An Introduction to the Old Testament: Lecture 1

Will,

This is a superb way to promote a better, more reasoned understanding of the Bible. I hope it gets a great deal of interest.

Agree. Well, I'll be watching Lecture 1 today.... looking forward to the pending discussion.

It may be worth pointing out now that sceptics and conservatives aren't going to find the decisvive evidence that they need make their case in this class. The evidence Dr Hayes refers to in later lectures seems compatible with a number of interpretations. Which she seems to acknowledge, although steering a fairly moderate course herself.
And it all seems to be similar with the few Evangelical textbooks I've read on the OT. If anyone wants to use the OT course to settle debates, they'll be disappointed.

GV

Will
What a fresh and good idea for the W&T community, I for one will gladly partake in the online experiment.Hopefully it will open up new Ideas and thoughts for me as I look at the teaching of the Bible again.

A great idea. Looking forward to it. Hope I can find the time to keep up!

just finished viewing the introductory lesson... and detect a stirring of fresh air here in the mountains of east tennessee... thanks william!

Professor Hayes is a good communicator, that's for sure. First thoughts.

About half way through this first lecture we have some 'common myths' dismissed for us; and while I don't go the whole way with her that they still remain as common myths in the contemporary religious world is to be regretted. We are told that the bible is not a 'book', not pious parables about saints, not for naive optimists, the Bible is characterized by a sophistication of structure and style, with each voice reflecting a thread in the rich tapestry of human experience. This should be well known in a western culture which calls itself Christian. We are told too that there's nothing in the Bible that really corresponds to prevailing modern western notions of religion; rather, to become an Israelite, one joined the Israelite community (the rich tapestry), lived an Israelite life and so on, and it is this which is contrasted with the western view of religion understood as that which is defined primarily as a set of beliefs that requires our assent. Again, I largely concur and suggest that this intellectual assent approach to biblical faith which has overwhelmed the Hebrew understanding of community is an indictment of Western Christianity. I further suggest that this idea of community in the biblical text ought to be further explored in providing for us a framework within which to understand much of what is intended in the communication of authors.

i want to pick up on peter's musings about how one "became" an israelite as opposed to how one "becomes" a christian. this part of the lecture stood out for me in a "whewwwww" revelatory sort of way... in that it seems it was inherit and understood and without question... to put it into today's terms... about "walking the walk" and not just "talking the talk" or repeating the nicene creed or profession of faith. if i remember correctly, professor hayes referred to "living the israelite life and dying an israelite death". could one be accepted into the christian community by simply "living a christ life and dying a christ death" (so to speak)... living in community with other christians... without affirming established doctrine or creed or beliefs? or does choosing to live in/identify oneself with a particular community... be it israelite or christian... mean an acceptance of beliefs/ideas... by default if not verbalised? did becoming an israelite by joining community also mean accepting the "new God idea" of israel? sorry william... more questions than comments.

William

I find that it is a tricky thing to comment without having in mind particular aspects of the evangelical tradition of which I am so familiar, a world in which one can be considered a 'liberal' simply for not using a particular form of words. Often there is a limited view of what it means to 'become' a Christian, or what it to 'believe' the bible, I'll assume you know what I mean. What I have found though is that there is often much to learn from what is called the liberal wing of the church simply because some such theologians are concerned with what the words actually say and not merely with making them fit a preferred doctrine (however accurate I might think that doctrine to be). There is much to be gained by considering the words!

In that sense I appreciate the dispelling of 'myths'. 'Myths' of popular culture, both religious and secular. I hesitate too though, and when I do so it is in terms of how some phrases used by Professor Hayes should be understood. For example, "They didn't strive to reconcile the conflicts, nor should we." At one level I agree. Life is complex, we live lives of personal conflict, we live with conflicts of faith, we do not have all the answers, there are many unanswered questions, yet, I also want to say, but these conflicts point us away from ourselves.

I really quite liked the paragraph about the characters not being 'pious saints', and largely the paragraph about it not being suitable for children. There is certainly a sanitised Sunday School version of these stories which isn't helpful. Too often people like Moses, for example, are portrayed as some kind of Captain Marvel character. Part of the trouble with the bible is that it is much more real than that.

I'm not just so sure though about her use of phrases like, "the Bible is not a book of theology", "They're not an account of the divine", and I think I can say this without contradicting my earlier point about community. This links too, to what danette has asked, and what I'm thinking is that belonging to a community will ultimately mean believing with the community, thinking with the community, valuing what the community values. It is, I think, captured in, "You obeyed Israelite law and custom, you revered Israelite lore, you entered into the historical community of Israel by accepting that their fate and yours should be the same." So it's not that there is no theology, no divinity, no catechising, but maybe that we need to think through how this is different from the intellectual assent approach to statements of faith or doctrine. I think of Rahab, for example, whatever anyone thinks of the rest of the story, for her, theology was a scarlet ribbon. Or Ruth, "Where you go, I will go, and where you stay I will stay", and community is something we grow into.

Maybe I could put one of my thoughts this way, I'd rather be part of a wider community and live with some uncertainty, than confidently participate in an 'altar call' or sign a confession and end up with no community!

Peter says: "I'd rather be part of a wider community and live with some uncertainty, than confidently participate in an 'altar call' or sign a confession and end up with no community!"

As someone who is currently *not* part of a community of 'believers', it's odd that I should concur so much with this statement Peter. Perhaps it's precisely because most such communities are so insistent upon their members subscribing to certain collections of beliefs that I feel unable to commit to one. This represents a marked difference from what characterized the Israelites, according to Prof. Hayes. (Not that the purpose of the course is to draw any parallels to modern religious communities or that the purpose of Christianity is to take its precedent entirely from ancient Judaism.)

Fundamentally, though, it's an interesting point to note that recorded in the early chapters of the Jewish bible is a community which is very different to what it later became and the Christian religion that later sprang from it, not least in the manner with which they approached 'belief'. Belief was intrinsically wrapped up in the customs, lifestyle, identity, politics of the people which held it. It's a fascinating thought to someone like me living in 21st century America how different that is. Like watching James Cameron's Avatar!

"belonging to a community will ultimately mean believing with the community, thinking with the community, valuing what the community values."

Groupthink?

Ironically this is not a million miles from what I was suggesting with "Christian atheism". Belief is unnecessary; it is more a cultural thing. Not that many Israelites (I would imagine) would have been atheist - a bit of a hard sell back then, but it would seem to be clear that many Israelites had a more relaxed approach to actual religious *belief*, which is presumably why the priests of Number One were so exercised at them patronising Baal and other gods. There is a lot of stuff hidden between the lines...

Helio

Strange as it may seem, I'm not going to rush to disagree with you.

In the cases I mentioned, Rehab and Ruth and their joining a community, it is extremely unlikely that they could have had a full understanding of Hebrew religious cultural practises. In fact it is possible, to begin with at least, that they had little or no knowledge of the Hebrew God and how the Hebrew community related to him. Ruth speaks in general terms about returning to Bethlehem and at the circumstantial and human level the story speaks as much of human devotion as it does of 'religious' devotion. In a similar way for Rahab there were very human reasons for her to work for rather than against the spies, she wanted safety for herself and her family. Perhaps what we call 'personal belief' came later, I don't know, but maybe we're not actually supposed to think in those terms, maybe we're supposed to think collectively.

And as John says that is different.

But isn't it interesting how these so-called primitive societies valued community above dogma? How far we have fallen.

Peter makes a very interesting point. There are few things more important to me than being part of the Christian community. I have noted on other threads that what I most love about my own church is the feeling of being at home there, the sense of belonging.

I would, though, query whether this actually is something that Western Christianity has entirely lost. What Peter describes is still the experience of Christians in rural CoI parishes or PCI congregations.

Where I grew up one belonged to the local church community by birth and practice. People were Christened, confirmed, married, went to Church, lived broadly in line with the teaching of the Church, took Communion together, and were eventually buried in the context of an assumed common identity and were sustained in the ups and downs of life by the common bonds of an unquestioned belonging. I have seen, not just the hurt, but the sheer uncomprehending bewilderment which is occasioned in such communities when a new incumbent introduces such subversive ideas as reserving Baptism for the off-spring of Christians.

The downside to community, as I think John is suggesting we probe, is that it requires some degree of cohesion and some measure of individuality may have to be sacrificed by an outsider wishing to join. My personal experience is that a high level of idiosyncrasy is tolerated if you are already deeply embedded - fortunately!

It would be interesting if this course stimulates enquiry in what it means to be a faith community - a very good start indeed.

My own first excitement came with the understanding that we are going to study a work of huge and manifold diversity. There is nothing I like more than trying to take meaning from a cacaphony of voices even when it is not possible to make sense of what one is hearing.

Funny, I always said the kind of church I'd love to join would be the one where people disagree with me the most, and with everyone else in the community too. Of course that isn't the kind of community that does well!

I wrote a piece a couple of years ago asserting that the kind of religions which survived are the ones which emphasized belief... I think that's true, and helps explain the popularity of the major religions today.

Professor Hayes said the Israelites were a small community comparatively speaking, and it may be no coincidence that they grew when they started emphasizing belief.

But that is interesting... the stories in the bible (it would seem - we'll see as we go on) don't point to the existence of such a belief system at the time they were *happening* (i.e. the supposed referent events, whether true or fictional or somewhere in between), but at the time they were being written down - and even that is plausibly polemical and does not necessarily represent the view across the spectrum of Israelite society in the ~7th century BCE, when the Genesis texts were being composed.

It's difficult to say at the moment - I have only read a few lectures. But the concept of "religion" is fierecly debated. Professor Hayes *may* well prefer one that doesn't focus on the set of beliefs held by the community, but rather on the practices that shape a community.

Now that's her right, and it's hardly a minority view. But it would be a *very* modern way of undertsanding religion - *if* it is what she holds.

Alternatively she may be making the point that "Religion" "Culture" and "Politics" were all the same thing in th ancient world. But then 'doctrine' does become very important. Israel has a right to the land, not because it circumcises male infants, but because YHWH has a covenant with Israel. YHWH acted to give the land. Babylon has a right to conquer as Marduk defeated Tiamat, and is the chief god. Cyrus has a right to usurp the Babylonians as they have dishonored their gods, and the gods of the nations that they have conquered.

GV

On the Bible and Doctrine.

The Bible is more than a source of doctrines, but that need not mean it is less. I'm more than happy with confession, as long as we don't get the cart [confessions] mixed up with the horse [Scripture - I'll use 'Scripture' rather than 'Bible' when referring to it as *more* than a body of literature.]

The PhD of choice in Evangelical circles at the moment is the connection between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. If you peruse the "Helm's Deep" blog you'll find some passionate arguments that Systematic Theology isn't broke, and that we don't need to fix it. At the other extreme there are those that argue that we shouldn't even attempt a Biblical Theology.
We seem to be touching on some of those issues. But they're deep waters.

GV

Perhaps the 'canon' of ancient Israel was more wrapped up in the culture than in the pages of a book. It seems to me that oral traditions are more necessarily contextual than written ones. It probably also means they were much more simple.

Two thoughts:
1. It's interesting that Israel, although so small and insignificant in the ANE, has had the longest lasting influence and reach... because of an "idea"... the idea of ONE god who was not just a disinterested force like nature, but rather one who wanted a personal relationship and who had control of history, even when bad things happen. That sounds to me like a belief system, a "faith", if you like, that changed the way this group thought, perceived, related, acted,lived and underdstood their world. Whilst I agree that our modern western understanding has, under Greek influences, tended to over-emphasise the intellectual, credal notions of faith, I do think intellectual assent to the "idea" still did play an important part in the Hebrew world. Creed or community? I think its a case of Both / and....not either / or. They shape each other.

2. I like the creative tension that the new "idea" of god created. It was a revolutionary cultural critique of their world at that time...a god who is outside of nature and who is interested in us! Radical stuff. But they were also prepared to use and adapt popular known stories and other resources from their context, and then adapt them and blend them and fill them with new meaning and content to make their point. Resourceful, creative, clever. Maybe another reason why their influence still abides today.

Good way of approaching the problem Will.

Okay, I'll try this way of making some distinctions

1) No text explicitly sets out 'creation ex nihilo'. Is it implied by a number texts. (I think that a fair case can be made for Genesis 1, but that's very much a minority view.) *On it's own* Genesis 1 is compatible with 'creation ex nihilo', and may support that doctrine.
In conjunction with John 1 and Colossians 1, Genesis 1 seems to be teaching 'creation ex nihilo'. But 'creation ex nihilo' depends on *more* than the idea that "God is the sole creator". It depends on critical refelection and comparison with other belief systems. So that seems to move us beyond mere Biblical Theology into 'Dogmatics'. (Would the term "Dogma" be helpful here? Or does it just confuse matters more?)

2) I think that teachings like "the Trinity" and "Incarnation" are 'dogmas'. That doesn't mean that they're not Scripturally warranted. NT Wright has put it that "if the Early Church Fathers did not exist it should have been necessary to invent them". He finds ideas in Paul and the Gospels that demand these dogmas. But while these dogmas may be inferred, correctly imho, from the Bible, we need to reflect critically and carefully before we arrive at these positions. Church History bears that out.
In terms of New Testament Theology we get ideas like "Jesus and YHWHs equality of status and function", "confession of Jesus as Lord", etc. When you then try to get a coherent idea out of the New Testament, an idea that will stand scrutiny and can be explained to outsiders, you've moved beyond exegesis and religious history into dogmatics. When you try to get a set of coherent dogmas you have entered the realm of systematic theology.

3) Of course that leaves a lot of the Bible untouched. The emotional power of the Psalms or Lamentations, for example. It also leaves out the sheer diversity of Scripture. I don't think that the diversity should worry evangelicals too much. At the same time, we usually just ignore it. Which is insane.
Suppose the author of Genesis One did not even conceive of 'creation ex nihilo'. Obviously, then, the text doesn't teach it. But that doesn't mean that the author doesn't say true things about God that can be built into a larger picture. It also doesn't preclude someone *using* the text in a way that alters it's meaning slightly. For example, by putting it in a collection of texts. Editors have intentions too, and can use texts in ways that authors cannot forsee. (I imagine we'll need to keep that in mind when we come to Proverbs and the Psalter).

4) But where I worry about Evangelicals and the diversity of Scripture is in our preaching. We tend to the Renaissance Humanist ideal of careful, verse by verse exposition, inching our way through a chapter at a time.
But how you do this without ignoring the importance of the canon? Take Song of Songs. It needs to be in the canon to balance the imagery of Israel's adultery. It's the antidote to the grotesque images of Ezekiel etc. In that context, and in the context of 'marriage' imagery it takes on a new meaning.
But if you take Song of Songs in isolation, and go through it passage by passage, you just get some insights into sex and romantic love. Do the same with Esther, and you get a political thriller. And the same goes for many Psalms and Proverbs.

That wandered a bit. Maybe someone can impose some coherence on it, or find something worth discussing.

GV

"Take the various sub-doctrines making up the larger doctrine of God:

are they "offered" in the Scriptures?

Or are they inferred by theologians wishing to develop a concept of God after the literary fact?"

So - can I answer

"Yes, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly" to the first question,

and

"Yes, but it's a justified inference" to the second?

GV

OK, not quite sure which tack to take here but I'll try this.

When I first noted the comments about 'intellectual assent' and 'community' I wasn't necessarily seeking drive a wedge between them. Rather I was responding with the idea that one's understanding of 'faith' or 'doctrine' will, like anything else, grow.

It seems to me then that that growth, or learning, like any growth, best takes place within a community. (Like the, 'it takes a village to raise a child', idea.) In contrast to this, what can often be required by an intellectual assent approach to belief is merely a sort of religious box ticking exercise which may not necessarily mean very much. People (collections of individuals) might for example assent to a required form of words without fully comprehending the words. Not only this but even with intellectual understanding there may not be an accompanying activity based on the words. A vibrant community however means that not only can people believe certain things but that these 'beliefs' stand a chance of being seen. Ruth, for example learned about this God she said she would follow by living in the community, watching how the community interacted, how it carried out its business and how it treated her. Could she have recited a creed, or the 'law', possibly not, but she might have been able to point to Boaz and say, 'God is a bit like that'.

If we extend this personal example of Ruth's learning to the wider community then it is possible to think that their 'doctrine', their 'content about God', will mature and deepen over time, the community will always be learning, and will always be seeking to learn.

Broad brush strokes, I know, but a possible framework within which interpretation can take place.

"Some would argue in this fashion, allowing the NT to be read into OT passages, as it were"

I wrote the post in a hurry, and I was a bit worried that I was taking the discussion off course. In the first lecture on the Old Testament and I'm more or less reading the NT into OT passages, and claiming that this is legitimate. Without any argument. Maybe that's a discussion for the *end* of the course. I'll let Will decide.

"What you call "dogmatics", here, others would call "begging the question"."

Of course Systematic Theology is not properly part of Old Testament exegesis. That doesn't mean that the latter can't legitmately be part of the former. Nor does it mean that systematic theology is not a rational and legitimate exercise. That's my concern here. Again, maybe I'm expanding the discussion too far too soon. That would be Will's call.

"I don't think an OT 101 paper would be permitted to make this kind of argument."

Hmmm, I don't know. If Will means using the NT to understand the OT, the examiner would flay me. Fair enough. I imagine that was Will's concern.
Seeing creation ex nihilo as implied by Genesis One seems ok though. I'd just cite that I was following scholars like James Barr and Brevard Childs to say that creation ex nihilo is implicit in Genesis 1; and use their arguments that "Bara" is used exclusively of YHWH and is never used of creation from pre-existing matter; that Speiser's influential 'rewriting' of Genesis 1 to allow for creation from pre-existing matter leaves a clumsy, ill formed sentence that doesn't suit the context of Genesis 1; that the use of God's 'word' moves away from the image of a craftsman; that when Ptah spoke some sort of emanation of the gods was taught, so gods speaking is radicallyy unlike it's nearest pagan parallel; that heaven and earth can be taken as a merism for 'everything'; and that the uniqueness of Genesis 1 among the mythologies allows for a radically new reading of creation - one that seems to demand a move beyond dualism.
That's all exegetical, and a good amount is taken from Barr. While creatio ex nihilo was too abstract for Gen 1s purposes and is not stated explicitly in Genesis 1 it is certainly implicit in the narrative. By which I mean the reader is meant to understand that the worlds
were not fashioned from any pre-existing material, but out of nothing. Prior to God's creative activity, "there was thus no other kind of phenomenological existence. (G Wenham's Commentary cites a number of mainstream commnetators who say something similar, but I don't have access to it at the moment.)

"what you "get" is probably determined by the interpretive lens you are looking through"; "who decides which inferences are justified?"; "If you are a Mormon, you may get "doctrinal support" for some of your beliefs"; "For every text "offering" one sub-doctrine (e.g., omnipotence, perhaps), one can find another text "offering" contrasting sub-doctrines."

Again, I could be jumping the gun here. Monotheism itself could be a better place to start than the sub-doctrines. We could leap into Psalms 29, 68 and 104's use of "Baal" imagery for YHWH, and how that is supposed to subvert monotheism. But that discussion's probably better reserved for the lecture on the Psalms.
Of course there's a level of subjectivity in Theology. That doesn't mean that it's *all* subjectivity. There's a level of diversity in Scripture. That doesn't mean that it's too diverse to be reconciled. There may be a coherent centre that makes better sense of the whole than the alternatives. I doubt that there will be one knockdown argument that would establish that if it were the case. We'd just have to make our best judgments.

Maybe I've taken discussion off in the wrong direction. I hope that at least it's given an idea of my starting position. But like PeterM I'm using broad brushstrokes.

GV

Depends what we mean by theology. At its simplest, theology just means, words about god, be those words human or divine.

I too don't want to jump ahead of the material. But these are all great topics for discussion. I love what Peter said about 'pointing at Boaz' and forming theology out of these kinds of human relational experiences.

And it does seem that monotheism is a good place to start. As Hayes says, monotheism is the exception to a rule of polytheism in the ancient near east; I think we can all accept that. But what about the assertion that the Israelites were themselves polytheistic, and that monotheism eventually sprang from it? Is it reasonable to say, for example, that the accounts of the creation of classes of creatures to which chaos monsters like Leviathan and sea monsters belong - believed to be gods by contemporary ancient near eastern cultures - is asserting Elohim's sovereignty over them and thus form part of a prevailing polytheism? And GV mentions Baal.

At the same time it is an interesting account Hayes gives of the things differentiating Yahweh from the other gods in the polytheist world. I'd be keen to explore some of these important questions about the nature of the Israelites' early belief.

Although, John, that is a problem. We can't assume that the stories reflect the beliefs of their protagonists - just those of the writer/redactor. And as Prof Hayes says, it is clear that the "polytheistic" mythologies of the Near East were known by the Israelites, and frequently woven into the narrative. They would not really have appreciated the distinction, I imagine.

"We can't assume that the stories reflect the beliefs of their protagonists - just those of the writer/redactor."

But we might need to know what the writer/s thought they were doing, the purpose for which they were writing and the role they were fulfilling in the community.

"They would not really have appreciated the distinction, I imagine."

Why not?

I have been reading the transcript over the past few days and have also listened to the podcast and would like to make some comments on Professor Hayes introduction.

First is her comment that the bible is not for children. She does not allow her own children to read it. How progressive for a yale professor! I wonder does she forbid her children to watch the violence on the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon in the Simpsons. I admire her efforts to shield her children but wonder what parental control is placed on the TV for example.

As she says the Bible deals with real people who are not set up as saints to follow. Even 'meek' Moses lost out in getting into the promised land because of his anger and disobedience.

Children should of course be brought up with a knowledge of the Bible and introduced to it through appropriate passages the way we expand the knowledge of children in any other subject. Any Sunday School curricula I have seen will make clear the faults 'warts and all' of the men and women recorded in the pages. Is Professor Hayes throw away comment another wedge to keep children from the Bible and continue the secularising agenda?

Secondly Professor Hayes says the Bible doesn't claim to have been written by God. If you look at 2nd Timothy Chapter 3 verse 16 it says 'All scripture is given by inspiration (God breathed) of God and is profitable for doctrine etc...' That is only one example. So while there are many authors there is this constant inspiration behind their writing.

But I'm in for more and hope to stick with the course.

LuxFuit- Welcome! You've taken an important step in being open enough to take a 'secular' course and sticking with it. However I'm not sure there is a 'secularising agenda' behind the Yale course! The course is conducted without an assumption of the rightness/wrongness of any religion based upon the bible, and that's entirely appropriate. I think Hayes was very clear about why she thinks it isn't suitable for children; the subject matter is just very mature.

You raise a good debate over whether the bible does or does not claim divine authorship. To start with a point on which we can hopefully agree, it should be clear that 2 Timothy cannot be used to argue for divine authorship of the New Testament, only the Old, since only the OT was "Scripture" to the writer of the letter. (And, then, only the Old that was commonly used at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy.) Given this fact, it's difficult to defend the claim that the author of 2 Timothy could be speaking on behalf of a collection of material he had nothing to do with. Then there are problems with the claim thrown up by other proof texts, like the Apostle Paul's "I, not the Lord" in Corinthians, in which he explicitly disclaims his writing from precisely this claim!

Ultimately the question of whether the bible actually IS written by God is a theological one (though I'd say everything suggests that claim is false). But the question of whether the bible claims to be written by God is evidential, and exegetical. And since the bible consists of 66 separate pieces of literature across the genre spectrum, it seems to me that each of them would need to claim divine authorship in order to be regarded as validly having made that claim. Only one did, and it didn't even make the claim on behalf of itself! To assert anything else is to rely on other theological doctrines which themselves need established (like the idea that God also guided the formation of the canon so that 'Scripture' actually refers to the exact 66 books used by evangelicals today).

So, I would say that the bible does not claim to have been written by God; this is a later theological tradition.

I'm glad we are only attempting one lecture a week! I'm progressing slowly through Kaufman in preparation for lecture two - fascinating stuff.

Two comments.

First. I am in agreement with those commentators who wonder at Prof Hayes' thinking the Bible unsuitable for children. I believe the way in which this generation shield their off-spring from reality is actually quite harmful.

I grew up on a farm where copulating and birthing animals were a common sight and where the aftermath of a fox's raid on the hen-house, the wringing of a hen's neck for the pot, or the drowning of unwanted pups were never hidden from me: if I could walk to where something was happening I could witness it.

From earliest childhood the Bible joined the Arabian Nights and Sinbad the Sailor as primary sources for bedtime stories: it's amazing how much I recollect and the gorier and more lurid the episode the more I enjoyed it.

I do not think this kind of childhood experience did me any harm whatsoever, in fact I think it was an excellent preparation for life. Adult topics, in the context of a loving, engaged and supportive family, are entirely appropriate for children, it's concealment I would worry about.

Second. I'm going to hang this point on William's questions in comment # 28: "Which is the "correct" reading? Which reading is "offered" by the text?" I am going to suggest there is no correct reading of any text, no possibility of ever arriving at a definitive understanding of any work. I suggest that the Biblical texts do not offer a meaning, but I do think they catalyse meaning, and I think Prof Hayes correctly focuses on why that might be so.

I think Theology is a nonsense and Systematic Theology nonsense squared. Words about God are utterly meaningless. If the Church Fathers and the Reformers had never existed it would not matter a jot or a tittle. The Bible works far, far better without either.

I recollect asking Prof Cowie on this blog some time ago if 'any myth would do'. His answer has given me much occasion for thought ever since: he replied that "there are very few genuinely functional religious myths... They have to mesh with a lot of facts about the world and features of the human mind". The Bible is significant because it meshes very well in a way which is neither temporally or culturally limited with crucial aspects of the human psyche. It can get its hooks into me just as easily as it could into first century Jew or Christian and it does not require me to understand anything about ancient Israel for it to have that effect.

I do not expect to understand the Bible in any important way significantly better because of this course. What I am hoping for is a vastly increased knowledge of how other people arrive at their understandings.

Will

It might be a myth that the authors set out to write theology, or a source book for theology. That's anachronistic to say the least.

I just don't want to leap to the conclusion that systematic theology is unwarranted. Theology may *become* a necessity for believers. The biblical authors didn't set out to write source books for hymnals or liturgies either. That doesn't mean that the Bible can't be used for those purposes.

I don't want to leap to the conclusion that deep underlying themes and an inner coherence *cannot* be present in Scripture (simply because there is a low a priori probability that various authors over a range of centuries could achieve coherence).

At the same time it is possible to "bracket off" my beliefs for the purposes of study. So for example, a belief in inerrancy, or inspiration, or the Trinity. I can do that so I discuss topics on common ground with other participants, or I can do that so that I don't see doctrines where they are not present. Or I can do that so that discussion does not get held up with distractions.

GV

On the Bible and Children

I'm actually in sympathy with Dr Hayes. My Year 8's are bewildered to find out that when Goliath was hit in the head with a slingshot, this was not like Dennis the Menace hitting the teacher in the head with a catapult. You wouldn't have much of a skull to talk about if a slingshot connected with your noggin.
It's not that we should shield children from the stories. But we may need to reconsider the tone and style of our storytelling.

GV

Will

It might be a myth that the authors set out to write theology, or a source book for theology. That's anachronistic to say the least.

I just don't want to leap to the conclusion that systematic theology is unwarranted. Theology may *become* a necessity for believers. The biblical authors didn't set out to write source books for hymnals or liturgies either. That doesn't mean that the Bible can't be used for those purposes.

I don't want to leap to the conclusion that deep underlying themes and an inner coherence *cannot* be present in Scripture (simply because there is a low a priori probability that various authors over a range of centuries could achieve coherence).

At the same time it is possible to "bracket off" my beliefs for the purposes of study. So for example, a belief in inerrancy, or inspiration, or the Trinity. I can do that so I discuss topics on common ground with other participants, or I can do that so that I don't see doctrines where they are not present. Or I can do that so that discussion does not get held up with distractions.

GV

Don't know how 40&42 got up twice - danger of multi-tasking I suppose. Apologies.

GV

You are displaying all the qualities needed for a news reader on Sky News.

Parrhasios- Surely it would be reasonable to say that the meaning offered by the text is the meaning the author had when he wrote it? When I write something, it means something in particular. It is NOT open to whatever meaning someone wants to give it (at least not if our purpose is to discover what the text actually MEANS). So, I'd say our purpose here is to try to discern the meaning and intent of the authors of the texts we're studying, and that THAT is the meaning "offered by" the text.

Graham - I am not quite sure what you are saying in # 41. Are you merely observing the disconnection from reality of the perceptions of your 11-12 year old pupils or are you to some extent endorsing it?

By the time I was twelve I had seen my pony in the throes of colic and watched the vet shoot her: I had seen for myself precisely what happens when a projectile hits the skull at high velocity. My mother recommended I see it, she was with me, I was utterly desolate, I cried on and off for days, but I was consoled and I learned many invaluable lessons.

I, and many other country children, experienced things before we understood fully or exactly what they meant and that is the natural sequence. Our development was rooted in reality, our understanding grew organically, and we lived in a totally supportive environment. Many town children today think they know or understand things without any actual experience of the reality of what they conceptualise: that is dangerous both for them and for society. Many others experience harsh reality without the love framework which fosters the development of perspective and coping skills: that is unfortunately even worse.

What Parrhasios calls the intentional fallacy, I'd call "psychologism". So the 'picture' or 'feelings' in an author's mind don't determine the meaning of a text, or word or whatever.
I don't think that authorial *intentions) (alone) determine the meaning of a text. For one thing, an writer can try to say something with a piece and fail, or say something else entirely. If meanings's all about the author's intentions then an author can never fail to express herself correctly.

Anyhow I think film studies puts an end to meaning as the author's intention. As I said in the "Witchhunt" thread who is the author of a film or play? The director? The scriptwriter? The actors? The editor? Some of the above? All of the above?
Authors overlap. Spielberg and co. leaned heavily on "Moby Dick" when making 'Jaws', without giving the meaning of Moby Dick much thought. So some of the meaning of Melville's novel will be carried over into a popular film quite unintentionally. CS Lewis was influenced by GK Chesterton. Chesterton by Dickens. Authors are always borrowing phrases, structures, characters and ideas. Do they *always* know what was originally intended? Can we always track down the origin? I suppose we can look deep into human psychology, like the Structuralists. But the author gets relegated in that instance also.

GV

I see it's tea-break time again...

I enjoyed both lectures and find myself agreeing with Prof Hayes regarding the bible and children. How does a parent/teacher even begin to explain why Lott’s daughters got him drunk then had sex with him?

I came to the lectures hoping to learn new things and I have not been disappointed. I read Genius 6 and I am still trying to accept that there are many sons of god.

To sit in on a Yale lecture gave me a cheap thrill too!

The contents make a refreshing change from Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Grayling.

Regards
David

Oops I can see I'm already a week behind with my assigment Dr Crawley, I hope you don't mind.

To begin with, I queried how the series from Prof Hayes is framed above as "how serious scholars think about the bible".

Surely, it would be more accurate to say it is "how a single liberal scholar thinks about the bible" and I mean that with the utmost respect to Prof Hayes.

Liberal scholars do not agree with each other on the many points Prof Hayes has made and there are a world of serious conservative scholars out there in secular universities who hold very credible alternative views to Prof Hayes on many points.

One cheap and accessible entree to this world of conservative scholarship is the IVP New Bible Commentary which might give the course a cheap and more rounded academic reading list, with contributions from a range of reputable conservative scholars of the bible from secular universities.

It also gives an overview of the full spectrum of views held by the world of liberal scholarship. The idea that Israel's faith evolved from polytheism is an old idea which is hardly uncontested by scholars, for example and certainly contrary to the primary evidence.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Bible-Commentary-21st-Century/dp/0830814426

Will said on the first thread on this subject that the academy had decided that God could be considered in most academic subjects, except science.

But what we have here is an academic study of the bible that also excludes God! I thought that was a little ironic.

The first thing that struck me about the lecture was the assumption that Israel had not experienced God but had created him as "an idea". There is no substantiation for this assertion, it is an article of faith.

The prof challenges many "myths" and assumptions her class might have and she tells them she will not answer questions which assume God. But she does not appear to recognise her own major assumption on this matter ie that God is just "an idea".

Why is she "afraid" to answer questions which assume God, William? (you asked me before if I was afraid to listen to this course, which explains why I pose the question like this). But what *is* Prof Hayes afraid of with such questions and why has God been excluded from a study of the bible?? JW is correct, it is a strictly secular course about the bible....just an observation. But can really serious scholars of the bible really do the field justice with such a broad unapproachable assumption? Personally I think that is shackled scholarship.

I think Parahasios and others are exactly right about children and the bible, liked your comments about farms Parahasios. Deut' says that children must be taught the hebrew scriptures; Timothy was taught his faith as a child; Christ warned not to keep children away from him. The comments from Prof Hayes remind me about the billboard campaign that warned us not to call children Christians etc.

The questions as to whether the hebrew bible is divinely inspired; it must be recognised that this question springs from a secular worldview, which is an anomaly, a curious blip in ages of world history. Perhaps the reason the OT does not argue it is scripture at length is the same reason it does not argue that God exists - both were givens. Having said that, the prophets often recorded "the word of the Lord" coming to them; Psalm 103 says that God revealed many matters to Moses; Moses brought down the law from God for Israel.

Similarly, the assertion that Moses was not the main author of Genesis. This is not an article of faith for me, but IMO this argument is educated and eloquent speculation. It is common for those with liberal views to challenge traditional authorship of biblical books and they make many credible points. But they never prove anything and frequently turn respected pagan and faith historians on their head without solid justification. Without question Moses wrote swathes of the these books, but it seems to me that presenting a one-sided argument that he was not the main author is hardly doing justice to a very broad spectrum of scholarly opinion on this matter. Again, we need a broader reading list (IVP New Bible Dictionary anyone?).

In any event none of Prof Hayes' arguments refute divine inspiration of the scriptures. Jude quotes the Keys of Enoch at length for example. And? Couldnt God have intended him to do that?

She says the OT texts were "manipulated" but this is only one opinion, conservative scholars see it differently. Similar arguments have been made about the gospels and NT for many years, but they frequently assume that facts were twisted to make Christ the Messiah. Such scholarship does not seriously consider that Christ may actually have been the Messiah. Just because there may be inconsistencies between some mss does not prove that there were was not a tradition of consistent mss and oral traditions which have remained constant. Not at all.

Ref Noah being based on other flood accounts, the Prof has a serious problem. She acknowledges that Genesis is a very realistic written account of real people, but this is diametrically opposite to how myths are recorded, as I understand it. Apparently, many scholars also argue that there are no objective literary standards which bar Gensis being considered as history. There are no anachronisms in it and it has always been ahead of archeology, even when it was scorned by scholars (eg It testified of the history of the Hittites when mainstream scholars thought they were a just myth).

Realistic novel writing of the lives of real characters is a very modern literature, as I understand it, so this mitigates strongly against the argument that Genesis is myth. Furthermore, if we assume for a second that Jehovah is real, then another position also held by many scholars comes to light; that all the other creation myths evolved from the Genesis narrative, even if they evolved from the oral version of it after the geographical dispersion of people at babel. That would help explain corruption and cultural divergence from the oral Genesis version as people travelled to new continents etc.

Prof Hayes says there is no attempt to resolve the conflicts of the bible. However, if she dropped her no-God assumption a marvelous number of them might just resolve themselves. I certainly believe in a bible of unity and harmony, though not without intellectual problems for even the best scholars. If a God assumption is allowed then it is perfectly reasonable to use the NT to explain and justify the OT as they can be assumed to be from one divine author.

Eg here in John 1 we have an explanation for the origin of matter and life that was the inspiration and in complete harmony with the scientific revolution which gave us modern science. If a non-faith scientist objects ask him to explain the origin of matter and life;-
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Will talks about the varied lenses of interpretation of scripture. As I said before, this is in strong contrast to the traditional grammatico-historical approach of mainstream churches throughout history, which have focussed on paying attention to what the author intended to tell us and through the author, the Holy Spirit. It would be totally contradictory to the thinking of Paul, Peter, Calvin, John Wesley, John Bunyan, CS Lewis, William Booth, Billy Graham etc etc.

To focus instead on all the different possible interpretations you can squeeze out of a passage as the main concern leads to a position of humanistic reading, where each reader's imagination is God and everyone is a law unto themselves.

Readers have every right to approach the bible like this, but they must realise that this focus as the main objective, with no serious attempt to reach the author's actual intended message, has absolutely nothing to do with the core, consistent and historical Christian faith as believed down through history. Churches just don't grow on this kind of teaching, it leads to agnosticism and undermines faith communities, and respectfully, I think this is reflected in the comments and views of other posters above.

Overall, it just seems odd that so much energy can be expended picking the mss apart, challenging the authorships, challenging the students' faith and looking at a world of interpretations and yet rule out of order any discussion which considers that the text might be divinely inspired and that God might exist.

I will be corrected, but I also get the feeling that every radical interpretation is going to be given equal respect without much acknowledgement for the fact that the grammatico-historical (literal) rule of thumb has always been the foundation for mainstream Abrahamic faith communities, even until to this day!

However, my biggest concern about the course that such energy can be expended reading the bible without even a chance of a repayment of *hope* for the reader.

OT

John

ref post 45

My understanding of this course is that it takes exactly the opposite tack to the one you are hoping for here, but we shall see.

OT

GV say what you like about Parahasios

But you always know exactly where you stand with him and he is gracious with it.

For example, he is up front about the parameters and motivation behind his worldview, which he consciously understands and explicitly acknowledges. That is a rare thing here!

At the same time, he repeatedly acknowledges that I aspire to represent an authentic, classic understanding of what mainstream churches and Jewish faith have always believed.

In contrast to this, there are many voices on this blog that appear to deny the reality of such a position and usurp it with revisionist post-modern imposter versions of Christianity.

They have every right to express their views but it is not accurarate to present them as something they are not.

Conclusion;- I like Parahasios - he does what he says on the tin!

OT

Hi David Kerr and welcome.

Ref Genesis 6 and the sons of God.

The books of Enoch have some authority on this matter as they are quoted in Jude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

They report that these sons were angels which fell.

OT

John - # 45

"So, I'd say our purpose here is to try to discern the meaning and intent of the authors of the texts we're studying, and that THAT is the meaning "offered by" the text."

Only part of it at best, John. 

I recommend purchasing The Jewish Study Bible to anyone following the course. I am finding it a source of marvellous new insight already and an excellent complement to Prof Hayes' lectures.

Here are a couple of quotations from its introduction which shed some light on approaches to meaning in the Jewish tradition. I suspect they indicate fairly closely the path the course will follow: if so it is one I find entirely congenial.

"There are seventy faces to the Torah" If anything marks Jewish biblical interpretation it is the diversity of approaches employed and the multiplicity of meanings produced.

We will show how meaning may be uncovered by looking both at the early building blocks of the text, and at the text in its final, redacted form.

Communication takes many forms and works on many levels. I would argue that we cannot use the methodology we employ for comprehension of everyday exchanges to understand either great works of art or profound spiritual texts. I would argue that it requires not just something different but, for once, something more.

Thank you, OT, got the message loud and clear.... Genesis 6 and the sons of God section is innacurate.

David

Graham - # 47. I think your analogy of film studies works very well with the approach to Biblical studies I note in post # 55 above. We will be looking at all the voices and, perhaps, we will be looking too for a voice.

OT - # 52 Looks like we are in agreement again! I have to say that, so far, this course feels very much like home territory to me.

Thank you for # 53 - I can return the compliment. It seems slightly surreal, but definitely in a good way, that one of the blog's most classically traditional Christians and one of his most liberal counterparts should have a mutual regard which goes beyond mere respect. Perhaps we are Will's Chuckle Brothers. :-)

-------

At one point Will asks about ex nihilo creation. Just a thought but it always seemed to me quite hard to argue that from the Genesis accounts. Does making 1 v.1 a temporal clause (as the JSB suggests) maybe help a little here? Expert opinion anyone?

The son's of God are not Angels but were descendants of seth, who were being polluted by the son's of men, which in turn could cause genealogical problems not only for the lineage of Israel but for the birth of Christ.

John, can you elaborate please - what basis do you have for that? Also, how does it tie in with other usages of "Sons of God" in the bible?

-H

Heli,
My basic understanding of the son's of Elohim is, that they can be various things, they can be Adam's family, Israel, falling Angels, Heavenly beings, the Children of God, that's a quick answer! off the top of my head, scripture ref, can easy be found, maybe, I should have said in regards to Gen.6.

Will soon get back to you on this issue and the one about Isa.40,22 as Iam just a wee bit ill today.

JTB2.

Hi John, I feel for you - I've been cultivating a nasty cold the last few days too - almost threatened to spoil the evening with PZ Myers (which was great). What I mean is this: if we're ALL descended from Seth, what is your basis for these "sons of god" being also his descendants? (I should point out that I do not accept that "Seth" is an ancestor of all people, any more than Adam or Noah were - the human species is much much older than that myth will allow). You said that they were not angels; I'd like to know a bit of detail, because they are an interesting reference....

Cheers,
-H

David - # 49

I know how I would explain it. 

In a normal functioning family children will only become sufficiently interested in things to raise questions when they are ready to hear answers. The nature of the question will determine the answer: early questions will generally only require factual responses, later usually explanation.

If I may go back to my own childhood to give you an example, my mother is slightly bohemian and has always liked gay men. We had many such call on us. One particular friend was a New York banker who came home to NI every Summer and regularly visited. He was a short portly man who was always accompanied by two male companions both much younger, much taller, and of much darker complexion than himself. When I first asked who they were I was told quite simply that they were Mr X's boyfriends and that satisfied me, then. Different visits provoked different questions until, somewhere around the age of 13-14 in response to a query as to why it was usually different guys, I got the answer 'he probably pays them for sex'. Thereafter  I could usually work things out for myself! If you ask me that is how you do it.

Children will only pick-up on the story of Lot's daughters when the subject matter interests them and by that time they should be able to deal with the facts. The gloss I would put on it is that feelings of necessity, often misplaced, can lead to the most extreme behaviour but even then no action is beyond forgiveness and necessarily devoid of good consequences. It is interesting to note, in the light of John's comment about Christ's descent, that the genealogies trace his ancestry back to Ruth the Moabitess and hence to that union of Lot with his elder daughter.

 

OT

"One cheap and accessible entree to this world of conservative scholarship is the IVP New Bible Commentary" etc.

I think that I've discussed most of the issues that you raised in your post with Will. While I think I'm broadly in agreement with what your position on the Scriptures, I'm not sure that I'm as concerned as you are.
First, I said earlier that sceptics and conservatives aren't going to find the decisvive evidence that they need make their case in this class. I meant this as praise - it's a good choice of course IMHO. I've never really engaged with OT scholarship outside the conservative spectrum. This is a good opportunity to do so. Prof Haye's use of Kaufman shows that she is open to conservative views. (Frankly, it is heartening to find that conservative views are not casually dismissed in the academy.) And she is certainly more conservative than the "minimalists" who believe that all the pre-exilic material is romantic fiction.
Second, I may have to study somewhat to meet some of the challenges raised by Prof Hayes to the Evangelical position. (That's why I'm taking the lectures one at a time). But I'm quite confident that her challenges can be challenged, and I'm quite looking forward to her arguments.
Thirdly, Will has asked some sharp questions that have made me think about systematic theology, biblical theology and the authority of scripture. And once I'd given a few answers he was content to let the matter settle. Even though I'd bet my morning coffee that he disagrees with me. So I don't see any attempt to undermine my faith here. Just some good questions that cause me to think. And Peter Morrow has been thinking about Progressive Revelation, and we've been chatting to each other about this. So it seems very worthwhile so far.

Which brings me to

"there are many voices on this blog that appear to deny the reality of such a position and usurp it with revisionist post-modern imposter versions of Christianity"

I appreciate Parrhasios too, but I sense you have a target in mind here. Me? Peter Morrow? If you read the Rollins thread you'd know that we both have an aversion to revisionist post-modern imposter versions of Christianity. So who on earth do you mean? And why are you telling me?
Isn't it a bit inconsistent to praise Parrhasios for being direct and honest, and then to sort of insinuate that somebody on the blog is sort of maybe a bit dodgy in some undefined way? Or have I missed your point?

GV

GV

If the cap fits wear it.

If it doesnt dont.

OT

PS Graham.

My last post was borne somwhat out of frustration and I wont dwell on it; the athiests / liberals / agnostics on this blog back each other up to the hilt ALL the time, even if they have only just met.

The people who CLAIM to believe that the world will know them by their love for one another constantly engage in intellectual one-upmanship, put downs, contradictions and almost NEVER engage in any sort of affirmation for each other.

Who is acting more biblically? Athiests or Christians?

OT

Graham

IN answer to your question, no I was not thinking of you with the post to Parahasios. Yes I guess I am being consistent. I am joining the club of inconsistent Christians here.

OT

Is Genesis scripture?

The way Christ referred to it, he obviously believed it was;-

-----------------------------------

Matt 19

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."



Footnotes:
Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27
Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24

So what? Jesus taught in parables too. But even if he did believe it, how should he have known? It's not as if he had any authority or insider knowledge.

OT

This is a frustrating blog at times. Communication is difficult at the best of times, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the Christians on here are always engaging in put downs, nor that the atheists all agree.

I get frustrated like anyone else, but you know what we all keep talking, that's good. And I keep learning things. As Graham said being on here challenges us. I need my faith challenged. Perhaps I'm odd like that, but sometimes I need to test it to breaking point. Indeed it's one of the points I've put to the atheists who always back each other up. A point about doubt. I just can't get them to doubt the way I do!! Perhaps they need each other's affirmation to reinforce their point of view! We're not the ones who have to trust in ourselves! ;-)

And perhaps the ability to stridently disagree with each other and remain on speaking terms is good, perhaps it better than endless public agreement. Actually I think it is. Perhaps it the patient part of love!

And so on a bible thread, two bible quotes:

Proverbs 27: 6 and 17.

:-)

Helio

"It's not as if he had any authority or insider knowledge."

How do you know? Have you any insider knowledge?

:-)

Peter, as a matter of fact, I do have my sources ;-)

H

Tomato source, chilli source or tangy source?

GV

I guess theology is so much your thing you could spend weeks discussing it with people who hold radically unbiblical ideas, find it a fascinating education and not cause you any problem.

I am addressing the same points from the perspective of the casual reader who does not bear any similarity to you whatsoever.

OT

petermorrow,

"Indeed it's one of the points I've put to the atheists who always back each other up. A point about doubt. I just can't get them to doubt the way I do!! Perhaps they need each other's affirmation to reinforce their point of view!"

You do know how to bend and twist it, don't you? Atheists are regularly criticized for squabbling amongst each other. Plenty of believers have written blog or editorials in rather gloating tone about the supposed imminent demise of new atheism due to lack of unity. And here you are, a believing christian, saying we don't doubt enough and need each others affirmation. Talk about turning things on it s head.

Sure, there are things practically all atheists would agree on. Now, you take the things that this bunch of somewhat ununited, debate-prone squabblers manage to have in common and present it as a weak spot? A group of intelligent people who like to do their own thinking, all coming to the same conclusion on some issues, is an argument against the reliability of that conclusions?

If your answer to the questions above is yes, then please explain what a group of people who have all reached the correct conclusion should do in order not to fall victim to your 'you all back each other, therefore none of you dare doubt enough' reasoning.

And does your idea apply to things other than religious vs. rational world views too? For instance, is scientific consensus a sign of herd mentality?

Peter K

""Indeed it's one of the points I've put to the atheists who always back each other up. A point about doubt. I just can't get them to doubt the way I do!! Perhaps they need each other's affirmation to reinforce their point of view!"

Peter, I intended a good dose of tongue-in-cheek with that comment, and did my best to signify that with the three exclamation marks.

On the more serious side, yes I do happen to think that for each of us, our doubt or, for that matter of fact, our faith, can be inconsistent, that and the point that there are some Christians around who take the issue of faith seriously enough to doubt it, but I really wasn't seeking to make an issue out of it.

Maybe we need emotikons on the blog?

Parrhasios - #62
Thank you Parrhasios

It sounds like you had an interesting childhood.

If you are revealing that Jesus only came to be as a result of a drunken, incestuous encounter between Lott and his child, then I imagine a school assembly with this as the core of the presentation would get me dumped on the street before I could say, “”It’s okay! None of it is true!”

I’m with Prof Hayes…… and most of the clergy who speak in schools who elect to viciously censor the bible and to only use the parts that do not make it sound like a Bronze Age faith.

David - glad you're enjoying the course - so am I.

I freely admit the Lot story would make for an interesting assembly - shame you're not going to run with it, I'd have loved an invitation! :~)

I wonder what you mean by "true" though. I don't know what function the genealogies in Matthew and Luke serve (maybe we will find out when we come to the NT course) but I personally doubt their historicity so, in that sense, the story might be said not to be true; it is, however, absolutely Biblical.

Jesus' Davidic ancestry is a repeated theme throughout the NT. David was reputedly the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz and Ruth, and Boaz was the son of Salmon and Rahab.

Apart from his mother Mary, Ruth and Rahab are the only two women mentioned in the list of Jesus' ancestors. Rahab was the prostitute (harlot) mentioned in Joshua 2 who sheltered the spies in Jerico. Ruth is a Moabite (Ruth 1:22) and the Moabites are the decendents of Moab the son of Lot's elder daughter by her father (Genesis 19:36-37). Boaz himself was the descendent of Judah and Tamar through Perez and there's another assembly story for a different day - Genesis 38!

Now, while having no notion of whether any of these things happened or not, I think the message conveyed is profoundly true because it sets Jesus' life and ministry, our salvation, not in some idealised spiritual realm but rather in all the mess and muddle, the often horrid complexities, of our real very human existence.

Parrhasios, you mention Tamar but seem to have missed her in the genealogy. Let me assure you however that she is there in Matthew 1:3. Raises some interesting questions about whether the genealogy is saying anything about sexual reputations and births in questionable circumstances. Is Ruth a contrast to Rahab and Tamar in being virtuous with Boaz or like Tamar did she have to resort to unseemly measures to get justice? Are these women listed because there are questions about their sexual practices just as Mary surely would have been questioned?

Unlike you, I'm fairly in the historical camp, but either way, you make a good point about the messiness of situations. The Bible rarely seems to present us with any sort of ideal situation and seems to be the most messed up people God works through - rather reassuring, personally. Preaching on Samson this Sunday so I'm acutely aware of the moment about how unsanitised stories in the Bible are.

Jonathan - it's a fair cop - I missed both her and Bathsheba - a pretty sure sign that the years are beginning their condemnation!

I tend to agree with you that there was a purpose to the citation of these particular women and would feel it is some of the strongest evidence we have that there was contemporary questioning of the circumstances of Jesus' birth.

I think it extremely likely that the original aim would have been to rehabilitate Mary's reputation. These were all women who found favour with God and ultimately His blessing despite unconventional racial or sexual backgrounds. Their mention in some way elevated Mary and Jesus relating them into the tradition of God's great cosmic and historic plan.

It's one of the things I really love about the texture of meaning we find in the Bible that today they perform an equally necessary but almost diametrically opposite function.

We tend now to have an impossibly sanitised notion of the birth of Christ. Mary, possibly conceived immaculate, virgin, probably delivered of Jesus with an ease which would leave even Gisele Bundchen envious. It's a notion which is dangerous because it diminishes the perceived humanity of Christ, it makes Him mythical, different, distant. If, however, we look at these women and their history it helps us anchor Jesus in the sordid reality of the life experience of the humanity He desires to save.

(I haven't responded to your initial points on the People on the edge of His pain thread simply because I am just following the course week by week - when I catch up I'll fire off a salvo!)

Parrhasios, I never thought we'd end up agreeing on so many threads!