see …
So my question back to you is this – as I am willing to recognise the range of scholarly opinion about the Pentateuch and hold to a view that avoids the extremes, are you prepared to do the same for the New Testament and Jesus?
I believe this final paragraph is all that really needs to be addressed to cover both of your replies.
While I acknowledge it is important to study and consider all expert views in this regard it is also important to consider any and all possible motivation for holding such a view especially if such motivation may be influenced by a person’s religious beliefs or political views, which in context of Israel might be, to some, crucial.
In this regard, while alternate, more middle of the road proposals have been suggested regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence ( or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.
So, unless sound counter evidence is produced why should anyone choose to buck the expert consensus?
With regard Moses and the Exodus
The second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica concludes that the entire Exodus narrative was “dramatically woven out of various strands of tradition… he [Moses] wasn’t a historical character.”
I am sure it is not necessary to list everything as you have no doubt researched such things as the Settlement Pattern, Kadesh Barnia etc. And of course, no secular Egyptologist regards the biblical tale as anything but myth.
That being so, what possible role could anyone called Moses have played?
“There is no archaeological evidence for any of it,” declared renowned Israeli archaeologist and professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Israel Finkelstein. “This is something unexampled in history. They [Judah] wanted to seize control of the territories of the kingdom of Israel and annex them, because, they said, `These territories are actually ours and if you have a minute, we’ll tell you how that’s so. The goal was to create a myth saying that Judah is the centre of the world, of the Israelite way of life, against the background of the reality of the later kingdom.The people of Judah started to market the story of Joshua’s conquest of the land, which was also written in that period, in order to give moral justification to their territorial longings, to the conquest of the territories of Israel.”
There are myriad of other references ( which I can link if you wish?) but in deference to not drawing this out any longer than necessary this should suffice.
One final note: If so desired one can use any number of theological gymnastics to explain why the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth would reference the Patriarchs, Mosaic Law, and Moses who featured in the Transfiguration, and still maintain credibility in the eyes of a fellow believer.
I simply don’t find such an approach holds any integrity.
And I also sense there is a minuscule shift in the scholarly leaning towards the age-old belief that Jesus was an historical figure.
I think this is the position of Bert Erhman.
Hi Unklee,
You didn’t answer my question. Your knowledge of miracles necessarily comes from the bible. Apart from the biblical claims, what other reason do you have for believing in miracles?
So you only believe miracles that are attested in scripture? If it was in the Koran you would believe it? I think it is in the Hadith of Buhari.
You don’t know my reasons for not considering any book not divinely inspired. So what are yours.
on the resurrection of Jesus, fellows such as William L. Craig hold onto the minimalist position and why? Because the vast amount of evidence is contrary to their position otherwise they wouldn’t be holding on to grass while drowning in the ocean. Why would Unklee want to adopt a middle ground? Does he feel this is the most honest to do or it gives his belief some sense of evidence backing?
Finding Truth 
“Remember, Marcion wanted to ditch the Old Testament god, but the Church would not have any of it.”
Ark, I would suspect Josh to be Catholic, and as such, maybe he doesn’t know about Marcion. Marcion was a second-century (100+ AD) scholar and evangelist who claimed to have discovered the true teachings of Christianity in the writings of Paul – that Paul, rather than the band of 12, was the real apostle of Jesus, as he advised all to discard Jewish law.
Marcion believed that the OT god was an evil god, and that Jesus was the one, true god, who had come to save us from him. He believed that Jesus was not material, that he hadn’t been born of humans, and in fact, had no material body – he only made it look as though he did – and in fact, he didn’t actually need to eat or drink, but only did so, not to arouse suspicion. He further maintained that Jesus didn’t die on the cross – being immaterial and immortal, he couldn’t have – but only APPEARED to die, in order to maintain his cover.
Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But if Marcion’s followers has won the argument at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, HIS beliefs would be the ones you would be defending today, and not the other group who actually prevailed, ultimately, because Emperor Constantine decided it would be so.
If you have a belief, Josh, surely, if it is strong enough, it will withstand scrutiny – examine it, study it, see what respected critics of it have to say. Your belief will either strengthen or evaporate – either way, you’re better off.
LikeLike
I caught that, Gary, but I didn’t want to stop you when you were on a roll —
LikeLike
I must repeat: Jesus tomb was unguarded and unsecured for over 12 hours during the dark of night!
