The Latest from Khirbet Qeiyafa

Something really really big that has finally and totally proven the historical reliability of the Bible has once more been found. But first, some perspective:

The idea that a single, spectacular finding can reverse the course of modern research and save the literal reading of the biblical text regarding the history of ancient Israel from critical scholarship is an old one. Khirbet Qeiyafa is the latest case in this genre of craving a cataclysmic defeat of critical modern scholarship by a miraculous archaeological discovery.[1]

Khirbet Qeiyafa has proven to be a very newsworthy archaeological dig. First, there was the pretty cool ostracon announced in 2008. Then there was the sensational, unofficial, buzz-generating interpretation of that ostracon announced by Prof Gershon Galil. Professional epigraphers and archaeologists are still debating the reading and significance of the inscription (see the May/Jun 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review). 

I admit that I haven't really been following the excavation since early 2010 (background from early 2010 here), but this morning Yosef Garfinkel, the lead archaeologist from Hebrew University excavating at Khirbet Qeiyafa, has announced the discovery of artifacts interpreted as proof of King David's ancient Israelite kingdom in the 10th century BCE. The announcement was highly anticipated but the news conference (as with many such announcements) has the ring of an attempt to head off the battle over interpretation of the finds before it's even begun. Once again, I find myself stuck between wanting to cheer on the maximalist interpretation and recognizing the valid questions raised by those of a more minimalist leaning.  

Image: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In short, clay and stone boxes were discovered in connection with three large rooms interpreted as having cultic (religious) significance. The site is interpreted as Israelite based on the absence of pig bones and the absence of graven images. The boxes and related artifacts are being interpreted as scale model versions of the "Ark of God." 

However the artifacts are interpreted, it is a significant find which highlights the continuing importance of this site for reconstructing the history of the region in the 10th century BCE. In addition to reading the major press release version of the story, I recommend balancing your understanding with George Athas' observations on the discovery. I imagine the rest of the biblioblogosphere is exploding with the story even as we speak...let's take a look...here's a post on the subject by Todd Bolen; Jim Davila; Brian LePort; Jim West; Duane Smith. Of course, I'm really waiting for a response from biblioblogger archaeologist-in-chief, Bob Cargill.

---

[1] Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation” Tel Aviv 39.1 (2012), 58. From G.M. Grena’s quote in a comment onAren Maier’s blog. 

The Historical Jeremiah

Many readers of the Bible come to the text with the unexamined (and usually unqualified) assumption that the literature is unequivocally historical. In other words, the people existed and the events happened more or less as described by the text. But was the version of the character presented in the text an accurate portrayal of the real, historical figure? We can't know. I've realized that history-writing is much more about creating a plausible narrative about the past than about precisely recording the details. So, the historical person and the biblical/literary character are not one and the same. In the case of Jeremiah, no scholar highlighted the difficulty of reconstructing historical and biographical information from the biblical account as thoroughly as the late Robert P. Carroll. Despite his reputation as the quintessential skeptic and practitioner of a hermeneutic of suspicion in biblical exegesis, I found his honesty about the limits of our knowledge refreshing and his conclusions quite in line with what I've proposed before.

The ‘I’ and ‘me’ of various prose pieces are assumed by most exegetes to represent Jeremiah as speaker, and the editorial framework frequently attributes prose actions and statements to him. Reading the book at face value and following the dictates of traditional and conventional readings of the text, the bulk of modem scholars have understood Jeremiah to be the book of the life and times of Jeremiah the prophet, with direct access to his words, deeds, innermost thoughts and reflections. Such an approach presupposes so much historical information to which nobody has access and a one-to-one correspondence between text and social reality that it is an extremely problematical reading of the book. The precise relation between the character constructed by the writers of the tradition and a hypothesized ‘historical’ Jeremiah behind the book is a very difficult question to answer, though not acknowledging its existence in the first place does not make it any the less real a problem for interpreting the book. For the purpose of this chapter the character of Jeremiah presented in the book will be treated as the creative fiction of the editors and writers who produced it and the relation between the ‘historical’ Jeremiah and the ‘fictional’ Jeremiah will be left to the speculative sophistications of the reader....

Although the majority of scholars continue to read Jeremiah as a biographical or autobiographical set of documents, and this ‘compact majority’ must be recognized for whatever value may be attached to such statistical reports, we cannot prejudge the issue as if there were no alternative or more feasible accounts of how the book was put together. Such accounts undergird the logic of the claim that perhaps the figure of Jeremiah is more the creation of the tradition than the creator of it.**

The bottom line is that reading any biblical book as if it provides direct historical/biographical information is problematic, especially in light of the clear theological program that motivated the anonymous writers behind the bulk of the historical narrative (the so-called Deuteronomists and the Deuteronomic school). What was their theological program and how did it affect the "spin" they put on the biblical history? Tune in next week...
**Quoted from R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 75, 77.

