Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Looking for a book recommendation


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Steven

Steven

    Upsilon

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 12:09 PM

Hi folks
I'm back in UK briefly and have got a UK Book Token to use up (I hate these things, you can't use them on Amazon, so you pay more to wait a month for the book to be in stock then pay again in petrol to go and pick it up :gagged: )

I was thinking of getting a book that's a scholarly conservative defence of the OT against books such as

Posted Image Posted Image
Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Paperback) by Robin Lane Fox (Author)
101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (Paperback) by Gary Greenberg (Author)

My problem is that I know a lot about 1stC, and can see through the total nonsense that is usually thrown at the NT Canon very quickly, but
I'm not really an OT buff, though I've got the standard works on the Hebrew text and canon. As OT background I've only got Frank Moore Cross' "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic", and a few bits and bobs, but that's about it. For example, I wouldn't be able to spot someone being dishonest about placing a story about the baby Sargon in the bulrushes before Moses when it actually dates from 800 years after Moses (not without having to dig around in the Anchor Bible Dictionary anyway), so I'd have to depend on decent scholarly footnotes and enough information to know when it's just opinion.

As a lot of these anti-OT arguments are also used by Muslims (and answers on www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/ ) I will PM BeardedJohn.

Can anyone recommend anything?
S

#2 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,375 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 12:29 PM

?

The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective
by James Barr

To order this book - it is on my list ... and just a suggestion.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#3 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,375 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 12:49 PM

Perhaps on the list also to purchase...

On the Reliability of the Old Testament
by K. A. Kitchen

if any have already read these two books, I would appreciate comments too on the value and purchase.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#4 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 03:01 PM

I second Kitchen's work. I really want to get it myself. It's considered a standard work in the field, and is apparently well respected even by his adversaries. I have attached several of Kitchen's short papers responding to Old Testament textual criticism. They're a good read.

I have also attached an excellent article responding to Finkelstein and Silberman's infamous work.

Attached Files


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#5 Steven

Steven

    Upsilon

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 09:37 AM

I second Kitchen's work. I really want to get it myself. It's considered a standard work in the field, and is apparently well respected even by his adversaries. I have attached several of Kitchen's short papers responding to Old Testament textual criticism. They're a good read.

I have also attached an excellent article responding to Finkelstein and Silberman's infamous work.


Kay, Fort, Thanks,
Apparently Kitchen is known personally to at least one Christadelphian academic working in OT area, and comes highly recommended.
This looks like exactly the book, so I've ordered it, in hardback because with 662 pages if it is this good it'll get re-read.
Looks like 2003 was the first edition, which means there's probably a review in the Testimony since then?
God bless
S.

#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:10 AM

Here's a review of the 2003 edition of Kitchen in BibSac:

On the Reliability of the Old Testament. By Kenneth A. Kitchen. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. xxii + 662 pp. $45.00.

Kitchen may be the preeminent Old Testament apologist of the past one hundred years. Not since the days of Robert Dick Wilson, William Henry Green, and Oswald T. Allis has there been a scholar as well equipped and as ready to take up arms in defense of the historicity and general reliability of the Old Testament record. In addition to numerous articles in support of such matters Kitchen authored the well-known handbooks Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1966) and The Bible in Its World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), among others. And all this by an Egyptologist best known outside evangelical circles for his authoritative works in that discipline such as The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 b.c.) (Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips, 1973) and Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt (Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips, 1983).

The present work, though technically not a history of Israel, is concerned primarily to reestablish the Old Testament as a reliable record of that history in the face of postmodern attempts to rob it of any semblance of historical credibility. In his response to these approaches Kitchen regularly makes the transition from apologist to polemicist, a move not surprising to readers familiar with his other works. This may vitiate the effectiveness of his arguments among the targets of his frequently withering attacks, but they are not likely to read his work anyway for the very reason he suggests, namely, a closed-system a priorism that refuses to examine any evidence outside their own predetermined boundaries. Others, however, will read Kitchen with appreciation, perhaps even glee, where he “lets ’em have it” or “gives ’em what they deserve.” This is not likely to be productive if the intention is to understand opposing positions and know how to respond to those deemed intellectually and theologically deficient.

