How Brilliant We Bible Scholars Are!

In previous Blogs I pointed out that we must take various attempts to lead us back into ancient Bible times with a grain of salt. That is to say, be very cautious about those folks who claim that they can look at bits of stone, pottery and bones and tell you exactly what was going on. They also study the text of the Bible as it has come down to us and conclude that the stories in the Bible are, for the most part, fabrications by a variety of later writers who had their own agendas. In other words, those later writers wanted to trick their readers into thinking, for instance, that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, but he didn't, even though Christians thought so for the past 1,900 years. Here's how these post-modern, enlightened Bible historians think:

We wizards have developed tools especially in the past century by which we've caught those old-time Bible writers in their tricks, lies and deceptions. We are ready now to show you who really wrote the Bible. And you'll be surprised at what we've discovered. 

Wanna know how we do it? Here's a few tricks of our own we've developed.

1. Doublets - there are lots of them, stories about the same thing, but written from a different perspective, like the two creation stories in Genesis, the covenant between God and Abraham and two stories of God changing Jacob's name to Israel. Sometimes we even found triplets of stories. They can't fool us.

2. Two names for God - Ha! That's an even better clue. We knew it all the time. Two different groups had two different names for their God.

3. Terms and characteristics -  Besides these peculiar names for God, these groups had other terms that regularly appeared.

These are some basic tools to get us started into unraveling "what really, really happened." Don't forget that this is what all good historians do, check the sources and get back to "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist." 

 Oh, one more insight. That brilliant philosopher George Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) taught us how things happen, how history moves forward. We bow down before his brilliant insights—and remember that he was brilliant, able to shed light through his powerful mental capacities on the very mind of the enveloping, absolute Spirit or God if you will. Anyway, Hegel taught us that there are always, always, always men and/or groups that have a certain thesis, a certain position they wish to maintain. But then along comes another group with an opposing thesis, an antithesis. So they lock horns, as it were and struggle, even fight with one another until along comes a synthesis, a new understanding, a new place to be. That provides a new triad (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) and sets things in motion once again.

Now since this enlightened understanding from the Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason, has come to us from this enlightened philosopher, we can go back to the Bible with our enlightened knowledge, look at the doublets and triplets and draw some enlightened conclusions. We can work our way through the entire Bible with this presupposition, this brilliant, light-giving philosophy and determine there was a group we'll have to call the Elohists or E group, because they called God Elohim. And there were the Jahwists or J group, because they called God Jehovah or as many today say, Yahweh. The third source document, by far the largest, included most of the legal sections and concentrated on matters having to do with priests. We'll call those who developed these documents the P group. Finally there's the source material found only in the book of Deuteronomy that we'll call the D group.

So there you have it folks, the JEDP source-documentary thesis or Documentary Hypothesis. This model dominates the field of Bible studies in most mainline protestant seminaries and university departments of religion. It appears there are only a relatively few Lutheran groups, like the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and sister synods around the world, that reject this approach. Another time I'll tell you why we Missourians find it so hard to accept the presuppositions behind this hypothesis.

Can There Be Such A Thing As Biblical History?

In a couple Blogs from the first part of this year I wrote about the two principles that guide me in all things spiritual, namely the formal and the material principles. The formal principle refers to the source of such knowledge. The material principle speaks about the essence or central teaching of this source.

In the Lutheran churches of America this was a very hot issue in the 1960s and 70s. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) published  several reports about the authority of the Bible. This issue continues to be very significant, not only among Lutherans, but in all churches worldwide. You will recall my warning about human philosophy in the Blog immediately prior to this one. As promised, I want to develop this issue further. In so doing I will be drawing upon those CTCR reports. I commend them to you for a very detailed analysis of what continues to be said and taught both inside and out of Lutheran circles. For my purposes I will only lift up what I consider to be the essential differences between historical Lutheran theology and the historical-critical method of such groups as the Copenhagen School and the Jesus Seminar. There is also a mediating view, represented in our days by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and others.

Back in the 1830s German theologian Leopold von Ranke set out to find from a study of history "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist," what really happened. To discover this he emphasized the importance of finding original sources, like diaries, memoirs, government documents, etc. His phrase became the guiding principle for historians ever since. That includes those who propose to study the history behind the Bible.

