Why the hate for Graham Phillip’s Moses Legacy? September 14, 2009
Posted by Damian in Ancient Near Eastern Thought, Church and Christian History.Tags: bible, graham phillips, historical reliability, historicity, inerrancy, kamose, Moses, moses legacy, propaganda, scripture, thutmoses
6 comments
Claude Mariottini posts about Graham Phillips’ The Moses Legacy, which theorises that Moses was two historical persons (Thutmoses and Kamose), combined by scribes into the Moses we know of in the bible. However, I was surprised by the off-hand way that Dr. Mariottini dismissed Phillips:
What can I say about such a preposterous theory about Moses? This theory has no merit. Phillips’ views can only be accepted if one is willing to completely distort the Biblical record. [...] Although the name or the work of Moses are not mentioned in any records from the Ancient Near East, and although no Egyptian monument or text mentions his name, gives a record of his birth, or tells about his work in delivering Israel, the biblical traditions are still reliable source material about Moses and his work. Although the debate will continue about the historical reliability of the biblical text or the existence of Moses, there is no compelling reason to deny that the Moses of the Bible was the Moses of the Bible.
It seems Dr Mariottini is committed to a somewhat inerrant view of scripture. Whilst a little convoluted, Phillips’ theory is reasonable considering it’s likely the Moses stories were written hundreds of years later, by those who likely had other interests than creating objectively accurate documents. But – and it’s a big but – I could be missing something major. Aside from a commitment to the historical reliability of the biblical text (and archaeological evidence such as this), are there reasons why Phillip’s theory should be dismissed?
Levitical codes as national insignia August 31, 2009
Posted by Damian in Ancient Near Eastern Thought, Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.Tags: abomination, allegiance, bestiality, Deuteronomy, gay, holy, homosexuality, Leviticus, pants, prostution, qedeshim, qedoshot, sabbath, transvestite
12 comments
Claude Mariottini, speaking of whether women should be allowed to wear pants, mentions a few lynchpins of Levitical text interpretation I think are important to the homosexuality debate (which I’ve discussed here, here, here and here):
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Crompton speculates that Levitical hostility toward homosexuality arose from the desire to keep the worship of Yahweh distinct from the cultic practices of other cultures in the Ancient Near East, in which transvestite priests often played religious roles.
and
The Biblical text is very clear: the qedeshim and the qedoshot, the male and female prostitutes were inside the Lord’s house in Jerusalem and there the women wove hangings for the Asherah. This type of ritual drama that took place in the temple was unacceptable to the Israelites. This is the reason the Israelites rejected bestiality, homosexualism, transvestism, and temple prostitution and declared these practices to be an abomination to God.
To put it in my own words, certain sexual acts were forbidden not because of their intrinsic evil but because of their association with the cults of other gods, in order to keep Yahweh-worship distinct and holy. Whilst over time the common knowledge of this reasoning might have eroded, it is nevertheless true that it is unlikely that the acts themselves were ever considered evil (just as working on a Sunday is not evil, but is forbidden), but simply a signifier of the sanctification of Israel. They were to be the Israelite’s way to signify their allegiance – the national flag, so to speak. Something that marked them as separate from other nations and religions.
Does fabrication in scripture affect faith or theology? August 23, 2009
Posted by Damian in Ancient Near Eastern Thought, Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.Tags: christ, David, Gentiles, inerrancy, Jesus, Josiah, King of the Jews, Kings, messiah, messianic claims, Paul, solomon, Son of David
10 comments
Neil Godfrey posted on the fabrication of the Solomon and David stories of the books of Kings by Josiah. I’m not sure about the evidence – I haven’t read the literature on the matter. But I think it raises interesting questions. Namely, if the divine royalties of David and Solomon were fabrications to support a later King’s dreams of ruling a united Judah, what meaning remains in the genealogies connecting Jesus to David, in his title as King of the Jews, Son of David, etc.
Now, honestly, I’m not sure the relevance of these titles to a non-Jewish audience. It seems there is little; Paul, for example, doesn’t seem to use them in his communications with Gentiles. Are these titles (and Christ’s association with them) solely relevant to the matter of convincing the Jews of the time of Christ’s messianic claims? Obviously, calling into questions the historicity of the Solomon and David stories causes problems for the inerrancy crowd, but beyond challenges to the bible’s inerrancy, I don’t really know of any reasons why this evidence impacts faith or theology.
Does anyone else know of any reasons why this evidence might impact their faith, or their theology?
An attempt to clarify the theological implications of Satan’s development June 28, 2009
Posted by Damian in Ancient Near Eastern Thought, Church and Christian History, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: Adam, bible, canon, christianity, cosmic struggle, diablos, eve, evil, fallen angel, good, good and evil, gospel, gospels, history, judaism, lucifer, Mark, Matthew, New Testament, old testament, satan, the devil, zoroastrianism
add a comment
The other week, I posted on Robert Oester’s article ‘the Curious Career of Satan’. Since then, he’s commented on what I wrote, specifically this:
How do we reconcile the Old Testament picture of evil being God’s responsibility (and all that entails), and modern concepts of the struggle between good and evil? Does the New Testament paint that picture, or is it something later Christianity projected onto the text? Was this projection something that started before or after solidification of the canon?