Kitchen’s method seems at first to be wrong-headed because he begins at the end and ends at the beginning. That is, he traces the history of the postexilic period first and then works his way back to the very beginning, what he calls “Back to Methusaleh—and Well Beyond.” The rationale for this, however, is quite clear and sensible, for Kitchen wants to begin with an era best documented by extrabiblical data and then, having made a strong case for the Old Testament’s reliability there, to move to earlier times where such evidence is increasingly rare. The point is that if late periods of history can be shown to be corroborated by unimpeachable secular sources, it follows a fortiori that earlier ones should at least be given presumptive benefit of the doubt.

On the whole, Kitchen makes a good case for his thesis, but sometimes he does so at the expense of self-consistency or even by fudging on matters of historical event, especially where the supernatural is involved. Speaking of the death of Sennacherib’s army, for example, Kitchen explains the “visitation that brought sudden death to a large part of the Assyrian force,” as “food poisoning or whatever?” (p. 41). There is no word here of direct divine intervention. More serious, however, is his attempt to support a late date for the Exodus—a position for which he is well known—in light of evidence to the contrary. He dismisses Bryant Wood’s compelling arguments for an early fourteenth-century destruction of Jericho by simply asserting that P. Bienkowski “corrected” Wood, but Kitchen does not say how (p. 544 n. 89). He then ignores the three-hundred-year period from the beginning of the Conquest to the judgeship of Jephthah by deriding Jephthah as “a roughneck, an outcast” whose words are “nothing more than a brave but ignorant man’s bold bluster in favor of his people” (p. 209). Kitchen has no grounds for such an assertion, but he must in some way rid himself of the three hundred years that anchor the Conquest (and hence the Exodus) in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Resort to begging the question in this way does not help his case.

At another point Kitchen admits that Moses could not (or did not) return to Egypt from Midian until a new king reigned (p. 296). He says nothing, however, about the fact that the king whose death cleared the way for Moses’ return had to have reigned for at least forty years according to clear biblical testimony (Exod. 2:23; cf. 4:19; 7:7). That being the case, Ramesses II, Kitchen’s pharaoh of the Exodus, is disqualified since only he reigned that long in the nineteenth dynasty and therefore his successor would have been the Exodus king. But that was Merenptah, whose reign commenced after 1214 b.c. and who in his fifth year already mentioned Israel in a famous monument found at Thebes. The Exodus could hardly have occurred in his reign! This leaves only Amenhotep II (ca. 1427–1400) of Dynasty 18 as the pharaoh of the Exodus, for only he followed a king (Thutmose III) who reigned for at least forty years. The only way to discount this evidence is to deny the forty-year duration of Moses’ Midianite sojourn and thus to violate Kitchen’s own general method of taking the biblical historical data at face value.

This said, the fact remains that Kitchen has left all students committed to biblical factuality greatly in his debt. The erudition of this work is breathtaking, the scope of its treatment most impressive, and the cogency of the case as a whole most convincing. Serious students cannot and must not ignore it.

Dallas Theological Seminary. (2005; 2006). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 162 (vnp.162.646.242-162.646.244). Dallas Theological Seminary.


Kitchen's theological background needs to be remembered when presenting his material to skeptics and atheists. Also, as he is primarily an Egyptologist you'll find some who don't accept him as an authority outside that field.

Here's another review, very favourable, but from an Evangelical journal less balanced than BibSac:

On the Reliability of the Old Testament, by K. A. Kitchen. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Pp. 662.

Kenneth Kitchen is one of the premier Egyptologists in the world today. He has written many works that address the issues of Old Testament studies and ancient history. One of his well-known works, The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, has been used by evangelical seminaries since the 1970s and is a classic in the field. This most recent work is a culmination of his earlier work as it enhances and brings it up-to-date.

Kitchen begins this work with comments on the current state of contemporary Old Testament research. He is disturbed by “increasingly extreme views” about the study of the Old Testament and the “gross misinterpretations of original firsthand documentary data from the ancient Near East... regardless of the real facts of the case.” Much of what passes as sound scholarship today is nothing more than “political correctness” which assumes that “the Old Testament writings are unreliable and of negligible value” (xiv). The purpose of Kitchen’s work is to expose these biases and to examine the ancient Near Eastern data and the Old Testament in a more objective fashion.

