So here is what we know

You can either read the whole of Brueggeman's "Old Testament Theology" 777 pages(the other O.T. books I waded through won't be helpful) alongside Silberman and Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" 400 pages and the somewhat dry and hard to explain 287 pages of "The early history of god" by Mark Smith or I can give you a Reader's Digest condensed, concise, and REALLY brief version:

The bible began to be documented sometime in 300 b.c.e. Verbal traditions surrounding the Davidic kingdom and the divided kingdoms probably began around 700 b.c.e. well after most of the events that supposedly took place in the bible even occurred. Some will argue that the oral tradition was a legitimate way of communicating real events, but historically throughout the world, oral tradition was simply a way of entertaining and explaining events in a chaotic world. Historical information was left to the kings and their courts-- after all, what did a small group of farmers care about the real world of politics? They were more interested in understanding why their crops would get destroyed in one night by locusts or why it didn't rain enough to keep the water levels at life supporting levels. In other words, they were more interested in life and death stuff, not politics (sound familiar?). And just like every other third world community, they explained these events via mythology about gods or god.

The first actual king that was mentioned in the bible that was also mentioned in public records (and they were keeping records fairly early on in Egypt and Assyria) was Omri, the father of the "evil" King Ahab. In reality, the only people who really thought Ahab was evil were the hill people that lived in the rural areas of southern Israel-- and it was with the hope of delegitimizing this "evil" king that an alternate reality was created --. A history was developed that explained why the little group that lived in the southern regions had suffered so much but also gave them a heritage that revealed their right to the land and god's favor. And they began their stories the way ALL ancient religions began them, from the beginning.

So, we start with how people came to be. *Poof* god made them out of dust with strands of some of the other regional ancient stories about creation still clinging to it's tail. Then the flood-- well, that had it's beginning in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's a great story and would have entertained the people for many happy hours. Both stories originated much earlier and were tailored to fit the political aims of the "leaders" of the ragtag group down south. Abraham-- well, once again, if you want to explain how your particular group of people came to own a piece of land and why the conquering kingdoms that sweep in and out demanding tribute are evil and wrong, you develop a story whereby god gave you the land and the encroachers are enemies of your god. It is absolutely irrelevant that there never was an actual man named Abraham and it is meaningless that his sons never made a trek to Egypt, were enslaved and then eventually escaped the Pharoah's grasp, making a forty year trek through the desert. The point is that you have a mythology that unites your little people group to a common cause. And part of that cause explains the hows and whys of your claim to this little piece of property along the Mediterranean.

(If you ever want to get a flavor for story telling in the middle east, watch Michael Wood's documentary "In the footsteps of Alexander the Great." (1997) You get a real sense of the drama and showmanship that accompanies these ancestors of the middle eastern art of story- even today.)

The bible was shaped for a purpose and it wasn't with the intention of beginning a grand deception, it was simply a common custom of the ancient world. It is worthwhile understanding the intention of it's authors.

~Pictured: Shalmaneser III's (859-824 BC) Kurkh Monolith names King Ahab. Picture taken from Wikipedia.

Which truth is truth

Several comments I read this morning on gocomics.com commented on the bible. One in particular made the comment that christians cherry pick just what they want to believe is true in the bible or not. I think this is well worth noting as I continue down my path.

Fundamentalists believe that the "ten commandments" should be posted and followed as though they were the most profound writings of humankind's history. They don't want evolution taught because it contradicts the creationist stories. They believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, had a short-lived ministry on earth, died and rose again so that each individual who believe in him can go to heaven after they die. Now if you said, "but the Jewish people were never in Egypt and never escaped to the desert and Moses was probably not even a real person" why doesn't that present a problem for the ten commandments? And if you point out that the earth is not 6000 years old and people did not appear on this planet looking like they do now-- well, you get the point. And Jesus is supposedly god's son but apparently only some of what he says is meaningful. The parts that make people feel good about the potential to go to heaven.

You can't cherry pick it. It is either god's word or it's not. And if it is, then there are questions that need to be answered. And if it is not, then what is the point of it? What morality can be derived from it?

Jesus had some interesting things to say about money and the poor--- but not even bible thumpers take those words seriously. And frankly Jesus might have been radical in a Roman world, but he's less radical than the hippies of the 70s. And if you really want to read radical stuff, then read some Karl Marx. Or just dip your toes in some Naomi Klein or Susan Jacoby! Now talk about radical!

I digress

But the Adam and Eve story is just a such a small part of the minutiea, I don't want to get too caught up in talking about that. So many believers don't really care if that particular story is literal or not...

So, moving on.

When I was attending Denver Seminary, I took Old Testament Archeology & Theology. I was sitting in class the first day with several large books in front of me which we were told we were going to have to read over the course of the first half of the course (about 6 weeks). Actually there were two sets of two and one large book, all on the theology of the O.T.