With this statement coming from the ONLY source who says anything about there being guards at the tomb at any time during the three days after Jesus death, how can any Christian use “the empty tomb” story as support for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead—when anyone or his grandmother could have stolen the body!
LikeLike
You notice that Matthew doesn’t say that when the Roman soldiers arrived at the tomb (over 12 hours after the stone had been rolled in front of the tomb) that they rolled the stone back to confirm that the body was still there. All Matthew says is that the Roman guards showed up to the tomb at some point the day after the crucifixion (for all we know they showed up in the late afternoon, making it almost 24 hours since Jesus’ placement in the tomb) and then sealed the tomb. That’s it!
Jesus body could have been long gone by then. Whoever took the body (Jesus’ disciples, Jesus’ family, grave robbers, who knows who) rolled the stone back in place so as not to alert anyone to the crime of grave robbing, and if the soldiers did not roll the stone away to confirm the presence of a body, but simply sealed the stone. No one would ever know!
However, on Sunday morning, Jesus followers are running all over Jerusalem saying that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that he ate a broiled fish lunch with them, so the Roman guards break the seal on the tomb to prove the disciples wrong, find no body, and in great fear, flee believing that the body was stolen under their watch!
This NATURAL explanation to the finding of an empty tomb is MUCH more probable than that a zombie walked out of his tomb to teleport into outer space!
LikeLike
I’m way behind and this may have been addressed, but Josh, if Jesus were real and divine and he knew that Moses wasn’t a real person, then it does look suspect. After all, if he were divine, his audience was not just the people in front of him but everyone who’s come after, us included. You have to wonder why he would have allowed so many unnecessary stumbling blocks for us today…
LikeLike
Gary, your. second paragraph is pure speculation. While the scenario is entirely possible, you’re essentially doing the same thing as Christians do.
LikeLike
“I can’t speak to whether God actually stopped the sun in order to facilitate a killing spree”
Sure you can, Josh, because unlike the scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age anonymous authors who wrote of that event, you know that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the sun revolving around the earth. You also know that the earth rotates on it’s axis, something those clowns never dreamed, despite being “inspired” by the god they said created it all, and that it’s that rotation, not the movement of the sun, that is responsible for day, night, and all hours in between, and consequently, there is absolutely nothing about the sun standing still that would have any effect on the length of the day.
Of course, if you’re looking for wiggle-room, you could say that what they really meant was that the earth stood still. But you must realize that such an event would cause the oceans, people, and anything else that wasn’t tied down, to rush eastward at slightly over 1000 miles per hour.
So don’t sell yourself short, Josh – you CAN speak to that. There are probably a lot of other things you could speak to as well, if you would just give it some thought.
LikeLike
“This NATURAL explanation to the finding of an empty tomb is MUCH more probable than that a zombie walked out of his tomb to teleport into outer space!”
You’re as happy as a hog in a slop store, aren’t you Gary? But you’re right, that’s definitely an “Aha!” moment!
LikeLike
“Most certainly, providing you answer truthfully, confronting the questions with honesty and integrity showing no ambiguity and no sidestepping.
Do this and you have my word.”
Hi Ark, thanks for that. I can see a few loopholes there – like if you THINK I am not answering truthfully when in fact I am – but I will go ahead in good faith. I can reassure you I have never answered untruthfully as I see it, not have I any fear of any questions so no reason to sidestep, so I hope you don’t make any wrong assumptions about me.
Most of your questions are about the OT, so I need to outline a few things first.
1. I like to distinguish between facts and opinion. Facts are based on evidence and while they may not be certain (few things are) they are probable, and all reasonable people should accept them. Opinions may be based on facts, or not, but they are much more personal. All of us have both facts and opinions in our beliefs (= the thoughts in our heads). It is best if we determine facts first and then choose our opinions.
2. On most issues, I am not expert enough to determine my own facts, but need to rely on experts in that field – think brain surgery, quantum physics, the best way to grow a carrot, or human psychology ….. and history. So if we want to know about the OT, we need to start with expert conclusions – and only determine our opinions after that.
3. Here’s where we get into difficulties. For there is a wide range of expert conclusions on the OT, and specifically on the Pentateuch – from maximalists like James Hoffmeier to minimalists like Israel Finkelstein, with many in between these “extreme” views. I am interested to note that you (and Arch) always quote the minimalist view, and Finkelstein, as if that and he are the only view or the only possible correct view. (And you also overstate what the minimalist view is.)
