How to take the Bible

[Frankk]

Lucas Grollenberg, a Dutch Dominican, wrote an excellent book entitled, ‘Rediscovering the Bible’. It does, however, present some difficult challenges. For example, he discusses circumcision and its meaning after the deportations to Babylon in 597 and 587.
He notes that circumcision was in use among Canaanites and other nations near ancient Israel with the exception of the Philistines.

As it was common practice the Israelites could not be very consciously aware of its special meaning. After, deportation, however, the Babylonians did not practice it so, in this new situation, it became a distinguishing feature for the Judaeans; it became a sign that one belonged to Yahweh, and thus a “sign of the Covenant”. Circumcision retained this meaning, even in the post-excilic community in Jerusalem. This became even stronger when the rite fell into disuse among the non-Jewish groups in Palestine. He states that now the story of Genesis 17 was edited during or shortly after the exile: God imposed circumcision as a sign of the Covenant on Abram who henceforth became Abraham.

The challenge, then, is what are we to make of this re-writing of the Bible? Richard Dawkins has argued that the Bible is a compilation of ‘made-up’ stories. This editing seems to be an example of a ‘made-up’ story. God didn’t require Abram to be circumcised; rather, when there was a need to justify, or explain, Israel’s special relationship with God, this rite was ‘written in’ to history many centuries after the event when the special circumstances of the day required a ‘nation-building’ supporting narrative. Or was there ever such an event? How would the editors know there had been such an event when, for centuries, circumcision had been commonplace and unremarkable?

 

[eegardner]

Richard Dawkins is an extreme atheist, and would say anything to discredit the Bible and every other Christian belief.

The Jewish people were pretty good historians and record keepers. There would have been written evidence of many things that some may find insignificant.

 

[Frankk]

It is axiomatic that Dawkins would want to discredit religion. The question is whether his objection has any validity in this context.

From the sources I’ve been able to find it seems certain that during the exile circumcision grew in significance as the special mark of the Israelites in the midst of a foreign people.

It also appears that Gen 17 was edited to include God’s requirement for Abram to be circumcised as a mark of the Covenant. This would have been unnecessary had records already existed to show that this is what had happened. Are there any sources which show that such records existed?

Describing the Jewish people as good historians begs the question that we understand how they understood history. Certainly, it wasn’t how we understand it with our thirst for places, dates, individuals and ‘concrete’ events. They experienced reality in a very different way.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It is axiomatic that Dawkins would want to discredit religion. The question is whether his objection has any validity in this context.

From the sources I’ve been able to find it seems certain that during the exile circumcision grew in significance as the special mark of the Israelites in the midst of a foreign people.

It also appears that Gen 17 was edited to include God’s requirement for Abram to be circumcised as a mark of the Covenant. This would have been unnecessary had records already existed to show that this is what had happened. Are there any sources which show that such records existed?

Describing the Jewish people as good historians begs the question that we understand how they understood history. Certainly, it wasn’t how we understand it with our thirst for places, dates, individuals and ‘concrete’ events. They experienced reality in a very different way.

Once Jews had increasing contact with Greek culture, circumcision indeed becomes more significant as a distinguishing mark setting off Jew from Gentile. See 1Maccabees 1 for example.

Yes, I think the Israelites had a different understanding of history than we do–and one that is probably difficult for us to fully understand.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This webpage claims that while the Canaanites and Egyptians did practice circumcision, it was practiced on adolescents as a rite of passage into manhood (similar, I might add, to some modern Sub-Saharan African cultures) rather than on infants: judaism.about.com/od/lifeevents/a/originbritmilah.htm

I also recall reading somewhere that most Egyptians were not in fact circumcised, but only the priestly class (at least at some point in time; not sure if it was the case during this particular period).

Anyway, why should it come as a surprise that God would take a custom of one culture (not Abraham’s native Mesopotamia, but the new land he had been called to and the land of Egypt where his descendents would pass a great deal of time) and insert it into the ritual life of his covenant people, with a new symbolism? Maybe even a connected symbolism: belonging to the land of Canaan now rather than Mesopotamia, maturity, priesthood, but all in the context of the unique covanent with God, as well as other likely things like fertility, purity, and suffering.

