A vaguely heated discussion happened on Friday about the Old Testament. On one side someone was saying it was a 'bronze age document' and therefore untrustworthy and on the other side someone saying it was the 'word of God' and therefore entirely trustworthy. I started to respond to these positions but realised it deserved more than a brief statement. This blog post is an attempt to express more fully my position.
There are two things of note: Firstly, I'm dealing with the OT (Old Testament) here not the New Testament. Secondly, when I use the word 'myth' I mean 'a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events' not 'a widely held but false belief or idea'. When I use the word myth I am not making any statement about the veracity of the myth. When I make a statement about truth or otherwise I will try to make that clear.
I believe in peer review so if I have missed or misunderstood something please comment below or send me a message through Facebook. This means that potentially this blog post will be updated in the future.
Among my friends I observe wide-ranging views on the Bible from at one end that God does not exist and therefore the entire Bible is completely false to other friends for whom it is the verbatim word of God where the creation myth has to be understood as seven twenty-four hour periods. But the opinions are not binary. This is a continuum with many varied understandings all along the path. Some of those understandings are dismissed by some people and embraced by others. Many of the statements made are derisive of other people's statements. Particularly in the Anglo world where binary political views are the order of the day, positions on the OT and the Bible have become binary even if within narrow bands on the continuum.
Some thoughts
How the OT was copied
From what we know of the process and particularly from about 600 BC there was a defined process: The copied manuscript had to be reviewed within thirty days, and if three or more pages required corrections then the entire manuscript had to be scrapped and recopied. It seems like an OCD dream because in order to check if it was an accurate copy the letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document. Τhe document also needed recopying if any two copied letters touched each other.
 |
| Rabbi Ariel Louis the Sofer (Jewish scribe) of Masada completing a copy of the torah for the The Israeli Security Service, Masada, Israel, January 2012 |
The process of copying the text was painstaking and extreme. I'm glad I wasn't a scribe doing that all day, every day. It would have driven me mad. But it does suggest to me for at least six centuries before the start of the New Testament the copying of the text was accurate. It is argued by some people that this painstaking process was inspired by God to guarantee the accuracy of the preservation of the text.
How far back before 600 BC this painstaking process was undertaken in unclear but by the middle of the Iron Age it was the defined process. My personal perception is that the defined process started in 600 BC was a codifying of an existing process and thus the text remained intact for many centuries before that. It still continues to this day.
Creation Myth
 |
| Winged bearded genii with various attributes, Nimrud, North-West Palace of King Assurnasirpal II, c.870 BC, Mossulalabaster photo by Rufus46 |
In the Babylonian myth there is a single God (Apsû) from whom all things came into being through Tia-mat. Obviously very similar to the one true God creating all things through Jesus. Everything was chaos/disorganised matter and through the gods the everything was made to the ordered universe we know today. Similar to the story of the seven day creation. In Enūma Eliš there is a war among the gods and Apsû is killed. Quingu the god who started the war is executed. The battle between good and evil has parallels but God being killed and the devil being executed is very different.
The close similarities between Genesis and Enūma Eliš suggest that the writers of Genesis were familiar with the myth in Enūma Eliš. But the differences are significant: In the Baylonian myth humans are created to serve the gods. In Genesis humans are created in the image of God and God walking and talking with humans. The OT version shows people as the climax of creation, with a very special relationship to the one true God.
When one looks at creation myths the important thing to evaluate is the relationship between God and mankind. It is a special relationship initiated by God. Why is this the starting point? Because Jesus as God's Son taught and demonstrated that. We start from Jesus.
Source-books to the Pentateuch
However, there is debate among scholars as to the date of authorship of Genesis, some claiming that it was redacted to the form we now know in only the fourth century BC. Some scholars believe the entire Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are redacted from multiple sources known as J, E (and RJE), P and D with potentially some extra material from the redactor. The redaction to the Pentateuch is believed to have happened during the period I have listed as the codified copying era.
Conservative Evangelicals and some others disagree with this preferring to believe in what they see as traditional authorship by Moses. For example they highlight Luke 24:44 suggesting this means that Jesus accepted that Moses wrote the entire Pentatech: 'When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.' and John 5:25-47 'Yet it isn’t I who will accuse you before the Father. Moses will accuse you! Yes, Moses, in whom you put your hopes. If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?' Neither of those two references imply to me that Jesus believed Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch.