Continuity Errors in the Hebrew Bible?

One of the features of narrative in the Hebrew Bible that as long caught my notice is the common use of place names prior to the aetiological story that explains the source and significance of the name. Logically this inconsistency can only mean that either a later editor went back through and updated names without regard for continuity OR a later writer was using names he was familiar with before getting to the story that explained where the name came from. Either way, the biblical writers were less concerned with what today might be called continuity errors. The most concise example of the phenomenon is Genesis 33:17.

Genesis 33:17 (ESV):

¹⁷ But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house and made booths for his livestock. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.  [Succoth = booths]

A more chronologically problematic example is the use of the name "Bethel" in reference to Abram's travels in Genesis 12:8 and 13:3. The name "Bethel" is given by Jacob, Abram's grandson, in Genesis 28:19!

Sometimes it's unclear whether the issue is continuity or chronological disorder. For example, Judges 13:25 described Samson growing up "in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol." Samson is the last great judge portrayed in the book of Judges: the long narrative of his exploits extends from Jdgs 13 to 16. The rest of the book contains a series of bizarre yet related tales in Jdgs 17-21. Those stories contain this relevant bit of information for the name "Mahaneh-dan" (literally "camp of Dan").

Judges 18:11–12 (ESV)

¹¹ So 600 men of the tribe of Dan, armed with weapons of war, set out from Zorah and Eshtaol, ¹² and went up and encamped at Kiriath-jearim in Judah. On this account that place is called Mahaneh-dan to this day; behold, it is west of Kiriath-jearim.

Do the events of Judges 17-21 chronologically precede the story of Samson? It makes sense to group the narratives of major judges together and leave off a story that fits this time period yet focuses on no particular judge or leader.

I don't have the answers and these little details are of no great doctrinal import, but I hope this at least provides a sampling of "Things that make Bible scholars go, Hmmm...."

Daniel in Ezekiel 14: Part 2

Back in August I presented the options for identifying the “Daniel” named in Ezekiel 14. Was it the biblical Daniel or another Canaanite legendary literary figure known as Danel or Dan’ilu? My money at the time was on the literary reference to the Canaanite Dan’ilu because of the different spelling in Ezekiel and the Canaanite setting in Ezek 28. The issue, however, was more complicated than that and the evidence doesn’t allow for an easy answer.

I’ve spent more time researching the arguments and evidence for and against the possibility that Ezekiel’s Daniel is Dan’ilu. While not without its own problems, I recommend Dan Wallace’s article that summarizes and critiques an article against the identification with Dan’ilu (Dressler) and an article for the connection to Dan’ilu (Day). To examine this issue, I read Dressler, Day, Wallace, and the relevant section from Daniel Block’s commentary. I also have commentaries by Zimmerli, Greenberg, and Allen on Ezekiel. For the most part, those commentaries only give a bare sketch of the evidence for why Dan’ilu is likely the referent and move on. Dressler gives his arguments for why Ezekiel is not referring to Dan’ilu, and Day explains why he thinks the opposite. No one argues in favor of an identification with biblical Daniel. They refute the arguments for Dan’ilu and assume the case is, therefore, intact for the only other option – biblical Daniel. At the end of the last post, I placed the burden of proof on those who would have us accept that Ezekiel had biblical Daniel in mind.

What they fail to realize is that all of their arguments calling the connection to Dan’ilu into question do not automatically provide support for a connection to biblical Daniel. Even if the identification of Dan’ilu is incorrect, the connection to Daniel the prophet is not thereby proven.

After further review of the evidence, I will concede that some of the objections to an identification of Dan’ilu with Ezekiel’s Daniel are valid. First, even Day, who argues in favor of Dan’ilu, concedes that spelling does not decide the issue. That was one of my two strands of evidence in part 1. Curiously, they do not directly address my second piece of evidence – the Canaanite context of Ezekiel 28. Dressler has some largely irrelevant nonsense about Dan’ilu not being a king per se, but he sidesteps the argument about Tyre and Ezek 28:3 (1979, 157).

The strongest argument against an identification of Dan’ilu as Ezekiel’s Daniel is that an appeal to a non-Israelite, non-Yahweh worshipper seems odd on Ezekiel’s lips in light of his emphasis on Israel’s great sin as idolatry. Would Ezekiel have promoted the righteousness of an idol worshipper when he goes out of his way to stress Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh is the root cause of their exile? Block notes that even though Noah and Job were non-Israelite, they still worshipped Yahweh and Ezekiel’s audience would have been expected to know that (1997, 448). Day’s attempt to salvage this point by asserting Dan’ilu is an El worshipper, not a Baal worshipper, and the OT equates El with Yahweh is a stretch because he still has to admit that “Baal and other deities also figure in the Aqhat text” (1980, 177-8).

