God hoor

In hierdie geestelike essay fokus ek op gebed. Die gebed wat werk.

"Elkeen wat bid ontvang; en elkeen wat soek, vind" (Matt. 7:8)

Alle Christene bid. Gebed is deel van die praktiese uitlewing van geloof. Gebed bring ons in die geestelike stemming waarin ons God kan beleef. Deur gebed tree ons met God in gesprek. Persone wat hul geestelike lewe ernstig opneem, is oor die algemeen ook mense wat meer tyd in gebed spandeer. Maar soms lyk dit of gebed nie werk nie. Soms voel dit of ons te vergeefs bid. Soms wil ons ophou bid.

Die Bybel maak baie van gebed. Van Genesis tot Openbaring lees ons van mense wat gebid het. Daar is verskeie gebede in die Bybel opgeteken. Die deurlopende tema in die Bybel is dat God gebed verhoor. Ons lees telkens hoedat God gebede verhoor het. Die meeste gebede kom reg in die middel van die Bybel in die Psalms voor. Daar lees ons male sonder tal hoedat Dawid tot God bid met die verwagting dat God hom sal hoor. En telkens het hy gevind dat God hom uitgered het.

Gebed het bowenal met vertroue te doen. As ek vertroue in God het, dat Hy my sal verhoor, dan bid ek met verwagting. In gebed gaan dit tot 'n baie groot mate oor my idee of beskouing van God. As ek God as 'n vader sien, as een wat vir my omgee en wat regtig na my luister, bid ek anders as wanneer ek maar net uit gewoonte bid of as deel van een of ander ritueel. Dit is waarom die Onse Vader gebed juis so die konsep van God as vader beklemtoon. As verlostes kan ons God ons vader noem - Hy is nie net die vader van Jesus Christus  nie; Hy is ook ons vader. As ons regtig glo dat God ons vader is, en ons sy kinders, dan kan ons ook soos kinders na hul vader gaan. Anders as aardse vaders wat soms in gebreke bly, is Hy die volmaakte vader wat vir ons toeganklik is deur Jesus Christus.

Die gesin waarin ons grootword, het 'n geweldige groot impak op ons gebedslewe. Die optrede van ons eie vader het 'n blywende invloed op die wyse waarop ons God sien. Voorts het die wyse waarop ons God in die huis leer ken, ook 'n groot invloed op ons geloof in God en ons verwagting dat God ons sal verhoor. As ons in 'n huis grootword waarin gebed positief beleef word, dan wil ons ook graag bid. As ons duidelike insidente van gebedsverhoring onthou, dan wek dit by ons die verwagting dat God ons sal verhoor. Ons dink terug aan daardie tye toe God ons (of ons gesinslede) se gebede verhoor het. So kan ek geleenthede onthou waar my ouers my as jong seun ingeroep het om saam met hulle oor sake te bid, waarna hulle telkens verhoor is. Dit het 'n groot indruk op my jong gemoed gelaat. In later jare kon ek ook met verwagting vir sake bid en ek onthou besondere voorbeelde van gebedsverhoring. Sulke insidente van gebedsverhoring skep by ons die verwagting dat God ons hoor en dat Hy ons ook sal verhoor.

Wanneer ek in gebed na God kom, dan kan ek Hom op 'n baie besondere wyse beleef. Wanneer ek van God se teenwoordigheid bewus word, raak ek ook bewus waar daar dinge in my lewe is wat skeiding bring, wat my verhouding met God vertroebel. Net soos wat daar soms dinge tussen ons en ons aardse vaders kan kom wat daardie verhouding kan skaad, so is dit ook met God. Ons kan inderdaad 'n diepe vrede en innerlike geestelike gemeenskap met God beleef wat die verstand te bowe gaan. Meer nog, ons kan ervaar dat God met ons praat en sy wil omtrent ons gebed aan ons bekend maak. Die wonder van gebed is dat God ons antwoord selfs voordat Hy ons gebed verhoor.

Gebed is uiteindelik nie maar net 'n blinde hoop nie, maar 'n gesprek waarin God ook met ons praat. Soos enige vader maak God ook sy besluite aan ons bekend. God kan diep in ons gees, deur sy Woord of deur omstandighede met ons praat. Hy kan met 'n Ja of 'n Nee antwoord.  Hy kan sê ons moet net wag. Hy kan vir tye net stil wees [1]. Wat gebedsverhoring so besonders maak, is dat ons kan weet dat God uiteindelik ook sal doen wat Hy gesê of belowe het.  Ek kan met 'n vaste vertroue verby alle omstandighede na God kyk met die verwagting dat Hy sal doen wat Hy gesê het. Dat Hy my sal verhoor. Ons kan in die gebed "volhou soos een wat die onsienlike sien" (Heb. 11:27). As ons God eers leer ken het as die Een wat gebed verhoor, as die Een wat sy woord waarmaak, dan het ons 'n onwrikbare vertroue dat Hy dit altyd sal doen.

Ons leef in 'n tyd waarin daar al meer oor God getwyfel word. As ons twyfel oor God se bestaan, kan ons tog nie met oorgawe bid nie. As ons gebedsverhoring sinies beskou as dinge wat maar toevallig so gebeur het, sal ons nie met verwagting bid nie. As ek egter uit ervaring weet dat God werklik gebed verhoor, kan hierdie dinge nie my geloof raak nie. Ongeag wat wie mag sê, ek weet my Verlosser leef en dat Hy my hoor en verhoor wanneer ek bid. Alhoewel andere wat daarmee onbekend is, ons belewing van God op allerlei wyse kan afmaak, weet ons dat ons God werklik in ons lewens beleef. Dat Hy met ons praat. Ons weet dat God gebed verhoor.

Soms het ons nie so 'n geskiedenis met God nie. Dalk is ons geloofslewe maar net tradisioneel sonder enige werklike belewing van God. Dit verhoed ons nie om God op 'n dieper vlak op die proef te stel nie. Om Hom so te sê, uit te probeer nie. God ken ons harte. As ons in eerlikheid Hom op die proef stel, sal Hy ons nie teleur stel nie. Ons sal vind dat Hy graag ons vader wil wees. Dat ons maar ons lewens aan Hom kan toevertrou. Dat ons Hom vader kan noem. As ons eers gebedsverhoring beleef het, sal ons nie anders kan as om weer en weer met verwagting te bid nie. Ons kan God maar op die proef stel. Hy verhoor gebed.

[1] Ek sal DV in 'n latere skrywe in meer detail op God se stem fokus.

Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Lees ook:
Die profeet
Wrong choices
The Power of God
Something or Someone is Missing
Revival is of the Lord
Om God te glo

A message for the church

Meeting God
Om te glo of nie te glo nie

Adam and Eve: were they the first humans?

In this essay, I discuss various views about Adam and Eve. I also present my own view, exploring the wider ancient context in which the story originated. Questions asked are: Does the Biblical narrative say that Adam and Eve were the very first humans on earth or is there reason to believe otherwise? Can we view the story as historical? How should we understand the creation of Adam and Eve? Did God really create Adam out of dust and Eve out of one of his ribs? And how does the story relate to the ancient Sumerian story of Adapa which corresponds with it? This essay is the second in the series on the Book of Genesis.

There are few Bible stories that are so well known as the one about Adam and Eve. It is not only the very first story about humans in the Bible, it also includes other well-known themes like the garden of Eden, the Fall of man, the first appearance of the snake (typically taken as a symbol of the devil) etc. In this essay, I focus only on Adam and Eve (the other themes will be discussed in other essays as part of the series on the Book of Genesis). Adam and Eve are the first humans mentioned in the Bible. But does this mean that they were the very first humans to walk this earth? How should we understand the creation of Adam and Eve? Did God really create Adam out of dust and Eve out of one of his ribs? How should we understand these things in an age in which science has established that humans are hundreds of thousands of years old and in which the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has become widely accepted?

The Biblical story of Adam and Eve has been hotly disputed and there is a lot of disagreement about it. In this essay, I will discuss the important views. Among the best known are those who take the story in its simplicity as historically true. They believe that God created Adam and Eve about six thousand years ago and that they were the parents of the whole human race. Then there are some Christian scientists who present a scientific version of the Biblical narrative. They think that we should associate Adam and Eve with the original parents of the human race who lived about 200-150 000 years ago. Others think that the story of Adam and Eve should not be seen as historical but as a myth or metaphor. In this essay, I will discuss these views. Each of them has some important drawbacks. I make some new proposals as to how the story may be understood by incorporating important background information from the ancient world (going back to ancient Sumer, the fatherland of Abraham) which the author used when he wrote this remarkable story.

Simple interpretation

There are many Christians who believe that Adam and Eve were the first two people that God created on this earth about six thousand years ago. These Christians typically hold to the young earth creation view (see part 1 of the series) according to which God created the heaven and the earth in six solar days about six thousand years ago. They believe that a literal interpretation necessitates such a reading of the text. According to this view, God created Adam out of dust, placed him in the garden of Eden and brought all the animals to him to name them. Later God caused a great sleep to overcome Adam and took one of his ribs to make Eve from it. Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth and all nations are descended from them.

Although it might at a first glance seem that this is what the narrative in Genesis 2 tells us, a careful reading reveals important inconsistencies which should warn us against taking a too simplistic view of this passage. We, for example, find that two creations of man are mentioned. According to the first account (the creation story) man, both male and female, were created during the sixth creation day (Gen. 1:27). According to the second account (the garden story), Adam was created only after that creation was completed (Gen. 2:7). Now, there are various ways to explain this. Some scholars accept that two different creation narratives were incorporated in the text but these readers normally do not accept this view. They argue that the first account places the creation of mankind within the overall account of creation whereas the second one is a more detailed account as to how Adam and Eve were created [1].

But even within such an interpretation of the text, certain inconsistencies occur. In the garden story we find that Adam was created (Gen. 2:7) before God brought forth the trees out of the ground (Gen. 2:9) or formed the animals out of the ground: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam" (Gen. 2:19). Only after their creation did God introduced them to Adam to name them. The problem with such a "literal" reading is that it implies that Adam was created before the trees or the animals, which is in direct conflict with the creation story (Gen. 1)!

This, however, need not be a problem as long as we allow that the creation acts in the garden story do not necessarily occur at the time when they are mentioned in the text. We can logically assume that the trees and animals were created before Adam, but that the author thought it necessary each time, when he reintroduced them in the garden story, to mention again that God created them (even though it actually happened sometime before during the days of creation). As such, one may view these references to "creation" in the garden story in the context of the metaphor of God as the potter - not as actually meaning that God literally created them at that stage in history.