I suggest this is not a fair way to proceed. At the very least, you should acknowledge the range of expert opinion so people understand that, instead of giving a false impression. And for myself, I think it is generally safer to choose experts in the middle of the range, while acknowledging the full range.
So, I will take notice of both the minimalists or the maximalists, but I will take more notice of more moderate viewpoints like those expressed by William Dever, Yosef Garfinkel and Peter Enns, for example.
I would be interested to see your explanation and justification for preferring the most extreme view and never explaining to anyone that there is a wide range of other views.
4. My broad view as a younger christian was influenced by CS Lewis, who was an expert in ancient literature and history, though not specifically in this period. He wrote this:
“The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical — hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate.”
So I am quite comfortable with that view, and have known about it for maybe 40 years. So now to your questions, which are about both fact and opinion:
“Then please address the issue of the Pentateuch and in particular, the Exodus and the character of Moses, for which the overwhelming scholarly and scientific consensus accepts as historical fiction.”
Like I said, you have overstated the consensus. That is one end of the range. I think the consensus on the Exodus & Moses would be more like this (very briefly).
There is little evidence for anything that long ago, so to most questions we will have to answer “we don’t know”. From a historical viewpoint (and disregarding the OT text), we don’t know anything about any of the characters in the OT story, and we wouldn’t expect to. What we can say is this. No archaeological evidence has been found for the Exodus, the stories read like similar stories from other ANE cultures, and the numbers in the Exodus are clearly impossible (marching 100 abreast, 1m between each row would make a column 6 km long just of the men, more if we assume the count only included males). It is hard if not impossible to fit the Exodus into Egyptian history, and there are only a few possible references to a Hebrew exodus in other sources.
So, the minimalists say with that little evidence, it’s all fiction (though even Finkelstein agrees that Moses could have been historical, we just don’t know), the maximalists say with that little contrary evidence, we have to go with the text. And those in the middle say (more accurately I suggest) that we just don’t know.
That is all pretty factual stuff representing the range of views. My own opinion (based on this factual evidence, or the lack of it) is that it doesn’t matter. My christian faith isn’t built on this stuff (my reasons to believe in Jesus, which are quite extensive, don’t ever mention the OT) and I could happily believe any of the range of views. I would probably be least comfortable with the literal view. So my tentative opinion is that all or most of these characters were real people and the exodus did occur, but the stories have been fictionalised to a degree that we can never fully know and which I don’t have to know. It could be history, it could be fiction, I can read it anyway. But I also think that God is revealed through the stories, because God can be revealed through stories, parables, poems, dreams, myths, etc, just as much as through history.
“Without Moses there is no Sinai covenant and all this encompass.
Without the Pentateuch there is no Fall, no sin, and thus, no need for a saviour.”
This is a very strange argument Ark. Let’s illustrate with a parallel. Suppose someone said Abraham is the father of the Jews, and since they believe Abraham didn’t exist, then the Jews don’t exist either. The argument is laughable, but why? Because we have more current information that shows the Jews do indeed exist.
It is the same here. The reasons to believe in the saviour are based in the NT, which has strong historical evidence.
Besides that, even if the story of the Sinai covenant is fictionalised, or even totally mythical, that doesn’t in any way logically show that there was no covenant, only that the story we have is not accurate.
So on both counts that argument has no force and no value to me, though doubtless it would to some christians who hold to the full historical reliability of the OT. You are claiming way more than logic or the evidence allows.
I think I will stop there, this comment is already too long, and I’ll get to your other two questions in another comment. Thanks.
LikeLike
Nan,
My entire point is this: my speculative but natural-based scenario has a much, much, much higher probability of being the explanation of an empty tomb than the Christian supernatural explanation that a zombie and his angels did it.
LikeLike
“The reasons to believe in the saviour are based in the NT, which has strong historical evidence.”
“Strong” historical evidence?? Let’s see it.
LikeLike
What did I say earlier, about unk and Brandon being satisfied with convincing that what they believe in is at least possible? I rest my case.
LikeLike
It is possible that unicorns and leprechauns exist. That doesn’t mean that it is reasonable and rational to believe they do.
I just showed above that the empty tomb claim cannot be used as “strong” evidence for the resurrection as there was a significant period of time that the tomb was unguarded and unsecured (if the tomb even existed at all), giving someone the opportunity to steal or move the body.