The strongest argument against equating Ezekiel’s Daniel with biblical Daniel is the chronological one. Assuming the historicity of the character and the events of the biblical book of Daniel (for sake of argument), the earliest stories of Daniel’s exile and experiences in Nebuchadnezzar’s court date to approximately 605 BCE. The typical terminus ad quem for the composition of Ezekiel’s oracles is around 570 BCE. Is it conceivable that Daniel’s reputation grew that quickly to be a relevant reference for Ezekiel’s audience? Rather than address the point, Block exclaims that it would be “inconceivable that Ezekiel’s audience would not have been familiar with him” (1997, 449). Dressler simply asserts that thirty-six years would have been “enough time to establish the fame of the Daniel of the Babylonian gôlāh” (1979, 158).

Neither option – Canaanite Dan’ilu or biblical Daniel – fits well: choosing one or the other leaves questions unanswered. Why would Ezekiel appeal to a polytheistic worshipper of Canaanite deities as an ideal righteous figure? Would a reference to a contemporary Jewish sage in Nebuchadnezzar’s court have made sense to Ezekiel’s audience? The problem is determining which side bears the burden of proof. Dressler argues throughout as if the burden rests with those who would reject biblical Daniel as the referent stating, “So far, no compelling arguments have been found which necessitate the rejection of the Biblical Daniel” (1979, 158). He frames his argument around four reasons that “have been advanced for denying that the Daniel of Ezekiel xiv and xxviii is to be identified with the Biblical Daniel” (155).

Wallace also places the burden on those who argue in favor of Dan’ilu. After refuting their arguments, he concludes that “Ezekiel’s Daniel is Daniel’s Daniel and that on this strand of evidence at least the sixth century date of Daniel still remains intact.” Wallace’s interest in the issue comes from supporting the date of the Book of Daniel. Apart from the biblical book of Daniel (setting aside the references in Ezekiel), the Jewish sage Daniel does not appear in Jewish literature until the mid 2nd century BCE. Some use that as circumstantial evidence that the book of Daniel is a product of the 2nd century BCE. Wallace believes he is supporting a 6th century BCE date for the book of Daniel by finding reference in Ezekiel to biblical Daniel.

So who bears the burden of proof? Can we assume an identification with biblical Daniel unless another viable candidate is found? There is no positive evidence that biblical Daniel is in view here. The Jewish sage Daniel would fit Ezekiel’s ideal of righteousness, but the chronological argument is difficult to dismiss. What we know of Dan’ilu from the Aqhat text makes him an odd choice for a paragon of virtue in the biblical sense, but the reference in Ezekiel 28 makes more sense with a Canaanite character and the other two in the list (Noah and Job) from Ezekiel 14 are ancient “heroes.” (Some have argued Ezek 28 is a reference to Dan’ilu while Ezekiel 14 is biblical Daniel.)

Either Daniel in Ezekiel is an otherwise unknown figure, or we know too little of Dan’ilu to understand the connection, or biblical Daniel’s reputation for righteousness was widely known in his day. I have to say I’m better informed about the issue than I was back in August, but I don’t have the answer.

References
Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary 28, 1994; Block, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24. Eerdmans, 1997; Day, John. “The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 30:2 (1980), 174-184; Dressler, Harold H. P. “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel” Vetus Testamentum 29:2 (1979), 152-16; Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1-20. Anchor Yale Bible 22, 1983; Wallace, Daniel B. “Who is Ezekiel’s Daniel” http://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel (accessed 10-10-10); Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Fortess Press, 1979.

Have You Subscribed to Bible Study Magazine?

The Nov/Dec issue of Bible Study Magazine is now available! Subscribe by Nov. 30 to get it. You won't regret it. I've received two issues so far, and I have to say it's the best new magazine I've seen in a long time. It's well designed, insightful about the Bible, and fun to read. And I'm not just saying that because I have articles published in the next 3 issues (starting with Nov/Dec). Here are two excerpts from my articles published in the current issue.

Hebrew Word Study

God is God, Right?

The names of God are a special case.

English translations represent God’s names in different ways—and they’re not always consistent. Sometimes the same English word is used for different Hebrew names. For example, “Lord God” can point to either Yahweh Elohim or Adonay Yahweh. Most English translations subtly represent the difference by putting the divine name Yahweh in small capitals—LORD God or Lord GOD. Using the reverse interlinear, we can find the underlying Hebrew and trace God’s name like any other.

When we do so in Genesis, we learn that God is known by His interactions with people—the God who sees (Gen 16:13), Yahweh who provides (Gen 22:14). God is often identified in Genesis by His association with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (e.g., Gen 24:12). With each generation, He renewed His covenant and identified Himself as the same God of Israel’s ancestors. This association is how the nation of Israel related to God.