But this has important implications for this view: it can imply that mankind was also created long before Adam is introduced into the story of the Garden of Eden with the words: "And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). This could be taken as a general statement about the creation of mankind (to which Adam belonged) as it was previously described in the creation story. But this interpretation would negate the whole view that Adam was the first human created! Another way to read the creation of Adam in the garden story is to assume that this is, in fact, the same event mentioned previously in the creation story. But this is only one possible reading of the text.

There is other information in the story which also suggests that the author did not hold that Adam and Eve were the first humans. We, for example, find that Cain's wife is introduced as if the readers would know that other humans existed (Gen. 4:17). Now, it is certainly possible that he could have taken a wife from among his many sisters (Gen. 5:4). But this is just an assumption. We also read that Cain, after being sent away, is concerned that he will be murdered by anyone who comes across him. This also seems to imply the presence of other humans. Why would one try to assert that Adam was the very first human on earth if the text allows for other readings which are more in line with scientific evidence which shows that humans have been around for a very long time? Both archaeology and DNA tests prove that humans and related species (even the Neanderthal's DNA has been sequenced) existed for some 200 000 years before the period in which Adam and Eve are placed (about six thousand years ago).

The story of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib also seems strange if taken literally. Does it mean that Adam literally lost one of his ribs in the process? Given the ancient context of the story, is it not more sensible to assume that this was but a story to introduce her and that the author maybe wanted to thereby affirm that women are in the closest possible sense part of men, so much so that "man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:21-24). One can understand that proponents of this view think that such an interpretation could in some way undermine the historicity of the rest of the story, and thereby the account of the Fall itself, which is so important in Christian teaching. But this need not be the case. It seems to me that this interpretation is too one-dimensional and does not allow for other normal literary tools like metaphors to be used.

Some have tried to reconcile the evidence of early human existence with Adam and Eve's creation about six thousand years ago. C I Scofield, for example, in his so-called gap-theory, proposed a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis 1, between an early creation when those earlier humans lived and a later creation during which plants, animals and subsequently also humans were created in six solar days. In this scenario, the Fall also took place in phases, with the fall of Lucifer happening towards the end of the previous creation and the fall of Adam and Eve, and all their descendants, happening as told in Genesis 3. The problem with this view is that there is no evidence of such a radical destruction or reappearance of the species.

Scientific interpretation

There are some Christian scientists who have developed an interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve consistent with scientific findings. These Christians accept the old earth creationist view, according to which the earth was created billions of years ago. They accept that the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 refer to long periods of time. If the sixth period ("day") of creation was millions of years long as these Christians accept, then there is no reason why humans who were created during that period, could not also be around for a long time. They, therefore, accept that the creation of mankind during the sixth period of creation happened much, much longer than six thousand years ago.

In this view, it is accentuated that God created humans, i.e. that they did not come into existence through Neo-Darwinian evolution. These scientists use DNA evidence to argue for an original human pair from which all humans descend. Molecular anthropology (the use of genetic variability among people around the world as a way to understand the origin and early history of humanity) enable us to establish when such a mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived. Current studies show that these converge around 150 000 years ago. Symbolism developed about 80-70 000 years ago, which these scientists view as reflecting the "image of God" in humans.

Some of the proponents of this view (from Reasons to Believe) argue that the Bible is silent about when God created Adam and Eve. They figure that the Biblical Adam and Eve should be identified with the mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam [2]. In their opinion, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 10 should not be used to calculate the date for Adam and Eve. They see these as theological constructs and rejects the idea that Adam and Eve lived about six thousand years ago. These interpreters can clearly account for all humans as descendants of "Adam and Eve". And since they place the Fall of mankind so many thousands of years ago, they can include all humans in the Fall.

Not all Christian scientists are convinced by this view. Those from BioLogos, for example, do not think that Adam and Eve should be associated with humans (see the next section) from the distant past who were miraculously created by God. They argue that the Biblical account of creation, which includes the creation of humans, is compatible with evolution. In the creation story God commanded that "the waters bring forth" (Gen.1.:20) or that "the earth bring forth" which is then equated with "God created" (Gen. 1:21) or "God made" (Gen. 25). This vagueness as to how God created implies that the creation story does not tell us in detail how that happened, but merely that it happened. This shows not only that the creation of the various species, but also of mankind (Gen. 1:26), could have been through theistic evolution.

The scientists from BioLogos argue, furthermore, that DNA similarities between species prove common ancestry, especially when the nature of genomes is considered. These do not only share healthy genes but also broken genes. The presence of such broken genes proves a common ancestry because it shows that these were inherited, not miraculously produced each time by God. They except that this data does not specify how such changes occurred, when they occurred or how long they took. This could be viewed as evidence for some form of theistic evolution, but not necessarily Neo-Darwinian evolution (see part 1 of this series). They, however, believe that this happened through Neo-Darwinian evolution.

The most important problem with the view discussed in this section (excluding the BioLogos view) is probably that they impose a scientific view on the Biblical text which should be read totally differently. If one wants to keep to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, it is difficult to see how events like those told in the garden story, which are clearly placed within the historical horizon of the people of Israel, could have happened 150 000 years ago. It seems quite clear that the Biblical authors viewed Adam as living in the distant, but rememberable, past.

Metaphoric interpretation

In this view, the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is taken as ancient literature which should be approached as such. They do not see any conflict between the scientific view of Neo-Darwinian evolution and the Bible story because they do not think that Adam and Eve as described in the Book of Genesis refer to historical personages. In their opinion, the story should be considered a myth or at least as a metaphorical tale. They take some of the features in the story, like the creation of Eve from Adam's rib and the speaking serpent, as proof that it was never intended to be taken in any literal sense. In their opinion, the story was meant to accentuate some truth for the listeners.

For some of these scholars, from the Biblical Criticism tradition, the mythical reading of this story implies that the Fall of mankind and therefore the whole argument for Jesus Christ's death is superfluous. According to many passages in Scripture Jesus is said to have died to save us from the effects of the Fall (for example, in Romans 5:12-21). So, they argue, if the Fall is part of a myth, Jesus's death could not have been what New Testament authors like St Paul made it out to be.

Other Christians, for example from BioLogos, hold a metaphorical view and believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a "kind of traditional story that cultures use to understand themselves – stories that unpack the common experience of humanity" [3]. In this reading, the story of the Fall explains why all humans seem to have a "dark side". It should be taken as a statement about the common human condition. In this reading, Jesus's death is taken as rectifying that condition.

Many traditional and evangelical Christians find it problematic that this view, in general, excludes the possibility that the garden story could in some sense be taken as historical. Even if we do not consider Adam and Eve as the very first humans on earth, they still seem to stand in some historical framework at the beginning of God's involvement with humans. The metaphoric images in the story do not negate the possibility that some historical event could be described. One can even argue that the classification of literature as mythical has become too easy and stereotypical – it does not really make an effort to understand the text within the wider ancient Middle-Eastern context in which it originated. Unpacking the story within the framework of this wider context could provide important insights that go beyond a mere mythical view.

Contextual interpretation

In my view, the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 should not be taken simplistically as describing the creation of the very first humans on earth but also not scientifically as referring to our first human ancestors. There are good reasons to think that, although the author presents them as being first in some sense, he did not present them as the very first humans ever created. This does not dispute that some mitochondrial "Eve" and Y-chromosomal "Adam" could have lived sometime in the distant past.

I have already shown that the mentioning of acts of creation in the garden story (Gen. 2:7,9,19) should not be taken as referring to actual events because that would undermine the unity of the stories told by the author (they would directly contradict each other). These should be taken as merely referring to the fact that humans, trees, and animals were originally created by God during the six periods of creation as told in the creation story. This implies that we can distinguish between the creation of humans during the sixth creation period (which could have happened 200 000 years ago) and the time of Adam, who was a descendant of those first created beings.

This view is supported by the fact that the name Adam does not occur in the creation story. Only the word 'adam appears, which is translated as "man". This could imply that the 'adam (man) mentioned in the creation story should be distinguished from the man who is the central personage in the garden story and is later identified as Adam (Gen. 3:20) [4]. This would mean that in the creation story the word "man" refers to mankind in general, who was created in God's own image, who was created as "male and female" (Gen. 1:26-29). This is supported by Gen. 5:1-2 where the word 'adam is used to refer to both male and female persons: "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name 'adam". We can then assume that these 'adam were in the time of Adam also present outside the Garden of Eden and that Cain referred to some of them as the ones who might have killed him.

This view that Adam and Eve were not the very first humans is supported by the extra-Biblical material used in this story. There can be no doubt that the material which the author of the Book of Genesis used for his ancient history (Gen. 2-11) goes back to ancient Sumerian sources [5]. Some of these stories go back to the earliest strata of memory in the ancient Middle East. This is especially true of the story of Adam, who corresponds with Adapa who is mentioned in Sumerian sources. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the topic, but I can mention some of the obvious agreements. Adapa was misled by the Sumerian god Enki (who is sometimes described as a snake) regarding the food of life in the same way that Eve was misled by the snake regarding the food of the tree. Agreements between the stories include these basic motifs as well as the names (Adam/Adapa), their place in history as the first known human, their relationship with the Most High God [6], their not eating the food of life etc [7].

Adapa's role in Sumerian tradition as the founding sage who brought civilization to Sumer (Mesopotamia) in the time of the first permanent settlement in the plains fits nicely with our picture of the archaeological history of that country. Adapa was not the very first human; he was the first known human with whom the Most High God was associated. And this is what was important to the author of the Genesis narrative who tells about God's involvement in the history of mankind. Once we recognize that Adam-Adapa is, in fact, a well-known figure of ancient history, who was believed to have lived at the time when civilization started in the plains of Mesopotamia about six thousand years ago, it is immediately clear that it is very unlikely that the Biblical author would have presented him in conflict with this age-old tradition as being the very first human. This is another reason why we should not interpret the garden story such that Adam is made into the very first human created.

But if Adam and Eve were not created as the first human pair, what do we make of verses in the Bible which mention that God "made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26)? Does not this clearly state that all humans on all the earth descended from Adam and Eve? Such statements in the Bible were clearly never intended to be understood in a scientific way as making an absolute statement of truth (in the pre-scientific age such statements were typically regarded as observational statements). Rather, it refers to an obvious truth, namely that according to the genealogies in Genesis 4, 5 and 10 the later peoples of the Middle East were considered descendants of Adam and Eve or of Noah and his wife. But this does not mean that these peoples had no other possible forefathers or that distant nations like the Chinese, the American Indians and many other peoples around the world were all descended from them (these are after all not mentioned in those lists).