Many scholars today maintain that the writings of the Old Testament were not recorded until late in Israel’s history in the Persian and Greek periods (400-200 B.C.) and are nothing more than fiction. Kitchen contends that these views do not square with what we know of the history of the ancient Near East. He refers to the recent archaeological finds which include twenty thousand tablets discovered in Syria at Mari that date to the eighteenth century B.C., as well as the finds at Ebla, Ugarit, and Emar. Many of these documents, due to their massive number, have still not been examined at the present time. Yet we do know enough about the ancient Near Eastern treaty forms (analogous in structure to the biblical covenants, tracing six different phases), each with its own distinctive format. But perhaps more pertinent to Kitchen’s argument, these myriads of inscriptions indicate how widespread the phenomenon of writing early was in the second millennium B.C. Since writing was so widespread in the ancient Near East, centuries before the time of Moses, why did Israel lag so far behind so as not to produce records of her history until a millennium and a half later? One senses at the outset that biblical documents, due to their theological implications, are not treated in the same manner as “secular” inscriptions.

Kitchen arranges his work based upon the phases of Israel’s history that have the most extrabiblical support. Thus, he begins his discussion of the periods of Israel’s history by addressing the time period of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah. What Kitchen does in this chapter is to isolate all of the non-Israelite kings mentioned in this time frame and then examine extrabiblical inscriptions to see if their reigns can be substantiated. Of the twenty foreign rulers mentioned during the time of the divided kingdom when the northern and southern kingdoms were frequently in contact with other nations, Kitchen demonstrates that all but two, or possibly three, of these rulers are attested in external records from the ancient Near East. What’s more, nine of fourteen Israelite kings are mentioned in these extrabiblical sources! Of the five kings not mentioned, three of them (Zechariah, Shallum, and Pekahiah) had combined reigns of less than two years, while two others (Jehoahaz and Jeroboam II) reigned when Assyria was not at all active in the area of Syria and Palestine. Furthermore, extrabiblical Hebrew inscriptions mention nine of the kings of Israel and Judah who ruled during the time of the divided monarchy. With all of this supporting data one should draw no other conclusion than the biblical records which record the events of this time period are completely reliable.

The next era of Israel’s history that Kitchen addresses is the time of exile and return, the period that follows the divided kingdom. The events and type of life reflected in works such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther are in complete harmony with sources from the Persian period. Moreover, the use of Aramaic for correspondence in Ezra and Nehemiah, the lingua franca of the period, testifies to the authenticity of these biblical books.

From the exile and return, Kitchen moves to the period of the united monarchy. During the previous two periods we have noted that there is a vast amount of data that overlaps with the biblical period and even mentions biblical people and events. But this material postdates the critical year 853 B.C. This date marks not only the beginning of Assyrian sources recording the names of their adversaries but also the beginning of Assyria’s contact with Israel. In that year Shalmaneser III had hostile contact with Ahab, king of Israel. Perhaps the most significant archaeological find of the period is the Tel Dan stela excavated in 1993 and 1995. At this site an inscription was uncovered that is now known to be the first nonbiblical reference to David. The inscription refers to David as the founder of the Judean dynasty and has been dated to a mere 150 years after David’s death.

Kitchen refers to two important parallels between biblical data and ancient Near Eastern discoveries. First of all, the boundaries of the homeland of the Sumerian Empire during the reign of Ur Nammu (2100 B.C.) are virtually identical in form to the boundary descriptions of Joshua. In addition, a scene in the tomb chapel of the vizier Rekhmire (circa 1450) shows mainly foreign slaves “making bricks for the workshop-storeplaces of the Temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes.” This description provides a historical parallel for the work of the Israelite slaves in Egypt.

Nothing in the writings from Exodus to Deuteronomy is out of place with what we know of the ancient Near East around Moses’ time in the second millennium B.C. If these archaeological finds had been known late in the nineteenth century, the critical reading the Old Testament popularized by Julius Wellhausen that became “mainstream” would never have been conceived. As Kitchen laments: “One can only shake one’s head in sorrow over the sad history of Old Testament scholarship in the last two hundred years” (497) and, “Let us agree to part with imaginary and outdated evolutionary schemes and give them decent and final burial” (499).