Cutting Edge

The Story You’re about to Read is True:

Anyone who thinks reading the Bible is boring has never read the story of Joseph (Gen 37–50). Filled with action, suspense, irony and intrigue, this narrative is biblical storytelling at its best. Some would say that such literary artistry smacks of fiction.1 Others consider it fictional since there is no archaeological evidence that Joseph ever existed, let alone ruled Egypt at Pharaoh’s right hand. So how does ancient history and archaeology help us understand the story of Joseph? And does the evidence point to fiction or the basis of a true story?

 Some like to use history and archaeology to prove or disprove the accuracy of the Bible. My studies in ancient history started out along those lines—seeking proof of the existence of Joseph to defend the accuracy of the Bible. Along the way, I learned that my quest for direct confirmation of the stories of Genesis was in vain, but history and archaeology consistently illuminated a plausible historical core at the center of the story. While we may never find “Joseph was here” scratched on the wall in an ancient Egyptian back alley, the Joseph story is packed with historical details that can be verified.

Daniel in Ezekiel 14: Part 1

Last week, we tackled the topic of whether a biblical writer’s reference to a biblical character from another book was historical or literary. Ezekiel 14 happens to be a classic case for such references in the Hebrew Bible, and my focus last time was mostly on the character of Job.

This time I want to open the discussion about the reference to “Daniel” in the same verses, Ezek 14:14 & 20.

Ezekiel 14:14 (ESV)
even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.

Ezekiel 14:20 (ESV)
even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.

Is this a reference to the biblical Daniel known from the book bearing his name? It seems unlikely to me for two reasons. First, the name is spelled differently – Daniel in Hebrew is דָּנִיֵּאל. In Ezek 14, the name is spelled דָּנִאֵל. Now in the unlikely event that you don’t read Hebrew, the difference is that one consonant in the middle – yodh. Since the Masoretes were kind enough to point the name in Ezekiel with the same vowels, we read “Daniel” in the Hebrew text which makes its way into English translations as well. But, the vowels were added to the consonantal text hundreds of years later, so even the vowels are a level of interpretation. The consonants of “Daniel” are DNY’L. The consonants in Ezek 14 are DN’L. (The quote mark indicates the consonant aleph-a guttural often silent in pronunciation.) We can argue about the significance of orthography and provide counter-examples of names with variant spellings, and if there were no other candidate for who Ezekiel might be referencing, they might be compelling.

The second reason requires a little bit of background, but it has to do with the later reference to Daniel in Ezek 28:3 – same name, same spelling – important context – an oracle against the prince of Tyre.

Ezekiel 28:2–3 (ESV)
2 “Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God: “Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god, though you make your heart like the heart of a god— 3 you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;

Why is this context important? Well, what relevance would referencing the biblical Daniel have for the prince of Tyre?

“You are indeed wiser than Daniel.”

“Who’s Daniel?”

“You know, the Jewish sage in Nebuchadnezzar’s court in Babylon.”

“No, didn’t know that. Are you sure you don’t mean Danel from the Tale of Aqhat?”

There’s the bottom line. There is an extra-biblical literary character with the West Semitic name DN’L. He is a key character in the Tale of Aqhat, known from Ugaritic literature. A reference to this character makes sense in Ezekiel 14 in a list of 3 non-Israelite figures.

The issue, of course, is whether this Canaanite literary figure fits the description of Ezekiel for a wise, righteous leader. It is easy to assume that what we know about Dan’ilu (aka Danel or Dnil) from the Tale of Aqhat is the full extent of his legend. From there we can dismiss him as not being specifically “wise” or depicted as particularly righteous (as Dressler 1979, for example) and thus not the referent of Ezekiel.

Consider, however, this excerpt from the Tale of Aqhat that depicts Dan’ilu in the typical role of a wise judge (like Job adjudicating at the city gate; cp. Job 29:7-16).

Dānīʾilu the man of Rapaʾu, the valiant Harnamite man, Arose and sat at the entrance to the (city–)gate, among the leaders (sitting) at the threshing floor. He judged the widow’s case, made decisions regarding the orphan. (Context of Scripture, The ‘Aqhatu Legend, 1.103, 5.3.)

I am still researching this question, but at this point, these two lines of evidence are, in my mind, compelling that Daniel in Ezekiel is the Phoenician character, not the biblical sage.

1. The different spelling of the name in Ezekiel is significant.
2. The Phoenician context of Ezekiel 28 suggests a Canaanite, not Babylonian Jewish, literary reference.

Many scholars have written on this issue with the intent of proving the biblical Daniel is in view here in Ezekiel. What they fail to realize is that all of their arguments calling the connection to Dan’ilu into question do not automatically provide support for a connection to biblical Daniel. Even if the identification of Dan’ilu is incorrect, the connection to Daniel the prophet is not thereby proven. (That reminds me – the Logical Fallacies series is ripe for continuation. The above chain of reasoning bears elements of the burden of proof and false dilemma fallacies. I like to call it the “if-you’re-wrong-then-I’m-right” fallacy. It needs a catchier name though.)

