Reddit reviews Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey

Okay, this is still a very broad question, but one of the best experts to go to on this subject (in my opinion) is professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is currently heading up the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where he and his team are compiling all known ancient manuscripts and digitally photographing and labeling them so that other scholars can study and read them online. In the process of doing this, he and his team are discovering a number of previously unknown manuscripts (for instance, a possible 1st century fragment of Mark that will be published in scholarly journals this year).

In this talk on the subject, Dr. Wallace mentions Metzger's thorough and extensive academic-leaning work Canon of the New Testament, and the cheaper, more popular level book Reinventing Jesus co-authored by Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer. You might also be in interested in Dr. Wallace's New Testament: Introductions and Outlines where he goes into both critical and tradtional examinations of the NT and their inclusion into the canon.

For just a basic outline on canonicity of the NT, most of the books of the NT had to be early (so published in or around the 1st century), had to be authored by an Apostle or someone close to the Apostles. Early on there wasn't much concern for canonicity in the early church. Most of the early church used the Septuagint as their Bible, and just didn't think of the later writings in quite the same way as we do, but they recognized their inspirational nature and valued them. Then a heretic named Marcion came along and formed his own canon. He felt that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and so decided to remove anything pro-Jewish, he reworked Luke, and did a number of other things. The early church was pretty freaked out about this, and decided that they needed to compile an authoritative list of books/letters to ward off heretical manipulation of what had already been received as inspired and authoritative.

One of the early examples we have of the early canon can be found in the Muratorian fragment dating to approx. 170 AD. It includes most of the books of the NT excluding James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. A number of the ECFs (early church fathers... important post-Apostolic Christian writers) mention the authoritative books of the NT by name. The Gospels are mostly anonymous (there are a few internal indicators in Luke and John about who authored them), but the ECFs handed down to us the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other authors in the ancient writings were substituted for the name of the traditional authors. By the time Constantine came into power, and made Christianity the state religion, the canon had been closed and pretty much all the major books accepted for a long time with a little bit of disagreement between books like Revelation and Hebrews and a couple of the Pastorals. A number of councils in the 4th century pretty much settled the matter. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from around this period as well, so Codex Vaticanus 325-350, Codex Sinaiticus in 330-360, Codex Alexandrinus 400-440, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450.

Something else should be mentioned about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many commonalities with one another. So much so, that most scholars believe these books depend on one another in some way. These Gospels are called "synoptic", that is syn-together, or same and opsis-view (like where we get the word "optic" for optic nerve). John is so unlike the synoptics that he's usually handled separately from them, and is also considered later than the others.
Now these similarities aren't so surprising with Luke, Luke tells us that his book is a compilation of testimony (Luke 1:1-4), but that doesn't really explain, for instance, how Matthew is so similar to Mark.

An early church father named Eusebius quotes from an earlier Bishop named Papias about the compilation of the Gospels. Papias lived in the 1st and early 2nd century, and was a student or a hearer of the Apostle John. Papias says,

>Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

Many modern scholars don't exactly agree with Papias' rendition of things though. The prevailing theory in academia today is the source theory, and in particular the source theory called Markan Priority. Basically its argued that Mark is the simplest, and thus earliest of the synoptics, and that Matthew and Luke knew of and borrowed from Mark as a source for their books. But there also commonalities in Luke and Matthew that are not found in Mark, so its theorized that along with Mark there was probably another book or at least a common tradition shared between them that has since been lost to history. This book or sayings have been labeled "Q", which comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source". ALSO, Matthew, Mark and Luke have completely original material that they share with no other books. Now, there are some scholars (currently in the minority) that buck against this source hypothesis, that reject Q, and suggest Matthean priority. Basically Matthew was first, and Mark borrowed from Matthew, and Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew. This is called Augustinian Hypothesis.

As for the Old Testament, that's a whole nother story. The OT was compiled throughout centuries. It should probably be kept in mind that academia for the OT is very very secular compared to that of the NT. I'm not really sure what the poster US_Hiker was on about in his reply to you, but anyways, its theorized that the books of the OT weren't written and edited in the periods they claim to be written and edited. The prevailing theory for the OT is called the Documentary Hypothesis. For a long time, the accepted hypothesis was labeled JEPD, and this stands for the following sources: Yahwist (or Jawist), Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. Its a pretty confusing theory that says that writers of the Old Testament regularly redacted and changed the order of the OT during different periods. And that the OT was compiled from approx. 950-500 BC. The theory has been manipulated and altered a number of times, especially when embarrassing archaeological finds like the silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom pushed some writings far further back than were expected by scholars. In my opinion, a great, very thorough, slightly academic book to read on modern theories about the Old Testament would be professor Richard S. Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey.

