Philosophy in the same sense as a bully telling a wimpy kid why it is right for him to steal the kid’s lunch money is philosophy.
You’re looking at it wrong. Visualize Jeremiah and associate scribes huddled over the parchment, the table littered with cups of wine and grapes.
Jerry: When I was a kid I heard someone tell a story from out East about a big flood. We can swipe that.We’ll change the name of the hero, give him a family and put in lots of animals. The kiddies will love it. By the time they find out the copyright will have expired.
Under Assistant Priest: I know that story. We can’t use it, in the original the two guys
Jerry: Were shtupping, sure. Not in our version - we’ll put that in the version we sell around the back of the temple.
Over Assistant Priest: We still have to work out the creation story.
UAP: Yeah, the North likes the one where Adam and Eve get created, the South likes the bit about Eve coming from Adam’s Rib.
Jerry: Great movie title! I know we’ll put them both in. eyes go wild and Jerry is a ringer for Johnny Depp in Ed Wood. No one will notice!
Some history (as seen through a certain filter), mostly fiction, some philosophy. I’ve never seen evidence that any such thing as a god exists, so at least for that part, total fiction.
I considered that as a philosophical book, but, no, it isn’t.
I’ll go one step further. We have little evidence that they had been passed down orally, just similarities with other tales. For all we know, someone wrote down his fantasy, conceived in a drunken stupor or after ingesting some bad beans.
And it’s highly probable that both are fiction.
The need the editors felt to combine incompatible stories is an argument that each had been passed down, and each was known enough so that not doing so would have been a problem. Sure each could have been written, but back then I have a hard time believing that enough people were literate to cause the editors to use both.
Eh. If Atlas Shrugged counts.
The Holy Galtspel!
For the books on Noah and Abraham, my belief is that those are basically accepted as aggregated and edited oral tradition. For Deuteronomy and the big declaration of laws to Moses, o quote the Wikipedia:
Hilkiah was a Hebrew Priest at the time of King Josiah. His name is mentioned in II Kings. He was the High Priest and is known for finding a lost copy of the Book of the law at the Temple in Jerusalem at the time that King Josiah commanded that the Holy Temple be refurbished (2 Kings 22:8). […] Rashi identifies the rediscovered book as the Book of Deuteronomy. Some argue that the Deuteronomic Code differs in tone and narrative style from the preceding four books of the Pentateuch while still referring to them throughout. Scrolls and books of later antiquity, particularly those of the Greco-Roman rule in Judea, were summarily discounted by Hebrew biblical redactors. Conversely this book, whose discovery is touted in 2 Kings, was therefore believed to have been of an early enough authorship to validate, not only its inclusion, but the book’s ultimate placement as the 5th of the “Five Books of Moses”.
So basically, the earliest “record” we have of where the documentation came from is that they “found” it just as they were preparing to start write the OT. If you believe them, then basically the answer is, “We don’t know who recorded it”. If you don’t believe them, then it was probably just made up by Hilkiah and his group.
This seems to be the prevailing view among academic Biblical scholars, which should be no surprise as it’s historically almost inevitable. Not only did earlier Greek and Roman civilizations have similar mythologies, some of them were even of an entirely secular nature; as the power and influence of the Roman Empire grew, an appropriate mythological past was invented to justify and celebrate its grandeur. The ancients had a much stronger sense of myth and mission than they did for any sense of historical accuracy. It’s been said that the Gospel writers wouldn’t have even understood what we mean by “history” in the modern sense of the word.
Not really. At least, not as far as John goes.
Only to 3, Mudhead. (Firesign Theatre quote, not an insult!) (Except to Ayn.)
This perhaps the most telling point. The Ark is mentioned over and over again in Judges and later. That is kind of believable, since many tribes have totems and it was probably sitting in the Temple, so it made sense to give it a history. The Torah is never mentioned, yet it is far more important. What happened to it? Being “found” (just like the golden plates) was probably a common way of giving importance to what the priests just wrote.
The only way it could be truly called the Word of God is if one believes the Psalmist who is quoted as saying " I said you are gods and sons of God" Jesus backs this idea up in John 10. He calls scripture Your Law, and reminds them of the quote from the psalmist.why he calls himself the son of God. It can be proven that The bishops of the Roman and Orthodox church decided what was from god and what was not.
Well, if any religious tradition has scriptures which they regard as divinely inspired/the word of God/whatever, it’s a logical necessity that somebody, at some point, discerned that this text was inspired/scriptural/the word of God and that text was not, and that the religious community which adheres to that tradition has accepted that judgment.
Of course it is just the belief that they were inspired, so the belief is in the minds of the believer and takes the early writer as telling the truth. A long way from any God writing or telling one to write or inspire them to write or say anything. Belief is then the belief in some other human not any God.
False dichotomy; there’s no logical reason why one has to believe in humans or in God. In the Christian tradition, which places the Incarnation at the centre of faith and history, it’s in fact always a case of both/and, not either/or. Thus there is no embarrassment on the part of Christians in taking the scriptures to be divinely inspired, and at the same time acknowledging that the canon of scripture was established through a distinctly human, and historically observed and recorded, process.
Of course that is belief, no one has ever proven God said or did anything. One can say the same thing about the Koran Those who believe in the word of Muhammad have just as much proof as Christians do about the Bible.
If that is true then God changes his mind a lot.
Interesting idea, but the premise is false. Islam relies on the Bible for its tradition. What I mean is, Islam claims Abraham, who is vouched for via the Bible, not the Koran. Without the Bible, Islam has no historical foundation at all.