The book is well written and extremely well documented. The reader will also find Kitchen’s dry, British wit rather entertaining. This can be seen in some of his chapter titles such as: “The Empire Strikes Back—Saul, David, and Solomon” and the chapter on the Patriarchs—”Founding Fathers or Fleeting Phantoms.” When all is said and done, Kitchen convincingly shows that the writings of the Old Testament come out remarkably well when they are treated fairly and even-handedly.

This work is of great apologetic value for those who question the history and authenticity recorded in the Old Testament. Kitchen is up-to-date on archaeological discoveries relating to the Old Testament. He thoroughly documents major and recent finds for those who want to pursue the discoveries further. His methodology is “to seek to be as factually based as possible, in dealing both with the biblical text as a transmitted artifact and with the rich if intricate external materials” (222). The book is valuable for all those interested in Old Testament history and could be profitably read in conjunction with works that focus on Old Testament history. For the pastor who is especially interested in preaching Old Testament texts and seeks to interact with critics of the Bible, this source serves a great purpose. Also for pastors who minister to those who have been influenced by liberal thinkers (who have made it their ambition to undermine the authenticity of the Bible), this would be a great tool to place in their hands.

The work is a great monument and tribute to a man who throughout his academic life has sought to let the Bible speak for itself.
Mark F. Rooker

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. (2004; 2006). Faith and Mission Volume 21 (vnp.21.3.113-21.3.116). Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:13 AM

Another review. Note the parts in bold - Kitchen is not as 'conservative' a Christian as others, and he doesn't attempt to defend all of the miraculous elements in the Bible:

On the Reliability of the Old Testament. By K. A. Kitchen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, xxii + 662 pp., $45.00.

By trade and training an Egyptologist, by avocation an OT scholar, and by instinct and interest an apologist, K. A. Kitchen marshals his wide-ranging knowledge and the fruit of decades of intensive research to produce this magnum opus, one that clearly reflects all three facets of his scholarly career. Its title is suggestive of his convictions and characteristically refreshing candor regarding the OT and the need to provide defensible arguments as to its nature and character. Those of us who have benefited from Kitchen’s contributions to OT scholarship—beginning in a significant way with his Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Tyndale, 1966)—welcome the present work as a culmination of a lifetime of rigorous and unflinching dedication to the task of setting the OT on a solid bedrock of credibility as a historical text. Kitchen’s effort is grounded not in dogmatic or theological givens, but rather is the product of painstaking attention to history, archaeology, critical methodologies, and every other test by which ancient literature should be subjected. The result, to the fair-minded reader, is a well nigh irrefutable case for the reliability of the OT.

Not everyone will enjoy or benefit from this book. Those of a so-called "minimalist" persuasion who have raised the level of skepticism about the OT’s historical credibility to a virtually dogmatic or creedal level will, of course, reject Kitchen out of hand as a misguided fundamentalist whose arguments, at best, are selectively derived and driven solely by apologetic interests. Others will be turned off and offended by Kitchen’s celebrated wit that admittedly tends to the acerbic and dangerously close to the ad hominem in places. But this is Kitchen, and whether or not one finds his style and personality offensive has no bearing on the quality of his scholarship or the force of his arguments. Indeed, those most likely to feel victimized by his barbs have themselves written with venomous pens on occasion, especially in assessing the works of scholars whom they delight in assigning to the ranks of unenlightened biblicists. It is, no doubt, for some of these that Kitchen reserves his choicest morsels. Finally, Kitchen, as a representative of much of British evangelicalism, will disappoint some American conservatives by his equivocations on matters such as the life spans of the antediluvians (pp. 446-47) or his evasions (even silence) when it comes to the nature of the exodus plagues (explainable as heightened natural events coordinated with the agricultural calendar, pp. 249-50) and the crossing of the Red Sea itself (unmentioned as to how; see pp. 254-65).

Caveats such as these fail to diminish in the least the overall impact of the book as a powerful expression of a well-informed defense of the historicity and even miraculous character of the OT. In fact, Kitchen’s refusal to "play the miracle card" may well be an intentional strategy designed to show the Hebrew Bible can stand on its own feet in terms of the normal criteria for determining the reliability of ancient historical accounts. That is, the OT record does not need the supernatural to give it credibility as historiography, though admittedly its nature as Scripture can alone account for the way in which the record lies before us in terms of both its contents and its methodology.

