Actual Biblical Sources

[Tyler]

I remember that there have been some talks in a few old threads that talk about the "lack of sources" for some of the events in the Bible. I have come accross a few that I thought I would share for those who were curious.

Sources mentioned specifically in the Bible:

Book of the Wars of the Lord -- Numbers 21:14

Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel -- 1 Kings 16:27

Book of Jashar -- Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18

The Book of the Annals of Solomon -- 1 Kings 11:41

Sources used by the author of the Gospel of Luke - Luke 1:1-4

Theoretical Biblical sources

Sources reconstructed by scholars in order to reflect different literary traditions in the Bible:

Two creation stories
Two flood stories
Abraham's claim that Sarah was his sister (Genesis 12:10-16; 20-1:7)
Multiple names used to refer to God
Two lists of the Decalogue -- Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5
Differing vocabulary and literary styles in the Pentateuch

All of these can be found in the Yahwest, Priestly, Elohist, and Deuteronomical sources; the H source is a different monster altogether.


I will elaborate on these some more when I get the time but I figured that people such as Rani would find this interesting and a good place to start on the historical issues in/of the Bible.

I don't think I need to mention the sources of Josephus as most people know about him already.

[Stuie]

You have me quite intrigued. I haven't done much study on the historical verification of the accuracy of the Bible.

[Tyler]

[quote name='Stuie' date='08 June 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1276023840' post='471102']
You have me quite intrigued. I haven't done much study on the historical verification of the accuracy of the Bible.
[/quote]

I'll have more information the sources either later tonight or tomorrow for you to look at.

[ezxen]

Allot of native american tribes also have similar creation and flood stories similar to the Judao /christian bible. Also if i remember the ancient Sumerian text also have similar stories .

[Tyler]

[quote name='ezxen' date='08 June 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1276026264' post='471112']
Allot of native american tribes also have similar creation and flood stories similar to the Judao /christian bible. Also if i remember the ancient Sumerian text also have similar stories .
[/quote]


Almost every culture that was alive at the time and had works that survived/oral traditions that survived have an account of the/a flood story.

[mitchard]

Of these sources, are any actually available for reference?

[Tyler]

[quote name='mitchard' date='08 June 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1276027869' post='471118']
Of these sources, are any actually available for reference?
[/quote]

Yeah, all of them

[Tyler]

O.K. so to explain the source thing I mentioned earlier here's a quick write up I did for my undergrad class I TA for.

The Sources in Genesis and other TRH books.

the most plasuble scholarly explanation for the broad compositional history of the Book of Genesis is still the three major sources: The Yahwist Source (J source), the Elohist source (E source), and the Priestly Source (P Source). There are most likely to be schools of compilers/editors who both composed origonal material and gathered and/or adapted older traditions.

The Yahwist Source
The oldest of the three sources (ca. 1000-800 BCE), the J source supplied the basic narrative structure of the Tetrateuch (Gen-Num), K relates past events from Adam and Eve, through the patriarchs and the Exodus in an extended narrative. The J style is compressed, abbreviating previously oral traditions. J's style has been compared to other prose sources responsible for the "ark narratives," the "story of David's ride to power," and the "court narratives." These J narratives tend to be written in an easy, story telling style. J stories can be very entertaining with bold, complex depictions of God and humans. God, as portrayed in the J source is accessible and immanent, with human qualities. The J is the least theological of the sources, closer perhaps to the folk traditions of Ancient Israel. This source is thought to represent Souther, or Judean interests.

The Elohist Source
The Elohist source is not as dominant as J or P, but still has an occasionally distinctive voice in Genesis. E's style is similar to J's with some conceptual differences. E tends to portray its human characters in an idealized fashion, deliberately justifying deceitful or ambiguous behavior/acts. God's role is more pronounced in the E in comparison to the J, with the deity assuming a strong role in deliberately shaping human affairs. Events are understood as direct expression of God's will and God's intentions directly affecting plot of narratives. E shows a strong interest in its characters' religious commitments and integrity. This source shows a greater "interiority" than J, that is, its characters freely express emotions. The E source is thought to have a Northern origin and to reflect Northern interests og the 8th century BCE.

The Priestly Source
The P source contributed both narratives and genealogies to the book of Genesis. It is thought that in addition to origonal narrative contributions, much of P's work was redactional, that is, P helped to structure the Tetrateuch thought editorial inserts. The Priestly Source has contributed travel itineraries, chronological data, genealogies, notices of births and burials, with the intention to provide a historical and literary to the Tetrateuch. Some examples of P's work include the creation account in Gen 1:1-2:4a, the extended genealogy in Gen 5, a version of the flood myth in Gen 6-9, and God's covenant with Abraham(pbuh) in Gen 17.