In response to this attempt it is most helpful to read a small volume by Dr. E.H. Carr (What Is History?) developed from a series of lectures at Cambridge University back in 1961. In his lectures Dr. Carr made several significant points about history:

1. The historian chooses certain facts and then decides that one is more valuable than the other. He interprets them and tries to understand how they relate to one another. Like a modern detective he has to use his deductive reason and follow his hunches. 
2. These deductions and hunches change over time. In that sense, the historian's work is never done, because he is always learning new facts, discovering new information. So he must always change his interpretations and re-write. 
3. The historian himself is part of his own time. He is influenced and molded by the events and situations of his own day and makes value judgments about the past from his own perspective. It is impossible to be completely objective.
4. To try to be objective the historian must try to rise above the limits of his own vision and that of the society in which he resides. This is, of course, never entirely possible. 
5. Finally he must help those who read his writing to join him in a dialogue with that past so that all may learn how that past has influenced the present in which we now live. 

 Well now, I can only hope that I have properly interpreted the writings of this wise historian who lived and worked over fifty years ago. No doubt, I too have not been entirely objective, but have inserted my own bias upon his writing. And that is my major point. There is no such thing as objective history! There is no way of discovering "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist." We can never have all the facts. And any study of the past through such things as archeology can never be scientific, let alone objective. We all bring our biases and presuppositions to the decision making process that we call history.

I'll say more about how this relates to Biblical studies the next time.

So, What Is Your View Of History?

Those of you uninterested in history—how many that includes—may wonder why I seem to be preoccupied with it. When hearing about my latest and soon to be published novel, they ask, "Is it a historical novel?" And my answer is yes or at least so it seems. It is historical fiction, that is fiction related to events that really happened. 


So is that what the Bible is, fiction based upon events that really happened? For many it seems so, especially when they come across a couple phrases from the Bible passage I've been pondering this week—Hebrews 9:24-28—"he (Christ) has appeared once for all . . . Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people."


That once-for-all idea has a ton of historical controversy behind it. Who ever came up with this idea that a young Jew was God and that by dying on a Roman cross he could atone for the sins of every human being who has ever lived and breathed upon this planet from the beginning of time until now and on into the endless future? Preposterous! Unless this man Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Son of God, "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father"  (Nicene Creed).

Here's an alternate view of history from the novel, one fervently held by many Germans, even before the rise of Nazism. My protagonist, Albert, is talking with the vivacious Hulda Schwarz, priestess of the goddess Freya.


“Albert, Albert, you have so much to learn."


She spoke with what seemed greater intensity as the pitch of her voice rose. “For centuries before your bumbling Italian stumbled upon the North American continent, the great Vikings navigated back and forth from Scandinavia.They cruised the Great Lakes to explore this place, your so-called Indians called Minnesota, the land of sky blue waters. The Vikings had villages here. Their runes prove it. Have you never heard about a stone discovered here in Minnesota over thirty years ago with powerful runes written upon it?"


Al stared at her, “What are these fairy tales?”


“Before the great Vikings, even for thousands and thousands of years before the birth of Christ, we Aryans ruled these lands. Albert, all the way to the South American continent. We were the Aztecs and the Maya. We Aryans also ruled the islands of the Mediterranean Sea and established great kingdoms from Crete to Egypt and Ethiopia. Our power reached out to India and beyond, even to the lands of the Chinese.”


“But, but how can this be, Fraulein? No one ever spoke about this to me. Are, are you certain this is true?”


His mumbling and fumbling made him feel like a fool. Did she have access to some hidden knowledge or was she a raving lunatic?


Hulda smiled as she turned to Al. “You have so much to learn, Albert, so much. Be patient. You are on the right track and Woden smiles upon you!”


“Woden?”


Hulda sighed and seemed to let out a long, almost exasperated breath. “I, too, must be patient. I know it, but I forget. You have been taught empty myths about the Jewish god. You have probably been taught that the Jesus, the Jew of Nazareth, was a god! In time you will learn the truth and give your allegiance to the true gods, the gods of the North, the Aryan gods!”


“Perhaps, but who is this Woden you speak about?”


“Woden—some call him Odin—is the Father of us all, Albert.”


Her words came out slow, quiet reverently. She bowed her head and gazed again out the window. It seemed to Al as if she was worshiping this Woden person right in front of him.


Turning back to him, she continued. “Albert, Woden is the All-Father, the ruler of all spirits. He is the First One, the Creator. In him lives all knowledge and wisdom. To him we sing our songs, for all comes from him.” 


What is your view of history?