Conservative Evangelicals and some others disagree with this preferring to believe in what they see as traditional authorship by Moses. For example they highlight Luke 24:44 suggesting this means that Jesus accepted that Moses wrote the entire Pentatech: 'When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled.' and John 5:25-47 'Yet it isn’t I who will accuse you before the Father. Moses will accuse you! Yes, Moses, in whom you put your hopes. If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?' Neither of those two references imply to me that Jesus believed Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch.
Personally, I find the book by Richard Friedman with the first five books of the OT highlighted by their source to be convincing. Accepting that thesis helps to see the OT in context and explains many of the jumps in the text. Obviously this only applies to the first five books leaving another thirty-four books from different authors. At a distance of three millenia it is difficult to be certain. However, the multiple source theory makes an understanding of the OT more coherent. It doesn't take away from the core proposition that the people of Israel were worshippers of the one true God and though frequently failing were trying to follow his leading.
Psalms
Many Christians and Jews love the Psalms. Anglo Christians reading or using them in English rather than the original Hebrew. This means that they are reading translated poetry.
Poetry is notoriously difficult to translate and any people who have compared, for example, the famous Iranian poet Rumi in Farsi, Arabic and English with attest. At best you are getting thought-for-thought translation in poetic form, but the reality is the original poetry is lost unless you read it in Hebrew with enough Hebrew to understand and enjoy.
Many of the psalms set to music in English are very liberal translations though reputedly still holding to the original Hebrew ideas. Some communicate potentially different ideas to those of the original authors because we don't live in the same culture or era of the writers. They do however often communicate coherent thoughts about God if one accepts the precept that it relates to the understanding of the people of Israel at that time.
The psalms express all sorts of human emotions -- pain, grief, joy and as some people express it 'the desire for victory over our enemies'. That victory over our enemies is one that we as 21st century followers of the Messiah living in peace rarely struggle with. Thus we discount parts of the OT as not applying today.
Some American Christians might see the political struggle in similar terms to the physical attacks against the people of Israel 3,000 years ago. For most of us 'My enemies surround me like a herd of bulls' doesn't ring true. Of course in places with ongoing conflicts like Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, Niger, Libya, Mali, Burkina Faso... to name but a few, it might ring true.
Some reformed theologians see the OT battles of the people of Israel as part of a three-part struggle against 'the world, the flesh and the devil' and hence though the Psalms refer to physical struggle we read them today in terms of spiritual struggle.
It is interesting that Jesus quoted Psalm 22, a psalm about war and conflict, when he was on the cross. 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' That psalm also includes 'My enemies... have pierced my hands and feet.' (v16) and 'They divide my garments among themselves and throw dice for my clothing.' (v18) Both of those happened to Jesus at his crucifixion! However, while it was a psalm about war and conflict Jesus was submitting to the oppressors and in doing so negating their effect. Hence reading Psalms about war we need to read them through Jesus eyes more than those of the original authors.
When thinking about books of this era one must remember that the people of Israel were not the only monotheistic people/tribe even if most were polytheistic. One notable leader was Akhenaten from Egypt. Akhenaten was pharaoh from about 1353 BC to 1336 BC and a monotheist. However, the culture away from 'traditional religion' to monotheism was reversed after his death.
Some of his songs read similar to psalms and indeed one of them even talks of one single God as both father and son. His theology was certainly not what we would see as 'Christian' but it gives a context into which we read the Psalms.
Israel as a template for all other nations
It has been suggested that one way to read the OT is to see the people of Israel as a template or model for all nations on the earth. I have two problems with that. The first is in God's covenant with Abraham recorded in Genesis 12: 1-3
The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father’s family, and go to the land that I will show you. I will make you into a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and you will be a blessing to others. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt. All the families on earth will be blessed through you.”