The P source is primarily concerned with appropriate worship, that is, with the practice of the Jerusalem cult (primarily in the 6th century or later), although it expresses these concerns though the setting of the Tent of Meeting at Mount Sinai. These interests are directly incorporated within the Genesis narratives. For example, a concern for the Sabbath is reflected in Gen 2:2-3, while the requirement for circumcision is an important element of the covenant with Abraham in Gen 17. P's style is highly structured, using repitition for emphasis, reflecting a concern for detail and a desire to fulfil legal requirements.


There are two other sources as well in the Old Testamanent but they're not really as important for what we cover in the class since we skip over most of Numbers, Leviticus, and Deut. so the H source (holiness source, written by israeli priests, and the D (deuteronomical source) which is only found in the book of Deut.
It is important to understand that within the Bible the writing styles can vary from book to book, chapter to chapter, passage to passage, even verse to verse. If you're interested in Biblical Studies, I would reccomend that you get the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha since it has a nice formatted layout to see the differences in the writing style between prose/narrative/poetry which makes diffrentiating between sources slightly easier. Also, Michael Coogan's footnotes are amazing; he also offers a lot of alternative translations for some words that are highly disputed such as rua[c]h -- wind, breath, breath of life, spirit, ect... Also, it is important to keep in mind that most of the narratives were not transcribed from oratory until after the Exodus, so cultural infusion is a common thing to come across in the earlier books (i.e. Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, Sargon the Great ect...). It also plays a role in narrative style such as chiastic patterns, accrostics, parrallelisms, assonance, and other literary devices. Remember that these stories were told orally for roughly 600 years before they were written down in their primary form, that doesn't include the (somewhere, depending on book/verse/passage) 200-800 years that they were redacted by priestly sources -- which can be broken into early, middle, or late age redactions (this is my personal theory).

Also, it is important to note that many Bibles exist and each contain wording that can be "hazy" at best. A general rule of thumb is to look at this list:
Hebrew translation (origonal, best -- only the NRSV is based off of the Lennigrad Codex, the longest, oldest, complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, 100% in line with the Dead Sea Scrolls so far).
XXL -- Septuigent, Greek version, lost in translation from Hebrew --> Greek --> English
Tangums -- Syriac
Vulgate -- Latin


Anything based off of anything but these languages is too far beyond language "lost in translation" effects to be counted for legit. The KJB is the worst Bible to read if you're serious about Biblical studies, but the NAB isn't much better. Really the NRSV is the only Bible that is legit for Biblical studies, anything else falls short in one way or another (if you have a specific question about your translation ask me).


Well, this is long enough already so I'll stop here.

[mustafabey]

An old Anishinabe(Ojibwe) elder once told me that all people have creation stories and they are all true! Such wisdom is welcome in todays religious wars

[Giant Ninja Robot]

watch zeitgeist

[Tyler]

[quote name='Giant Ninja Robot' date='10 July 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1278795756' post='474687']
watch zeitgeist
[/quote]


Done it, three times, each time I wonder how people could think it's serious. Lol, honestly, it's probably one of the biggest pieces of propoganda I've seen. My teacher who does religion in pop culture has a time stamp of every misquoted piece of data, I'll ask if she has it on word file lol, but seriously, lol!

[Scoop]

occam's razor.

do i believe something that makes complete sense (ancient civilizations followed astronomy and made stories about it) or do i believe that a guy made a boat that fit 2 of every animal while the world was flooded (what do animals eat? some eat plants while others EAT OTHER ANIMALS, not to mention other stories a 5 year old would question).

zeitgeist may have no been truly accurate with everything, but calling it propaganda while peddling the bible as truth is just laughable irony.

[Barnaby]

[quote name='Scoop' date='18 July 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1279449335' post='475468']
occam's razor.

do i believe something that makes complete sense (ancient civilizations followed astronomy and made stories about it) or do i believe that a guy made a boat that fit 2 of every animal while the world was flooded (what do animals eat? some eat plants while others EAT OTHER ANIMALS, not to mention other stories a 5 year old would question).

zeitgeist may have no been truly accurate with everything, but calling it propaganda while peddling the bible as truth is just laughable irony.
[/quote]

I had brought up this point about Noah's ark to my in-laws (them being very devout Christians). I asked them, how big was this boat to carry 2 of every frickin' animal. Thing would have to be the size of Australia. Let alone how could Noah, and his wife could feed all these creatures daily. They responded that when this happened, there wasn't as many animal species in the world.

Sigh... I just don't get it, nor will I ever.

