The Old Testament scriptures are not history

[paul_tran]

I have a question.
How do you explain what it means to say that the Old Testament scriptures are not history as we understand history today?

Thanks and God Bless
Paul

 

[Spirithound]

I have a question.
How do you explain what it means to say that the Old Testament scriptures are not history as we understand history today?

Thanks and God Bless
Paul

Essentially it means that the Old Testament is not history. The Pentateuch functions as a charter for the re-establishment and revitalization of Israel after the Babylonian Exile. This is not to say that there are no historical truths in the Pentateuch; there probably are. However, this was not the purpose of those books. Genesis 1, for example, was meant as a treatment of human nature in relation to God.

 

[DavidFilmer]

How do you explain what it means to say that the Old Testament scriptures are not history as we understand history today?

I would ask what the difference is between our understanding today and the understanding back then. I’m pretty sure the concept of history has not changed.

When ancient Egyptians chronicled the lives of Pharaohs on the walls inside a pyramid, I’m pretty sure they intended to do the same thing as a person who writes a biography about Obama today. I don’t know what the difference would be, other than the medium.

 

[bmullins]

The old testament is a book with some history in it, but it’s not a history book. What we consider a history book now a days is a cold, dissected view of events. History books are supposed to be written with facts, data, and as unbiased an opinion as possible (though we are seeing many of them are now being politicized.) The Old Testament contains many historical facts, and much data we can’t find anywhere else. It however, is written from a perspective of faith and some of the books are poetry and allegory. It’s intent is to give an overview of the history but more importantly, to share the revelation of God as revealed to the Jewish people.

 

[Joseph_LaMothe]

It means that if you read the OT, and NT, like you would a history text book for a history class you are doing it wrong. You need both OT and NT, they explain each other.

There are ways of reading the Bible and some are better than others.

It can be read as History but this is the lowest form. For instance, the first and second creation story are slightly different or the NT has Jesus saying the same things but in different locations. However, the Bible was the only historically accurate source of small points as well (the existence of Ur, the length it takes to mummify a person which is no where in Egyptian literature). Simple historical facts are of limited use to your soul.

The Bible can be read eschatologically. As a for-showing of what the end of times are going to be like.

It can be read as prophecy-fulfillment. OT prophet says X and in NT Jesus or Mary or the early Church does X.

It can be read Metaphorically. This is where the best stuff is. The really cool things.

For instance, the Davidic Kingdom. That it existed is neat but not what is most important. David made psalms that are prophetic of Christ and of the end of times. However, when you look at the works of the Davidic Kingdom things start to really open up. David was King and offered sacrifices, at his right hand sat his Mother who took supplications of the people to the King, and he had a Prime Minister that ruled in his absence who was given the symbol of authority of Keys. What does this sound like? Jesus as King and Priest whose enthroned Mother offers our intercessions and the Pope, with the keys, takes care of His kingdom while he is away!!!

It is not that you should not read the Bible for history. You should, there is much there that did happen, many neat facts. But, history is not the point of the Bible, only its backdrop, a narrative device.

 

[Gorgias]

I would ask what the difference is between our understanding today and the understanding back then. I’m pretty sure the concept of history has not changed.

Well, for one thing, a modern chronicle of history tells the story of events, perhaps with an analysis of human motivations and actions that led to the events. In the Bible, the events are described in ways that point to the peoples’ reliance on God; and the motivations that are given are those of God – something that would never show up in a modern history. Imagine a historian attributing a natural disaster to God, or describing the results of a battle in terms of God’s will!

When ancient Egyptians chronicled the lives of Pharaohs on the walls inside a pyramid, I’m pretty sure they intended to do the same thing as a person who writes a biography about Obama today. I don’t know what the difference would be, other than the medium.

The intent, I’d bet. The “lives of Pharoahs” that are chronicled are somewhat hagiographic, given the status of the Pharoah; on the other hand, any biographer who depicted Obama as the living god would be ridiculed mercilessly…

 

[maximus]

The old testament is a book with some history in it, but it’s not a history book. What we consider a history book now a days is a cold, dissected view of events. History books are supposed to be written with facts, data, and as unbiased an opinion as possible (though we are seeing many of them are now being politicized.) The Old Testament contains many historical facts, and much data we can’t find anywhere else. It however, is written from a perspective of faith and some of the books are poetry and allegory. It’s intent is to give an overview of the history but more importantly, to share the revelation of God as revealed to the Jewish people.

Great answer and best wishes on your faith journey; it’s probably been a hard one.

God Bless

 

[ProtectorRoss]

Are you saying that the old testament is fiction telling you how to live?

 

[bmullins]

Are you saying that the old testament is fiction telling you how to live?

Buddha taught in parables (fiction) that represented what he considered great truths. We are saying that not all of the stories are historically accurate but all of them carry the truth. The entire thing is not fiction. But even the parts that are allegorical contain the Truth in them. Did Jonah actually get swallowed by a well? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that the story still contains great truth whether we see it as a literal account or not.

 

[patg]

Are you saying that the old testament is fiction telling you how to live?

The old testament is many things, some of which are historical. As the church dogmatically states in Dei Verbum:

*To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. *

 

[dcharles]

Actually the Old Testament is salvation history.

It is a testament of God’s love for man throughout history.

And the history it contains is much more accurate than man-made history books, because it is inspired by God, where as man-made history books can never be without error.

 

[Spirithound]

I would ask what the difference is between our understanding today and the understanding back then. I’m pretty sure the concept of history has not changed.

When ancient Egyptians chronicled the lives of Pharaohs on the walls inside a pyramid, I’m pretty sure they intended to do the same thing as a person who writes a biography about Obama today. I don’t know what the difference would be, other than the medium.

It is my understanding that stories about the Pharaohs did not give high priority to their failings. Further note how some pharaohs tried to erase one or more of their predecessors from the books.

 

[Spirithound]

And the history it contains is much more accurate than man-made history books, because it is inspired by God, where as man-made history books can never be without error.

Yes, but what do you mean by “accurate” and “error”?