His response was this:
I don’t know Damian, so I’m probably not being fair to him here, but he seems to be asking, “Is the development of the character of Satan something that is in the NT [and therefore something important], or something that happened after the NT was written [and therefore something to be ignored].” That seems to me to be a chicken-and-egg question: one that probably doesn’t have an answer. Rather, there must have been an interplay between canon development – as certain texts that mention Satan became more widespread in the Christian communities – and the development of ideas about Satan. Neither one came first: both developments happened at more or less the same time.
My understanding of canon development is that the canon – which records a specific understanding of Satan’s role – was chosen because it was a record of the developing ideas that became regarded as Orthodox. Hence, of course, there was an interplay between development of canon and development of ideas: They reflected each other.
My questions were slightly different:
- Did the New Testament record a specific understanding of Satan that is seemingly different from the Old Testament understanding of Satan?
- Did post-first-century Christianity develop these ideas and project it onto the text?
- Did this projection occur before or after solidification of the canon?
Now I’m not sure Robert understood my reasons for answering these questions. I want to attempt to reconcile two seemingly contradictory understandings of evil. The first regards God as the ultimate arbiter of Good and Evil; the second regards Satan as one part of a weak dualism, where whilst he will inevitably fall, he is very similar to a god himself. To me, this second understanding causes (understandably) some theological issues. This is why I’m curious about what opinions people have on the New Testament Satan and its relationship to his Old Testament counterpart. Now I don’t have access to many early Christian texts, and I’m not well read in them, but I’m confident that some record of early Christianity’s thoughts regarding this issue must exist; this is why I ask about if Christianity post-dating the writing of the New Testament developed these ideas and projected them onto the New Testament. It’s been known to happen. Finally, I asked about the location of this projection: That is, if the canon might have solidified around a weak-dualist understanding of Satan, or if the weak-dualist understanding was developed around the canon we’re familiar with.
Now, there are no true answers to these questions, but I’m open to any opinions, ideas, or texts that people are willing to give.
What does it mean to ‘Fear the Lord’? May 20, 2009
Posted by Damian in Ancient Near Eastern Thought, Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.Tags: christ, Christians, Deuteronomy, emotion, end of time, end times, Eschatology, fear, fear of the Lord, follow, God, gods, judgement, Lord, love, non-Christian, obey, respect, serve, the LORD, wisdom, Yahweh
2 comments
The esteemed Michael Bird wrote the other day about Fear of the Lord. However, I’m not sure I agree with his analysis:
I think the answer is provided by Deuteronomy 10:
Deuteronomy 10:12-13 – “And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?”
Deuteronomy 10:20 – “Fear the LORD your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.”
In sum, the fear of the Lord is to follow, love, obey, and serve him!
Firstly, I think it’s inaccurate to define by accompaniment, because there are implicit ands in 12-13 as well as explicit ones in 13 and 20:
“…fear the LORD your God [and] to walk in all his ways [and] to love him, [and]to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees…”
Hence, I don’t feel it’s right to say that the fear of the Lord is to follow, love, obey and serve. In fact, I wonder why it is that Christians feel the need to ask the question ‘what does it mean to fear the Lord’. Because it’s fairly self-explanatory. If it meant something other than what it says, then translators would translate it differently. And they don’t (Deuteronomy 10:20a):
Fear the LORD your God and serve him. (NIV)
You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him… (NASB)
You shall [reverently] fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him (Amp)
You must fear the Lord your God and worship him and cling to him. (NLT)
You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him (ESV)
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave. (KJV)
You are to fear the LORD your God and worship Him.(HCSB)
Fear the LORD your God and serve him. (TNIV)
Fear is (asking Wolfram Alpha, because it’s a novel tool) an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight). Now, in the world of Deuteronomy, Gods were regarded as fearful creatures. They were considered dangerous, especially when you treated them badly, and did other than what they wanted you to do. And Yahweh (the LORD), was supposed to be the biggest, scariest, and most powerful God of all. In that context, the word ‘fear’ is an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger. And it makes perfect sense.
So the question becomes, instead, how do we apply ‘fear of the Lord’ to Christians. The only translations that translated differently were the CEV, NCV and Message, all of which rendered ‘fear’ as ‘respect’. Which is still very different from ‘to follow, obey, love and serve’ (although it’s a little closer). However, I feel ‘respect’ is a little too soft to be applied to the Lord. What might be an issue with Christians and ‘fear of the Lord’ is that it is commonly understood that we have nothing to fear from the Lord – after all, we’re forgiven our sins. Only non-Christians have anything to fear from the Lord. Therefore, there comes a need to redefine ‘fear’ as obedience, or servitude, or love.
In the Christian eschatology, fear of the Lord comes from his judgement at the end of time. So the question becomes, are Christians free from that judgement? Do their actions have no consequence? I feel that a Christians’ actions have consequences, good, or bad, and that we will be punished accordingly, just like everyone else. So the ‘fear of the Lord’ is natural: We’re not free from judgement, so we still have much to fear.
But if we are free from judgement, then there is no fear of the Lord. There is no beginning to wisdom. Which, I feel, is a challenge to theology that says we are free from judgement.
