"Reading the Old Testament, An Introduction"

[JKing]

This is a book by Lawrence Boadt and reading it makes me sick. “So, stop!” you say? Well it’s the text for a course I’m taking which is part of a curriculum to develop lay ministers in my archdiocese, and I could refuse to continue, but then what? My Pastoral Life Director would not allow me to serve any more?

I gather that it is pretty much a standard text for beginning biblical studies, but it is nothing at all like what I’ve been reading up to this point. The author seems to make the assumption that absolutely nothing in the OT is true. Then he writes over 500 pages trying to explain how the stories could have possibly gotten pulled together from this ancient Mesopotamian myth and that Egyptian legend. I just seems so disrespectful.

I know I sound very naive. My point in posting, I guess, is this: If this is the state of biblical studies today, no wonder so many potential priests leave the seminary and many that make it through have no faith! All this attention paid to form criticism, textual criticism, etc, that he seems to be missing the whole point of the bible in the first place. Even if its all true that J,E,D, and P all contributed this or that part of this or that book, he seems to be ignoring the book itself. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

The really sad fact is that before this course, I submitted an application to the archdiocese to be considered for the diaconate. Now I’m afraid if I go through with it, I’d have to go through three years of courses like this one. I know of a few priests who “gutted it out” through seminary until they were ordained and then they preached and ministered the way they knew they were called to do–in obedience to the bishop and the pope–contrary to what they were force-fed in the seminary. Could I do that through three years of deacon formation? Should I?

Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

God Bless,
Jeff

 

[RPC717]

WOW!! Just out of curiosity, which diocese are you in?

Don’t worry - like you say, there are many priests who endure this kind of tripe in the seminary, then teach the right way after they’re ordained. You can make it through - at least you see through the lies!

Fortunately, the Church is infinitely broader than our little dioceses or even all the dioceses in America. Even if all of our bishops fail us, we know what the real Church teaches, and it will endure.

 

[JKing]

I’d rather not say which East Coast diocese I’m in. :nope:

 

[RPC717]

I was just wondering. I ran into my first fake Catholic parish here in Georgia, so I was wondering if this was a diocesan or just a local problem.

 

[Fitz]

RPC717:

I was just wondering. I ran into my first fake Catholic parish here in Georgia, so I was wondering if this was a diocesan or just a local problem.

Just by way of clarification, do you mean it really wasn’t a Catholic church, or that it was too far from the traditional beliefs?

 

[JKing]

JKing:

Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

What about my question? Is it right to think that Israel gathered up their neighbors’ stories and made up their history? Or is it equally logical to assume that the neighbors got their stories (which are very similar to Israel’s) from the Israelite oral traditions?

What do you think?

 

[RPC717]

Fitz:

Just by way of clarification, do you mean it really wasn’t a Catholic church, or that it was too far from the traditional beliefs?

Too far from traditional beliefs. I’d never come across a priest who didn’t believe what the Church teaches.

Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

Absolutely - I think that’s a great explanation. If the opposite were the case, as that book claims, Jesus probably would have said something about it, knowing that the discovery would be made one day.

 

[stumbler]

JKing:

Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

Archeologist unearths biblical controversy
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35410

Chin Up!

---

Mackerel-snapping, wine-swilling, cannibalistic, Romish Papist

 

[serendipity]

JKing:

The author seems to make the assumption that absolutely nothing in the OT is true. Then he writes over 500 pages trying to explain how the stories could have possibly gotten pulled together from this ancient Mesopotamian myth and that Egyptian legend. I just seems so disrespectful.

Even if its all true that J,E,D, and P all contributed this or that part of this or that book, he seems to be ignoring the book itself. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

I didn’t get that impression at all from the book, which I thought was helpful about thinking about factors that influenced the writers. Have you expressed your concerns to the teacher who chose the text? I think there is a negative comment on EWTN about the book, and I would think (hope) that the instructor would be familiar with the book’s critics and able to defend the choice of book.

We are encouraged by the Cathechism to consider how the environment may have influenced the writers, and thinking about their concept of identity and how it might have been shaped by neighboring civilizations in one necessary approach to doing this. I think Broadt’s book is very helpful in that respect.