A historical account?

We can now consider the question: Should we regard the garden story as historical? To explore this, we should first discuss the various images in the garden story [8]. In this essay I will only discuss the images used to depict creation; other images, like the talking serpent, the tree in the middle of the garden, the forbidden fruit etc. will be discussed in other essays in this series. The first such image is where God made Adam from the dust of the earth. This is a very old Middle Eastern image in which God as creator is envisioned as a potter who made man from the soil. The word 'adam also means "soil". This obviously does not imply that humans are physically made from the ground; rather, it is only the image of the potter which is used to metaphorically describe the divine act of creation (see also Is. 64:8 etc).

The other creation image is more complex and requires a more detailed discussion. We read that Eve was made from Adam's rib. Now, this is also taken from a very well-known ancient image. In the story of the Sumerian god Enki's creation of eight other gods and goddesses from his own body, these gods and goddesses were named after various parts of his body in a play of words. One of these was a virgin goddess called Ninti, whose name means "lady rib" but play on the words "lady life". Now, this is exactly what we find in the garden story in the Book of Genesis: Eve is taken from the rib of Adam and her name is later said to mean "life" (Gen. 3:20). The probable reason why the author used and reworked this story to introduce Eve was that he wanted to accentuate that she was in the closest sense one with Adam, just as the mentioned gods and goddesses were in the closest possible sense associated with their parent god. The story was used purely as a metaphoric image; it seems to me extremely unlikely that the author took this story which he invented as literally true.

Once we understand these creation images, we also see that the author used them to provide some background for the first humans that he introduced in his narrative. But does this mean that we should take the garden story as a whole also as a mere metaphoric tale? Not necessarily. Although it is certainly true that the story wants to convey an important truth (or truths: not only about the Fall, but also about work and rest etc.) and even use the underlying metaphor of God as potter, there is good reason to assume that the author wanted to present Adam as a real historical figure from the distant past. As mentioned before, Adam-Adapa was considered in the ancient Middle-East as the first known human who brought civilization to Mesopotamia about six thousand years ago and both Sumerians and Semites probably viewed him as a forefather. This allowed the author to place him within the historical framework of patriarchal history.

We should, however, remember that Eve does not appear in the Sumerian equivalent of the story. Did the author invent her? It is possible that he used a variation of the story in which she was already present. We do not know in what form the story was transmitted in Semitic circles and (as I argued elsewhere [5]) later within the midst of the Abrahamic family. It was a very old legend and it is not strange for such legends to incorporate all sorts of mythical and metaphorical elements. But the presence of these does not negate the legendary aspect of the story which could very well have been grounded in some historical event. This gives some support to the view that the story could in some sense be considered historical. But at the end of the day, it is clearly impossible to confirm or deny the historicity of the garden story and those who take it as historical typically do so because they consider it as a divinely inspired story which, given its place at the beginning of the patriarchal lineage, should be considered as historical.

The reason why this story was important to the author could not be divorced from the broader narrative found in the Book of Genesis, which tells the story of God's involvement with mankind since their creation to the time of Abraham and beyond. In this framework, the story of Adam and Eve (as does its equivalent, the story of Adapa) is of special importance because it represents the oldest known story about God's involvement with mankind. This involvement included an awareness of mankind's fallenness which stands central in their relationship with God. New Testament authors like St Paul, who takes Adam as a historical person, also accentuated this aspect of the garden story [9]. 

When we accept that Adam and Eve were not the very first humans on earth, then we should carefully consider what the Fall as historical event means. Such an event in the garden would have excluded all other humans living at that time outside the garden. This problem, however, could be solved if we see Adam's disobedience as the occasion when the fallen human condition was first revealed (I plan to discuss this in more detail later on in this series on the Book of Genesis). Then the great truth presented in the story is (even for those Christians would prefer not to take it as a particular event) the fallen human condition which plays such an important role in our relationship with God. For most Christians, the story of Adam and Eve reveals this fallenness which stands central in the salvation that Jesus Christ achieved on the cross.

Conclusion

The garden story stands at the beginning of the author of the Book of Genesis's narrative about God's early relationship with humans. It tells about the first known human(s) who had a relationship with the Most High God. There is no reason to assume as the simple traditional interpretation does – in direct contrast with all evidence that mankind is much, much older than this – that Adam and Eve are presented in this story as the very first humans on earth. We must distinguish the creation of humans in general as described in the creation story (Gen. 1: 26-29) from these later events in the garden. Regarding the two images of creation (of Adam and Eve) that the author uses in the garden story, we should not consider these as referring to actual acts of creation but merely as giving some background as to the nature of the characters when he introduces them in his narrative.

The basic elements of the story of Adam and Eve are very old and go back to the earliest strata of Sumerian tradition. We do not know precisely in which form the story was known to the author, but some of the elements of the story were definitely present, namely the name of the main character (Adam-Adapa), the relationship between this early human and the Most High God as well as his failure to eat of the food of life. The author reworked the story, using some well-known Sumerian creation motifs, and accentuated the act of disobedience which is associated with the Fall. Although there is no possible way that we can ever confirm or deny that this event really happened, the author most likely viewed Adam and Eve as historical personages and the Fall as a real event which he then situated at the beginning of the lineage and story of the Abrahamic family. This interpretation of the story secures the integrity of the Biblical text and is at the same time in agreement with our current archaeological, historical and scientific understanding of the past.

[1] Biblical Criticism accepts that two "creation stories" are given, representing two of the hypothetical sources that were used for the Pentateuch. In this essay, I accentuate the unity of the narrative as written by the same author. I argue instead that we should take these as a creation story and a garden story respectively.

[2] On the internet: http://www.reasons.org/articles/when-did-mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam-live.

[3] Giberson, K.W. & Collins, F. S. 2011. The Language of Science and Faith. London: SPCK.

[4] Or Gen. 3:17. In Gen. 5:1-2 Adam and 'adam are also be distinguished: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them, and called their name 'adam, in the day when they were created." This gives some background for Adam, who was of the human species ('adam) which was created during the sixth period of creation.

[5] I discuss the ancient Sumerians in part 1 of the series. For a detailed discussion of the agreement between the ancient history in the Book of Genesis (Gen. 2-11) and the ancient Sumerian sources, see Mc Loud, W. 2012. Op soek na Abraham en sy God. Kaapstad: Griffel.

[6] In my book I argue that the Most High God of Sumerian tradition (called An) corresponds with the Most High God (El-Elyon) in the Hebrew tradition. Both were known as the father of the gods in the council of the gods (see for example Ps. 82:6). The difference between the names/words An and El can be seen as equivalent to God and Dieu (God in French)

[7] As one expects of such stories which go back to the same original tradition, but which were handed down orally over thousands of years in different environments, there are also some differences. Eve, for example, does not have an equivalent in the Adapa story. Why would one prefer the Biblical version? I argue in my book Abraham en sy God (2012) that there are reasons to believe that the Semitic version is more reliable. This is partly due to the techniques used in the Semitic oral tradition (reference to these techniques and examples of such transmission are found in the Akkadian tradition). Christians could prefer the Biblical version because they believe in the divine inspiration of the text.
[8] A general problem for the modern reader of ancient texts, is: what is a metaphor and what is intended to be read literally? These are not as clearly distinguished as in later times. This confuses the modern reader to take everything either as metaphorical or as literal. Gregory Shusman, who discusses the religious texts of various ancient civilizations, mentions this as a general problem with such ancient texts in his Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations, p4 (London: Continuum; 2009).
[9] Considering Adam and Eve as historical personages do not negate their archetypal character as representing the ancient ancestral pair or the Fall as an archetypal event, i.e. as a revelation of our fallen (disobedient) nature. Eve as "the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20) is such an archetypal depiction. This can obviously not be taken as really referring to "all living" but only to humans. Although she is presented in the Book Genesis as the mother of all those mentioned in the lists of genealogies, she is here depicted as an archetypal mother figure of humanity. Adam is also depicted in such fashion. We read in reference to Gen. 2:7 (discussed above): "The first man Adam was made a living soul" (1 Cor 15:45). This takes Adam, the first "known" man, as the archetypal human.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. Posted on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Op soek na Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology. 

On evolution: 
Darwin's Doubt
The Christian and Evolution

The Book of Genesis, Intro: The Book of Genesis: The Sumerian Hypothesis
The Book of Genesis, part 1: Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?  
The Book of Genesis, part 3: The Garden of Eden: was it a real place?
The Book of Genesis, part 4: The Serpent of Paradise
The Book of Genesis, part 5: Reconsidering the Fall
The Book of Genesis, part 6: The origins of Satan: the ancient worldview
The Book of Genesis, part 7: Who is Elohim?

The book of Genesis, Part 8: The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?
The book of Genesis, Part 9: The Great Flood: Did it really happen?
The book of Genesis, Part 10: Abraham holds the key

Also: A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline.  

Readers are welcome to share the essay with friends and others.

War-clouds darken over the Middle East

The Syrian conflict has escalated over the last month. Everything seems to suggest that it will escalate even further when the West starts providing the rebels with more advanced weapons. But will it evolve further into a regional war? To answer this question I discuss the strategic interests of the major players, including the US, Israel, France, Iran and Russia.

The Syrian conflict, which started as part of the Arab Spring uprisings in mid-March 2011, has recently intensified dramatically. One could say that the conflict has entered a new phase. Suddenly the surrounding countries have become more actively and openly involved in the Syrian struggle. The war is sucking in, not only the other regional players but also the major world powers. It seems very likely that this conflict will further escalate and become a regional war in which many of the surrounding countries participate.

Over the last few months, many thousands of Hezbollah fighters from nearby Lebanon became openly involved in the battle of al-Qusayr near the Lebanese border in May 2013 during which the government forces won the day. The Iraqi government are also giving tactic support to the regime, allowing Iran to use its airspace and many Iraqi Shiites have joined the war. Iran is providing the regime with strategic advice, weapons, special forces assistance as well as training of military units and has brought the whole Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis under its control. Iran's ability to project power over the wider Middle-East has therefore also increased. Russia has steadfastly stood with the Syrian regime, providing it with billions of dollars of heavy weaponry. According to various news sources, Russia even started delivery of the sophisticated S300 surface-to-air missile systems for which it will also provide personnel to man them (Russia has previously provided the Syrians with other missile systems).