In part 2, I will look further into arguments that Daniel in Ezekiel 14 is a reference to the biblical Daniel. I’m waiting to see Daniel Block’s argument in his commentary which I’m told is persuasive, so I’m keeping an open mind.

References
Dressler, Harold H. P. “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel” Vetus Testamentum 29:2 (1979), 152-161; Hallo, W. W. and K. L. Younger. Context of Scripture vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997; Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. “The Tale of Aqhat” in Old Testament Parallels, 70-79. Paulist Press, 2006; Margalit, Baruch. “Interpreting the Story of Aqht: A Reply to H. H. P. Dressler, VT 29 (1979), pp. 152-61” Vetus Testamentum 30:3 (1980), 361-365.

More on the Historical Bible Characters Question

Not from me, but from Bill Heroman (whom I had the pleasure to meet in New Orleans last fall). He didn't join the earlier conversation here but his conclusions are in part close to what I've been saying on the subject.

First of all, it is NOT evidence for Adam's historicity to point out that both Jesus and Paul spoke about Adam as if he were real. This is unfortunate, from one way of thinking. However, the pattern of Jesus and Paul IS an example of how we might speak and write about Adam. Thus, we might do as well as Jesus and Paul did if we continue speaking AS IF Adam were, in fact, a historical figure. (Was he? That's an important but unanswerable question. I'm saying, of necessity, we might do well to let these remain separate issues.)

Read his post - Genesis AS IF History.

If you're following the conversation here about biblical references and historical characters, I'm still working on the follow up post about Daniel in Ezekiel 14. Anybody have access to Block's commentary and want to send me the pages where he deals with the question?

Quest for the Historical Adam?

Not long after my previous post on taking biblical characters as historical or literal, James McGrath posted a link (via Facebook) to a BioLogos article by Tremper Longman on the question of whether or not there was a historical Adam. I plan to read Longman's thoughts and watch the video later today. But in the meantime, John Byron on his new to me blog The Biblical World interacted with the question. I agree with him that "The Bible was not written as a science and history book."

So, it's a hot topic - did all the people mentioned in the Bible really exist?

Honorable Mentions: Historical or Literary?

Back in 2008, I wrote a post dealing with the issue of whether the New Testament references to Old Testament characters can be taken as evidence for their historicity. My conclusion was that, in general, the NT writers were referring to the characters known from Jewish literature and not trying to claim historicity. I don’t believe they were concerned with those types of questions. It may have been assumed, but it didn’t matter for their theological point whether Jonah or Job really lived. What mattered was the story and the example it provided.

Before I go any further, I need to clarify that I am not questioning the real historical existence of all biblical characters. I am also not reducing the Bible to the level of pure fiction. T.C. recently questioned that ambiguity in my previous post, so I want to be clear. I believe archaeology provides strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of certain biblical people, like David, for example. The best explanation of the Tel Dan inscription is that it refers to a real Davidic dynasty. Certain biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, and Solomon are central to the story of salvation history. I’m not questioning their existence, even though I can’t prove it definitively.

The issue is whether an “honorable mention” by another biblical writer is a reference to a historical person or a literary figure. The default position seems to be to take the reference historically. Earlier I dealt with NT references to OT characters, but what about OT references to other characters?

A few days ago Jeff posted “Was Job a Real Person?” His answer:  “Of course he was!” with appeal to Ezek 14:14 for confirmation.

I realize that Ezekiel is filled with dream-like imagery, but this message from the Lord (and the rest of the section) certainly confirms to me that they were real individuals. Not that I needed any more convincing.

I’m not criticizing Jeff’s conclusion. It is a valid answer to the question, but I don’t think it’s the only reasonable answer. A commenter on his post also drew in James 5:11 to support Job’s existence and commented how he believed Jonah historical as well for similar reasons. But why jump to conclusions? Why assume the biblical writer meant to allude to a historical personage? As a 21st century reader, do you follow the reference because it’s historical or because you know the literary text that it alludes to? That’s easy . . . you know the text. You know the story.

Let’s look closer at the references in Ezekiel 14:14 (repeated in v. 20).

even if these three men, Noah, Daniel[1], and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.

Commentators often take this as a reference to 3 non-Israelite “saints.”[2] The non-Israelite identity is important for the larger theme of general or universal retribution in Ezekiel 14.  The connection of righteousness or virtue with these three is also key. Gen 6:9 reads “These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” Job 1:1 says “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” Noah and Job are clearly held up as ideal paragons of virtue. (More to come on "Daniel.") Their righteousness is known not from history but from literature. Does the point of v. 14 require their stories to have actually happened or does it simply require one knows the story - much like a parable teaches a point?