Secondly, I and others have shown that there is no “strong” evidence that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. Third, I and others have shown that the growth of Christianity is not a unique phenomenon. Mormonism can make the same claim regarding rapid growth of a new faith enduring significant persecution. Fourth, we have no evidence that any alleged eyewitness to the Resurrection during the forty day period after the crucifixion was executed for refusing to recant his or her testimony of talking to and touching a walking/talking dead man.
Therefore, I predict that UnkleE’s “strong” evidence will consist of a convoluted string of assumptions, second century hearsay, and a recurring appeal to “majority opinion” of New Testament scholars…the majority of whom are fervent believers in this 2,000 year old supernatural tale.
But let’s see if he even chooses to present his “strong” evidence…
LikeLike
Gary, that chapter from Mathew has just added a lot of value to a post I had written on the evidence for the resurrection. Thanks.
@Unklee, I see you have been busy and may still be answering Ark’s questions maybe someday you will get to mine. I am not going to cite any hypothesis or consensus, you see am a man of common sense mainly.
Now in Deuterenomy we have
I don’t think we need any scholarship to tell us Moses didn’t jot this part down. So is their a way of knowing which parts he wrote and he didn’t write? And if he wrote the others why tell the creation story twice for example?
LikeLike
Unklee writes
A position that would have been consistent with Marcion.
i, too, is interested in the strong historical evidence for the NT
LikeLike
Hi Ark, here’s part 2:
“1.How do you justify preaching ”sin”, and what you regard as truth, however tacitly, and the need for ”salvation” through belief in the character, Jesus of Nazareth when the Pentateuch is fiction?”
Sin is manifestly obvious in this broken world. I don’t have to “preach it” and I rarely do.
The justification of believing in Jesus as the truth is the historical basis of the NT and has nothing to do with the Pentateuch. Salvation is part of that package.
“2.How do you explain the character, Jesus of Nazareth whom you claim is the creator of the universe ,acknowledging the character Moses and Mosaic law and appearing with Moses in the transfiguration?”
Remember I said we start with the experts and then draw our conclusions.
Firstly, we don’t know if Moses was a historical character or not, so the question makes an enormous assumption from the start.
Secondly, the experts tell us that first century Jews felt quite free to adapt old traditions and legends and be quite free in their interpretations. They apparently didn’t see their scriptures as some infallible set of rules as you and some christians do, but as a source to be creatively “mined” for meaning and new ideas. In Acts 7:21-22, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Galatians 3:19, Acts 7:52-53, Hebrews 2:2-3, 2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9 and 2 Peter 2:5 we see references to events or people or ideas that are not part of the OT but are mostly found in Jewish non scriptural writings and legends.
So it is quite feasible that Jesus referred to something that was legendary. If he did, whether he knew it was legendary or not I have no idea – after all, Jesus was a man and a man’s brain can only hold a finite amount of information. He even said quite specifically there were some things he didn’t know, and Philippians says he “emptied himself” in coming to earth. So if he built his teaching on local beliefs, I have no issues – it would make less sense to get diverted into a discussion of such peripheral things.
So this question starts at the wrong place. The right place is to look at what the scholars say about Jesus. Once we understand what they say, we can then ask, in the light of that information, why did Jesus say this?
So my question back to you is this – as I am willing to recognise the range of scholarly opinion about the Pentateuch and hold to a view that avoids the extremes, are you prepared to do the same for the New Testament and Jesus?
Thanks.
LikeLike
“Unklee I see no problems with your conditions, am just wondering why you think it is necessary to have such a caveat.”
Hi Makagutu, thanks for that. I explained everything in my large comment. Briefly, I choose not to engage with people if discussion becomes unpleasant, futile or fact-denying. I had withdrawn from most discuss here for that reason. But in a somewhat surreal outcome, lots of people here chose to discuss me and my (in their eyes) unwillingness to discuss difficult questions – when in reality it wasn’t the difficulty of the questions but the attitude of the protagonists that I was reacting to. So I explained.
“Do you believe in miracles because they are in the bible?’
I believe that miracles are possible because if God exists as I believe, then he can obviously do miracles. But I don’t believe every miracle claim by any means.
I believe in Jesus’ miracles because there is good historical evidence for them and I believe as the “son of God” he could do them. I believe in some miracles today because there is good medical evidence for them. I am agnostic about many other miracle claims because I don’t see enough evidence to decide.