The rebel forces, on the other hand, are now divided between the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the jihadi groups like the Al-Nusra Front who is affiliated to Al-Qaeda (there are in fact many different fighting groups). The jihadi groups have gained influence because they were the only ones with a good supply of weaponry (from wealthy backers in Saudi-Arabia). Recently the EU has dropped its ban on providing the rebels with weapons and EU countries like Britain and France, who are already supplying non-lethal materials, are now free to provide weapons too. The US has recently decided that they would also supply the FSA with weapons. Some weaponry has already been delivered to the FSA. The US have also deployed Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems, F-16 fighter jets and about a thousand marines to the Jordanian side of the border where they are involved, with the Saudis, with the training of rebel forces (six Patriot batteries manned by 1000 American, German and Dutch servicemen have previously been deployed on the Turkish-Syrian border).

How will the Syrian war unfold in the future? In this essay, I discuss this question through an evaluation of the strategic interests of all the major players. Countries typically do what is in their strategic interests. I focus on the US, Israel, France, Iran and Russia. Although countries like Britain [1], Turkey, Qatar, Saudi-Arabia and others are also involved, their interests are for the most part aligned with the US.  

The US and the Syrian conflict

The US has for a long time kept their distance from the Syrian conflict due to the fact that the American public is war-weary after the decade-old war in Afghanistan (not to mention the wars against Iraq). President Obama has been portrayed as a "man of peace" that would do everything in his power to promote peace – and any direct involvement in the conflict could be viewed by his supporters as a betrayal of that ideal. Although Obama has expressed open support for the ideals of the Arab Spring, namely of human freedom and democracy, and has even called the promotion of such ideals part of the strategic interest of the US, these are not in itself a strong enough reason to become involved in the Syrian conflict. There are, however, other strong incentives. Among these are

1. Moral considerations. The Syrian conflict has already resulted in about 100 000 dead, 1.6 million refugees and 4.25 million displaced people within the country itself. The Syrian regime is by far the party who is primarily responsible for the pain, misery and destruction. This provides a very strong moral incentive to try and stop the Syrian regime from continuing doing this. The recently appointed National Security Adviser to President Obama, Susan Rice, is a strong advocate of intervention, mentioning the Rwanda genocide in this regard.

2. Israel. The US administration has a strategic agreement to secure Israel's security which has been endangered by recent developments in the Syrian conflict. The victory of the government forces in the area bordering Lebanon has given Israel's archenemy Hezbollah a stronghold in the area directly opposite the Golan. In the case of an Israeli attack on Iran (to destroy their nuclear facilities), Hezbollah would definitely launch a large-scale attack on Israel. As for Iran, they would pose a substantial threat to Israel if they are to develop a nuclear device. To enable Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities (with US support), a no-fly zone along the Jordanian-Syrian border would probably be necessary.

3. Reducing the influence of jihadi groups. The US views itself as still at war with Al-Qaeda. The US is therefore very concerned by the growing influence of jihadic and Al-Qaeda-linked groups among the rebels. These also pose a threat to Israel's security, especially if they gain a permanent stronghold in Syria. The best way to stop their growth is to help the FSA develop the necessary structures on the ground and to supply them with effective weaponry. To eliminate the jihadists, however, more direct involvement in the conflict will be necessary as was the case in Mali (with the French involvement there).

President Obama will not be willing to become more directly involved in the conflict if all other options to solve the crisis have not been explored. At this stage the following efforts have been made: three resolutions have failed in the UN Security Council (because of Russian-China opposition), the jointed UN-Arab peace initiatives of Kofi Annan (the six-point plan) and Lakhidar Brahimi have gone nowhere, the Geneva-1 conference ended without a breakthrough and plans for a Geneva-2 conference have stalled. None of the parties have sufficient motivation to come to an agreement. The regime thinks it is gaining on the rebels and the rebels are not willing to let Assad stay in power after all the bloodshed. At some point, Obama might be able to say that he has tried everything and that the only option left is some form of military intervention.

Israel's strategic interests

Israel has until now stayed out of the conflict – although it has twice in the past few months bombed Syrian weaponry destined for Hezbollah. Israel knows that any unilateral involvement from their side outside a broader US-led coalition would harm US interests in the region and could even destroy all prospects for such a coalition. The Syrian conflict has divided the Arab world along Shiite-Sunni lines (Hezbollah, Iran and the Syrian ruling elite, the Alawites, are Shiites) and makes a rather unusual coalition of Western and Sunni Muslim countries possible which could eventually confront Iran itself.

This is also an important reason why the West has been so slow to become involved – the longer the conflict persists, the more permanent and inclusive the grouping opposing the regime would become (for other such reasons see [2]). On 16 June 2013, during a Sunni conference in Cairo, Egyptian president Morsi severed all ties with the regime in Damascus. Even Hamas, the Sunni Islamists in the Gaza strip along Israel's southern border, has separated from their previous allies Hezbollah and Iran after some Hamas fighters who joined the rebels were caught during the battle for Al-Qusayr.

Israel's primary security concern is with the danger of a nuclear-capable Iran. The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel views such an Iran as an existential threat. Iran has installed 9000 centrifuges over the past two years at its enrichment facilities. Two recent studies have shown that Iran is close to having enough 20%-enriched nuclear material to built a bomb in the time between IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections. Israel knows that the chances of eliminating this threat on their own are small; an Israeli attack would set the Iranian program back a few years at best. The best option is to be part of a joined US-Israel attack on Iran which takes place within the framework of a broader Western-Muslim anti-Syria-Iran coalition. The fall of the Syrian regime (and the routing out of jihadic forces) would have the bonus of isolating Hezbollah in the region.

French strategic interests

France is also a very important player in this unfolding drama. In fact, the French have even a more direct interest in the outcome of the Syrian conflict than the US (that is, apart from the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel). The reason for this is that Syria lies in the EU's near-abroad. As a major EU country, it is of vital importance for France to promote stability and democracy in this region. This was also the reason for the French military involvement in Libya where it played a leading role in establishing a no-fly zone with its NATO allies and provided the rebels with weapons. More recently France was militarily involved in Mali where it routed out the jihadi groups in the North.

France has so far played a major role in encouraging the formation of the Syrian National Coalition as an inclusive government in waiting (something that has not been fully achieved) and was the first Western country to recognize it as such on 13 November 2012. It has established good relations with the fighters of the FSA and has provided them with non-lethal support. It will probably in the near-future start arming these rebels. France hopes that the fall of the Syrian regime (and routing out the jihadists) would lead to the formation of a democratic Islamist government in Syria.

Establishing such a government would be in line with their long-term plan to align the interests of the EU with those of the Muslim countries around the Mediterranean Sea. In 2008 France took the leading role in establishing the Union for the Mediterranean (which includes Syria). The French vision is probably that these countries would eventually in some way become part of the EU (such an EU would be a very strong player on the international scene).

Iran's strategic interests

The conflict in Syria allows Iran to project its power far into the Middle East as leader of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Shiite alliance which is opposed to the West. Iran knows that the fall of the Syrian regime would deprive it of an important ally and would leave itself and its partner Hezbollah vulnerable and isolated in the region. Iran is therefore willing to go an extra mile to stop this from happening – especially since they have the tactic support of Russia. Even if the Syrian regime would eventually fall, Iran would still gain a lot by their involvement since it prolongs the conflict and makes any US-Israel attack more difficult. It buys them time.

The Iranians distrust the Western countries. They know that any substantial compromise on their part regarding their nuclear program would leave them more vulnerable to Western attack. In this regard, they take Libya as an example – shortly after Gaddafi disposed of his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) he was attacked by the Western powers. The Iranians believe that acquiring nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent for any such attack. In that case, the Western countries (and especially Israel) would have to accept the outcome.

How should we interpret the election of Hassan Rouani as Iranian president on 15 June 2013? Although he is portrayed as a moderate, he is an old hand in the Iranian establishment with close ties to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, being a member of the Supreme National Security Council since 1989. It could well be that the Iranian strategy is to use his election as a ploy to prolong the nuclear negotiations with the 5+1 nations (the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) in an effort to buy time.

The Russian strategic interests

Russia has steadfastly stood with the Syrian regime, providing them with billions of dollars of weaponry. I have predicted early in the conflict (before Putin's election [3]) that this would happen. This is the major reason why the Syrian regime is still in power and the crisis is prolonged. Why is Russia doing this in spite of all the war crimes committed by the Syrian regime? The main reason is geopolitical. Syria is the last bastion of Russian influence in the Middle East (except for Iran), being a Russian ally for a long time. Russia has a naval base for its Black Sea Fleet in Tartus which allows them to project their power into the Mediterranean Sea.

Under President Putin Russia has become ever more assertive, trying to stop the growing Western influence connected with the democratic impulse of the Arab Spring. The Syrian conflict provided him with the opportunity to project Russian power as a country that can stand up to the West (the Russian self-image seems to be in need of such assurance), using its military power to try and intimidate the Western powers into backing down on Syria (any attack on the S300 anti-aircraft systems will have to take the impact of casualties among the Russian personnel manning it into account).

Recently during the G8 summit in June 2013, it was clear to all the world that the relationship between Putin and Obama has become very strained. Putin knows that the fall of the Syrian regime would dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East, effectively excluding Russia from the region (except for Iran) and leading to a reduction in its influence. Putin's reasons for supporting the Syrian regime could also, at least in part, be opportunistic. He knows that any escalation of the conflict into a wider Middle Eastern war which includes Iran would lead to a dramatic rise in the oil price. And Russia is an important oil producer.

Conclusions

The Syrian conflict has escalated recently. Other role players like Hezbollah (and Iran for some time already) have become openly involved. Countries like the US, France and Britain have declared their intention to provide the FSA with weaponry (Qatar and Saudi-Arabia are already doing so for some time). But countries do not become involved in a war if they do not have strategic interests in doing so. In this essay, I have shown that the interests of the US, Israel and France are in agreement, as are those of Iran and Russia.

The most important issue in this regard is the Iranian enrichment program and their possible effort to acquire nuclear weapons. They believe that this is the only way to safeguard themselves against future attack. But it is exactly this possibility that forces Israel to take action. Israel will, however, not be able to eliminate this threat on their own. For this, they need the US. Although President Obama has seemingly for some time (during his first term) resisted this option, there has been a clear change of mind. The appointment of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser reflects this.

Attacking Iran will not be an easy enterprise. Iran would retaliate against US bases in the Gulf and against US allies. The Iranian involvement in the Syrian conflict makes such an attack even more difficult. At the same time, however, it also provides the opportunity to establish a wide-ranging anti-Syria-Iran coalition which is ready and willing to participate in such a war. And the establishment of no-fly zones over Syria or even along its border with Jordan could provide the space for the US and Israel to attack Iran.

Will it come to that? The fact that the Syrian conflict has escalated, that no peace-deal is in sight and that Russia is in no mood to compromise, do not bode well for the Middle East. It seems likely that this conflict will further escalate when the West starts supplying the rebels with more advanced weapons. And such an escalation could provide the stimulus for an attack against Iran. At that point, the Syrian conflict could easily evolve into a great regional war [1].

[1] Regarding the Anglo-American interest in a wider Middle Eastern war see: Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles

[2] Die stilte voor die storm?

[3] Oorlogswolke begin oor die Midde Ooste saampak

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline

"Is not anyone engaged in history or in the search of Sitz im Leben aware of the tentative, surmised character of any depiction of the past events and institutions?" - Yair Hoffman

In this critique I look into the scientific nature of Biblical Criticism - in what sense can it be viewed as a scientific discipline and how valid are the claims made by it? I am especially interested in the roots of the discipline in modernist times and the impact that these roots have on the discipline. I look at its presuppositions regarding the nature of reality, the credibility of the literary tradition and the possibility of obtaining an objective perspective on history. How does these impact on the paradigmatic parameters of the discipline? And what are the implications of contemporary developments in hermeneutics for the discipline?      

Biblical Criticism is the academic discipline directed to the study of the Biblical text using certain critical methods developed over the last few hundred years. Although it is not the only academic approach to the study of the Bible, it has gained wide acceptance in academic circles as an (some would say the only) authoritative discipline on par with other such disciplines. There are even parts of society (especially in the mainstream media) who view it as the only discipline who can make authoritative statements about the Bible. This discipline has, however, been viewed with much skepticism (to say the least) in the traditional Christian community and there had been a long struggle in many church denominations for it to gain acceptance as being in agreement with church teaching - leading eventually to it becoming part and parcel of ministerial education in many mainstream churches all around the world.

But what is the scientific status of this discipline? How valid are the methods used and approaches followed in this field of study? And to what extent can these scholars claim that their findings have validity over those in the more traditional schools of Biblical scholarship? Although I am not a Biblical scholar, I have a live interest in this field of study. I believe that my own perspective, coming from a philosophy of science background, could be of value because it stands outside the paradigmatic constraints unconsciously imposed on its practitioners. Such a philosophical critique concerns both the scientific nature of the discipline as well as the limits of its claims. Although no such study could be without any paradigmatic preconceptions, it does bring a fresh perspective on the scientific character of the discipline - asking the type of questions that practitioners of the discipline sometimes overlook.

In this article I give an overall critique of the discipline, starting with its roots in modern times. These roots had an enormous impact on the discipline and the study thereof is of paramount importance in any critical study, especially since the early scholars worked under the assumption that their discipline could be established as an empirical science. Various presuppositions were made regarding the nature of reality, the credibility of the literary tradition and about the possibility of achieving an objective perspective. Once it is recognized that this is a hermeneutic (interpretive) discipline, the various critical approaches developed in the discipline should be reconsidered in this light. Throughout this critique, I include the voices of more traditional scholars in an effort to place the discipline within the larger framework of Biblical studies. Finally, I ask the question: in what sense could this discipline be viewed as superior to traditional scholarship?

The problem of modernist roots

The origins of Biblical Criticism go back to the modern epoch which lasted from the seventeenth until the early twentieth century. This was the period when Enlightenment man (women were not yet emancipated) discovered the power of reason. It seemed to the people of that age that there would be no limits to the reach of reason. They also found the courage (in the spirit of their new-found freedom) to direct their reason against long-held beliefs that suddenly seemed primitive and just plain wrong to the modern mind. It was a period during which empirical science replaced religion as the measuring stick of reality. It was a period of great innovation – when man developed all sorts of new hypotheses and theories. And it changed the world – especially the religious world – forever.

It was in this atmosphere that Biblical Criticism was born. Although there had been various earlier critical voices of the Bible, the first person who really subjected the Bible in its historical dimension (i.e. how it came into existence) to "critical judgment" was Richard Simon (1638-1712) who wrote Critical history of the Old Testament (1678), followed by Critical history of the New Testament (1689). The two important ingredients found in his works, namely "historical" and "critical" later became the defining terminology associated with this discipline – which over time developed what became known as the "historical-critical" method of Bible interpretation. It is this method that to a large extent distinguishes it from traditional Biblical scholarship.

The early pioneers of this discipline followed in the footsteps of the rationalists of the modern epoch. They believed that the Bible should be approached rationally and critically – in the same manner that scholars at the time approached all ancient literature. They believed that such a critical approach would establish their evolving discipline on a scientific basis. This "scientific treatment" of the Bible [1] only accepted as facts those things which could be positively established – looking to the new-born field of archaeology to provide such confirmation. In this, they followed the "positivism" of Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who believed that the only valid knowledge was scientific knowledge based on empiric evidence. This attitude was typical of the modern man who was so smitten with science that he supposed that all of life should be brought under the measuring stick of science.

This approach went directly against the traditional view that the Biblical text was not just a text like any other – that it was divinely inspired. In the view of these scholars only those events that seemed rationally plausible and could be verified, could be accepted as fact. These scholars, therefore, rejected the Biblical claim of divine revelation as well as all references to supernatural events in the Biblical narrative. Some of the early scholars in this discipline were quite clear about this. Abraham Keunen of the Leiden School of modern theology wrote in his book Prophets and Prophecy in Israel (1875): "As soon as we derive a separate part of Israel's religious life directly from God, and allow the supernatural or immediate revelation to intervene in even one single point, so long also our view of the whole continues to be incorrect... It is the supposition of a natural development alone which accounts for all the phenomena" [2].

One of the early examples of this new approach – where rational analysis, empiric evidence and the most advanced theory of the day were applied to the study of the Biblical text – was its application to the question of Biblical "sources" (also called "source criticism"). Some of the early pioneers were especially interested in the process through which the Bible came into existence in the historical context of that time. They proposed that various hypothetical documents were used in the compilation of the Pentateuch. In doing so, they formulated what became known as the Graf-Wellhausen reconstruction of the history of Israel's religion (named after Karl Heinrich Graf (1815-1869) and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)).

These scholars developed an evolutionary theory of religion, which they believed were scientifically supported, and applied it to Israelite religion. According to this view Israelite religion went through various phases in its development, namely from animism through henotheism to monotheism. The patriarchs worshipped the spirits of trees, stones, springs etc., pre-prophetic Israel worshipped a tribal deity (a fertility god like Baal) and the prophets eventually developed the idea of ethical, and later universal, monotheism [3].

According to this theory, the phases of the development of Israelite religion enable us to date the various sources which were supposedly used for the compilation of the Pentateuch. They distinguished four hypothetical sources (more hypothetical sources were later added by other authors), namely the Jahwist (characterized by the name Yahweh, written in 900-850 BC), Elohist (characterized by the name Elohim, written in 750-700 BC), Deuteronomist (written in 650-625 BC) and Priestly (characterized by priestly matters, written in 525-425 BC).

The Yahwist source was thought to contain a history of the tribe of Judah from creation to their settlement in Canaan, whereas the Elohist source supposedly originated from the North (giving prominence to Joseph), containing a distinctive religious and moralistic emphasis. The moral nature of the Book of Deuteronomy implied that it was written late – and the agreement between the legislation in this book and the reforms of king Josia suggested to these scholars that it was, in fact, this book that was "found" during that time in the temple (they proposed that it was a "pious fraud" written at that time). The details of the measurements of the Tabernacle and Noah's Ark ascribed to the Priestly source suggested to them that this source was from an even later period. With this theory, the traditional view regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was dismissed and the date(s) of its compilation drastically altered.

This view became well-established and eventually institutionalized after Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1883) which popularized it. The theory provided the groundwork for all future studies in the discipline and had an enormous impact on all that came after it – to this day many scholars at universities hold to the basic ideas that evolved during that period. From these modernist roots, the tree of Biblical Criticism grew. And herein lies a problem: none of the original presuppositions of these early scholars are valid today! The world has changed dramatically since those early days and the modernist mindset had been replaced by other ways of thinking. Philosophers of science have done away with the idea that disciplines like textual studies, of which Biblical Criticism is a branch, could be viewed as empirical sciences. All the early efforts to establish it as a science have failed for the simple reason that it is not in any sense an empirical science. There is no way that any of the hypotheses in this field of study can be empirically verified under controlled circumstances as is done in the empirical sciences.

The "positivist" approach of the past has been totally discredited for the reason that even if certain facts could be positively established, there is always the possibility that new facts would come to light that could totally overturn the previous interpretation of those facts. This is especially true for the one discipline to which Biblical Criticism has traditionally looked for support in this regard, namely archaeology. After the failed efforts of the "New Archaeology" of the nineteen-sixties to establish solid empirical foundations for archaeology, archaeologists have discarded that approach and replaced it with other approaches.

The failure in this regard could be spectacularly demonstrated for the Graf-Wellhausen theory (also called the "documentary hypothesis") – especially regarding its dating of the various parts of the Biblical texts. Central to this theory is a particular view on the evolution of religion. At that time, with the little archaeological evidence available, it seemed such a logical conclusion. But today, we know that the theory is wrong. Archaeological evidence has shown that the God El was worshipped very early in Mesopotamia and Canaan and that the Biblical account of his worship in patriarchal times corresponds with this picture. The high ethical values that they thought were a late development in Israel, are not too different from those included in the Code of Hammurabi (~1800 BC) or the Hittite or Old Assyrian Codes (1400-1200 BC). The circumstances under which the "book of the law given by Moses" (2 Chron. 34:14) was discovered after the reign of Manasseh, during which the temple worship fell into disrepair, suggests that the discovery of that book was a credible account of what happened (i.e. that it was not a "pious fraud"). And the detailed measurements of the hypothetical Priestly source are not too different from those found in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic which dates from Old Babylonian times (1800 BC) [4].