(Highlighting mine)
I have understood this to mean that in the diaspora of the people of Israel throughout the world they were to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Jesus talks about being salt and light 'You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavour? Can you make it salty again?' Salt is a preservative and taste enhancer. It is minority ingredient. If you drink salt water it will make you vomit. The people of Israel failed to be that blessing (salt that had lost it's flavour) hence why Jesus talked about it to his followers as grafted into the original 'chosen people'. The phrase 'grafted into' is important: It is neither continuation nor replacement but grafting. That grafting also gives us insight into reading the OT. Demonstrably as we read the OT we see that the people of Israel had lost their saltiness and so Jesus needed to demonstrate further revelation of what it means to be a follower of the one true God.
The second problem I have with Israel being a template for all the nations of the earth is that if all nations are following the one true God and doing so as badly as the people of Israel you will potentially have multiple nations mishearing God and all believing they are God ordained to go slaughter the surrounding nations! Or will God tell some to slaughter and others to be slaughtered? I am not convinced that God ever intended the modern nation-state that we see today with borders and disputes over borders. In the Law God commanded 'Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself.' This suggests to me not quite a border-free existence but one where the borders are permeable and easily transgressed.
Hence I do not see the OT as a series of books demonstrating 'this is how you should set up each of your nations throughout the world'!
Other monotheistic groups - Melchizedek and Zarathustra
There is frequently an assumption that the people of Israel were the only true worshippers of the only one true God. Even the OT points to it being somewhat more complex than that. Take for example Melchizedek. Melchizedek is not part of the Abrahamic tribal family yet he is described as the 'priest of the Most High God'. There was clearly a relationship between Abraham and Melchizedek. Had Melchizedek not served the same one true God that Abraham served it seems difficult to believe that they would have shared bread and wine together and Abraham then accept his blessing.
In the New Testament in the book of Hebrews the author points out that Melchizedek was not a Levite, yet still a priest and received a tithe from Abraham. He points out that potentially Levi, not yet born and still a potential person actually paid the tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham. Inheriting the blessing through a gift of one's ancestor doesn't sit well with 21st century humans and then the author of Hebrews goes on to express that Jesus is in fact not a Levitical priest but a priest of the order of Melchizedek. So we see that although there is series of books like the OT the priestly order of Melchizedek is potentially more important than the record of the people of Isreal and their relationship with God!
Another ancient monotheistic religion is that of Zoroastrianism. Founded by a prophet called Zarathushtra in Greater Iran (probably Afghanistan or Tajikistan) it has similarities and some differences to what we read in the OT. As well as a single God there is also a satan character and an ongoing battle between good and evil. The Zoroastrian creation myth follows similar steps to the Genesis creation myth, with man as the pinnacle of creation and protective angels to serve the one true God.
Some Jewish scholars attest that what they call 'universalism' which appears in the second book of Isaiah comes from core Zoroastrian dogma. 'This was the notion that God's law is universal and "saves" all who turn to God, no matter their particular faith.' This is different to western universalism which claims all will be saved regardless, but that all who turn to the one true God will be saved. The exclusiveness of salvation through Jesus is not an OT concept but only introduced into Christian thinking in the NT.
The Word of God
NT writers clearly accept that the OT contains the words of God. The phrase the 'Word of God' is a little confusing as there are two Greek words meaning word and they have different and separate meanings. Those words are logos and rhema.
In the NT at the start of John's Gospel we read 'In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God.' The Greek word for word there is logos and is understood to mean the expression of a thought. Logos is also used for what we understand to be the written word of God for example in Hebrews 4:12 'For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires.'
The other Greek word rhema refers to the actual spoken or written words of God for example in the Gospel of Matthew 'But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"'
Because Jesus and the writers of the NT accept that the OT contains the 'word of God' it's clear in some sense we should too. However, there is a caveat. The writers of the NT do not cite any references to God saying 'Go out and kill...' We thus have a more complex understanding than just accepting God of the OT was a killer God and God of the NT was a peace-loving God.
Conclusions
So putting all those thoughts together, the way I would see the OT is as an accurate perception of the beliefs of the tribes of Israel at the period it was written. I remain unconvinced that they heard God correctly in each and every instance, though it is clear that they had unwavering conviction that they did. (In fact, that is virtually the Jewish perception of the OT!) In some cases that assurance helped maintain a belief that killing tens of thousands of people was acceptable because it was 'God ordained'.
