Old Testament: Truth or Fiction?
I’ve been thinking today about the people in the Old Testament. There are many people in our churches today who question the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible. We are too often told that the great people of the Bible such as Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, the Prophets etc are not people of history. This certainly wasn’t the view of Jesus. His use of language when referring to Scripture can only conclude that Jesus believed that Scripture was the authoritative Word of God and that these people were historical figures. Jesus points out that it was the Holy Spirit that spoke the word of God through the writers of the Old Testament. Quoting Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22.43 for example, Jesus said ‘‘How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls (Jesus) ‘Lord’? ’’
Jesus said about Abraham:
- ‘ Before Abraham was born I am’ (John
The crowd wanted to kill Jesus for saying these words – if Abraham was thought to be imaginary in those days – their reaction simply doesn't make sense.
is repeatedly referred to by Jesus as ‘the giver of the law’:
- ‘Moses said, ‘Honour your father..’’ (Mark 7:10)
- ‘What did Moses command you?’ (Mark 10:3)
- ‘Moses permitted you to divorce …’ (Matt 19:3)
Jesus clearly was of the mind that even Jonah was an historical character. Matthew 12:41 records Jesus as saying:
‘The men of Nineveh will stand up on the day of judgement, with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah and now one grater than Jonah is here’ (Matt: 12:41)
‘that imaginary persons who at the imaginary preaching of an imaginary prophet repented in imagination, shall rise up in that day and condemn the actual impenitence of those his actual hearers?’
The Law and the Prophets:
- 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets ...' (Matt 5:17)
- ‘this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets’ (Luke 11:50)
Comments
Yes, of course there is.
i think you will find that trying to approach the bible from a post enlightenment 21st century viewpoint will create difficulties. the crux of the problem is to do with our modern perceptions of history and myth, where we perceive history to be truth and myth to be lies. however, and there is extensive writings on this, the authors of the various books of the bible were not concerned with presenting history or myth, and certainly not in the way we understand them to be. They were interested in using the texts to point to and portray bigger, eternal truths that went beyond whether an event happened or not. Such an act was performed by an amalgamation of history and truth all of which would be apparent to the readership of the time as "transparent fictions".
such a reading of the bible does not devalue the bible or our beliefs it just requires humility and care when reading the bible as Johnson puts it "the texts in short, are still true and still authoritative, but only if understood in a proper way".
Thanks for dropping in. Obviously I need to come back to you on this one. You use Ron Burgundy a fictional character to support your argument that allows you to put a question mark on the historicity of the characters in the Bible. But the subject matter that Jesus concerned himself about was more serious. You would not say for example 'Did not Ron Burgandy command you ...' Clearly the answer would be no - a made up character can not command us to do anything!
Further if you read Josephus there can be no doubt that he is going all out to record the historicity of the people in his works. He has the same desire for accuracy with his approach to Adam and Eve, Jonah, Noah, Moses etc as with Jesus and Augustus Ceasar and Herod Agrippa (of course no serious historian would deny these three persons historicity).
The post modern experts are wrong in their assumption that the Hebrew nation was not interested in accuracy and historicity. What of the list upon list of people in Chronicles - are we to assume that they too were made up - what would be the point of this?
Then there is that historian Doctor Luke who records the Gospel having ' carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account'. I am sorry but this is language of accurate historicity, not of someone with a spirit of post modernism - which of course is the view point of the 'experts' who question historicity are coming from.
God bless
Neil
furthermore i do not think the postmodernists are wrong, neither do i think it is a question of postmodernity or not. Rather it is a question of the nature and purpose of the texts, which i and many others believe were not intended as purely historical documents recorded from an objective viewpoint. i am not saying lists such as those found in chronicles are made up (although in some circumstances the numbers are used to portray a theological significance) however their purpose would similarly no be a purely historical one.
likewise, your example of luke as a historical account is very troubling, as within the first chapter of luke he refers to a census that is widely recognised not to have occured anywhere near the era in which luke tries to link it. i think an attempt to portray the biblical authors as objectors relators of history is to misunderstand how they use their texts to present the reader with their own understanding and theological perspective of God.
what is important here is not what we read and what we dont read, but how we read the bible and discover the truths about God within the writers relationship with him.
hope that makes sense =D, just off to do an exam now, so wish me luck!
I'm not sure either of our minds will be changed on this, but i wonder if this stuff from Augustine is helpful. The suggestion that a move away from historical readings of some biblical narratives is 'postmodern' misses the long tradition of non-historical reading in the church. Augustine (4th century) was hardly a postmodern...
It would be good to hear your thoughts on this:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
--
Thanks and hope you're well.
Don't believe in luck - but have prayed for you. Hope your exam went well!
Neil