This thread is about the OT.
I don’t think this argument holds any water at all.
Scenario A: The Exodus story was made up by people who weren’t familiar with Egyptian politics at the time of the alleged events.
Scenario B: There really was some sort of slave revolt, and the political instability of Egypt was one of the conditions that made it possible. The last thing the Biblical authors would have wanted to do is include those kinds of real historical details, because they would distract from the central theme of “God did it by miracles”.
In either case, we wouldn’t expect the Bible to dwell on the internal politics of Egypt.
So, it’s entirely fictional or its just a cover-up that leaves out much detail.
So in neither case is the story real history, is what you just actually said. It’s a story intended as propaganda either way.
But you want us to believe the version that has the extra layer of complexity (and complete lack of archaeological evidence) is the way to bet?
Though that requires explaining why they invented that particular story about that event and choose to remember it as a fact .
That’s more complicated than just it’s a historical source that was probably inspired by a real event.
Sumerian, Greek, Hebrew, Akkadian, Cheyanne, and some Hindu myths also. There are more.
Note that bit by bit some parts of the OT are being verified. We know know there was a King called David- likely of that area. Other than that name, general period and area- we dont know anything else.
Omri is the first well documented King of Israel. Before him, mostly little bits and pieces and tantalizing hints , like “The House of David”. Archeology moves forward.
Keeping to just the OT here.
Easy, because they didn’t invent much of it. The Sumerians did. J, D, P, and E, as the anonymous sources are referred to today, took a pot of myth already proven to work and scooped out portions of it that fit the times and places they were writing in.
Thinking otherwise is like saying that the Americans invented democracy, instead of appropriating bits and pieces they knew from earlier writings.
Or they also remembered vaguely stories from their ancestors about a big flood. I mean, there really was a huge flood (or a couple) that really wiped things out in the Tigris/Euphrates area.
Vaguely remembered stories about local events enlarged to apply to all of creation is a good working definition of myth.
And, often, politics.
But just for that much information, the scriptures could probably be regarded as reliable anyway. I mean, we know that that people existed, and they must have had rulers, and some of those rulers must have been greater than others. And if they say that one of their greatest rulers was named David, well, there’s no particular reason to doubt that.
We can also go further. While the Biblical stories of David are, overall, complimentary to him, and it’s clear that his people held him in high esteem, some of the stories are not so flattering, like the affair with Bathsheba. Pure hagiography would have left those stories out, and pure mudslinging by a political rival would have left out all of the positive bits, so the simplest explanation was that the story was recorded by someone who was interested in recording the true story, good and bad parts alike. And again, that’s not exactly an extraordinary claim: Powerful men having illicit affairs with women is a tale as old as time.
Now, David slaying a giant warrior with nothing but a sling, when he was only a boy, yeah, that’s likely to be a complete invention (especially since there was another biblical hero who was also credited with the same feat). Or him personally sneaking into a rival’s camp and sparing him, but stealing his spear to prove that he could have killed him: Maybe there was a grain of truth there, but likely highly exaggerated.
IMO, the miracles are the part of the story that’s LEAST likely to be based on actual events. Trying to rationalize them with scientifically plausible explanations feels kinda silly.
Or written to point out that even a big ruler among humans has flaws that displease God, who is supposed to be the ruler of all mankind. That’s a recurring theme in the Bible, that even the most important prophets and leaders erred before God. Even Jesus in the gospels had his weak moments of doubt.
Or better- legends.
Sure, reasonable extrapolation.
OK, that’s another motivation for including the negative stories (beyond a valuing of truth in its own right), but even there, I’d think it most likely that the writer would have used David’s actual sins (because after all, everyone DOES have failings), rather than inventing sins for him, and the story would still be accurate.
Again thats a pretty complicated explanation. Definitely not the Occam’s razor conclusion
There are definitely very few characters, even among the ones the reader is supposed to admire the most, that don’t screw up somehow. Noah gets drunk and blacks out naked. Jacob receives his father and steals his brother’s birthright. Simon and Levi massacre the people of Schechem. Moses draws water from a stone himself instead of calling on God to do it. Jephthah rashly promises a sacrifice that winds up being his daughter. Samson breaks his Nazirite vows one by one. Solomon taxes the Samarians into poverty to pay for his increasingly opulent lifestyle and allows his hundreds of wives and concubines to introduce the worship of foreign gods. The prophets by and large seem to be portrayed hagiographically, but even then they’re harsh and merciless at times (Samuel cursing Saul, Elisha summoning bears to kill children for mocking his baldness, etc.)
I don’t recall Deborah, Gideon, or Ruth doing anything wrong, but they’re minor characters at best, and most scholars and rabbis will probably tell you that Ruth is 100% fiction.
Yes, of course. The Biblical authors were not trying to do “history” in the modern academic sense, even less than Herodotus was. I figured everyone knew that.
As described by Mel Brooks’ 2000-Year-Old Man:
INTERVIEWER: Did you believe in anything?
OLD MAN: Yes, a guy – Phil. Philip was the leader of our tribe.
INTERVIEWER: What made him the leader?
OLD MAN: Very big, very strong, big beard, big arms, he could just kill you. He could walk on you and you would die.
INTERVIEWER: You revered him?
OLD MAN: We prayed to him. Would you like to hear one of our prayers? “Oh Philip. Please don’t take our eyes out and don’t pinch us and don’t hurt us….Amen.”
INTERVIEWER: How long was his reign?
OLD MAN: Not too long. Because one day, Philip was hit by lightning. And we looked up and said…”There’s something bigger than Phil.”
Then the only issue is if there is any evidence that there’s a case for option B not A. And the data says there just isn’t.
I’ve wondered if the book of Job is similar to this thread. I think to some Protestants, it is important but maybe not other faiths. One of my cousins read that Job is sometimes written about as a historically wealthy man who lost everything material but kept his faith.
But the man wasn’t in my Western Civ classes as opposed to famous leaders like Hammurabi or someone of a similar time. He wasn’t mentioned like moguls from other ages.
IIRC, Job is the work of at least three separate authors - the principal author who wrote Job’s monologue and conversation with his three friends and God’s two speeches, the author who inserted Elihu’s monologues, and the author who wrote the framing tale about God sending the satan to torment him. Job is mentioned in Ezekiel (which predates the book of Job by several centuries) as being of comparable righteousness to Noah and Jacob, but the story in the book bearing his name is fiction.