The details given about Job’s status, wealth and family don’t prove the story is not a parable or folk tale. We don’t know where the land of Uz is. Job is identified by his character, not his patronymic (that is, no “son of SO & SO” to give a family identification). The circumstances of his suffering and restoration have all the ring of the classic West Semitic epics like Aqhat or Kirta. The fact that the reference to “Daniel” is almost certainly to a character from a non-biblical West Semitic epic further strengthens the conclusion that Job and Noah are evoked here for their literary significance, not their historical existence. (Was there a historical Noah and a worldwide flood? Still thinking that through, but I knew you’d ask.)

Acknowledging that some OT characters, like Jonah[3]  and Job, might simply be literary figures with no historical existence in no way undermines the accuracy or inerrancy of the biblical text. The issue is with the reader, not the text. The reader is demanding something of the text it never intended to give. Searching for a historical Job is, in my mind, about as likely to turn up solid results as a quest for the historical Prodigal Son (Luke 15).

Comments and discussion are welcome. My thoughts on this issue are continually in process.

---

[1] Daniel in this text presents a special problem that I’ll address in another post.
[2] See Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AYB.
[3] Jonah, of course, was known from the historical books - 2 Kgs 14:25. But his literary fame comes from the book of Jonah and his fish story - a story, IMO, borrowing the character of an otherwise little known prophet.

Was Adam an Historical Person?

Joseph Kelly has interacted a bit with that question today. He doesn’t answer it so much as point out the wrong way to approach the discussion. I agree with Joseph that defending a list of theological implications of Adam NOT being historical is not an intellectually honest way to approach the issue.

I posted on a similar issue a couple of years ago: Using the NT to validate OT historicity. Does the fact that a NT writer mentions an OT character support the historicity of that OT character? Not necessarily, in my opinion.

Read Joseph’s post if it’s an issue you’re interested in.

Was There Really a World-wide Flood?

Does the biblical account of the Flood involve the whole earth or only part of it? I don't have an answer to the question, but an article written a couple of days ago offers some journalistic speculation on the issue and indirectly addresses the problem of the relationship between science and religion. I happen to think it might be pressing the point too far to attempt to harmonize any biblical account with the conclusions of science since the Bible is not, after all, attempting to give a scientific description of anything. Here are some excerpts from the article.

In the first place, skeptical geologists propose that for such a flood to have occurred, we would find a similar stratum throughout the world covered with pebbles, sludge, boulders, and other elements. It is curious that this layer cannot be found, even more so when the flood narrated by the Bible had taken place in a time as recent as 3000 B.C.

Neither can be found the strata of fossils, with different animal and vegetable species occupying specific soil layers. According to flood logic, the animal remains of all species before the big flood
(including the extinct dinosaurs) should be found today in only one stratum, without any distinction. But paleontology completely contradicts these suppositions.

Yet these examples appear to be only the tip of the iceberg comprising the arguments that refute a global flood. Even so, much of such reasoning is refuted with equal grace by the “pro-flood” scientists.

The article actually gives a fairly balanced view on the issue. I think it's fascinating that so many cultures have some kind of a flood myth. Something must have happened to create that kind of cultural memory. But is that proof that the Bible's version is exactly what happened? Not exactly. Even so, faith requires believing something that can't necessarily be proven empirically anyway.

With respect to non-Biblical myths about a purifying flood, these can be found in the Hindu, Sumerian, Greek, Acadia, Chinese, Mapuche, Mayan, Aztec, and Pascuanese (Easter Island) cultures, among others. Several of these stories appear to possess surprisingly similar common
factors. Among the most repeated themes are those of celestial announcements ignored by the people, the great flood itself, the construction of an arc to preserve life from the flood, and the later restoration of life on the planet.

A clear example of this similarity is provided by pre-Biblical Mesopotamian history of the flood in which the god “Ea” warned Uta-na-pistim, king of Shuruppak, about the punishment that awaits humanity for its serious moral degeneration. Uta-na-pistim received instructions from the god to construct a craft in the form of a cube with eight floors, and said that it should include in it a pair of each species of animal, plant seeds, as well as his own family. Thus, Uta-na-pistim survived the several-day-long deluge, released a bird to verify the proximity of dry land, and made an animal sacrifice to the gods.

(Via the Agade mailing list)

Israelite Origins and Biblical Inerrancy

James McGrath has had an interesting month, to say the least. He started the month debating at Triablogue about his views on inerrancy (in which he's a "standard-issue liberal" and quite probably an apostate). A few days later, he posted a quote on inerrancy from Eric Reitan. That post has 79 comments running still today 11 days after the original post. (Let's just say there's a lively discussion going on there that, incidentally, illustrates why I moderate comments.) That exchange apparently led to a commenter writing to James's pastor to inform him of his status as a liberal apostate heretic. And yet, he continues to post on inerrancy, without fear and trembling. The fact that he actually attempts to dialogue with some of his commenters is quite commendable (read the comments to see why).