Any therory of criticicm has to be addressed as only that, a theory. If you are not comfrotable with learning therories that you do not agree with, then studying anything be challenging for you. Whatever subject you study, you will find theories that you may not agree with; that is part of studying too, learning how to define your approach and to be able to defend it.

Personally, I find it safer and much preferable to encounter a new argument that I can not accpet in the classroom or through reading a text, rather than in a conversation from some one who is trying to convert me, or who comes to me with a question that has shaken their faith to the core, and acts as if my answer depends on whether the remain or return or convert to the catholic church.

At that point in time (when the OT stories were occurring and also being transcribed) people did not walk around with written history of their family, tribe, and political background for their immediate civilization. They relied aon ral tales, which may have been somewhat embellished or altered as they were passed down form generation to generation and as people mixed and married with foreign cultures, who then became a member of the passing down generation.

The Catholic church no where says that the Bible is taken as literal interpretation of historical events. Its says the stories in the BIble as a whole are what we need to think about in order to see God’s plan for salvation, and that we should analyze the Bible from a framework that encompasses four senses.

The historical aspect is only one aspect, and true it does dominate Broadt’s analysis. At the time the book was written, which I think was more than 20 years ago, there seeemed to be a trend that the historical inlfuences were all so important, and they are important to consider, but not more so than other details. The book’s shortcoming in this regard is a symptom of the times. That’s probably where you feelings of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don’t understand why this is still the standard text for OT Scholarship, but as you write, I too have noticed that this seems to be the case. Are there really none others that think about history on the market? Or maybe this is safe for an audience that comprises students of more varied belief, becuase it does not delve too much into controversial spiritual meaning of the text? Is this only part of your reading list (but what a mamother reading list that must be if this is only one of several books?

 

[mlchance]

serendipity:

I didn’t get that impression at all from the book, which I thought was helpful about thinking about factors that influenced the writers.

Me either. Boadt’s text certainly isn’t the best or the final word out there, but he is hardly making the case that the Israelites cobbled together a fictitious history by stealing from their pagan neighbors.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JKing]

Serendipity,

Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly and thoughtfully. I really appreciate it. A couple points of clarification: The course I’m taking is a basic, entry level type course. The archdiocese put together this adult ministry series of courses to develop lay people in various ministry tracks. To complete the course requires 10 or so of these courses which are made up of 8 2-hour classroom session. Most of the people taking this course (like me) have no formal religious education at all.

This is the only book for the course.
I’ve put aside my Liturgy of the hours. I’ve turned off EWTN radio, I’m letting the periodicals pile up and I’ve been reading this book will all of my spare time. When I’m engaged in something else (work, driving) I’m thinking about it. (Too obsessive, I know.) I’m determined to get what I can out of this course.

One of the things that bother me about this book is the attitude. There is absolutely no respect for the Sacred Texts. When I read the appropriate sections in the CCC, I hear a tone of reverence. When I read Boadt, it’s almost as if he’s suppressing a laugh, “Do you believe people actually used to believe this stuff? Of course we are soooo much smarter today than theeeey were!”

For instance: The Bible says God told the Patriarchs to build altars with horns at the corners. Boadt says that since Canaanite Baal worshipers had horns on their altars, that the Israelites borrowed the design from the Canaanites and pretended that God told them to build it that way. What I’m asking is, why does one have to come to that conclusion given the evidence presented? Why couldn’t it just as easily be the other way around? The Canaanites could have borrowed the design from the Israelites, right? Or they could both have gotten the design from a much earlier, dawn-of-man tradition of altar-building. I know this is a minor point, but this is just on example.

It’s like he’s mocking (me) anyone who chooses the much simpler and faith-friendly view that most of the events in the Bible happened pretty much the way it was written, allowing for inconsistancies caused by cobbling together disparate oral traditions.

Also, saying that because a story is passed on orally, does not automatically imply that it is not true or that it has been embelished. The fact is (and Boadt makes the point early in the book) without a written language, people naturally develop a much stronger and more accurate memory. We can’t judge how oral traditions were preserved based on today’s standards. Most of us would probably be considered imbeciles if suddenly plopped into ancient culture. Just because they didn’t write anything down doesn’t mean they didn’t have history.