I mean, believe in God. That's fine. But seriously? Dump the bible. Its so full of contradictions, and complete absurdities, that it diminishs whatever value organized religion brings. Don't try to explain the origin of the cosmos with it, because you can't. But that's the power of the bible. Tell a story so off the wall implausible, that it has to be true.

[Chreees]

The Bible was written by man, so it's bound to be flawed.

[mitchard]

[quote name='Scoop' date='18 July 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1279449335' post='475468']
zeitgeist may have no been truly accurate with everything, but calling it propaganda while peddling the bible as truth is just laughable irony.
[/quote]

&

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='20 July 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1279637886' post='475727']
The Bible was written by man, so it's bound to be flawed.

[/quote]

=

[mitchard]

I guess to expand on on agreement with Scoop...

What kind of proof is there that these actual sources are real, and not just more moral stories created by previous generations of man? To me, it almost seems like saying these are valid sources is like taking the new testament and saying its real based off the "facts" presented in the old testament.

[Tyler]

The problem seems to be that you're reading the Bible as literalists. Not everything in the Bible was written to be true. Ever wonder why there are two accounts of creation in the first few pages when you open the Bible? Ever wonder why Moses teleports up and down mount Sinai in Exodus? By Biblical scholars its pretty common to notice these things and it's funny how much more situations they see. But, the point is that you must not read the Bible as a literalist because otherwise not only are you a fool but you're going against what the Bible itself says. At the same time, if one were to take every piece of information in the Bible seriously, not only would you believe that Noah fit four of every kind of animal on the boat [you must have never read the story if you think it's two?] but you must also support slavery, never cut your hair, stone people who do not believe in God, and read the entire TORAH as often as you check your facebook. Know anyone that does that?

Oh, the exact dimensions for the ark are given in the story Genesis 6:13-16, it is slightly bigger than the U.S.S. Salem

[Barnaby]

[quote name='Tyler' date='20 July 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1279643416' post='475746']
The problem seems to be that you're reading the Bible as literalists. Not everything in the Bible was written to be true. Ever wonder why there are two accounts of creation in the first few pages when you open the Bible? Ever wonder why Moses teleports up and down mount Sinai in Exodus? By Biblical scholars its pretty common to notice these things and it's funny how much more situations they see. But, the point is that you must not read the Bible as a literalist because otherwise not only are you a fool but you're going against what the Bible itself says. At the same time, if one were to take every piece of information in the Bible seriously, not only would you believe that Noah fit four of every kind of animal on the boat [you must have never read the story if you think it's two?] but you must also support slavery, never cut your hair, stone people who do not believe in God, and read the entire TORAH as often as you check your facebook. Know anyone that does that?

Oh, the exact dimensions for the ark are given in the story Genesis 6:13-16, it is slightly bigger than the U.S.S. Salem


[/quote]

Wait, what? You're confusing me more now. "But, the point is that you must not read the Bible as a literalist because otherwise not only are you a fool but you're going against what the Bible itself says." Let's take this point here for a sec. If I'm not supposed to go by what the bible is telling me, then I really can't be doing what the bible says...

Look, I'm all about interpretation and what not. But there's a line to draw here. If the bible has to have so much left up for interpretation, speculation, and faith, then it fails as a valid historical source, let alone as a guide book for living out your life. You can't just cherry pick the good passages, like your preacher does on Sunday. If you do that, then what's the point? I mean, it's like picking fruit out of shit. Sure, the fruit may still be good, but do you want to eat something that is covered in shit?

I mean, how much is left for interpretation, when the bible is telling you about God killing of kids with a herd of bears? Praising Job for wanting to give his daughter up to a mob of men to have their way with, Jesus saying to carry a sword, how far you are allowed to beat your wife, slaves, children?

I mean, seriously. All credability kinda goes out the window, when you try to say. Oh, your just reading it too literaly. Like I said, metaphors, symbolism, etc are things you read into. Not many ways you can slice it when it blatantly and I quote from 1 Timothy 2:11 "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

Uh.. how do we interpret that? Oh wait, I have to ignore that part I guess? That's not the message I'm supposed to be taking?


I present this, which I think applies.. [attachment=5022:Ruyii.jpg]

[Barnaby]

Now keep in mind, I'm not knocking you on your religious beliefs. Believe whatever you want, that's fine. I just have a hard time taking Christianity seriously. I spent almost my whole life going to Catholic school, so its not like I am ignorant on alteast that version of Christianity. But I could never get my questions answered, and nothing ever held true. I'd love to get into a meaningful conversation to try and find some validity to it all, but I don't think that's going to happen.

At the end of it all, I have to ask myself, would believing in Christianity improve my life in anyway. I really don't see what I'm missing.