Today's post raises questions about Israelite origins and the biblical accounts of the Exodus and Conquest. I normally avoid engaging controversial issues head-on. My series on Apologetics and Critical Bible Scholarship has been something of an exception, but even there, I only obliquely touch on the question of inerrancy as a theological commitment that governs how evidence will be interpreted. I think the firestorm of comments that James has set off shows how passionate people are about their beliefs and about how vehemently they will defend them lest their entire belief system fall apart. Despite the fact that the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy has only been around 31 years or so, it clearly reflects the only right way to understand biblical inspiration as it is based on careful exegesis of Scripture itself. It is an exegetical conclusion, not a theological commitment. (If you're unsure how to take the tone of those last 2 sentences, go here.)

Today, James asked:

Is there any single period of approximately a century during which we
find all the relevant cities mentioned in Joshua to have been destroyed
in something like the way the Book of Joshua indicates?

The answer is No. The Joshua narrative and the archaeological record for Canaan, Israel, and Transjordan for the appropriate time frames are difficult (dare I say, impossible?) to reconcile. The problem is that many biblical sites have been identified and excavated. One can appeal to our overall lack of knowledge and the inexact nature of the science, but such an appeal is usually only made in one direction. That is, it's used to explain why the evidence does not fit the Bible. The identification of many sites is quite certain and only challenged if the city that's found couldn't possibly be the city the Bible mentioned.

Gibeon is a great example of how the narrative and the archaeology don't line up. Joshua 9 is the well-known story of how the people of nearby Gibeon tricked Joshua into not destroying them (Josh 9:3-4). Regardless of whether we date the Exodus in 1446 BCE or 1290 BCE, it falls in the archaeological record during the Late Bronze Age (ended ca. 1200 BCE).

In William Dever's survey of the evidence for Israelite origins, he says that:

Gibeon was apparently not occupied in either the late 13th or the early 12th century B.C. The American excavator who dug there in the 1960s -- James Pritchard, a well-known archaeologist and Professor of Religious Though at the University of Pennsylvania -- found Iron Age remains, but nothing earlier than the 8th century B.C.
    Nor is the problem misidentification for here the identity of the site is certain. The Arabic name, el-Jib, is the exact equivalent of Hebrew "Gibeon," as the great American Semitist and topographer Edward Robinson pointed out as long ago as 1838. And Pritchard found 56 broken jar handles inscribed "Gibeon" in Hebrew in a deep water system of the 8th-7th century B.C. The fact that this water system is probably the same one that is mentioned in 2 Samuel 2:13 suggests that the book of Joshua belongs to the 8th-7th century B.C., when the Gibeon known to the biblical writers really did exist. (pp. 48-49)

Dever also raises the point that Joshua 12 and Judges 1 have different stories to tell about the success of the Conquest. One example: Ta'anach was defeated (Josh 12:21) or was it? (Judges 1:27) Those discrepancies were probably the earliest clues for me that the Bible was perhaps not telling me a historical story in the sense that I'd previously believed. I knew how to harmonize evidence from history that didn't fit with a literal reading of Scripture, but I didn't know how to accept as literal and historical two competing versions of the story from Scripture itself. Why do we impose modern ideas about science, history, authorship, and accuracy onto an ancient text? What if God didn't intend to give us an exact historical and scientific account of things?

Reference: William G. Dever. 2003. Who were the early Israelites and where did they come from? Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Using the NT to Validate OT Historicity

I could be opening the proverbial can of worms with this one.

First, let me say that I believe there were real historical people behind many of the stories and traditions of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. I believe there was a real Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Moses and so on. However, I can't indisputably prove any of them really existed. I can point to details in the biblical accounts that suggest their historicity. For some figures, there are references from archaeology that suggest their existence, but those are always bitterly disputed (For example, the Tel Dan inscription's mention of the "House of David"). For figures whose historical existence I was unsure of, I used to consider the NT references to them as validations of their historical existence.

For example, I thought that Jonah must have really lived, even though his short book reads a lot like a fable teaching a moral truth, because Jesus mentioned him, referring to the sign of Jonah in Matt. 12:39-41 and 16:4 (cp. Luke 11:29-32). Jesus also mentions Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Elijah fairly frequently. I believe, though again I can't prove it, that these figures have a historical origin. Jonah, on the other hand, quite possibly has only a literary origin. Is the truth conveyed by his book and used by Jesus in the NT predicated on his historicity? After giving the question a lot of thought, I don't believe that it is. The story teaches the same moral whether it really happened or not. The story exists as an example for Jesus to use to draw a parallel to his own situation. The comparison of Jesus being in the tomb 3 days just as Jonah was in the whale for 3 days does not depend on Jonah having existed and endured the events of his story. The comparison is valid because the story existed that provided the literary parallel.