My dinner’s ready. I’ll be back later.

Jeff

 

[romano]

JKing:

What about my question? Is it right to think that Israel gathered up their neighbors’ stories and made up their history? Or is it equally logical to assume that the neighbors got their stories (which are very similar to Israel’s) from the Israelite oral traditions?

What do you think?

It seems fairly clear - as the parallels are just too striking - that the Hebrews borrowed from the much older Mesopotamian literature. But it doesn’t follow that in their re-working of those ancient stories the Hebrew authors weren’t divinely inspired.

Perhaps the borrowing, in other words, shouldn’t be seen as a simple filching and copying but rather as an inspired use of familiar materials. Ancient authors had a very different attitude to ours. They weren’t obsessed with ‘originality’ as we are. Plagiarism is a modern concept.

 

[otm]

I haven’t read the book you are describing, but I suspect that there are more recent works available. If you are going to study on a college level course, then you should be expected to do at least college level work, and that should include researching somewhat farther than the text book. And granted, many college students don’t do that, but as you are an adult, adult expectations are in order.

I have the sense that this may be the first time you have even heard of any of the methods of studying the OT, and to one who had no foreknowledge, it would be shocking. But you might keep in mind that the CCC was written for a different purpose than the textbook, and it will have an entirely different tone of voice. That is not to say that the author of your text has no respect for Sacred Scripture, but he is doing an analysis, not teaching the Faith. Different purpose, different perspective.

To answer you as to any further studies such as the Deaconite, you need to understand that Faith and knowledge, while not totally compartmentalized, are not the same thing. You might be surprised to get into some upper level discussions of sacraments, or issue of moral theology, for example; a simplistic base is not sufficient to operate as a deacon if that is what you intend. That does not mean you should have no faith. But it does mean that Faith runs much deeper than a simplistic formulation of what it is based on.

Also keep in mind that there are numerous ways to approach Scripture. Each has a purpose, and the purpose must be kept in mind. Failing to do that is to confuse the purpose of one approach with another, and to muddle everything.

 

[serendipity]

romano:

Perhaps the borrowing, in other words, shouldn’t be seen as a simple filching and copying but rather as an inspired use of familiar materials.

I share this perspective. The Chatechism does say that Bible is inerrant in its entirely and that the message it contains as a whole is with we need to think about in rder to find our way to salvation.

I don’t think that the posibility that other cultures may have influenced the passing down of the story, means that the story is any less inspired, or that it has been contaminated in its transmission beofre it was documented. In fact, I think it is a way of pointing to how eventually all people will be accepted as “God’s chosen people,” through Jesus.

At the same time, it is a theory. Pretty convincing to me, but still only a theory. We will never know for sure, much like the great evolution debate, because we were not there. Commentaries on the Bible have no promise of inerrancy.

 

[philipmarus]

Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

I don’t buy this.

1. How could all the types and prefigurements of Christ, The Eucharist that run through Genesis that are fullfilled in N.T have all been thrown in by accident from borrowing other cultures?

• Melchizedek Bread and Wine
  -Abraham’s sacrific
  -Protoevangelium

Peter writes 2 Pet 16 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. but we were eye witnesses of his majesty” referring to the fact that they were present at the transfiguration.
I find it difficult to believe what Peter is saying is true (ie, The transfiguration occurred and Jesus is GOD) and yet the Prefigurements in Genesis that point to Christ were made up by people hundreds of years before Christ was born who borrowed from these other cultures unless you believe the writer of 2 Peter is lying. The idea that the prefigurements and (types) in Pre-exodus were made up is like saying the consistency of prefigurements centuries before Christ all happened by chance
a Tornado ripping through a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 Airplane. The only way around this I can think of is to say God inspired the sacred writers to plant “prefigurements” that never really happened.So Christ is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, but Melchizedek never actually brought out the Bread and wine for Abraham because neither of them ever lived?.Why does Christ have to die on the cross (and be re-presented at Mass) if the fall never actually happened?

What if there was a actual ancient flood and different cultures had different ways of interpreting the event but did not necessarily write about it all at the same time?