Concerning archaeological finds, or the lack thereof for say, the Exodus, I think one's presuppositions have a lot to do with what you accept or not. If you're an unbelieving archaeologist, you might expect to find some noticeable traces of an enormous group of people wandering the desert for 40 years. So far, we can't find any. But, if you're a believer who agrees with Genesis that God provided for these people with manna from heaven that rotted away if stored up, or of clothes that miraculously never wore out, then you're not going to find a whole lot in a desert. There are a handful of scholars that also believe the entire Egyptian dating system that scholars use as a measuring tool for the pre-Roman world is off by a few dynasties. One of the better known archaeologists known for his new chronology of the Egyptian period is egyptologist David Rohl. His ideas are currently on the fringe, but seem to be gaining some traction. His book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest is a beautiful and very interesting book on the subject.

Ok, so, sorry that was so long, but like I said, this is a very very broad subject. If you have any questions, let me know.

Have a terrific day!

>War God: "Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity. Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people. Yahweh was seen as a war god, and equated with El. Asherah, who was often seen as El's consort, has been described as a consort of Yahweh in numerous inscriptions.[1] The name Yahwi may possibly be found in some male Amorite names.[2] Yahu may be found in a place name."

This has been addressed multiple time by conservative scholars of ancient Israelite religion (see here and here (the book authored by the writer of this first article). As for the discussion of Asherah in the wikipedia blurb you quoted, I could appeal to this, "

Below an inscription on one of the pithoi (referring to Yahweh and his asherah) are drawings of two figures easily and unquestionably identifiable as the Egyptian god Bes, in fact a collective name for a group of dwarf deities. Is this meant to be a drawing of God (i.e., Yahweh) with his consort Asherah? The scholar who published the chapter about the drawings doesn’t think so. She interprets it as two male deities—probably just the Egyptian god Bes—and not as a drawing of God and his goddess wife. Other scholars disagree, but this much is clear: The drawing was added to the pithos after the inscription was written, so the two may be completely unrelated." - http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/puzzling-finds-from-kuntillet-ajrud%E2%80%94a-drawing-of-god-labeled-yahweh-and-his-asherah-or-the-egyptian-god-bes/

We can spam names at each other for hours, but we need to talk evidence, not names.

>but they are actually the scholarly consensus as documented in Wikipedia and elsewhere. If you are so far down the rabbit hole that you plug your ears when the scholars speak then this conversation has a 99.999% chance of being futile.

Scholarship is absolutely of no value when making determinations on matters. The evidence is what matters, not tossing out names and degrees like that somehow improves the chances of the argument being made. If the evidence is good enough, then there should be no need to have to appeal to a consensus.

>I start from a different place. I sacralize truth. I will burn any belief on the alter of truth. One of those beliefs was my childhood Christianity.

I highly doubt you are this on fire for truth. You haven't demonstrated any meaningful responses aside from insults and characterizations.

>where did God come from (no I do not accept bullshit about Yaweh being a necessary being)

That is the answer. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is how it is. Unless you can demonstrate that Jah is not a necessary being then we can't go any further. Not to mention, an eternal being doesn't have a cause, which is presupposed in your question. Why is God necessary would be much better.

>why does God not speak simply and clearly in a manner that everyone can understand, as he did when he spoke to Moses and Noah (the free will rebuttal to this makes no sense)

Jah gave a general revelation to the entire earth, so He did speak clearly to everyone. Man suppresses that truth in his unrighteousness. Jah had a special purpose of establishing a special covenant relationship with a chosen people, and it is His freedom to so choose. No where does it say that men are all judged on whether they kept the law given only to the Hebrews, I would love for you to find that in the text.

>why did God not directly write a simple and clear book of instructions instead of a meandering, confusing, self-contradictory mess which looks even less coherent than the Koran of the Book of Mormon to an objective reader?