More serious are the number of instances where Kitchen either accords archaeological evidence primacy over the text or begs the question in order to accommodate some point of view or other. A few examples must suffice. In his discussion of Saul’s tenure as king, Kitchen settles for a 32-year reign, ignoring the evidence that suggests otherwise (including Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, pp. 192-94, and Paul’s Pisidian address [Acts 13:21]). In considering the 300 years of Israel’s occupation of the Transjordan in Jephthah’s time, Kitchen finds it necessary to reduce the dates of various judges and, in fact, the 300 years itself in order to account for his late exodus date of 1260/1250 bc. Thus, he resorts to such measures as describing the forty years of peace in Gideon’s time as "a round figure closer to thirty years" (p. 209). If it were closer to thirty, one would expect it to be rounded off to thirty. As for Jephthah’s statement about the 300 years (which would date the exodus at 1446 bc or so), Kitchen dismisses the judge as "a roughneck, an outcast, and not exactly the kind of man who would scruple first to take a Ph.D. in local chronology at some ancient university of the Yarmuk before making strident claims to the Ammonite ruler" (p. 209). The kindest thing that can be said of such an assessment is that such disregard of ancient sources is not worthy of a scholar who elsewhere chides others for playing fast and loose with whatever objective evidence is available.

In the same vein, Kitchen, known for espousing the late exodus date on archaeological grounds, skirts the implications of the 480-year figure of 1 Kgs 6:1 by proposing two possible scenarios: (1) The number 480 is a multiple of 12 and 40, with forty representing a "full generation" as opposed to 22/25 years for an actual generation (p. 307). This compresses the 480 to 288/300 years, exactly what is needed to accommodate a mid-thirteenth century bc exodus; (2) the "480 years are in fact a selection from the 554 + xyz years aggregate, on some principle not stated" (p. 308, my emphasis). Were Kitchen’s proofs of OT reliability as unreliable as this resort, he clearly would lose a great deal of credibility as a historian.

One more example must suffice, this time one of historical inaccuracy. Referring to the Shiloh tabernacle as "the old [Mosaic] tabernacle’s successor shrine" (for which there is no historical evidence), Kitchen goes on to cite Jer 7:12–15 and Ps 78:60 as proofs of its destruction when in fact neither text says more than that Shiloh itself was destroyed. Later, Solomon worshiped at the great high place at Gibeon and specifically at "the tent of meeting of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness" (2 Chr 1:3). Clearly the Mosaic structure had been taken from Shiloh before the site was destroyed and had been relocated eventually at Gibeon.

These few observations notwithstanding, the world of OT scholarship has become deeply in debt to K. A. Kitchen for this monumental oeuvre, the capstone of a lifetime of consecrated learning. Those who most need to read and profit from it may not do so, but for the rest of us, already confident in the reliability of the OT as a historical record, this prodigious work will long remain a treasury of information about the Hebrew Scriptures and a model of how to defend it as a trustworthy account of God’s gracious dealings with his chosen people in OT times.
Eugene H. Merrill Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX

The Evangelical Theological Society. (2005; 2006). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 48 (vnp.48.1.118-48.1.120). The Evangelical Theological Society.


Edited by Fortigurn, 25 August 2007 - 10:13 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#8 Russell

Russell

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:52 AM

Hi folks
I'm back in UK briefly and have got a UK Book Token to use up (I hate these things, you can't use them on Amazon, so you pay more to wait a month for the book to be in stock then pay again in petrol to go and pick it up :gagged: )

I was thinking of getting a book that's a scholarly conservative defence of the OT against books such as

Posted Image Posted Image
Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Paperback) by Robin Lane Fox (Author)
101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (Paperback) by Gary Greenberg (Author)

My problem is that I know a lot about 1stC, and can see through the total nonsense that is usually thrown at the NT Canon very quickly, but
I'm not really an OT buff, though I've got the standard works on the Hebrew text and canon. As OT background I've only got Frank Moore Cross' "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic", and a few bits and bobs, but that's about it. For example, I wouldn't be able to spot someone being dishonest about placing a story about the baby Sargon in the bulrushes before Moses when it actually dates from 800 years after Moses (not without having to dig around in the Anchor Bible Dictionary anyway), so I'd have to depend on decent scholarly footnotes and enough information to know when it's just opinion.