Scott Hahn has a short talk on historcity of the Bible (22 mins) here
sonsofthunder.net/7_11_99.html

 

[ffinch]

serendipity:

We are encouraged by the Cathechism to consider how the environment may have influenced the writers, and thinking about their concept of identity and how it might have been shaped by neighboring civilizations in one necessary approach to doing this. I think Broadt’s book is very helpful in that respect.

Like Jeff, I too am taking a course that requires us to be responsible for the book in question. I am not a scripture scholar, and after reading Jeff’s comments I became skeptical.

However, while I did struggle early on with the treatment of the creation accounts by Boadt, I do find his writings on the Judges, Kings and Prophets of Israel to be very helpful. I am keeping an open mind with regard to the text and so far, I haven’t read anything that sways my faith or contradicts Catholic teaching.

I can say simply that by being exposed to Boadt’s treatment of the OT thus far, I have found the OT to be much more interesting and more “readable” for me. This of course, taking into account my own personal ignorance and limited intellect.

I’m here (in class) to learn, and I will always bounce what I hear or read off of the Catechism. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide me and help me.

Good luck Jeff, and pray for me. I’m very new at this (first time back in the classroom in 18 years!)

 

[riverman]

Does this book have an “Imprimator” or any other official endorsement? My priest says Adam and Eve is a myth and he used this book in the seminary to convince him of that with the instructor. I though the CCC sayd they are real. He also says the whole world was not flooded and Jonah is only a myth. Does the book have the approval of not violating any doctrines of the Curch?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is a book by Lawrence Boadt and reading it makes me sick. “So, stop!” you say? Well it’s the text for a course I’m taking which is part of a curriculum to develop lay ministers in my archdiocese, and I could refuse to continue, but then what? My Pastoral Life Director would not allow me to serve any more?

If this course is developed through the archdiocese, I would assume its passed muster as to proper teaching. That might be some evidence for you that you haven’t quite “caught up” on this area of biblical research

I gather that it is pretty much a standard text for beginning biblical studies, but it is nothing at all like what I’ve been reading up to this point. The author seems to make the assumption that absolutely nothing in the OT is true. Then he writes over 500 pages trying to explain how the stories could have possibly gotten pulled together from this ancient Mesopotamian myth and that Egyptian legend. I just seems so disrespectful.

**Serious biblical exegesis (I’m not familiar with the book) is not intent to be respectful or otherwise. These research books are thought of as “scientific” in their endeavor and thus do their best to be non-passionate and intellectually neutral as best as can be done. **

I know I sound very naive. My point in posting, I guess, is this: If this is the state of biblical studies today, no wonder so many potential priests leave the seminary and many that make it through have no faith! All this attention paid to form criticism, textual criticism, etc, that he seems to be missing the whole point of the bible in the first place. Even if its all true that J,E,D, and P all contributed this or that part of this or that book, he seems to be ignoring the book itself. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

**I know of no known corollary between a historical critical examination of the bible leading to mass exodus from our Catholic seminaries. In fact, these young men have undoubtedly been taught evolution and modern cosmology from early school days. Contrary to limiting the accounts to dry scientific nothingness, these new ways of looking at scripture often provide a wealth of new ways of broadening one’s understanding of God’s truly magnificent creation. I for instance view the 2 creation stories as the redactor’s love for 2 very old and beloved stories handed down orally for generations. He chose to include them both, because they both, in different ways gave bold account of his people’s encounter with the One God. **

The really sad fact is that before this course, I submitted an application to the archdiocese to be considered for the diaconate. Now I’m afraid if I go through with it, I’d have to go through three years of courses like this one. I know of a few priests who “gutted it out” through seminary until they were ordained and then they preached and ministered the way they knew they were called to do–in obedience to the bishop and the pope–contrary to what they were force-fed in the seminary. Could I do that through three years of deacon formation? Should I?
**Were these priests who “gutted it out” so they could teach the real truth, doing so? Or only substituting their vision of what they think the Church teaches? I can’t tell you what to do of course, and I certainly wouldn’t, but would you want to honestly represent the Church falsely in your heart? I guess my question is, given that you find this presented as the norm perhaps it is. You need not conform of course, but would you wish to be untruthful to continue? **
Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

God Bless,
Jeff

As to your last topic…I’d need a good deal of research before I could even approach an answer on that one. Sounds like a fascinating exercise however. I just may…lol…if I can get done with Mark and a host of book reviews and other things I have planned.