“What do you think of Mo’s journey from Mecca, to Jerusalem to heaven and back aboard a Pegasus? Do you think it is believable? Why not?”
I’ve never read it, only heard people talk about it. Have you ever read it in the Koran? I disbelieve it, probably for the same reasons you do, because I have seen no evidence for it.
“Do you consider the Koran divinely inspired scripture? Why not?”
No, probably for the same reason that you don’t, because I don’t see any evidence for it. That doesn’t mean I think it is totally wrong, just not very right.
Hope than answers your questions. Thanks.
LikeLike
Marcion actually had quite a large following if history is correct, including churches and wotnot, and it was largely because of him that prompted the church to get its arse into gear and sort out a ”proper” bible.
So they gave him his money back told him to sod off and later declared him and his brand of Christianity as heresy.
Now, the real question abut Marcion that is not touched by hardly any scholars as far as I can judge is this:
Why did Marcion, a devout Christian, not consider Jesus to be a real live human being.
It also demonstrates that this issue – and others – were not cut and dry by a long chalk; never mind the centuries it took to iron out all the doctrine and reasonably successful campaigns to liquidate all opposition.
It also demonstrates how powerful the church became to eradicate virtually all inquiry regarding the humanity/ veracity of the character Jesus of Nowhere.
But once the Ebionites were a non-entity,
the Marcionites sent packing and the Arians and semi-Arians declared heretics, besides a few attempted liquidations – Cathars etc – it was almost plain sailing after this.
”Our version or die. Choose, sinner”
And most people , especially Christians, are completely ignorant of this.
Was Jesus-the-human ”made-up”?
Marcion thought so. And so did plenty of others.
What do you think?
LikeLike
I have serious doubts that he ever existed, at least there is no evidence that he did. No one wrote about him during his lifetime, nor for forty years thereafter. I believe that the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem may well have been the catalyst for the rash of Gospels – and the four that are in the NT are not the only ones there were, by far – that began that year and continued well into the next century.
LikeLike
I concur.
And I also sense there is a minuscule shift in the scholarly leaning towards the age-old belief that Jesus was an historical figure.
We shall see …
LikeLike
@unklee.
Thanks for the reply
I believe this final paragraph is all that really needs to be addressed to cover both of your replies.
While I acknowledge it is important to study and consider all expert views in this regard it is also important to consider any and all possible motivation for holding such a view especially if such motivation may be influenced by a person’s religious beliefs or political views, which in context of Israel might be, to some, crucial.
In this regard, while alternate, more middle of the road proposals have been suggested regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence ( or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.
So, unless sound counter evidence is produced why should anyone choose to buck the expert consensus?
With regard Moses and the Exodus
The second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica concludes that the entire Exodus narrative was “dramatically woven out of various strands of tradition… he [Moses] wasn’t a historical character.”
I am sure it is not necessary to list everything as you have no doubt researched such things as the Settlement Pattern, Kadesh Barnia etc. And of course, no secular Egyptologist regards the biblical tale as anything but myth.
That being so, what possible role could anyone called Moses have played?
There are myriad of other references ( which I can link if you wish?) but in deference to not drawing this out any longer than necessary this should suffice.
One final note: If so desired one can use any number of theological gymnastics to explain why the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth would reference the Patriarchs, Mosaic Law, and Moses who featured in the Transfiguration, and still maintain credibility in the eyes of a fellow believer.
I simply don’t find such an approach holds any integrity.
LikeLike
I think this is the position of Bert Erhman.
Hi Unklee,
You didn’t answer my question. Your knowledge of miracles necessarily comes from the bible. Apart from the biblical claims, what other reason do you have for believing in miracles?
So you only believe miracles that are attested in scripture? If it was in the Koran you would believe it? I think it is in the Hadith of Buhari.
You don’t know my reasons for not considering any book not divinely inspired. So what are yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
on the resurrection of Jesus, fellows such as William L. Craig hold onto the minimalist position and why? Because the vast amount of evidence is contrary to their position otherwise they wouldn’t be holding on to grass while drowning in the ocean. Why would Unklee want to adopt a middle ground? Does he feel this is the most honest to do or it gives his belief some sense of evidence backing?
LikeLike
@Mak & Arch.
I just noticed that this is incorrectly phrased.
.
I meant to assert that there is a shift away from the age-old belief that he was an historical character.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding?
LikeLike