As a lot of these anti-OT arguments are also used by Muslims (and answers on www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/ ) I will PM BeardedJohn.

Can anyone recommend anything?
S



Digressing from the OT question, to the NT. A couple of years ago I purchased and read "The Canon of the New Testament" by Bruce M Metzger. It was recommended as the standard book on the NT canon, possibly on Ecclesia-Discuss. And my knowledge of the subject was not very strong. In my naivety I imagined a consistent universal historical acceptance of the 27 books of the NT from earliest days. What I found when I read it is really what I should have known all along. That is, human mess-ups for many hundreds of years. What else can you expect from people? The majority of the NT has always been accepted, but there have been some books that have not been accepted in all places at all times. The NT itself seems to be its own best witness. Almost all of the books that are not contained in the 27 books are self-evidently not scripture. And the very small number of reasonable looking books that are not included in the 27 have some other problem in their acceptance. The NT itself stands out as a beacon of very high quality thinking in contrast to a whole of stuff that witnesses to itself as non-scripture.

That was what I thought when I read Metzger a couple of years ago. Perhaps someone may have a different perspective on this. If so, I would be interested.

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 02:28 PM

Weasley, that's a pretty good summary. I think that NT Wright is one of the men who seem to have picked up the baton from Metzger. On a related note, I would recommend this as well.

Soxy, I've sent you a PM.

Edited by Fortigurn, 25 August 2007 - 02:29 PM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#10 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 03:55 AM

I think that NT Wright is one of the men who seem to have picked up the baton from Metzger.


From the linked article above --

But the four canonical gospels are quite different. They are not mere collections of sayings. They tell a story: the story of Jesus himself, told as the climax of the story of Israel, told as the fulfillment of the promises of God, the creator, the covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.



:gagged:

#11 Steven

Steven

    Upsilon

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 02 September 2007 - 12:29 PM

Hi Weasley
re. Posted Image
Metzger pretty much says most of what can be said in the discussion of 1 Clement - that covers most of the NT already. But yes, the NT pretty much makes its own case - it helps that the other "NT Apocrypha" are such trash.

Fort
I haven't seen N.T. Wright's book below (is the below the nearest one to this subject?) but can't imagine it does a better job than F.F. Bruce, simply because what's changed in the last 40 years?
Posted Image
I'd be more interested to see if there's anything in his book on Evil.
God bless
S

Edited by Steven, 02 September 2007 - 12:30 PM.


#12 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 02 September 2007 - 03:49 PM

Wright (and others), tighten up Bruce's reasoning (some of Bruce's arguments are a little weak), and deal effectively with the kinds of arguments raised by Ehrman and the Muslim apologists (who have launched very sophisticated attacks specifically against Bruce, Metzger, and Geisler).

For those interested, FF Bruce's work is available online here.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#13 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 04:27 PM

On a related note, I would recommend this as well.



I've been reading through Robert's book (from the link) and for the most part think it is a good read. His common sense approach to the topic is refreshing. I did run across a reference to demons in the book with a footnote to the author's blog...

Do Demons Exist? So What?

The reasoning for the existence of a supernatural satan and demons is weak and his reference to The Exorcist as a persuasive proof really borders on the upsurd. However, I don't think it detracts from the value of the book itself for establishing the authenticity of the gospels.

#14 Russell

Russell

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 05:54 AM

I am looking for the name of the standard book on the OT canon. I have forgotten the name of the author. I am planning to buy it on Amazon. Can anyone help me out?

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 09:57 AM

Beckwith's 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism'?

Edited by Fortigurn, 02 December 2007 - 09:58 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#16 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 03:09 PM

I am looking for the name of the standard book on the OT canon. I have forgotten the name of the author. I am planning to buy it on Amazon. Can anyone help me out?


If you could, please remember to use the Click and Raise website to make your purchase.

#17 Russell

Russell

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 09:12 PM

Beckwith's 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism'?


Thanks for that. It is expensive, $US100 plus postage. Maybe that could be an indication that anyone who owns the book is unlikely to sell it because they value it greatly, I suppose. So I'll think about it for a couple of days before committing to it.