I’d spend a fair amount of time in prayer on this. Perhaps you can find resolution. I would certainly talk to your priest, preferrable someone you dont assume believes as you. I think you might get a better idea where you are then.

 

[rwoehmke]

What about my question? Is it right to think that Israel gathered up their neighbors’ stories and made up their history? Or is it equally logical to assume that the neighbors got their stories (which are very similar to Israel’s) from the Israelite oral traditions?What do you think?

More than likely a mix of sources. Writing in that part of the world didn’t come to be much before a thousand or so BC and I am sure that many groups in the neighborhood shared many common experiences, like the flood for example. The people that became Israel chose to interpret some of the earliest stories in the light of their particular form of belief in God. I think to say they “borrowed” the background of these stories is quite a stretch.

As Catholics we are allowed to believe either the “Young Earth” or “Old Earth” theories so the shortest time span going back to Adam and Eve would have been about 4000 years and the longest who really knows for certain beyond a long long time.

I guess my choice for teaching Old Testament to a deacon candidate would be more like the “Bible Timeline” taught by Jeff Cavins and associates. All that other stuff in a book like the one you cited is worthless knowledge for the most part for most people. In the bargain, a fair part of it is pure speculation on some rather thin evidence. The value in the OT is not in knowing that some parts may be myth, legend, or pure fiction but in recognizing what God is teaching us in these books.about our Faith.
I would probably gut it out for the credit and find a knowledgeable tutor or friend who can help you put wholesome flesh on the bones they are tring to teach you in class.

 

[scottm]

This is a book by Lawrence Boadt and reading it makes me sick. “So, stop!” you say? Well it’s the text for a course I’m taking which is part of a curriculum to develop lay ministers in my archdiocese, and I could refuse to continue, but then what? My Pastoral Life Director would not allow me to serve any more?

I gather that it is pretty much a standard text for beginning biblical studies, but it is nothing at all like what I’ve been reading up to this point. The author seems to make the assumption that absolutely nothing in the OT is true. Then he writes over 500 pages trying to explain how the stories could have possibly gotten pulled together from this ancient Mesopotamian myth and that Egyptian legend. I just seems so disrespectful.

I know I sound very naive. My point in posting, I guess, is this: If this is the state of biblical studies today, no wonder so many potential priests leave the seminary and many that make it through have no faith! All this attention paid to form criticism, textual criticism, etc, that he seems to be missing the whole point of the bible in the first place. Even if its all true that J,E,D, and P all contributed this or that part of this or that book, he seems to be ignoring the book itself. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

The really sad fact is that before this course, I submitted an application to the archdiocese to be considered for the diaconate. Now I’m afraid if I go through with it, I’d have to go through three years of courses like this one. I know of a few priests who “gutted it out” through seminary until they were ordained and then they preached and ministered the way they knew they were called to do–in obedience to the bishop and the pope–contrary to what they were force-fed in the seminary. Could I do that through three years of deacon formation? Should I?

Question for discussion: Boadt proposes that the Israelites made up most of their pre-Exodus history from the legends of neighboring nations of people because similar stories are being unearthed in archeological digs around the region. Is it just as valid to say that the neighboring ancient civilizations learned of the early history of the world from the Israelites’ oral traditions which were divinely revealed and passed down from antiquity until such time as they were written down during the Babylonian exile?

God Bless,
Jeff

Jeff Buddy, we’re kindred spirits. I’ve been complaining about this for a long time. It’s also going on at the two parishes nearest me. The book you described is the twin of the book used for RCIA over here, and might just as well have been written by the guest scholar for a 10-week seminar on the New Testament.

Every other day I wonder to myself, “Why be part of a such desecrated church like this? I’m better off with Baptists who actually believe and teach that the Bible is true and God is it’s author!”

It’s frustrating to stand amidst tares. Very frustrating. I know all about it. But I got your back, man. Let’s take the Church away from the heathens together, okay? You, me, and a couple of other good Catholic men I’ve met out here.