Although the discipline came a long way since those early days, there can be no doubt that these early ideas had an enormous impact on it. It established a certain academic paradigm (see Kuhn [5]) in which the basic assumptions of the historical-critical approach established the parameters of research and study and formed various generations of scholars to this mindset. Many of the widely accepted views regarding the overall approach to the text, the accepted ways to read and interpret the text, and the established views on the dating of the texts have grown out of these early roots. This should be a matter of serious concern for all Biblical Criticism scholars – but, given their paradigmatic attachment to some of these views, it seems that many scholars have thus far largely ignored this problem. Although many valuable insights regarding textural, compositional and historical questions have been gained through the historical-critical method, this aspect seriously undermines Biblical Criticism's credibility as a scholarly discipline.

The presupposition problem

1. Metaphysical presuppositions. The impact of this modernist roots is observable in many of the assumptions underlying the scholarly endeavour which constitutes this discipline. The most basic assumption relates to the question of reality. What is the nature of reality? In the physical sciences, all study is directed towards material reality. This, however, does not imply that material reality is the only existent aspect of reality. Although there are many scientists who believe that all reality could be reduced to the material aspect, this is not supported by any proof but is a matter of metaphysical belief. On the contrary, the basic assumption in the Christian religion is that the material aspect only constitutes a part of reality. Most Christians assume the existence of a greater reality in which God, the angels, and human spirits exist. It is within this framework that the divine inspiration of the Biblical text, as well as supernatural events and abilities (like prophecy), has traditionally been understood.

The metaphysical beliefs of the early pioneers had a lasting impact on this discipline. As mentioned above, many of them tried to exclude all supernatural aspects from the text. To this day this is the basic point of departure in the discipline. We for example read in the Handbook of Biblical Criticism (third edition, 2001) that the historical-critical methodology assumes that reality is uniform and universal, that it is accessible to human reason and investigation, that all historical and natural events are interconnected and that humanity's contemporary experience of reality can provide "objective" criteria to what could or could not have happened in past events [6].

The problem with this presupposition about reality is that it beforehand (because of its assumptions) determines the outcome of all studies done in this manner – once it is presupposed that supernatural events are not part of reality, it is impossible to uphold the reality of such events, even of some of the basic Christian beliefs like the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although many of the Christian scholars who feel uncomfortable with this assumption ignore it, it nevertheless has a dramatic impact on every aspect of the discipline. It effectively established Biblical Criticism as a secular discipline which makes pronouncements about a religious text - effectively establishing conflicting interests.

Take, for example, the impact of this presupposition on the dating of texts. If one accepts (as in Biblical Criticism) that humans do not have the ability to foresee the future and that prophecy about future events, therefore, does not exist in reality, then you would assume that all "correctly" prophesied events in the Bible were mentioned only after those events had taken place. When we read, for example, in the Gospel of St Luke that Jesus foretold the fall of Jerusalem, it is to be assumed that the author of this gospel wrote after the event took place. This place the time of writing after 70 AD. In this regard, Robert A. Spivey and D. Moody Smith wrote in their book Anatomy of the New Testament [7]: "the earliest date for Luke would, therefore, have to be sometime after Jerusalem's fall in AD 70".

If on the other hand, it is assumed (as is typically done in traditional Biblical scholarship) that Jesus did in fact correctly prophesied about the fall of Jerusalem, a totally different picture emerges. In this case, it is possible to take the internal evidence from the Acts of the Apostles into account when dating the Gospel of St. Luke. The narrative told in Acts ends with St Paul in prison, two years after his arrival in Rome – from which it can reasonably be deduced that this was the time when the narrative was written, namely in 62 AD.  Many other reasons are added to support this date: internal evidence, for example, suggests that the author was indeed St Luke, the companion of St Paul (Col. 4:14, Phil. 24, II Tim. 4:11) who wrote his narrative (at least the latter part of it) in the first person ("we") [8].

In this case traditional scholars accentuate the information at the beginning of Acts, namely that the same author also previously wrote the Gospel of St. Luke (see Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1) – which imply that this gospel was in fact (as stated at the beginning thereof) a collection of eyewitness accounts written sometime before 62 AD (probably in 60 AD). And since the Gospels of St Mark and St Matthew are normally assumed to have been written before that of St Luke, this implies that they were written even earlier. From this, it can be deduced that the Gospels are trustworthy accounts of the life and work of Jesus Christ. This shows how important the metaphysical views of the scholars are in determining every aspect of their discipline.

2. The credibility of the literary tradition. Another modernist presupposition, central to the Graf-Wellhausen theory, was that empirical evidence should always be given preference over the historical claims in the literary tradition. Those early scholars who lived during the Enlightenment had a general distrust in all tradition – especially in Church/Biblical tradition – which they assumed to be full of superstitions. They, therefore, accepted only the historicity of those events for which clear empirical evidence could be provided. The result was that most of the Biblical narratives about the early history of Israel were radically doubted and eventually rejected as unsubstantiated. Wellhausen, for example, wrote in Prolegomena to the History of Israel that Abraham should not be regarded as a historical person, but rather "as a free creation of unconscious art".

Later scholars dated the hypothetical sources of the Pentateuch even later than Wellhausen, assuming that the Mesopotamian motifs in the Book of Genesis originated during the Babylonian exile. The tendency was to date the texts as late as possible. Eventually, a scholarly consensus developed that the historical information in the Pentateuch, and even in most of the other Biblical texts, could not be taken seriously – it is rather the general message of the authors that should concern us. Many of these scholars assume that it would be wrong to even try and find archaeological evidence for many of the "historical" narratives – the task of the scholar is rather to focus on the message, theology and so forth of those people. 

The working hypothesis in this regard is often that scholars have some access to the conceptual framework of old Israel and can, therefore, discern how they understood their own texts. It is then stated as facts that old Israel would not have understood the historical information in their own texts as referring to historical events as such. We, for example, find in various editions of TEO, the academic journal of the Theological Department of the University of Pretoria, that the author says that the Israelites would not have held this or that interpretation of the text. Gerda de Villiers, for example, writes: "This text [about the flood] was never supposed to be taken literally: neither within the context of the theology of Mesopotamia nor that of old Israel" [9]. Now, this is quite remarkable that scholars can think that they are able to know the frame of mind of the ancient Israelites! Needless to say, they are wrong in this regard. They do not recognize that they can do no better than to develop their own ideas about those people's ideas.
 

The only support from archaeology for this presupposition about the credibility of the literary tradition came in the form of lack of evidence, i.e. that not enough evidence has been found to substantiate the general credibility the literary tradition. But this is problematic since, even though the greatest care is taken, there is no guarantee that evidence of any event or structure will ever be found (or that there would eventually be enough evidence to make any substantial claims about a particular find). There is absolutely no possibility that archaeologists can prove that the data found in most excavations are (even remotely) representative of the historical situation. Archaeological digs are not repeatable like experiments and do not give access to representative samples. We know today that the trust that those early (and even some more recent) scholars placed in the "empirical" evidence was misplaced since archaeology is not an empirical science [10].

Since the basic assumptions of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis are wrong, it could well be that this radical doubt regarding the historical information in the literary tradition is also wrong – implying that the texts could have been written at an earlier date than assumed and that it could contain credible accounts of early events. Various Biblical authors give the impression that great care was taken to accurately preserve their traditions [11]. It is important to note that none of the Mesopotamian motifs in the Book of Genesis (or the Pentateuch, for that matter) includes developments from the post-Old-Babylonian period (i.e. after the time of Abraham). There is no Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian influences per se in the Book of Genesis. This could imply that these Mesopotamian influences entered Israelite tradition at an early stage - much earlier than is generally assumed [12].

Traditional scholars have argued that this radical distrust of the literary tradition is wrong, especially since many of the details in the Pentateuch have since been confirmed, for example, in the patriarchal narratives in the Book of Genesis. Among these are the Elamitic incursion into Northern Syria in Abrahamic times (in 1822 BC [13]) under the leadership of King Kudu-zulu of Susa (the first part of the name, i.e. "Kudu", corresponds well with "Chedor" (or: Kedor) in the name of the leader mentioned in Gen. 14:5, namely Chedor-Laomer), visiting Semitic groups in Egypt (of special interest is the depiction of such a group with Abi-shai/r - the same Amorite name-type as Abraham - as leader, in the tomb of Khnumhotep II in 1838 BC [14]), the role of the God El as the father of the gods (corresponding with the Biblical "El-Elyon" [12]), the importance of the accompanying council of the gods in ancient Canaan (mentioned throughout the Old Testament text), the presence of the "Rephaim" in Canaan etc. This data corresponds remarkably well with the Biblical dating of Abraham (according to the Septuagint he left Haran for Canaan in ~1837 BC [15]). Traditional scholars argue that this evidence is more than what could reasonably be expected, given how far back those events date. 
 

The same could be argued for the Gospels. Once it is assumed that these were written long after the events, it is easy to also assume that they are not primary sources for the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. The distrust of the literary tradition is then also extended to other historical sources regarding the historicity of the Gospel narratives. The tradition mentioned by Papias (60-135 AD) (who is said by Irenaeus to have met St John and was a companion of Polycarp) that St Matthew recorded Jesus' sayings which the Biblical authors then interpreted, and that St Mark was the "recorder" of St Peter, are then also discarded. But even a post 70 AD date (which many traditional scholars reject) does not substantiate this radical doubt in the Gospel narratives. 

3. Achieving an objective perspective. One of the most important modernist presuppositions was that some objective perspective could be obtained about the milieu in which the text originated. This was part of the modern mindset which regarded the discipline as a science – in the sciences scholars are supposed to arrive at objective results, uncontaminated by any subjective opinion. It was therefore believed that the same objectivity could be achieved in Biblical Criticism and scholars went to great lengths to achieve this. 

In this regard, the work of Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), who later became known as the founder of the form-critical approach to the interpretation of the Biblical text, is of special importance. The impact of his work on Biblical Criticism is comparable to that of the Graf-Wellhausen theory – it had an enormous impact on the thinking of generations of later scholars. Gunkel believed that 1) the viewpoint of the Biblical authors was primitive since it was part of the conceptual framework of their time (according to him those people, for example, wrongly believed that the traditions delivered to them were grounded in fact) and 2) the modern viewpoint is objective, based on "facts". He wrote in his book Genesis [16]: "Following our modern historical world-view, truly not an imaginary construct but based on the observation of facts, we consider the other view entirely impossible".