[Tyler]

Wait, what? You're confusing me more now. "But, the point is that you must not read the Bible as a literalist because otherwise not only are you a fool but you're going against what the Bible itself says." Let's take this point here for a sec. If I'm not supposed to go by what the bible is telling me, then I really can't be doing what the bible says... '

----No, you are supposed to listen to the Bible but remember many things. Not all the stories are meant to be actual historical accounts of precise accuracy -- some such as the tower of Babel, the flood story, ect are simply there to convey the transition of oral traditions and etiological stories into writing to explain the patrilinial flow of the Bible's underlying narrative. Does it always add up? No. Does it always make sense? No. But that's what happens when you can account for at least 5 sources making up the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible)


Look, I'm all about interpretation and what not. But there's a line to draw here. If the bible has to have so much left up for interpretation, speculation, and faith, then it fails as a valid historical source, let alone as a guide book for living out your life. You can't just cherry pick the good passages, like your preacher does on Sunday. If you do that, then what's the point? I mean, it's like picking fruit out of shit. Sure, the fruit may still be good, but do you want to eat something that is covered in shit?

---How does it fail to be a valid historical source exactly? You do know that 95% of science is hypothetical? The things that we "know" now will eventually be proven wrong. Yet no one says anything about it since it's science. It's really no different. Instead of dealing with "sciency-stuff" we're working with historical data, lining up cultural sources and accounts of kings, wars, travels, ect to see if the Bible's story adds up, and so far it's pretty dead on -- save from the stories such as the tower of babel, which serves as etiology and not as fact. You just have to know what you're reading, where it comes from, the source, and the point of a passage. Learning to read the Bible correctly is an art form that not many people possess. There is no "cherry picking" of passages, some are simply factual and backed up historically, some are not, and some serve other roles other than historicity.

I mean, how much is left for interpretation, when the bible is telling you about God killing of kids with a herd of bears? Praising Job for wanting to give his daughter up to a mob of men to have their way with, Jesus saying to carry a sword, how far you are allowed to beat your wife, slaves, children?

---Lol, I'll not point out your misquotes on Biblical stories here but I get the point you're trying to make. That is the question that a lot of people have for theologians. And it's as simple as understanding that life and cultures change, certainly you wouldn't stone a man for driving to church on Sunday would you? Well you would if you followed the Bible literally. That kind of thing is common sense. A lot of the Holiness source is not entirely applicable now and days simply because we've evolved as a culture and understand things on a different level. Now at the same time, there are some people such as certain sects of Jews that will not drive or cook on sabbath just as there are some people who will uphold random other parts of the Torah's code for various reasons, thats just part of their faith and that's why there are so many variations of Christianity/Judaism.

I mean, seriously. All credability kinda goes out the window, when you try to say. Oh, your just reading it too literaly. Like I said, metaphors, symbolism, etc are things you read into. Not many ways you can slice it when it blatantly and I quote from 1 Timothy 2:11 "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

---Again, how does that work? Metaphors, symbolism, ect are things that not need to be read into with an understanding of when/where/why/by who the Biblical passage was written by/for/to. To use your explination of 1 Tim 2:11 let's look at what the passage is really talking about using off the head knowledge of the context:

-----2:9-15: - The proper demeanor of faithful women. The author objects to the current practice of women holding leadership and teaching positions because it threatens conventional domestic order (also 5:3-16). Dess themselves modestly (2:9) a standard concern of Stoic and other Hellenistic moralists. "and decently" "sophrosune," "moderation," one of the four cardinal virtues of Greek philosophical thoughts. 2:11-12: Very similar to the contested passage of 1 Cor 14:34-35 (which can recieve an explination as easily as this). 2:13-14: a "strong" reading of Gen 2-3 assigning all the glame to the woman (contrasted with Romans 5:12-21) 2:15: She will be saved through childbearing, a soteriology (theology of salvation) at odds with Paul's justification by faith (Gal 2:16, Rom 1:16-17)

------That may not make much sense to you but to anyone steeped in theological studies would find that rather easy to follow. The learning curve for the Bible, especially New Testament requires a HUGE understanding of history, sociology, psychology, and Canonical knowledge. There's a reason when I got my Religious Studies Degree I double majored in Classics as well, I needed to know and understand the history better.

Uh.. how do we interpret that? Oh wait, I have to ignore that part I guess? That's not the message I'm supposed to be taking?