Baptism also has precedents in both Judaism and Paganism; that doesn’t mean Christian baptism isn’t unique in its own particulars or that it was not instituted by God.

And sure, when their surroundings changed and fewer or no surrounding peoples also practiced any kind of circumcision, it should come as no surprise that their consciousness of it should increase.

Finally, I can’t speak directly to whether a passage about circumcision was added to Genesis during or after the Exile. Is there actual textual evidence for this or is it just people with preconceived ideas trying to explain away a passage that doesn’t fit with their theories? But even if there really is good evidence that this passage was added, then it would have been added under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and tells the truth. A divinely inspired revision or enhancement or amendment to of a text? Why not? Genesis seems to be a compellation from multiple sources anyway.

 

[TimothyH]

For a passage to have been added to Genesis several centuries after it was authored begs the question as to the logistics of such a feat.

Every copy of the Torah would have had to have been edited or those that could not be edited would have had to have been suppressed somehow. And every Rabbi would have had to have gone along with the idea. Judaism was not like the Church today with a central authority. There were many sects including the Phariesses and Sadduces and different communites including the Essenes and Qumrans. They would have had to all have been in on it.

The only way I can see that the text was edited would have been immediately after the exile, when I believe about 7000 people returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. But that presupposes no other surviving copies of the Torah outside of those that were in or brought back to Jerusalem and further, presupposes no human memory of the original unedited Torah. Jews were highly educated about their own scripture. Would not someone say, “Hey, that wasn’t in there before!”

It seems like an unlikely blblical 9-11 conspiracy.

-Tim-

 

[Zenas]

So circumcision was in use among the Cananites, was it? I don’t think so. Genesis 34 is a tawdry story of how the sons of Jacob persuaded their Cananite neighbors to get circumcised, telling them if they did so then they could marry into their tribe. After all the men got circumcised and were too sore to fight, Simeon and Levi came into their city and killed them all with their swords.

Oh well, maybe someone inserted that story into the book of Genesis also.

 

[melbanglican]

For a passage to have been added to Genesis several centuries after it was authored begs the question as to the logistics of such a feat.

Every copy of the Torah would have had to have been edited or those that could not be edited would have had to have been suppressed somehow. And every Rabbi would have had to have gone along with the idea. Judaism was not like the Church today with a central authority. There were many sects including the Pharisees and Sadducees and different communites including the Essenes and Qumrans. They would have had to all have been in on it.

The only way I can see that the text was edited would have been immediately after the exile, when I believe about 7000 people returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. But that presupposes no other surviving copies of the Torah outside of those that were in or brought back to Jerusalem and further, presupposes no human memory of the original unedited Torah. Jews were highly educated about their own scripture. Would not someone say, “Hey, that wasn’t in there before!”

It seems like an unlikely blblical 9-11 conspiracy.

-Tim-

What do we know about when, and how, Genesis was written? For example, such tampering would have been effectively impossible if this author is correct:

bibleinterp.com/articles/genesis.shtml

However, two of the most distinguished archaeologists in Israel have different ideas on the subject, and make a compelling case in Finkelstein and Silberman, ‘The Bible Unearthed’, esp. pp. 46-7.

If the latter two are correct, then there is probably no ‘conspiracy’ required. It is likely that nothing was ‘added’ at all.

Peace.

 

[Frankk]

However, these guys challenge Biblical accounts of the fall of Jericho and dispute the existence of David and Solomon as historical figures. Finkelstein disputes the 6-chambered gates found in Israel as being Solomonic; neither does he accept the remains of a huge stable/horse training complex as being Solomonic.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

[Lucas Grollenberg] states that now the story of Genesis 17 was edited during or shortly after the exile: God imposed circumcision as a sign of the Covenant on Abram who henceforth became Abraham.

The challenge, then, is what are we to make of this re-writing of the Bible? Richard Dawkins has argued that the Bible is a compilation of ‘made-up’ stories. This editing seems to be an example of a ‘made-up’ story.