"I am going to assign segments of each of these books to you to read and your assignment will be to read and assemble a report that gives your fellow students some understanding of the portion you have read. In this way, rather than having each of you trying to digest the entirety of the books in front of you, we will have an understanding of the theology within the OT as it has developed in the last hundred years or so."

The man who stood before me looked as though he could be cast in Hollywood to play the classic intellectual. Small in stature, thick round glasses, it was clear that he had spent many hours hunched over old books that were generally regarded as incomprehensible to the average reader. He was, well as far as I know he still is, highly regarded among biblical scholars... at least conservative scholars. He has published several books and is frequently asked to speaking engagements where his knowledge of the Old Testament is unsurpassed. You can google him and find all the titles he has either authored or co-authored are.(Now having said that, I should point out that many christians regard the O.T. as the "old covenant" and generally don't understand why anyone bothers with it at all. So while he is highly regarded, he is not given the degree of respect that his cohort Craig Blomberg, Professor of New Testament at D.S., is given)

As he spoke about the massive tomes we were about to read, he said, "Since we have learned so much about biblical theology in the past hundred years, it is important to give you an overview of how theology has changed. The first author you will read (Gerhard Van Rad) wrote his book about 50 years ago and has some interesting things to say about the O.T. but since he was working on the assumption that the Old Testament is historically accurate, he is generally not used as a source for really understanding the theology of he Old Testament. The second author (Walther Eichrodt) wrote his a bit later and less determined to view the text from and historical perspective with one overarching theme, he nevertheless still clings to some historical context which makes his theological development interesting but difficult to hold on to without the historical aspect. Over the next 20-30 years after Eichrodt wrote his text, Old Testament studies were in disarray because we were learning more about the region and that the stories of the Old Testament could not be actual events that took place at the time they are proposed to have taken place. Many scholars moved away from Old Testament studies altogether and studied strictly the New Testament. However, the problem with that is that so much of the New Testament is bedrocked on the Old Testament and if you ignore it or diminish it's importance, then you fail to see the whole picture of the New Testament. In 2005 Walter Brueggemann, a professor of Old Testament studies at Columbia (he's since retired apparently) has done the most complete work on the Old Testament and the themes within it, but as you will see, he is fairly liberal in his doctrine and in fact, does not even seem to answer the question about whether god is even in the O.T. In other words, he speaks a lot about what the people of the O.T. believed about god but does not answer the question as to what god is saying in the Old Testament. It can be rather unsatisfactory but nevertheless, it really is the best work on the Old Testament in the past twenty years or so."

Well! Quite an introduction! I was stunned. I hadn't given the historical nature of the bible much thought-- beyond the average, you know... "well, when did dinosaurs exist?" and I guess I had been content with the answer, "Seven days didn't mean literally 7 days. God did it over time. You know, maybe a day there is like it is in other parts, a day is like a thousand years..." Sounded good to me!

So onward we pushed- wading through the difficult english translations of german authors who were attempting to connect the Old Testament with the New. (and I might add this was important! Jesus uses the O.T. throughout his ministry and the other N.T. writers use events in the O.T. to show how god had planned sending his son to save the world all along.) So a first little web of thought was spun "what if..."

Indeed, what if...

What is true?

So a responder to "Reason" (below) had this to say and ask: "You ask why God didn't communicate the truth of His interactions with ancient people. If He had, how would it be any more verifiable than the accounts that we have recorded in the Bible today? In other words, how would we know that it was historically accurate?"

I responded in the comment but had intended on writing a bit more about the historical inaccuracies in the bible so I thought I'd include her question.

The question is not an uncommon argument for those who take the historicity of the bible as "gospel" :)-- after all, they have been told over and over again that the bible is true, that god may not have left evidence but nevertheless it is Truth. (Well, the whole argument is far more complex and convoluted than that, but that is essentially the point.)

In "The fiction of the bible" I point out that the creation story as written in the bible is clearly not how the earth was created. For instance we KNOW that there were humans at least 4.4 million years ago. (see full story at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ardi-hominid-human-ancestor.) This immediately contradicts the biblical account that god created man and woman in his image. The human that we see in the picture (above and also taken from Scientific American) is not at all what people should have looked like if god made people the way you might make a cake or a craft project. And most evangelical christians patently reject the notion that there is a link between humans and chimpanzees.

Yet here it is. We have the skull.

Now if you reject science (except when you're sick and want the doctor to make you well-- especially those christians who see god's miraculous hand working through technology and modern medicine for healing. Then science it great!!!) then, no problem. This means nothing. But if you do understand that we can find out a great deal about the earth and ourselves through science, then this early ancestor of ours should raise a lot of questions.

He (or she) doesn't look like Adam (or Eve) to me.

But there's lots more of those kind of things to talk about so stick around...