---See above


I present this, which I think applies.. [attachment=5022:Ruyii.jpg]

Yeah, there's tons of crap like that on the internet but you know when I stopped reading? When I realized that this guy was first, using the King James version of the Bible. Then when I realized that he misquoted. Then when I saw him use passages out of context, incomplete, or just wrong. You know the Bible says "There is no God" at least nine times? Yeah, I know. Nevermind there's something that is said either before or after that line, but that is the only part that makes my point so that is the only part I'll use.

The problem is that a lot of people are so anti-religion/anti-Christianity for no real reason other than being brainwashed by the "zeitgist" type people who really don't know anything about the tradition, modern science, or history. They take things that they think they understand and try to use them against people of faith but can't really understand anything once it is explained because they don't have the tools to work with. A lot of people wouldn't believe it if I told them how much science is begging for religions to take part in their conversations because after Keplar, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, there are still very basic things that science cannot explain and they believe that they have narrowed down some "x factors" which people of faith would call the GOD factor, or the holy spirit, or whatever they would attribute something fantastic in their faith traditions all while people of science want to call it something else becuase they don't want to cross that line.

Sorry if this isn't making sense, I literally just woke up. But anyways you should check out the books Darwin's Cathedral by Wilson as well as the book Pascal's Fire by Ward, they seem to be what you're looking for...both are scientists (Wilson is an atheist and Ward I believe is a naturalist but don't quote me on Ward) who can paint a better picture of religion and science and whatnot but yeah

BTW, I'm not even a Christian and I can easily see validity in the Bible

[Tyler]

[quote name='Barnaby' date='21 July 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1279730556' post='475856']
Now keep in mind, I'm not knocking you on your religious beliefs. Believe whatever you want, that's fine. I just have a hard time taking Christianity seriously. I spent almost my whole life going to Catholic school, so its not like I am ignorant on alteast that version of Christianity. But I could never get my questions answered, and nothing ever held true. I'd love to get into a meaningful conversation to try and find some validity to it all, but I don't think that's going to happen.

At the end of it all, I have to ask myself, would believing in Christianity improve my life in anyway. I really don't see what I'm missing.
[/quote]


Catholic. That's you're problem. They didn't even read the Bible til Vatican II came along haha But on a theological note, I don't think becoming a Christian would improve your life anymore than eating an ice cream sundae if you didn't give it the faith and serious commitment that a religion requires. Theologically speaking, for me at least, I don't care if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim -- it's about believing in GOD. This GOD isn't some invisible man that people anthropromorphitizise (I just made up a word I think) GOD into. For me, you need all three traiditons, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in order to have a complete faith and using any one without the other two, or any two without one is simply an incomlete faith. There are tons of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who would disagree with me on this point entirely but I don't care -- I'm not them and we don't have to agree, it's about what you believe will happen when GOD's egg-timer for Earth ticks zero....assuming you believe that at all. The main point I'm trying to make on this post is that it all comes down to respect. I don't care if you want to worship a flying spaghetti monster, not worship anything at all, or agree with me on every aspect of my faith. That's not the point. I could spend weeks upon weeks telling someone who is atheist how stupid their ideas are using data from their worlds of science and history they hold so dear, and I can manipulate even more to match my agenda, but I don't -- simply because so few atheists are even worth debating such a subject with, just as many people who are atheists won't touch religion with a 10 foot pole for reasons they think are the same, but truly are not.

But you should understand and let it be known that there are many ways to apporach this. Personally, I am approaching this as a scholar, not on a personal faith level, while I think the Bible is pretty badass, not everything I say on here is exactly what I believe, as I said, I am not Christian...I am Muslim.

[mustafabey]

The bible is the world view of 3,500 year old nomads, and in all probablility meant to be allegorical, its not history, its not not science, and for that matter the new testament is the sound bites and spins of an empire adopting and creating a myth sequence of an obscure jewish sect. i wanna know who had clean the animal shit that accumulated in the ark?

[Tyler]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='21 July 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1279732800' post='475860']
The bible is the world view of 3,500 year old nomads, and in all probablility meant to be allegorical, its not history, its not not science, and for that matter the new testament is the sound bites and spins of an empire adopting and creating a myth sequence of an obscure jewish sect. i wanna know who had clean the animal shit that accumulated in the ark?
[/quote]


World view - wrong

3,500 year old - wrong

allegorical nor historical - wrong

not science - wrong

The Bible contains many scientific ideas, the Bible also contains a plethora of historical fact, only about 5% of the Bible dates to the "3500 years ago" mark

allegorical isn't the word you want im sure -- it is etiological and mythological in parts

[mitchard]

You still didn't tell him who handled the shit issues in the ark.

[Chreees]

[quote name='mitchard' date='22 July 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1279828147' post='475978']
You still didn't tell him who handled the shit issues in the ark.
[/quote]

x2