Mankind has not changed much in that respect, some people today still see ethnic cleansing and mass killing in terms of being directed by God. The debate about Saint Augustine's and Saint Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory continues to this day. And it is complex when one thinks about defensive action, offensive action and preemptive offensive action in defense without clear words from Jesus to give us guidance.
Frequently people teaching from the OT do so from the position of God always being good and that 'we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them'. The assumption is that those in the slaughtered people group killed were either against God or that it was for their best.
I've heard this questioned by those on the receiving end of the killing! I think we often need to re-read parts of the OT putting ourselves in the position of those being killed or attacked. For instance, imagine yourself as a God lover living in Jericho in the 14th century BC...
Am I therefore rejecting the OT?
I am not rejecting the OT nor am I rejecting that God was dealing with the people of Israel throughout this period. Indeed quite the opposite; we see many instances of God that match with Christ's communication of God in the Gospels and we see many instances that match with our experiences of failure to follow the Holy Spirit. It therefore reads pretty accurately as a record of fallible people trying and sometimes failing to follow the one true God. As Cromwell is reputed to say to his portrait painter 'paint my picture, warts and all'; it shows the people of Israel 'warts and all'!
If someone wrote a book about my wife I would not measure my wife by that book but I would measure the book by my experience of my wife. The same should be true for the OT for those of us who know and love the one true God. It is our understanding that 'God loved the world (so much): He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life'. Therefore we should read the OT in terms of God loving everyone. The people group of God lovers (the tribes of Israel) sometimes, like us today, misheard God.
Does that me we arbitrarily chose to cut out from the OT verses we find unacceptable? No, we read them all and include them all but understand them from our understanding and experience of God. People argue that means we are making subjective assessments about the 'word of God'. Since the Bible itself refers to Christ as 'the Word of God' we are actually taking the Word of God (ie Christ) more seriously and evaluating the OT in terms of the Word of God!
Now obviously at repeated times throughout the OT the text reads 'The LORD says...' And some of those times it claims He said to go out and slaughter loads and loads of human beings 'created in his image'. At no time in the NT do we read 'The LORD says...' followed by an injunction to go and kill people. Hence we either have a God who radically changed between OT and NT or we have a misunderstanding of either the OT or the NT. Some people resolve that potential paradox by believing that today there are times when it's God ordained to kill.
Knowing Christ as we do today I suspect we have a misunderstanding of some of the OT and mankind receiving progressive revelation of the nature and person of God starting in the OT, progressing in the NT and still progressing today. This is the complex journey we treat as pilgrims following the Messiah.
Summary
My belief having looked at the evidence is that the Old Testament is a faithful and authentic record of a very imperfect people group writing their subjective and sometimes blinkered understanding about the perfect and one true God.
As such it needs to be read in the light of how Jesus, as God's Son, expresses truths about God. Where there might appear to be contradiction between OT and Jesus teaching requiring complex abstractions, then Occam's Razor suggests the 'simplest solution is almost always the best'. The simplest solution is frequently that the very imperfect people group misheard the perfect and one true God who in his love for us has given us all complete free choice. After all Jesus reinterprets Psalm 22 about a physical battle to a spiritual one where surrender is the way to overcome.
Criticism of this position
Criticism of this position would be that I am potentially cherry-picking or cutting out verses I don't like and using human rather than divine logic. I would argue that it is not cutting out verses from the OT, but accepting they are all there, it's just how we understand them. I would argue that, as a parallel example, though the church accepted slavery for hundreds of years it was not 'human rather than divine logic' that made us change but progressive revelation as we understood more of God. It is thus understanding more of the infinite God in our finite minds that we bring to the OT.
We need to accept that our understanding of the OT in 2024 will be different to our understanding of it in 2124, 2224 and so on. It is indeed dangerous to assume that the understanding of it in 1024 or one thousand years earlier was either better or fixed in time for all eternity. Though God is the same yesterday, today and forever, our discernment of Him isn't. Thus our perceptions from a series of books written three millenia ago also doesn't reveal a perfect understanding of God. But we can learn from the Old Testament's imperfect understanding of God. However, alongside this we need to remember we learn more about God from the teaching and life of Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment