成人论坛

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For me, this has been the most fascinating lecture to date.

An initial response.

Much has been made by some, including me, of the presuppositions of this course and it's non theological basis and one of the things I think this lecture might do is illustrate how each of us might hear the same words and yet respond very differently.

Professor Hayes makes no attempt, not that I detected anyway, to impose an interpretation on the text yet I find myself unable to avoid a particular understanding of the covenantal stories. Some of course might say that this response on my part has been learned but in reply I'll say that on this occasion I learned something new, I heard the stories slightly differently, and I heard them differently precisely because no interpretation was imposed; Professor Hayes simply outlined the words, raised questions and what she did was as beneficial as anything I've heard in church.

Some of the aspects of the story, particularly of Abraham I have heard and considered before, but her explanation of the Abrahamic covenant was all the more potent for being explained non theologically and then later, the translation (which I have never heard given before), "The lord will provide the sheep for the offering: my son." stopped me dead in my tracks.

Now I know that not everyone will 'hear' what I heard, and I'm not expecting others to make the NT connections that I make, but, two things, (1) the idea of covenant highlights an all pervading biblical theme running from beginning to end, it highlights a unity in the text, and (2) this lecture demolishes the idea that we cannot learn from secular or liberal scholars, one of their great strengths is that they deal with the text as is, and I guess that's what we're all supposed to do.

OK, really enjoyed this one.

Hi Peter

Good point about the lamb.

I may be mistaken, but I think I have heard it suggest that the term here actually mean a ram, which would augment your point even more.

The noun is masculine in hebrew but I cant stand it up any further than that right now.

As for faith students learning from secular academics, I think you and I have been clear from the very start of this series that we have absolutely no problem with this.

In fact, I dont think anyone has argued to the contrary here.

OT

Is it safe to talk about the Documentary Hypothesis? Have we moved past the "Pentateuch is the root of all evil" critique?

GV

鈥淚s it safe to talk about the Documentary Hypothesis? Have we moved past the "Pentateuch is the root of all evil" critique?鈥�

Sorry, Graham if anything the lecture underpins the claim that the Pentateuch is the root of all evil. Ishmael, as the father of the Arab nations and his specific role in this myth, still reverberates to this day. It鈥檚 interesting to see, back in the day, that they were kicking Arabs out of their homeland鈥�. A tradition that remains ongoing.

Regarding Abraham鈥檚 famous intent to sacrifice his son at the direction of his god, the first thought that came to my mind, not mentioned in the lecture, was that he was completed insane. Many an insane person has murdered because their god has told them to and been imprisoned or executed for doing so. I was sorry Prof Hayes did not mention the story of Jephthah and how he murdered his daughter in another insane encounter with a non existent deity. This time, this god did not stop the sacrifice鈥� poor kid.

A great lecture. I really enjoyed it. Yet I am left with the feeling that I seem to have more interest, and as a result more knowledge, about aspects of the christian faith than many who profess to follow it. It is difficult to respect those who blindly follow, (well profess to follow but how many do?) the scriptures in almost complete ignorance.

Regards
DK

DK

The Pentateuch explains Columbine? Dahmer? BTK murders?

You don't think that "threatened narcissism" might be a better explanation of violence, a la Baumeister?

What about the Khmer Rouge? Judaeo-Christian roots to their vision of a perfect society? No philosophical nihilism involved? No pseudo-marxism? Lot's of Christianity mulling around in Buddhist Cambodia, is there?

And if the Penateuch is the mere product of human nature, then isn't human nature the root of all evil?

Or would you rather postulate a "meme" that robs us of all responsibilty?

GV

ps- Burnthill Road means nothing to you?? I'm disappointed.

#6 Graham, this is really quite simple. The Penateuch with all of the loving god鈥檚 murderous laws influences humankind to kill one another, show me an atheist text that does the same.

There is an old saying (I may misquote but you will get the idea) of which I am sure you are aware. In a world without religion evil men will do evil things. But for good men to do evil things, for that, we need religion.

Our world will continue to have murderous atheist groups but the world could really do without the good people who kill because a text directs them to.

BTW I was born in Roden Street, Belfast and now live in Castlereagh.

#7 Will. Thank you for that insight, food for thought.
Kind regards
DK

David

Why would you call people who kill, good?

Good point, Peter, perhaps I should have said non psychopathic people who kill?

Regards
DK

David

Does that mean then that all crime, or all unacceptable behaviour is carried out by 'psychopathic people'?

It's just that I'm still wondering why you would call good people who do evil things, good.

Peter, perhaps I am wrong, but I sense a constructed naivety on your part in support of a flawed argument. We both know belief systems influence individuals to kill for no other reason than the fact that the victim is an 鈥榦utsider鈥�. The victim is not one of 鈥榰s鈥�. The Jew is murdered by the Christian, the Christian by the Muslim, the Muslim by the Jew etc鈥�.. The Catholic by the Protestant and the Protestant by the Catholic鈥� Shia 鈥� Sunni. 惭辞谤别鈥� more 鈥� the insider kills the outsider. People of high moral standing will kill for such causes. They will do brave things, often paying a terrible price in the name of some inside / outside belief system. On the 11th of the 11th we even mark such 'good' actions. But 'good as they were/are killing children, women, and non combatant men e.g. in Gaza or Germany is evil.

We, the godless will find reasons to go to war. However, we all could do with one less reason to kill i.e. in the form of the text we are discussing. A text full of reasons/excuses to kill others. A text, humanity created, but could well do without. Let us hope the contradictions, the mosaic constructions and the anachronisms contained in these beautiful verses lead humanity to a secular existence with all the failings that entails.


Kind regards

DK

"The Penateuch with all of the loving god鈥檚 murderous laws influences humankind to kill one another, show me an atheist text that does the same."

This analysis is on a level with arguments that try to show that Darwinism led to the Holocaust.

Just to show that you're oversimplifying horribly...
I would have thought that the Anarchist's Cookbook would have been a fairly good counterexample. Possibly the Marquis de Sade?

Anyhow's I has managed not to kill *too* many people even thoughs I's a naive redneck; some folks even read the Bible and come out pacifist!

My main gripe is that this discussion isn't really focused on the lectures. Maybe Will can start a different thread to let us thrash out the "root of all evil" argument.

GV

"We both know belief systems influence individuals to kill for no other reason than the fact that the victim is an 鈥榦utsider鈥�."

Again that's oversimplifying horribly - even in secular discussions. Can I ask who you're reading on this?
(But I'd rather have another thread to discuss this, and get back to the text and it's history.)

GV

David

I shall begin with a point of agreement, 鈥淲e both know belief systems influence individuals to kill for no other reason than the fact that the victim is an 鈥榦utsider鈥�. The victim is not one of 鈥榰s鈥�.鈥� and you will note what I said in post 53 on the Lecture 5 thread. I have not sought to deny in any way the wrong done in the name of religion.

A second point of agreement, 鈥渨e all could do with one less reason to kill鈥�, indeed.

But might I go on to say that there are many reasons for the injustice done by people against people, I鈥檓 sure we could make quite a list, race, national identity, wealth etc.

People do bad things. There many ways in which people justify these bad things, some ideas are bad. I have no disagreement with you there.

A couple of points though, where might we say these ideas come from, religious ideas of otherwise? You have already called the text one that 鈥渉umanity created鈥�. Are the people who do bad things because of their bad ideas, good?

And what about 鈥榮maller evils鈥�. Deeds which do not end in the death of another, or even the discomfort of another?

You see I鈥檓 a little dubious about 鈥榟igh moral standing鈥� (whatever that is). What about the little power games people play, the one-upmanship, gain at another鈥檚 expense, lack of thought, love, empathy which cause us trouble.

How do we deal with those? Surely they are at least unacceptable?

To be honest I don鈥檛 think I鈥檓 being naive at all, nor you will note have I attempted to support a 鈥榝lawed argument鈥�. I could have said what William said in post 7 and I could offer an understanding of Abraham and Isaac, but I didn鈥檛. And you haven鈥檛 really answered my questions in post 11.

Perhaps though we do need to return to this lecture and think on Abraham and what he learned.

Regards

Peter

It was interesting to see that Prof Hayes shares my views on history - confirmation, not that it is required, that her erudition is more than adequately matched by her intelligence. This lecture, however, while as interesting as usual, was over-shadowed by its source material. I have not enjoyed anything so much in a long time as my revisiting the story of Abraham. It is a story which must be of the greatest comfort to his successors, the relgious leaders of our own day, people like the Pope, Archbishop Rowan, and Moderator Stafford Carson.

I do not believe that God is in any way or in any sense active in the world, indeed I believe that, so far as is relevant for us, the only activity of God is His being what He is. What interests me then is that the reality of the faith of faithful Abraham is, at root, something very similar.

Abraham believes what God tells him to do even when that is unreasonably extreme. He follows unhesitatingly the commandments of God. He is prepared even to argue questions of right and justice with God. It is clear, however, that he accepts that God's is a moral authority: he persistently shows that he has zero confidence that God actually acts even though he has supposedly seen evidence to the contrary.听

In Genesis 20:11 we see this most clearly in the patriarch's response to Abimelech: Abraham obviously feels that while the fear of God might protect him he could not rely on the Divinity's intervening directly and personally to ensure his safety. We see the same attitude in the parallel incident at Pharoah's court, and, most of all, we see it in the machinations of both Abraham and Sarah to ensure the promised progeny.听

This is not some mild uncertainty as to whether or not God can act, it is a deep-rooted and practical certainty that He will not: a certainty so strong that it is prepared to disrupt the most binding ties, prepared to hand over to abuse and degradation that which it should most cherish and protect. Should we be surprised that Abraham was prepared to听sacrifice Isaac, afterall he was quite prepared to sacrifice Sarah?

Let's look at to-day's church leaders. Plus ca change!听

There is some excuse for Rowan - I doubt if his opinions and mine diverge greatly, he probably does feel that if he doesn't do his bit to keep the Anglican communion together God is not going to do it for him.

Joseph and Stafford fall into a slightly different category, I imagine. I'd be surprised if they did not profess to believe that God has 'the power', God can and does act, God intervenes in history. The story of Abraham alerts us to their self-deception.

If the Pope believes Christ holds the Church in the palm of His hand sustaining and protecting it by His power, why was it necessary to sacrifice the victims of generations of abuse, dear to God, to do for Him that which He has promised He will do Himself?

If successive moderators really believed in the active power of God why would they feel the need to sustain the patent fiction of the separation of the PCI and the PMS? Why would they allow the actions, repugnant to God, of those rich Christians who would satisfy their own greed at the expense of their poorer brethren to pass without comment far less challenge?

The story of Abraham shines a spotlight on the paucity of their actual faith. They at least can take comfort in the thought that God can still use them and bless them (though less fully than if their faith had been real). Others of us do not have that luxury.
听
听听

I don't know how I once thought we might manage two lectures a week! Trying to do at least some reading around the subject - vital for any course of study - is really absorbing of time but it is time well spent.

There are two nuggets from the Abraham story I must relate for anyone who has not been able to make the time for that extra reading. One is mildly amusing but the other almost unbearably profound.

The first is from chapter 18, verses 12 and 13. Who would ever have thought that the Lord God Almighty is a diplomat? Sarah laughs to herself when she overhears the promise that she will bear a son, giggling at the thought of Abraham's being able to pleasure her - and he so old. When the Lord recounts Sarah's laughter to Abraham He displays an extraordinary sensitivity to male pride, suggesting that Sarah had been bemused by the thought of conceiving - and she so old. Makes one wonder whether, if Scripture is inspired, Helio's preferred pronoun for the author might not be correct.

The second is from chapter 22. It is interesting that Isaac shoulders the wood and bears it to the place of sacrifice but what is horrifying is the omission in the question he asks his father. The narrator notes the father and son take three components for the sacrifice: the wood, a firepot, and a knife. Isaac but mentions two: he says to his father "Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep?" He does not mention the knife. Uriel Simon notes that this is because he cannot bring himself to name his fear, to do so would be to make it too real to bear. The pathos of the situation is excruciating - Isaac knows what is about to happen and is utterly terrified at the prospect. His question alerts his father so that he knows that he knows and yet the two of them walk on together.

Parrhasios

I cannot, obviously, speak for any of those you mentioned, however, given my theological background, may I be permitted a response?

You speak of how Abraham fails to demonstrate confidence in God to intervene in the immediate circumstances of his life and, reasonably, suggest that this is true also for many of those whose faith expects or at least acknowledges the idea of an intervening God. I am familiar with the dilemma as expressed by you and indeed those in my own tradition who recognise it when they speak of 鈥榰nanswered鈥� prayer.

You cite the specific example of the PMS (and you will know my views on this) but, more generally the question may be asked of those who believe in a God who intervenes in history, how much faith do we actually have?

May I respond this way, beginning with my own understanding. I grew up, physically and theologically in a tradition which emphasised that God responds to and works through prayer. However it is patently obvious, to those who are prepared to be honest about it, that there is at least some inconsistency. God is thanked for positive answers, yet negative ones are ignored. Another example might be that we pray in faith for, say, a new bus, while at the very same time we begin a fund-raising campaign. Then, when the bus is purchased, after a number of reminders of the need to be generous, God is thanked for answering the prayer for said bus. The whole thing is patently illogical. The bus is not the result of prayer, rather it is the result of a raising money. Ultimately we did it ourselves, but we are pleased with our faith. Others may not be prepared to say it, but I am. This approach to trusting God might be applied to anything. We want to buy a house and our offer is accepted by the other party and it is the house God wants us to buy. The examples are myriad, and most are nonsense.

The problem as I see it is this, we are understanding faith, and the activity of God in history in almost exclusively personal and individual terms but I do not think that this is the kind of faith the bible calls us to. Rather we are called to trust what God has already done in Jesus and will do in terms of the redemption of the earth. We look to God for what he has promised to do, not what we think we want him to do.

Can I trust God that I will have heath tomorrow, no I cannot, I have no guarantee of health, will my prayers for my children be answered, perhaps not, however it is not these in which I place my faith. Can I by prayer, or sufficient faith, influence God, I do not think so, but by prayer God can change me. Have I faith to die well as well as live well?

Regarding Abraham. I do not read then that Abraham has zero confidence (he is not, of course full of hope!) rather, when I read the story I鈥檓 not primarily thinking of Abraham and what he does, I鈥檓 learning to look at what we are told God does in spite of Abraham. God, it seems is acting out a play in history, telling us what he is like, what journey he and his son will one day take. Remember the covenant, the obligation is all his. Perhaps this is what Abraham is learning, bit by bit, doubtful action by doubtful action, that this God is different, that this God can be trusted; perhaps it begins with the sheep in the thicket. Perhaps bit by bit the pieces fall into place, that it's not 'having faith' that counts rather it is God that counts.

Faith is not, faith that God will act in history to do my will, it is faith (learned slowly) that he will act in history to do his will.

I鈥檓 sure not trusting my faith!

Peter - that was an excellent response and there is really very little, if anything, in it with which I would feel the need to take issue. You echo the thoughts of the commentator in the JSB who says "In the Tanakh, faith does not mean believing in spite of the evidence. It means trusting profoundly in a person, in this case the personal God who has reiterated His promise". You know my own difficulties with the idea of a personal God but it seems to me that, objectively speaking, this is very much what the text is saying and you have got it exactly right.

My point, however, was narrower perhaps than I made clear. Let me expand. Pamela Reis' book has made a profound impression on me. This is what she says at the end of her discourse on Hagar: "Through the narrative of Israelite history, readers learn that afflicting the disadvantaged is an abomination to God, whoever the victims". That word, "abomination", so often in the past a word I have hated, brings nothing but joy when it is used aright!

I was not accusing our modern church leaders of deficiency in their personal faith - I was accusing them, like Abraham, of perpetrating abominations in the sight of God. I was saying that their willingness to do so allows a person to look at their actions and say there is no sign of faith, no witness there.

A more apposite analogy for my point would be that of the pastor who came home and said to his wife "Honey, the church roof is coming down and the building is going to fall in around us. I've been thinking: we need money to keep the show on the road; you and the kids could go on the game and I'll go down to Widows' Row and pinch the old dolls' savings".

I am saying that our leaders are on this precise level, that they have chosen the path of abomination to protect the work of God. If that is faith, thank God I have none of it.

I am not sorry that I seethe with anger when I see injustice. The actions of the Pope, successive Moderators, Archbishop Rowan all make me think of St Paul's "clanging cymbals". Failure to act justly does not just undermine witness, it eliminates it.

I have criticised the moderators but, on a positive note, your own honesty is a consistent testimony to an evangelical Presbyterianism one might respect or desire. I must also note that, at the evangelical CoI service I attended tonight, there was exemplified in a very simple straight-forward way the sort of faith which, though foreign to my own history, provokes thought.

On the Documentary hypothesis:

A key text, if not the key text seems to be Exodus 6V2-4.

"I am [Yahweh]. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name [Yahweh]."
This is a problem, of course, because the Patriarchs did seem to know God as Yahweh.

As Hayes states the proposed solution of the Documentary Hypothesis鈥�

鈥淛 wants to assert a direct continuity between the God of the patriarchs, and the God of the Exodus. The P and E sources tell it a little differently. Exodus 6:2-4, a very important passage, is assigned to P, and here God says, Now, this contradicts the J source, and many scholars have suggested that P and E preserve a memory of a time when Israel worshipped the Canaanite god, El.鈥�

As solutions go, I can鈥檛 see how that helps. (J) is the oldest source (allegedly). So the (J) material was well established. Monotheism was also established by the time that the Pentateuch was put into its final form. Why would later redactors want to preserve material that runs contrary to monotheism? Why attempt to synthesise El with YHWH when you could simply erase all mention of El? Why draw attention to ancient Israelite traditions that challenge the new Judean consensus? Why edit the Patriarchal narratives so inconsistently? 鈥� sometimes references to YHWH are thick, sometimes YHWH disappears and El resurfaces. But there is no predictable pattern.
In other words it isn鈥檛 entirely clear what the motives and strategy of (P) were. There seems to be a lot to lose, and very little to gain from this strategy. If they wished to suggest that the Patriarchs knew God only as 鈥淓l鈥�, and where prepared to edit accordingly, why make such a shabby job of it? Why not remove all mention of YHWH until Exodus? And why would the name of YHWH be removed/inserted so unevenly?
It鈥檚 not that I鈥檝e a good neat solution to the problem in Exodus 6 v 2-4, beyond mentioning the connection between name and character. But the Documentary Hypothesis would be a rather complicated solution that doesn鈥檛 explain the text any better than simpler theological solutions.
Given that ANE gods were often known by different names and that 鈥渄oublets鈥� were common in ANE literature, I鈥檓 not sure what commends the Documentary Hypothesis. This isn鈥檛 claiming victory for conservative theology-the same point has been made by Whybry and others.

GV