The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Everyone, I got this from my global history teacher. I hope everyone can share their thoughts about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books ... ing&st=cse

Hi sunrise12

Firstly, let me admit that Old Testament history is not my field - New Testament and the broader Greek and Roman Ancient History is the area I am trained in, and Modern History is what I teach mostly at school. Every time I have pursued articles with this type of content - or TV documentaries saying the same sort of thing - I end up feeling confident that the Old Testament reflects the ancient history of its time very well indeed. There are Old Testament experts here though and I really hope some of them post responses for you.

Why did your global history teacher give you this article? Is it something you are to analyse for school? A teacher could equally find an article that argues that the Old Testament is strongly supported by archaeological evidence and ask you to read that. Maybe someone here will post a link to such an article for you, so that you have a more balanced view of the issue. If I can find one, I'll come back and post the link for you.

I would think about some of the following questions and ideas that may be worth considering:
1. Source
* The New York Times - no doubt a good newspaper but not a scholarly journal, therefore not a very good source for history I would have thought. Maybe a starting point for further enquiry.

* Then, who is Michael Massing, the journalist who wrote it? Does he have an agenda, a position, he wants to push? Is it written objectively or subjectively?

2. Content, Language and Methodology
*What is the article really about? The publication of a new Hebrew bible with commentary. Like Christian publishers of bibles, I wonder if the editorial team involved also have pre-judgements and positions that, of course, make their way into what they publish.

* The focus of the article is on archaeology as if that is all history is, but archaeology is but one type of evidence for the historian, and like all historical sources is open to interpretation. In fairness, this can be seen with a careful reading of the entire article, where those with a different view are at least mentioned - but is there a balanced view here?

* Archaeology is not very helpful in deciding what people believed, or how they thought - other than in rather broad terms.

* Written sources are also historical evidence. Of course we expect to see archaeology and the biblical record in agreement where it can be found ... but lack of archaeological evidence to support a document does not mean that the document is a lie, or untrustworthy.

* First paragraph - stating as true items about which there is debate - even according to his own article. This is an attention grabbing technique in journalism but is it good history? Is it accurate? Archaeologists may not have found evidence for these events, but does that mean they never occurred? He states as certainties things that are not able to be proved by archaeology ... that is, that events "did not" happen, or people "did not" exist. He covers himself by use of the word "probably" but this emotive beginning has already attracted readers - either to agree with him or to feel unsettled by him.
(His sentence about David actually amused me. How does this really differ from the biblical view? David is never portrayed as "fearless", quite the opposite if one reads the Psalms, and he was only a king of Israel - the bible does not claim that he was any more than that, so "provincial leader" works fine imo.)

* An article that uses the vague "the majority" or "wide acceptance" or "more or less settled" is using terms that are imprecise and not what I would expect in a serious historical article.

* Use of "startling propositions" - an example of emotive language

* "the bible as a human rather than a divine document" ... but those who see this as sacred text would usually claim that it is both, not either or.

* I cannot take the time to read the articles referred to - you probably can't either - but I wonder if what is quoted reflects the conclusion of these writers, or part of a wider argument. In fairness, the one who is familiar to me would probably agree with the general argument presented. Some of the other members here may well know something more.

I am sure there is more, but time and space do not allow me to go on ... and you will become bored with me in teacher mode!

Let me just add that Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the historicity of the Old Testament, though it is an important issue. There is historical evidence that shows that the early church believed that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, but the historical evidence does not either prove or disprove it. It is a matter of faith, based on what evidence we do have. We add our own experience of the risen Lord, to the written evidence in the bible and in extra-biblical sources, and are convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. That is a great reality of our faith.

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Some bible.org links for you sunrise12:
For a list of articles:
http://bible.org/topics/431/Archaeology
A specific one on the Old Testament:
http://bible.org/article/archaeology-and-old-testament

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Hi Sunrise greetings,
this is all about Etz Hayim or Tree of life in Hebrew. This is a modern commentary which questioned the authenticity of the Bible which define as human and not a divine document. Author of Etz Hayim are Jewish scholar which propagates that the Bible Torah is a myth, Abraham and kingdom of David, and there were no Jesus which was born but only a myth and legendary story and did not really happen in history.

I think this is not the proper forum this must be posted but in Contro Forum discussion because this not for Christian believer.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

_________________
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Isaiah 52:7

Virgilio,
Thank you for your insightful response and for your concern, but no one here is advocating the commentary in question and the Contro forum is not accessible to everyone. I think this topic is OK in this forum, at least for now.

Sally,
I loved your "teacher's" response. I would only take exception with one comment: that the NY Times is a "good newspaper". I guess it might depend on how one defines that term, but IMO a good newspaper must practice good journalism. That means presenting the news objectively, and that is something the NY Times doesn't do. A 2004 UCLA study gave the Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal. In the United States a politically liberal bent means a leaning in the direction of big, powerful and intrusive government, socialism, and even communism -- a direction that is antithetical to the political philosophy and values of our nation's founders and of our founding documents. And, in the United States, a politically "liberal" agenda is frequently accompanied by a "liberal" anti-Christian religious agenda, which should be expected because the direction of a liberal political philosophy is toward deification of the state. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that a newspaper like the Times would publish an article that attacks the historicity of the Bible and the Christian faith.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

i only read the 1st 3 paragraphs...here's a quote that sums up the effort, "To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document." -- a new torah implies the Original was insufficient

it's an example of mankind's pride so not worth my time

I have a problem with the article referring to a "childish Bible." The Bible, I believe, is a supernatural book and it is only logical that it contain the supernatural. The other problem I have is the bias of the study. True we all have a bias but we need to take our preconceived ideas and suppositions to the Bible and measure them against it. We need to view the Bible as absolute truth and use it as a plumb line against the ideas and theories of man.

It really is not surprising that Reformed Judaism in the U.S. would publish such a "Bible" given their embrace of "reason" over revelation and higher critical perspectives on Scripture as well as openness concerning the question of "God". The author of the article was actually being sensationalistic in his statements and ridiculing those who are not of his persuasion, while specifically defending his own beliefs about such (as if he were being "reasonable" against all other readers of Scripture). To be honest, this article is heavily tainted by a singular perspective in a newspaper known for that. I would wonder just why you were given this article to read and if you have discussed it in class at all?

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Sunrise,
To echo Rick, I would ask the teacher why the reading assignment was given. If your teacher is not an orthodox Christian, he/she may have a personal agenda here. I would try to find out if he/she personally discounts the historicity of the Bible and is trying to get his/her students to think the same way. On the other hand, he/she may simply be trying to get you to recognize bias in what you read about history.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Actually, I was only given this as homework. We were learning about the Hebrews and how ARchaeology was important. I don't really think that my teacher was going after offending the Bible since he never said "There is no evidence behind the Bible, therefore there is no point in believing it." He only said that achaeology is a source of evidence. After that day, he never mentioned the article again.

You may want to do your own research into archaeology. Try finding a copy of the magazine "Biblical Archaeological Review," and I would recommend the following books: "Archaeology in Bible lands," by Howard F. Vos; "The Treasures of Time," by Leo Deuel; and "Archaeology and Bible History," by Joseph P. Free. I've only had one semester of archaeology in Bible college but it was eye opening. I had a whole new appreciation for the Bible and its historical accuracy.