Gunkel's approach to the Biblical text was primarily concerned with the oral sources behind the literary tradition (in contrast to the documentary sources which concerned Graf and Wellhausen). He developed a theory about such oral traditions found in the Biblical text, distinguishing various "literary genres" or poetic "forms" (for example prose, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament etc.) in the text (this approach is called "form criticism"). He postulated that these originated from oral traditions which took shape in the framework of certain communities with particular interests and agendas – in a certain Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"). The reconstruction of the place and conditions in which the stories originated would in his view enable scholars to determine the degree to which those accounts are grounded in fact.

Other scholars developed the theory further, aiming to establish the manner in which the oral tradition became incorporated into the written sources (this is called "tradition criticism") as well as the way that the sources were collected, arranged, edited and modified by particular authors and communities (this is called "redaction criticism"). With the development of these techniques, it seemed possible to refine the dates for the source documents which the Graf-Wellhausen theory proposed and to more accurately find the settings in which the literary traditions originated.

But is it possible to objectively determine the historical context in which the Biblical documents originated? Philosophers of science today accept that there is no such thing as "objectivity" in the hermeneutic (interpretive) disciplines to which Biblical Criticism belong [17]. All aspects of these disciplines involve "interpretation" – and many presuppositions (for the most part merely accepted by adherents of particular views) underlay such interpretations. As Biblical Criticism has shown, historical texts are complicated.  Scholars postulated hypothetical documentary sources, various "forms" in the text going back to earlier oral traditions, later editing done by various possible hands etc. – and on many of the details, there are numerous conflicting opinions among scholars.

Different scholars accentuate different aspects of the narrative and find different correlations with the historical situation in which it supposedly originated. Determining the interests and agendas of historic communities is an impossibility – how can we, who live so long after those events, be able to correctly reconstruct such details? How can we be sure that the questions we ask are the ones that they would have asked? We cannot! To suppose that we can know what the authors had in mind when they wrote particular stories is absurd. Scholars can at most reconstruct possible (or hypothetical) interests and agendas – and they would never be in any position to know if they are correct! Scholars would always in some way project their own interests, background, and sensibilities onto those historic situations – which is why many possible contexts in which the text could have originated can be reconstructed. We have absolutely no objective way to accurately determine the "correct" context in which the texts originated [18]!

Once it is assumed that the documents were written in a certain period (based, for example on reworkings of the Graf-Wellhausen theory) there is always some possible context that can be found in which it supposedly originated. The relevant historic period is usually of such complexity that some scholar would always be able to come up with some proposal as to how the text could have originated sometime during that period. It is always possible to find what one seeks for! This is why scholars always come up with new proposals in this regard.

There are, for example, recently some scholars who date the Yahwist source to the time of the Babylonian exile. A contemporary scholar writes in this regard: "One's dating of the story definitely influences the way you understand it. If the story is placed during the rule of David or Solomon, we must suppose a different group of readers and listeners than when it is placed during the Babylonian exile" [19]. This is generally true. Yair Hoffman from Seminar Hakibuzim College, Tel-Aviv, asks: "Is not anyone engaged in history or in the search of Sitz im Leben aware of the tentative, surmised character of any depiction of the past events and institutions?" [18] And for those traditional scholars who reject the Graf-Wellhausen theory; they would be able to envision other contexts which correspond with their view on the authorship of the Pentateuch.

This could also be illustrated for the Gospels. Many Biblical Criticism scholars argue that the late origin of the gospels imply that the various gospels were written by authors who represent various diverse community interests of Christians who did not have any direct contact with eyewitnesses of those events. These people tried to affirm their own perspective within the diverse spectrum of thinking which constitutes the Christianity of the late-first century Roman Empire. But traditional scholars (even those who accept a post 70 AD dating of the gospels) argue, using the same texts, that the gospels were written by the people who are mentioned in the Gospels (St. Mark, St Matthew, St Luke and St. John), who were all part of the same early church – which, although being diverse, still formed a loose unity. They find a context which assumes a close connection between Jesus and the authors of the gospels.

Biblical Criticism as a hermeneutic discipline

The modernist roots of Biblical Criticism and the presuppositions that characterize it have serious implications for the validity of the claims made in this discipline. Although I give only a broad overview of the scholarly material – an in-depth study is long overdue – it does show important areas of serious concern. Not only is the discipline not an empiric science as the early scholars assumed; it is not even possible to obtain an "objective" view of the historical context in which the text originated or any other views regarding the "message" presented in the text. The fundamental hermeneutic nature of all textual studies (Biblical Criticism included) imply that all interpretations would always be subjective and coloured by the interpreter's own background and preferences. 

Any student familiar with the work of the philosopher of hermeneutics, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), would know that "historical consciousness", as he calls this way of thinking, creates the "dialectical illusion" that one could master the past: "historical consciousness knows about the otherness of the other, about the past in its otherness, just as the understanding of the Thou knows the Thou as a person" [20]. He says that it is an illusion that one can get an objective view of the past. Such an "objective" view provides us with a reductionist perspective which destroys the true meaning of the text (for a good example, see [21]). More than this: the radical doubt of modernism shows flagrant disrespect for the text because it says that we cannot believe anything historical that those authors tell us. When we disrespect the voices in the text and force our views onto the text, we seriously undermine our own understanding of the text. To the extent that Biblical Criticism is stuck in the modernist framework, it has become divorced from these new developments in hermeneutics [17].

Both basic theories which formed Biblical Criticism as a discipline – and which are still accepted in some form by many Biblical Criticism scholars – have serious flaws. The theory of evolution of the Israelite religion on which the Graf-Wellhausen source theory is based – which formed the basis for the dating of the material in the Pentateuch – is wrong [22]. The assumption that the Mesopotamian motifs in the Book of Genesis are Neo-Babylonian, which was used in reworkings of the original theory, is also wrong [23]. Those motifs (and the accompanying worldview) does not incorporate any material that is Neo-Babylonian per se.

Even the basic idea of distinguishing such sources in the text has long been abandoned in literary criticism in general because of the highly speculative nature of the exercise. C. S. Lewis wrote: "There used to be English scholars who were prepared to cut up Henry VI between half a dozen authors and assign his share to each. We don't do that now... Everywhere, except in theology, there has been a vigorous growth of skepticism about skepticism itself" [24]. As for Gunkel's theory of poetic "forms", their supposed origin in oral tradition cannot be confirmed – it is impossible to determine if the author used an oral or written source and the context ("setting in life") in which it supposedly originated will always be a matter of conjecture – no "objective" point of view on the historical situation is possible.

The basic presuppositions of the discipline determine the parameters of the discipline. It determines the scholarly view on the dating of the texts, on the supposed context in which the texts were composed, on the credibility of the historical data contained therein and on the supposed way that scholars should (or should not!) read the texts. But what if these presuppositions are wrong? The physical and social sciences can use controlled experiments or samples - which ground the parameters of the paradigms developed in those sciences. But in textual studies no such grounds exist - this is the main difference between hermeneutic disciplines and empirical sciences.

All hypotheses in textual studies which crystallize in theories will always be provisional and would strongly reflect the paradigmatic assumptions of the discipline. Not even archaeology could provide a solid ground because it is also not an empirical science [11]. So it is in principle possible that a discipline like Biblical Criticism could go off in the wrong direction! And this is what the study of the modernist roots of the discipline shows: the credibility of the whole academic paradigm has been seriously undermined by these roots which established a certain modernist mindset and methodology in practice that will not be easy to change.

Some scholars have criticized the above-mentioned theories. R. N. Whybray wrote an in-depth criticism of source criticism [25] and form/historical criticism has also been criticized [18]. The general approach of Biblical Criticism has dramatically changed with the criticisms that post-modernism levelled against modernism. To use contemporary language: the speculations of these "diachronic" (i.e. "through time", historical) approaches have largely been replaced by "synchronic" studies (accentuating the unity of the texts) [18]. But at some universities (in South Africa, for example) it seems that some older (and even some young) scholars are stuck in the past and still try to defend the older perspective. We also find the persistent assumption that some objective perspective could be achieved as Kevin Vanhoozer mentions: "The reader assumed in much historical criticism was a disinterested, objective, apolitical scholar - in short, a myth... (but) the myth of objectivity dies hard " [26].

What I find disturbing is that no comprehensive criticism of the impact of modernism on all aspects of the discipline has been written, as one finds in other disciplines like archaeology. There are even some scholars who give the impression that their views constitute scientific "facts"; this is just plain wrong. When they present their views in such an unscholarly manner to the public, overstating the scientific nature of their work, it brings the discipline into disrepute.

Once it is recognized that Biblical Criticism is a hermeneutic (interpretive) discipline, it immediately follows that all forms of "criticism" are interpretive in nature. And since interpretation varies from scholar to scholar, various possible narratives about the origin of the texts are possible – including some that are not even considered by scholars. It is no wonder that one finds various streams of thought in the scholarly community – each of which typically quotes scholars with whom they agree. Although there are still those who are extremely intolerant of other views (especially of more conservative scholars), a broad spectrum of views have developed with a greater openness to other views. Some of these streams evolved from the inclusion of more traditional scholars in the discipline (due to the fact that it became part of ministerial education). But there can be no doubt that the metaphysical presuppositions of Biblical Criticism would always divide those who accept this, and those who ignore it for the sake of scholarly debate.

A much better way to approach the study of the past is through "historically effected consciousness", which starts from an openness to the other, a willingness to listen to the other. Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote: "I must allow tradition's claim to validity, not in the sense of simply acknowledging the past in its otherness, but in such a way that it has something to say to me" [20]. Readers and scholars from our generation are in conversation with the authors of those texts (and with many others who have already throughout the ages participated in this conversation). We, who are embedded within particular traditions or academic paradigms [5], converse with those authors, who are embedded in their own tradition. For an open conversation to take place, we must listen to those ancient Hebrew authors and the tradition which they represent. It is this complicated but nevertheless open conversational process between ourselves and the voices from the text that result in interpretation.
  
This obviously does not mean that we should uncritically accept traditional notions about the literary tradition. But it does mean that we should listen to the voices in the texts (as well as that of the tradition behind the text) which claim that they have gone through great effort to conserve an accurate account of their own history. The narratives in the text take us beyond contemporary speculations [27] back to the historical context with its inter-connectedness with the past, where it is grounded in the continuation of the earliest traditions of Israel. This forces us to consider the possibility that the information in the text was carefully handed down and go back to earlier periods than is generally accepted.

This is dramatically illustrated by the discovery of the ninth century (BC) Tell Dan Stela. Before this discovery, there existed a general consensus among many scholars that the early monarchistic tradition could not be trusted and that David was not a historical person [28]. When this stela, on which the words "house of David" appear, was discovered, it was so directly in conflict with the accepted position that the authenticity of the find was questioned - and even now many scholars try to minimize the implications of this evidence as far as possible (according to the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn [5] this happens all the time because of the paradigmatic resistance against change in the academic community).

Instead of learning from this experience and evaluating the basic presuppositions of the discipline in a more fundamental way, scholars in general only made some small (as small as possible) adjustments without questioning the basic aspects of their approach. In the physical sciences such an outcome - with the data contradicting the theory - would have cast serious doubt on the theory. What Colin Hemer said regarding the Acts of the Apostles, is also true for the rest of the discipline, namely that some have gone so far into the idea of “Lukan theology” that a re-examination of the plain facts in regard to historicity holds no sway with them.

In a certain sense, traditional scholarship is much closer to current hermeneutic thinking in their approach since they value the literary tradition. But they themselves often operate within a modernistic paradigm in which it is assumed that the traditional Biblical approach provides some objective access to the origin of the texts. This could be the reason why traditional scholars have not really been successful in exploiting the serious flaws in the Biblical Criticism paradigm due to its modernist roots.

What traditional scholars need to do, is show that their narratives are in certain respects better than those developed by Biblical Criticism scholars. Acceptance of the divine inspiration of the Biblical text and of supernatural events in the history of Israel does not exempt them from the basic requirement to develop reasonable narratives that could compete with those of Biblical Criticism scholars in the wider marketplace of public opinion. If this is done, there is no reason why Biblical Scholarship should be viewed as superior to traditional scholarship – both are hermeneutic approaches to the Biblical text; the only real difference is in their metaphysical view of the world.

Conclusion

In this study, I develop a critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline. The primary focus is on the modernist roots of the discipline and how that impacted on the present academic paradigm. I discuss the early efforts to establish it as an empirical science and how the misplaced trust in positive proof, with a deep distrust of the Biblical text as a valid source of information about the early history of Israel, led to the formulation of various theories as to how the text came into existence. The Graf-Wellhausen theory, based on the now abandoned evolutionary theory of the Israelite religion, led to a dramatic redating of the Pentateuch material. The refinement of this dating based on the supposed Neo-Babylonian origin of the Mesopotamian motifs in the Book of Genesis is also seriously questionable since no Neo-Babylonian motifs per se are present in the material. From this one can conclude that the whole process which led to the present day dating of that material could be seriously flawed and should be reconsidered.

The Gunkel theory of form criticism assumed that scholars have some objective perspective on the context ("setting in life") in which these texts came into existence. Once seemingly correct contexts have been identified within the framework of the redated periods in which the texts were supposed to have originated, the new perspectives became part of the newly formed paradigm of Biblical Criticism. When scholars eventually became aware of the total subjectivity of this approach - that many possible contexts would give acceptable results - this did not change their assumptions about the dating of the texts or the credibility of the textual tradition. But the raw reality of this is that it is impossible to correctly date the texts (of both the Old and New Testaments) using the historical-critical method! And the tendency to date the texts as late as possible continues. The only reason why this approach has not been seriously questioned in the past is that archaeological data (which could throw more light on this issue) is to some extent ambivalent and open to various possible interpretations.

Contemporary hermeneutics teach us to listen to the voices in the text, to "allow tradition's claim to validity" [20]. This implies that we should at least carefully evaluate the historical material in the text - and not radically doubt it as was done in the modernist past. We should accept that the correct contexts (there is after all only one correct context!) could be found in earlier rather than later periods. The validity of this position is illustrated by the discovery of the Tell Dan Stela which confirmed - in contrast with the general consensus at that time among many scholars - that David was a historical person. This example shows that Biblical Critical scholars should not be so sure of their own position that they immediately reject all alternative positions. In fact, it shows that the acceptance of the validity of the historical data in the texts (typical of traditional scholarship) could even bring us closer to the real historical situation than the historical-critical approach of Biblical Criticism.

What is needed is a more open-minded (and humble) approach in which other possible options are considered – both regarding the dating of the texts and the credibility of the textual tradition. The acknowledgement that Biblical Criticism is a hermeneutic discipline where various interpretations are possible forces scholars to accept the possibility that other views than their own (especially given the historical positivist bias in the discipline) could even be closer to the historical situation. Instead of a sceptical attitude – "we will never know the truth" which opens the field to any possible interpretation - we should listen to the voices in the text and value them in our interpretation.  Such a renewed alignment with recent developments in hermeneutics could provide strategies to establish well-argued narratives about the Biblical past [29].

Notes and references

[1] In a letter by Julius Wellhausen, cited in Robert J. Oden Jr. 1987. The Bible Without Theology. San Fransisco, CA : Harper and Row.
[2] Keunen, Abraham. 1969. Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. Amsterdam: Philo (reprint).

[3] G. E. Wright. 1947. "The Present State of Biblical Archaeology", in Harold R Willoughby (ed.). The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow. Chicago: University of Chicago.

[4] Smith, Colin. 2002. A Critical Assessment of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis. On the internet: vintage.aomin.org. This text contains lots of valuable data which I incorporated in my essay.
[5] Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.

[6] Soulen, Richard N. & Soulen, R. Kendall. 2001. Handbook of biblical criticism (third edition). Louisville: John Knox.

[7] Spivey, A. Robert and Smith, D. Moody. 1974. Anatomy of the New Testament, New York: MacMillan.
[8] Hemer, Colin J. 1990. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H Gempf). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
[9] TEO, 7 February 2012. The translation from Afrikaans is my own.

[10] Mc Loud, W. 2012. "A critique of archaeology as a science", posted on 19/8/2012 on the internet: wmcloud.blogspot.com. See below.
[11] Averbeck, Richard E. 2002.  "Mesopotamia and the Bible", in Mark W. Chavalas & K. Lawson Younger (jr) (eds.), Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method; Historiography and Temple Building.  Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
[12] For a full discussion see Mc Loud, W. 2012. Op soek na Abraham en sy God. Kaapstad: Griffel.

[13] According to the so-called "high chronology" in Mesopotamia.

[14] This date is based on the observation of the helical rising of Sirius during the reign of Senuseret III and assumes that it was done at Elephantine in the south of Egypt. See the calculations by Krauss, R. 1985. "Sothis- und Monddaten, Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie Altagyptens". Hildersheimer Agyptologische Beitrage 20.

[15] Exodus 12:40; 1 Kings 6:1; taking 967 BC as the fourth year of King Solomon's reign.

[16] Gunkel, Hermann. 1901. Genesis. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.

[17] Hermeneutics has a long association with Biblical Criticism. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834), one of the early scholars in this discipline, developed a formal theory of hermeneutics. He held the view that the scholar should enter the world and mind of the author of the text (in Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts. 1977. Heinz Kimmerle (ed.); James Duke and Jack Forstman (trans.). Missoula: MT:Scholars. This prefigured Gunkel's Sitz im Leben. But hermeneutics has changed drastically since that time. 

[18] Hoffman, Yair. 2003. Review of Martin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds). The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twentieth Century. RBL 07/2004.

[19] Spangenberg, Sakkie. 2009. Jesus van Nasaret. Kaapstad: Griffel (my own translation from Afrikaans).

[20] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Truth and Method (translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, second, revised ed.). New York: Crossroad. Gadamer is one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century.
[21] "Biblical prophecy: predicting the distant future?", posted on 2/4/2013 on the internet: wmcloud.blogspot.com. See below.
[22] This article does not focus on current variations of the JEDP source theory. Although some reasons for distrusting even these are present in this essay, this is not intended as a final discussion of the topic. For a more detailed critique, read A hermeneutical perspective on the Bible  
For an alternative view, read Who is Elohim?

[23] H Niehr's Der höchste Gott (1990) had a great influence on the dating of Biblical texts to an even later date. He proposed that the writers of the Hebrew Bible used the Canaanite mythology for their conception that Jahweh was the highest God. Central to his thesis, however, is the assumption that the Mesopotamian material used in the Book of Genesis dates from the post-Babylonian period. The problem is that none of this material incorporates anything from the post-Old-Babylonian period (even after the eighteenth century BC). A detailed discussion of Niehr's work falls outside the scope of this essay, but I plan to engage in more detail with it in later essays. 
Niehr, H. 1990. Der höchste Gott: allttestamentlicher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kanaanäisher Religion des I. Jahrtausends v. Chr. BZAW 190. Berlin: Gruyter.
[24] Lewis, C.S. 1992. Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism (originally titled Fern-seed and Elephants). New York: Ballantine Books.

[25] Whybray, R. N. 1987. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
[26] Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1995. "The Reader in New Testament Interpretation", Joel B. Green (ed.). Hearing the New Testament. Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids (Michigan): William B. Eerdmans.
[27] The recognition that objective views on the texts are not possible has led to the directly opposing post-modern view that no interpretation can take preference over another. In a certain sense modernism's silencing of the voices in the texts has opened the field for any possible interpretation being applied to the text according to all sorts of contemporary concerns. But this is to disrespect the texts in exactly the same way that modern man did - in this case the view that "one" objective interpretation could be obtained (according to the modernist presuppositions of the reader) is replaced with the view (which is at least implicitly accepted) that all interpretations are equally valid. Again the voices of the authors of the texts and the traditions they represent are silenced, disrespected and suppressed. What Gadamer's hermeneutics teaches us, is that we should value those voices. Although various interpretations of any text are always possible, these interpretations should at least be grounded in an open conversation in which there is an effort to really listen to the voices in the texts. Since texts always originate in a particular historical situation, an openness to the past holds (at least in principle) the prospect that some interpretations (which correspond the best to that situation) could be established as better than others provided that sufficient data becomes available. Although new data could open new possibilities for reinterpretation, all such interpretation should be done within the framework of an open and honest conversation.
[28] Thompson, Thomas L. 1999. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic Books. 
[29] Scholars should go beyond mere deconstructive strategies (see note 26). The fact that post-modernism has brought powerful criticisms against modernism does not imply that itself should be accepted as a viable alternative. We should navigate our way between these extremes. Gadamer's hermeneutics enable us to positively develop narratives that are sensitive to the voices in the texts (of both Israelite tradition as such as well as the individual authors) and which place the perspectives in the texts more central in our study of the past.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com) 
The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology. 
Readers are welcome to share the article with others.

Other relevant articles on this blog:
On the trustworthiness of the Biblical textual tradition: Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?
On the value of archaeology for Biblical Studies: A critique of archaeology as a science
On the South-African context: Om the glo of nie te glo nie...