I think that focusing too much on one person, such as Richard Dawkins, may be distracting…

I believe that is largely the consensus of Biblical scholars for much of the content of the Old Testament. Scholars generally agree that there is no credible evidence for the Exodus, the existence of Moses, or for the veracity of most of the Old Testament. As for most of the Bible, scholars generally agree that it is largely the product of interpolation (meaning that content was added to the passage, such as the last few verses of the Gospel of John) and editing of previous works.

Even Scott Hahn, who I took a graduate class with, seemed to quietly agree with the most Biblical scholars in these regards, but tended to emphasize the symbolic and theological meanings of many things in the Bible, while only really hinting about problems like these in the Bible to graduate students.

To suggest what you may do as a Catholic, I think I should mention what my uncle, who is a Carmelite friar (O.C.D.), did. After studying the Bible a bit in pursuit of an undergraduate degree as a Carmelite brother, he eventually took the entirety of the Old Testament in a metaphorical sense. Perhaps that is an approach you may want to consider taking.

 

[melbanglican]

However, these guys challenge Biblical accounts of the fall of Jericho and dispute the existence of David and Solomon as historical figures. Finkelstein disputes the 6-chambered gates found in Israel as being Solomonic; neither does he accept the remains of a huge stable/horse training complex as being Solomonic.

I went and did some checking after you raised these points (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed):

1. They make a very compelling case with regard to Jericho - no walls (pp. 81-2)!
2. They don’t actually dispute the existence of David and Solomon as historical figures, merely their status and the actual magnitude of their achievements (pp. 129ff).
3. They make a compelling argument for at least a sceptical view of these features.

The science of archaeology is forcing a realignment of traditional views in societies all over the world. There is no reason why it should not do the same in this case. We don’t have to like it, but we can’t really ignore it either.

 

[Frankk]

Thanks melb,

I saw F&S expressing these views in a series of programmes (whose name I can’t remember!? - possibly ‘The Bible Unearthed’). F provided evidence of an increase in minor settlements in Israel which, he argued, proved that Abraham never moved into Israel from Ur. He also suggested that these settlements prove there was never a migration from Egypt into Israel.

Needless to say there were other experts on the programmes who argued the opposite. I was never able to work out if he was Jewish, of some other faith, or of no faith at all. Does his book throw any light on this?

The impression I got was that his goal was to disprove that the Bible account had any historical validity.

 

[Frankk]

To suggest what you may do as a Catholic, I think I should mention what my uncle, who is a Carmelite friar (O.C.D.), did. After studying the Bible a bit in pursuit of an undergraduate degree as a Carmelite brother, he eventually took the entirety of the Old Testament in a metaphorical sense. Perhaps that is an approach you may want to consider taking.

Many thanks for your thoughtful contribution. I think I would have a major problem adopting your uncle’s approach, which is this: If The Fall is a metaphor then there was no such thing as original sin; if there is no such thing as original sin, the is no need of salvation; if there is no need of salvation, Christ’s death on the cross has no meaning.

Mind you I’m aware no one has said theology is an easy subject

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I think I would have a major problem adopting your uncle’s approach, which is this: If The Fall is a metaphor then there was no such thing as original sin; if there is no such thing as original sin, the is no need of salvation; if there is no need of salvation, Christ’s death on the cross has no meaning.

I don’t know too much about his particular theological views, however, I don’t think that that is quite his position. Perhaps (I’m just speculating) he thinks the fall in Genesis is metaphorical for some other fall type of fall, such as humanity in general being evil.

 

[Pieman333272]

I don’t know too much about his particular theological views, however, I don’t think that that is quite his position. Perhaps (I’m just speculating) he thinks the fall in Genesis is metaphorical for some other fall type of fall, such as humanity in general being evil.

TruthSeeker - I’m not trying to box your uncle’s theological views, but based on my reading of other people’s work who interpreted at least Genesis, if not the whole OT, allegorically, I would guess that your uncle meant that the fall did happen - as in humans rejected God’s grace and were limited as a result (i.e. death, pain, the whole thing) - but did not happen exactly as the story was written. I hold a very similar view for some stories in genesis, and read a lot of other views too. Again, I could be miles off, but based on my reading of others’ views, this is probably what your uncle means. So original sin, the actual fall, A&E (in the sense of the first man and women) can exist as per your uncle’s view, but the events did not happen exactly as described.

