±«Óătv

Interesting painting William

Interesting how Christian faith in an awsome God this period inspired much of the best art in history - and the foundations for the best science!

thanks Will but that hardly refutes the point in any way.

why were there religious patrons with faith, motivation and money available?

on a similar theme, interesting piece on Boyle today btw.

Is it safe to talk about the documentary hypothesis yet? Maybe Smith's views?

J. Gresham Machen in his famous book "Christianity and Liberalism" identified Liberalism as a wholly different religion from Christianity. This study of the OT isn't Christianity.

A remarkable lecture. Prof Hayes is a treasure of information. These primitive times, must have been not unlike the debates on Will and Testament, ie one school of thinking trying to win over others.

I aim to learn more about the Canaanites and Baal etc. The words ‘one of us’ from the early part of genesis may refer to this polytheism in Canaanite culture.

Very, very interesting, Will. Thank you for this online experiment.

I guess, as an anti theist, I have to react. In short, while I kinda accept tribes of nomads needing these primitive deities, why oh why do many in the 21st century still need these/this gods/god? We pay a terrible price!

Great lecture
.. Highly recommend it.

Regards
DK

Ìę
David - have to agree it was a great lecture.Ìę

The psychological sophistication of the Biblical narrative is so remarkable that it beggars belief it goes so often unremarked. We in the English-speaking world often rank the KJV of the Scriptures as a linguistic masterpiece, on a par with Shakespeare as a thing of beauty and a spring welling up through the subsequent development of the language. We neglect to notice the mastery of the things of life and the insight into the human mind which is present in the original texts and which matches Skakespeare's genius in the uncovering of the truth of what it means to be human.

The Joseph story is one of the masterpieces of world literature - if you can tolerate the Germanic prose I suggest reading Thomas Mann's Joseph and his Brothers for an extended treatment by another genius. It is interesting to see how it shows the Higher criticism we have been hearing about influencing literary endeavours but it is sublime for what it shows us about ourselves - I only came finally to understanding of myself in the course of reading this work.

It is astounding how timeless the Bible can be, how it can speak powerfully to the issues of today as to those of all time.

We might take three issues that have figured on the blog this week and meditate on them in the light only of the subject matter of the same week's lecture.Ìę

We have the father, ready and willing to sacrifice his beloved son because he thinks that is what God requires of him. He thinks he knows what God demands and he thinks obedience trumps natural law, human feeling, even paternal love. He discovers that what God asks of us and what He wants from us are not always the same thing.

Then take the debate on homosexuality in the Church. Here I would consider the revelation of God's own name, the most personal statement the HB has God make. Prof Hayes thinks it may on some level be a dismissal of Moses' question but I think it something much more. It is saying that there are no boundaries to God - anything we might ever think we know about Him means nothing to Him. He is what He is. He will be what He will be. He brings about what He will bring about.

Hayes compares Deuteronomy 21:15-17 which outlaws preferring the son of a beloved wife over the first-born with God's own practice in bestowing blessings. Whatever the role of the law it cannot be regarded as a certain guide to the will of God (if you believe He has a will of-course).Ìę

The knowledge of God leads to discernment and judgment, it requires us to be moral and to arrive at considered moral conclusions - calls for blind obedience to, or indeed even particular reverence for, the law are antithetical to what is required of a follower of God - as Jesus' actions showed.

Finally, and briefly, CC and RevDH spoke of racism in our society. The oft-repeated phrase "Remember you were a stranger in Egypt" told the People of Israel to be hospitable to foreigners - it tells us the same today, we Christians who are ourselves to be strangers or foreigners in whatever country we dwell.

==========

Graham - now that William has said it's safe are you going to elaborate on Smith?

I think he must be correct. I would call his approach Wonderbra criticism. I think, and I say it softly in case any feminists are listening, lifting and separating has got to be a good thing, right??

Parr/Will
Thanks for clearance.
Hayes states...

“Yahweh resembles the gods of Israel's neighbors. To be blunt, the patriarchs seem to have worshiped the Canaanite God, El

the revolutionary model also fails because it doesn't acknowledge the many, many areas of contact, similarity, and even identity.”


It’s not surprising that “El” is used of God in Israelite and Canaanite religion. They are culturally and linguistically related. It’s not the similarities, but rather the differences that need explanation.

The Canaanite gods acted in a mythical realm and were connected to nature as they personalised nature. They were sexualised and limited. Now where is the evidence that “El” was like this? – beyond the use of the name “El”. The “El” of the Hebrews/Patriarchs acts in history and through history. That is a decisive difference not explained by Smith’s hypothesis. So the revolutionary hypothesis comes out with more explanatory power. It predicts the unexpected evidence. And it can account for similarities. Similar cultures, similar thought patterns, similar expressions. It’s what Israel *says* with those expressions that is distinctive and is need of explanation.

The Psalms etc. that are commonly cited, using Baal language of YHWH, do not come close to showing that YHWH replaced Baal. The narrative of 1 Kings 18 has YHWH acting as Baal acts, after the imitative magic of the priests of Baal failed. Nobody is suggesting that 1 Kings 18 is evidence that YHWH was a god like Baal. The entire point is that YHWH does what Baal can do – so there is no need to worship Baal. Now the Psalms etc. cited by Hayes can be read in that way. 1 Kings 18 goes further in explicitly stating that there is no Baal, no need of imitative magic, no place for imitative magic in worship of YHWH (this is why Elijah has water thrown on the fire – opposite to the requirements of imitative magic), and so forth. But the “evidence” cited by Hayes fits with the argument and rhetorical strategy of 1 Kings 18.

GV

Parr

I think the "Wonderbra" hypothesis was an excellent way of putting it - very funny!

(-;

I have to say that I'm really enjoying the course. Lot's of food for thought.

GV