When I started out to deepen my understanding of the overall context in which both Judaism and Christianity arose and developed, I had to deal with questions regarding the historicity of the Old Testament. For the first two-thirds of my Christian life, I was either ignorant of, or conveniently avoided, the inconsistencies, diversity and examples of myth that were pointed out by those critical of the Hebrew Bible's historicity.
In defence, I labelled all such critics as "minimalists." I dared not read any of their observations and conclusions lest I take the first step onto the slippery slope of their postmodern ideology. I believed that "all scripture is God-breathed" and thus I believed it had to be inerrant – i.e., devoid of all error, inconsistency and contradiction. I was, by self-identification, a "maximalist" and spent many years defending the historical, scientific, moral and ethical perfection of all Scripture, Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Yet, there were things that were troubling to me, questions I could not answer, even from my modernist perspective. For most of those, I blindly accepted the assurances of conservative evangelical scholars that there were ways to reconcile all perceived inconsistencies and contradictions. In my ministry, I passed on to my hearers the pat answers proposed by maximalist scholars, without personally examining the veracity of their conclusions.
However, I chose to pursue further education at a secular institution – in Classics at UBC – which allowed me to take various elective courses within my department (Classical, Near Eastern & Religious Studies). These studies forced me to deal with both minimalist and maximalist scholars as they critiqued or defended the historical and scientific accuracy of the the Hebrew Bible. It was during those undergraduate years that I came to realize that I had buried my own doubts, questions, and concerns that were raised not on postmodern scholarship, but on my own reading and study of Jewish and Christian Scripture.
Throughout my undergrad years in Classics and my graduate years in Religious Studies I received scholarly mentorship from professors of various stripes in our department, including Drs. Sara Milstein, Gregg Gardner, Lyn Rae, Robert Cousland, Thomas Schneider, Kurtis Peters, Shelley Reid and Franco De Angelis. Contrary to popular conservative evangelical perspective, none of these professors ever tried to undermine my personal faith, but rather they encouraged and helped me to be as objective as possible in all my studies, writings and presentations.
Late in my graduate studies a friend – a young minister in our conservative Christian congregation – introduced me to the work of Dr. Peter Enns. As I read his books, and listened to the podcasts in which he and his cohost, Jared Byas, interviewed various Jewish and Christian scholars, I began to be able to put words to the doubts, questions and concerns, which previously I had difficulty articulating.
From my own studies and through reading and reflecting on the work of various biblical scholars, I have come to some understandings about the Hebrew Bible that make sense to me because they fit with the facts – the facts about when and how the books of the Hebrew Bible came to be in their "final" form – the form that has been preserved for us in the Masoretic text. Recently, Dr. Enns recently wrote a brief article, "5 Modern Insights About the Old Testament That Aren't Going Anywhere" (www.peteenns.com). Though he elaborates on each only briefly, I couldn't agree more with his key points.
1. The Old Testament is an ancient Near Eastern phenomenon. Thus it "cannot be treated in isolation from its environment." It is not a 21st century North American creation and cannot be read and understood as if it were.
2. "Myth" is an inescapable category for describing portions of the Old Testament. "Myth" does not equal false, but rather myths are stories used to communicate truths, as their authors understood them.
3. Israelites did not write their history "objectively." As Enns states, "That doesn't mean the Old Testament is 'devoid of history'...[but that it] gives us something very different than what we might call 'history' today."
4. The Old Testament does not contain one systematic and consistent body of "truth" but various, even conflicting, perspectives. One place this is clearly seen is when one honestly compares Samuel–Kings to Chronicles, where numerous so-called "historical facts" are in direct contradiction.
5. The Old Testament "evolved" over time until it came to its final expression. Most OT books probably came into their final form during the post-exilic era, even though many had initial and early editions as early as the 8th century BCE and, perhaps for a few, even earlier.
1. The Old Testament is an ancient Near Eastern phenomenon. Thus it "cannot be treated in isolation from its environment." It is not a 21st century North American creation and cannot be read and understood as if it were.
2. "Myth" is an inescapable category for describing portions of the Old Testament. "Myth" does not equal false, but rather myths are stories used to communicate truths, as their authors understood them.
3. Israelites did not write their history "objectively." As Enns states, "That doesn't mean the Old Testament is 'devoid of history'...[but that it] gives us something very different than what we might call 'history' today."
4. The Old Testament does not contain one systematic and consistent body of "truth" but various, even conflicting, perspectives. One place this is clearly seen is when one honestly compares Samuel–Kings to Chronicles, where numerous so-called "historical facts" are in direct contradiction.
5. The Old Testament "evolved" over time until it came to its final expression. Most OT books probably came into their final form during the post-exilic era, even though many had initial and early editions as early as the 8th century BCE and, perhaps for a few, even earlier.
For me, these realizations, had (and still have) me re-evaluating my understanding of "inspiration" (i.e., God-breathed). I am holding in tension that in some way(s) the texts of the Old Testament are indeed God-breathed, while at the same time, they contain human perspectives, world views, and theology. Surprisingly to many, this has not weakened my faith, but rather focused it. I no longer have to spend one minute trying to defend the indefensible, but rather my goal in studying the Hebrew Bible is to seek a better understanding of its people, its message(s) and Yahweh, of whom it speaks. I now find in its revelation a God who wants to have an honest relationship with us based on a faith that often has doubts, questions, concerns and even complaints. Holding the divine aspect of the Scriptures in tension with its human contribution has given me even greater motivation to explore, to question and to revel in the mystery that is Yahweh.
No comments:
Post a Comment