A read a little about Beckwith. He is a retired Anglican minister. Student of CS Lewis and Tolkien.

#18 Russell

Russell

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 09:14 PM

I am looking for the name of the standard book on the OT canon. I have forgotten the name of the author. I am planning to buy it on Amazon. Can anyone help me out?


If you could, please remember to use the Click and Raise website to make your purchase.


Does this work from Australia?

#19 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 10:07 PM

I am looking for the name of the standard book on the OT canon. I have forgotten the name of the author. I am planning to buy it on Amazon. Can anyone help me out?


If you could, please remember to use the Click and Raise website to make your purchase.


Does this work from Australia?


Oh, I thought you were in the UK. Kesaph mentioned that he was following up with them about Australia/NZ links. Haven't heard how that is going.

#20 Winston

Winston

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 665 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 11:04 PM

This is a thread worth pinning, methinks.

Are the books that have been mentioned difficult reads or require any prelim reading?

I wonder if we should start a reading list in each armoury section....hmmm
"So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. "

#21 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 11:46 PM

This is a thread worth pinning, methinks.

Are the books that have been mentioned difficult reads or require any prelim reading?


The one Fort mentions here...

On a related note, I would recommend this as well.


...really needs no prelim reading, is easy to comprehend, yet has a quality approach to the authenticity of the gospels.

#22 didymus

didymus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 415 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 08:09 AM

Weasley, grace and peace!

You may want to consider:

Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, by Moses Stuart available from amazon for $37.00 USD

The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon, by Andrew Steinmann available from amazon for $27.99 USD (new)

Both of these are sound OT commentary - exegesis. And combined they will not set you back as much as the above. Both are in my library and I have consulted them many times. Highly recommended.

In blessing, bless!
May something here prove useful
____________________________
I am a Christadelphian click here to see my statement of faith
____________________________
Isolated Christadelphians welcome at webecclesia

#23 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:19 PM

Weasley, grace and peace!

You may want to consider:

Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, by Moses Stuart available from amazon for $37.00 USD


Or download it as a PDF from Google Books here.

Bear in mind that Stuart was a Praeterist.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#24 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:54 PM

Or download it as a PDF from Google Books here.


:blush:

#25 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:35 PM

Beckwith's 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism'?


Thanks for that. It is expensive, $US100 plus postage. Maybe that could be an indication that anyone who owns the book is unlikely to sell it because they value it greatly, I suppose. So I'll think about it for a couple of days before committing to it.

A read a little about Beckwith. He is a retired Anglican minister. Student of CS Lewis and Tolkien.


I just realised I have this work in my Libronix library. I can supply you with some quotes if you need them.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#26 Russell

Russell

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:50 PM

Beckwith's 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism'?


Thanks for that. It is expensive, $US100 plus postage. Maybe that could be an indication that anyone who owns the book is unlikely to sell it because they value it greatly, I suppose. So I'll think about it for a couple of days before committing to it.

A read a little about Beckwith. He is a retired Anglican minister. Student of CS Lewis and Tolkien.


I just realised I have this work in my Libronix library. I can supply you with some quotes if you need them.


Thanks.
I have been away for a few days. I have downloaded the pdf by Moses Stuart. So I'll look at that first I think.

#27 didymus

didymus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 415 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 10:03 AM

Grace and peace, Weasley!

I too have been away for several weeks. I am thankful that you found the resources helpful.

Fort provided you with the Praeterist proclivities of Stuart. I must admit that I am but a "prophecy novice" and as such, I am not as well informed regarding all the nuances of praeterist, modernist (dispensational), and futurist interpretations.
My initial response would be to maintain caution regarding any man-made categorising. That written, you may also want to consider the book by Sir Robert Anderson entitled, The Coming Prince. There is a hyper-dispensational element within (ala E.W. Bullinger) but I am confident that you can compare scripture with scripture to arrive where our Master leads.

In blessing, bless
May something here prove useful
____________________________
I am a Christadelphian click here to see my statement of faith
____________________________
Isolated Christadelphians welcome at webecclesia

#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 05:25 AM

Beckwith's 'The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism'?


Thanks for that. It is expensive, $US100 plus postage.


It's almost half that price if you purchase it in Logos Library format.

Edited by Fortigurn, 27 January 2009 - 05:25 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users