 

[Pieman333272]

The challenge, then, is what are we to make of this re-writing of the Bible? Richard Dawkins has argued that the Bible is a compilation of ‘made-up’ stories. This editing seems to be an example of a ‘made-up’ story. God didn’t require Abram to be circumcised; rather, when there was a need to justify, or explain, Israel’s special relationship with God, this rite was ‘written in’ to history many centuries after the event when the special circumstances of the day required a ‘nation-building’ supporting narrative. Or was there ever such an event? How would the editors know there had been such an event when, for centuries, circumcision had been commonplace and unremarkable?

Well, it’s possible that the event happened, but even granting it was edited in later, it doesn’t really change anything. While history does demonstrate parts of the Bible are added in or changed, all of the key doctrines of Christianity - and Judaism, for that matter - plus the vast majority of minor doctrines, are still clearly historical.

Inerrancy still works because only the original words of the apostles & co are inspired and inerrant - not every manuscript.

 

[melbanglican]

Thanks melb,

I saw F&S expressing these views in a series of programmes (whose name I can’t remember!? - possibly ‘The Bible Unearthed’). F provided evidence of an increase in minor settlements in Israel which, he argued, proved that Abraham never moved into Israel from Ur. He also suggested that these settlements prove there was never a migration from Egypt into Israel.

Needless to say there were other experts on the programmes who argued the opposite. I was never able to work out if he was Jewish, of some other faith, or of no faith at all. Does his book throw any light on this?

The impression I got was that his goal was to disprove that the Bible account had any historical validity.

Thanks Frank,

I’ve seen the same dvd, but I can’t recall the title either (I hate it when that happens - getting older, I guess).

It would be surprising if there was no movement from Ur (or somewhere to the East) to Canaan at that time. It may not have been huge, but there seems to have been a bit of a pattern of this sort of thing happening later.

F is Jewish, and is(?) on the staff of Tel Aviv Uni. He’s a fine scholar, but he attracts the hostility of some biblical archaeologists for being too ‘pro-Israel’. He isn’t interested in discrediting the Bible, but rather in trying to establish which parts of it can be verified by the archaeological record and which cannot.

Much of the criticism is related less to the viability of his findings than to the academic squabble in which scholars are prone to engage. I worked for a team of archaeologists for a little while a few years ago, and I have to tell you it could be a fraught job. Their findings compromise the claims of politicians and religious ‘leaders’, and often derail the plains of grasping property developers (oops, tautology!). At least one of the team had been beaten up by a developer because his findings cost said developer a considerable sum of money. So, the fact that archaeologists appear to court controversy should be no surprise at all!

F & S, along with thousands of other reputable, scholarly archaeologists, are just scientists who find what they find and let the chips fall where they may (something which is not true of everyone claiming to be an ‘archaeologist’). We may not like what they find, but their integrity is not in question. I don’t particularly enjoy some of it, but ‘them’s the breaks’!

 

[Frankk]

Very informative, mellb. Thanks. My overall impression of F. was that he was largely trying to debunk the Bible as having no historical value. He denied this but I’m not sure. Still, it’s only my take on how I remember the dvd.

I think the main problem for us in interpreting the Bible is that we are too far separated by the centuries, culture and language to be able to understand the ancient Hebrew mindset. And I’m not sure we fully understand how powerful their oral tradition was.

Milman Parry, an American Homeric scholar, argued that it was possible to transmit accurately an 18,000 line poem, orally. At the time he was ridiculed by his peers. Eventually, he found some illiterate Yugoslav peasants who were able to recite very lengthy poems and stories from memory which gave support to his theory.

And, of course, today we have muslim children as young as 10 who can recite the entire Qur’an.
In a world with very few books, very few people who could read, no TVs, no radio, no Playstations, no cell phones I can imagine that stories, poems, etc. were routinely handed down orally and with accuracy over the years. The best we seem to be able to manage these days is to remember the words of our favourite songs. Mind you, even those oldies we haven’t heard for years we can sing along with fairly well when we hear them again. Maybe we have the ability but have no need to exercise it these days.

Sorry, I’m rambling: it’s just a theory.