This isn't a question. It is you asserting your conclusion and saying "what about that?" If you want to ask an actual question then we can get somewhere.

>why did God create cancer, tornados, AIDS, hurricanes? (As is typical you answered "why not" rather than why)

Natural disasters are not evil. They are the by product of a physical planet abiding by plate tectonics and the formation of weather systems. If you want that to be successful, I want to know why it is evil. As for viruses and cancer, after the moral degeneration that occurred at the fall creation became toxic. Not that hard of a concept.

>why does God need "pets?"

God doesn't need us.

>why would morality consist of a pet obeying its master?

Because God's moral nature (which is the Good in and of itself) is related to man through His moral commands and realized through our moral experiences. Why would you think that is similar to a pet obeying a master? Can you prove that parallel?

>why does the Bible contradict both science and archeology?

That isn't a question, it's your conclusion asserted. Try again.

>why does the Bible contradict common sense?

That isn't a question. You need to learn to ask a meaningful question instead of asserting your point.

>I could list hundreds of ridiculous things in the Bible, from God sending bears to maul children to Jesus cursing fig trees. It is a hilarious book of myths.

That is like totally exactly what all of that was about! You really seem to know the Bible and all of the deep socio-historical background and theological imiplications (which is 0 cause God doesn't real amirite (or God doesn't interact for deists)).

>There is no convincing evidence that the Bible was inspired. Quite the opposite. It's first chapter reads exactly like the creation myth of the Haida or any other pre-scientific society.

Assuming you mean this or this, there isn't even a seemingly meaningful parallel. As for inspiration, "I haven't heard an argument" is not an argument against inspiration.

>You are starting from your conclusion. "God is omniscient, so whenever he asks where are you he must be speaking rhetorically." This is incredibly intellectually dishonest. I approach it the opposite way. "There is a being. The being asks where other beings are. Therefore the being does not have omniscience." That's the objective third party reading of the text.

Not at all. God has sovereignty over His omniscience (in my opinion) and so may choose to have access to whatever knowledge He pleases (future or present). Also, Eatan is right about the use of a rhetorical device. What reason do we have to just read the text without going into some meaningful exegesis or literary analysis? You haven't read the text objectively, you read into the text your conclusion :/

>If I read the phone book with the idea that it is the word of god, I can find any message in there that I want.

Carpet Cleaners On the Go! 1-800-*-**

What a meaningful message you have gotten from that source of information!

>imposing your theology on the text to avoid grappling with the clear and true meaning of the writers.

You mean reading it without trying to figure out what it is saying? And what clear and true meaning? You just proof-texted and asserted your meaning.

>Just as it would be a waste of time for me to try to convince a paranoiac that there is no message in the phone book...

Demonstrate the parallel.

>Why would I not be serious? Your church has failed miserably at solving this problem for 2000 years.

Yeah, that is not the case at all. The logical problem of evil has been dead for a long time and the evidential problem of evil has been sufficiently dealt with. Sorry you don't like the responses, but until you can refute them, asserting they are wrong isn't useful.

>A pet owner who does not do everything possible to relieve extreme suffering on a pet's part would be evil. In fact, to knowingly inflict pain on a pet would be not just illegal but immoral. And yet God in enter cancer and tsunamis. So he is immoral. So he is not perfect. So he is not the God predicted by Christianity or the ontological proof. I can imagine a greater being: one that does not invent and then unleash smallpox.

You have yet to prove that God wouldn't have morally justifiable reasons for doing any of those things. Also, what gives you the idea that God's sole purpose is to provide us with the best possible life right now? Where does that come into play and why would you assume that is God's purpose?

>All of them deserved to be drowned?

Yes. It was God's right to punish a pervasively evil people and cause the cessation of their existence. Are you proposing that God not punish a people who are evil to their core? You also propose an inadequate understanding of the relationship between sin and God's justice that reduces the actual nature of how bad sin is.

>We are "pets". Suffering is a minor issue. Harmful tendencies are just part of the plan.

God has a creative decree in which all things have purpose to the ultimate glory of Jehovah God. As for pets, no. We have a will and we exercise in the way we please, against God. God holds us accountable for our actions and in that justice is ultimately fulfilled. So, I ask you again, demonstrate the parallel.