Great post. I think it's quite valid to argue that the main points of the gospel narratives are factually true. But there are other parts of the Bible that are very hard for modern readers to take as factual truth. Is it okay, do you think, to hold that parts of the Bible express metaphorical or spiritual truths but not factual ones? And it does get a bit tricky to completely reconcile all the details of the resurrection accounts in the gospels. But just because there are some contradictions, that does not rule out the factuality of the resurrection, right?
Hi Tim. Your point that it is difficult for readers to affirm the factual truth of some OT events is correct, and not because we are selecting our own subjective truths.
Michael once said to me when I asked how he would preach about the Exodus, “ I preach as if it happened.” This mirrors his critique of people who have an emotional reaction to, a story apart from its historical truth. Among the vast majority of historians, biblical scholars, archaeologists, Jews and Christians included, the Exodus and the Conquest did not happen as described in the Bible. This is hard to accept among evangelicals because of their devotion to a biased take on the literature. If the Bible is inerrant, ( I understand that Michael does not use that word, but I might be wrong) then so many historical truths will be bypassed.
I still would maintain that what the scholars are describing is the absence of certain kinds of evidence. I do not dismiss that, certainly. But even a sceptic like Thomas Romer argues that an exodus of some kind took place.
Certainly, this is not 'the Exodus as literally described in the Bible' (as the scholars say).
I agree re the idea that some semites and others went in and out of Egypt.
The story in Exodus has a back story, but not the epic with 2-3 million leaving.
And the internal evidence of the chronology in Exodus is self defeating.
The “absence of evidence” is, firstly, a very weak argument, and secondly the archaeological evidence, after the turn away from “biblical archaeology “ is very clear. Want references?
I think some or a lot of Genesis is not factual or meant to be. The first part, certainly - the creation out of chaos and the Garden of Eden story. To me, all of Genesis is glorious and I love reading it or books based on it. For example, Wm. Paul Young's Eve, which departs pretty radically from the Genesis account (but is so evocative and thought provoking), or Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" which treats the Joseph story pretty much as if it's factual. I love all of Genesis, but the Joseph chapters are just fabulous.
Great post. I think it's quite valid to argue that the main points of the gospel narratives are factually true. But there are other parts of the Bible that are very hard for modern readers to take as factual truth. Is it okay, do you think, to hold that parts of the Bible express metaphorical or spiritual truths but not factual ones? And it does get a bit tricky to completely reconcile all the details of the resurrection accounts in the gospels. But just because there are some contradictions, that does not rule out the factuality of the resurrection, right?
Genre is a really crucial - really crucial - thing to take into consideration.
The books of Job and Jonah, for example, (in my opinion) give us signals that they are not 'history'.
Re the resurrection: It is tricky but not inexplicable, I would say.
There's more to say here, esp re miracles and so on.
Hi Tim. Your point that it is difficult for readers to affirm the factual truth of some OT events is correct, and not because we are selecting our own subjective truths.
Michael once said to me when I asked how he would preach about the Exodus, “ I preach as if it happened.” This mirrors his critique of people who have an emotional reaction to, a story apart from its historical truth. Among the vast majority of historians, biblical scholars, archaeologists, Jews and Christians included, the Exodus and the Conquest did not happen as described in the Bible. This is hard to accept among evangelicals because of their devotion to a biased take on the literature. If the Bible is inerrant, ( I understand that Michael does not use that word, but I might be wrong) then so many historical truths will be bypassed.
Vic
I still would maintain that what the scholars are describing is the absence of certain kinds of evidence. I do not dismiss that, certainly. But even a sceptic like Thomas Romer argues that an exodus of some kind took place.
Certainly, this is not 'the Exodus as literally described in the Bible' (as the scholars say).
I agree re the idea that some semites and others went in and out of Egypt.
The story in Exodus has a back story, but not the epic with 2-3 million leaving.
And the internal evidence of the chronology in Exodus is self defeating.
The “absence of evidence” is, firstly, a very weak argument, and secondly the archaeological evidence, after the turn away from “biblical archaeology “ is very clear. Want references?
I think some or a lot of Genesis is not factual or meant to be. The first part, certainly - the creation out of chaos and the Garden of Eden story. To me, all of Genesis is glorious and I love reading it or books based on it. For example, Wm. Paul Young's Eve, which departs pretty radically from the Genesis account (but is so evocative and thought provoking), or Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" which treats the Joseph story pretty much as if it's factual. I love all of Genesis, but the Joseph chapters are just fabulous.
Agreed. Story, legend, myth folktale, fictionalised history (pace Robert Alter) are all genres available for interpretation.
I read Mann recently and am seeking the new translation.
Please send reference for Paul Young.
V
"Eve" by Wm. Paul Young: https://www.amazon.com/Eve-WM-Paul-Young-audiobook/dp/B012U7H80A/