[This extends to Jesus's full use of OT figures in Matt. 12:39-42 and Lk. 11:29-32. He's using an argument structure the rabbis called qal-va-homer ("light to heavy") to reinforce the judgment of wickedness and evil against the current generation of Jews. This type of argument is a comparison ("how much the more so" or a fortiori), so he's drawing parallels between the situation in Jonah and the situation with Solomon. His argument is that the men of Nineveh believed Jonah and the queen of Sheba believed Solomon; he is greater than both; therefore Israel should believe him and will be held accountable at the last judgment for it. The claim that the men of Nineveh or the queen of Sheba will rise up at the last judgment is part of his rhetoric. The argument is theological, not historical, in my opinion. (Paragraph added -- 5/15/08).]

It would be a little bit like today's culture where we can reference fictional characters that have reached iconic cultural status. When we mention their names, we evoke their story, known to most people at least in broad outline form. This is especially true of Shakespearean characters such as Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet, or LOTR characters like Frodo and Gandalf whose public profiles were raised by the recent blockbuster movie trilogy, or a literary/film phenomenon such as Harry Potter. When we reference these fictional characters, we are tapping into the power of literature and art, not history. No one assumes that Frodo was a real person just because they heard a friend mention him by name.

Of course, no one in today's culture is believed to have special knowledge or authority to speak about past people and events in the same way that many Christians believe Jesus or the NT writers in general had a unique perspective on history informed by the divine inspiration of their words. If these characters weren't historical, what does that do to inerrancy for either the OT story or the NT reference to it? The answer, in my opinion, is that it does nothing at all to inerrancy or inspiration. Neither reference is explicitly claiming to be telling a history. James isn't wrong to refer to Job (James 5:11) and claim his patience as a virtue that believers should attempt to emulate. He can refer to the main character of a well-known story without necessarily claiming that Job was a real person. The book of Job itself never claims to be history. It's set in the land of Uz - unknown as an actual place in the ancient world - and begins with the Hebrew equivalent of "Once upon a time..." Even the ancient rabbis believed that Job was a parable, not necessarily a real person. Claiming that Job or Jonah must be real historical figures would be like trying to find the historical personages behind Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan.

The question is more difficult the further back one goes to the "legendary" material in Genesis. Did humanity really start with just one man named Adam (which literally just means "man")? Was Noah a real person? Did the flood really happen? Again, I think the answer is yes, but it is a belief based on a faith commitment, "the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1), not on anything I can prove with evidence.

Adam is hardly mentioned at all in the NT. Jesus never mentions him by name, and I could find no direct allusions to Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in the Gospels. Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam (and includes Noah), but so many genealogies seem to be handcrafted to make a theological point that I don't think we should use them as historical evidence (cp. Matthew's genealogy that obviously skips generations and conveniently divides history into three eras of fourteen generations each).

Noah appears a few times in the Gospels, usually in a comparison of the wickedness of his days with that of the coming end times (see Matt. 24:37-38 or Lk. 17:26-27). He also appears in the famous chapter on OT faith in Hebrews 11. He's also part of the retelling of the biblical account of God's interaction with mankind and mankind's failure that appears in 2 Peter 2. For all of these references to Noah, the biblical story is what's important to give meaning to the NT reference, regardless of whether Noah was historical or not .

Most of the references to Adam in the NT come from Paul who specifically contrasted Adam and Christ theologically (see Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45). This is demonstrated most concisely in 1 Cor. 15:22.

1 Cor. 15:22 (ESV)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Paul has mapped out a theological system where he uses OT figures and events as types which find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and the Church. Paul's theological use of OT figures falls under the same issue. His theological point is based on the story as recounted in the Bible. The meaning and theological significance of the Bible transcends history. It is rooted in divine revelation, not in our ability to prove that all of the characters were real historical people.

Therefore, it seems ok to me to admit that some of the characters may be fictional. I believe many are historical, but the fact that a NT writer refers to an OT character should not be used as evidence that the person really lived. The biblical writer had a purpose in using that reference. That purpose usually did not include corroborating our assumptions about the historicity of the Bible.

To conclude, let me stress that I am NOT saying all OT figures are fictional characters. I have circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests there was a historical person behind many of them. My point is that the NT was not concerned with that question. The NT writers referred back to the entire body of biblical tradition that was known in their day. They did not attempt to divide the material into historical/non-historical. The question probably didn't even occur to them. They used the material because the story helped them make a theological point or draw a parallel that their audience would have understood.

I'm still working out my ideas on this question, so my thinking might be a little fuzzy. My intention was addressing the issue with claiming that Jonah or Noah or whoever was a real historical person solely based on the "proof" that the NT mentions him. I hope that I've at least stimulated some thought on that question.