Author: mrwerner

When I think of King David, my mind goes straight to the David and Goliath story in the Bible. Then I go straight to thinking about his reign as king and the length, the joys and laments that were written in the book of Psalm, and how prosperous the time was. But the misogyny that he expressed is not something that really came to mind before this lesson. It is right there in the Bible where I learned the other aspects of David, but I had skipped over those sections or really didn’t pay much attention to them if I read over them. Sometimes this is can be connected to powerful people who have great aspects to them like leading or a big donation to support a cause, but they do some shady acts and it is hidden from the public. Yes, it is a person and they should have privacy, but when there are people that the press picks and chooses to expose for devious acts it leads you to question why this particular person is being propped on a pedestal? Definitely, David was a great ruler, but also why was his bad side swept to the side when teaching about him, I feel that by teaching these facts can show that even the kings were human and that what he did was wrong.

Another thing that I hadn’t questioned before was the existence of David. To really think about how King David might not have existed is mind-boggling, but when presented with the facts from archaeology, this really is a controversial topic. It is interesting to see the comparisons between what archaeologists have found and how it aligns to the teachings of the Bible. From one article that I read, it clearly stated that the Bible is not a historical recount, but a religious document. But, I think that historians and archaeologists look into the stories of the Bible to try and draw out the truth behind it to see how it existed.

What really stood out to me from this lesson was the short documentary that touched on the city of Jericho and how it fell-down. I found myself reminiscing on the song I learned years ago about Joshua fighting the battle at Jericho and the walls come tumbling down as I watched the video referencing Jericho. But in all reality, the structure of Jericho might have come down because of seismic activity years before Joshua was ever there. What I wonder is if the inhabitants of ancient Jericho might have attributed the seismic activity to an act of Godly intervention? It is interesting to see how archaeologists have found this action and figured out how the walls fell and when this happened. Through cross-referencing remains that were at the same level as pieces that fell is a way that the archaeologist could have referenced when this happened. Furthermore, they could do carbon-dating on the physical remains and DNA tests on the human remains, thus double-checking the resources to which the walls might have fallen. What is even more interesting is the comparison to the bible stories and the dates of when these happened as well. Joshua must have come in at some point to Jericho, but was this battle as dramatic as it has been put up to in the Bible and how did this become a huge event as written by the author?

In response to the question left for us to ponder on ‘what is being left out of the conversations including the Bible,’ I would say that the context of the situation is being left out. There are many times in which people try to shape the words of the Bible to fit the argument they are trying to uphold as truth. For example, slavery; the cultural difference between the American perception of slavery in the 21^st century is different than the perception of slavery in ancient times. Or even the Slave Bible where all the narratives of slaves in ancient times having any sort of notion to go against the hand of authority under which they lay. In most conversations, it’s a matter of taking what you like and discarding what you don’t like. The matter of liking or disliking comes down to what is upholding your side of the argument. By taking out pieces of information the audience does not get the full picture of what is going on and the text given can skew the meaning of the full meaning itself. This plays into the historical context as well; people take the literal words from the Bible and fix them to their point of view without considering what the context was in history. It ignores the fact there were different cultures with different beliefs and practices.

On the premise of creating a set of laws for a new society, I would base the society on the equality of all people on the sense of treatment of other people. It would be a welcoming society for all people. So, with this mindset in place, I would like to add my opinion to the controversy about adding the first commandment to a new society that would be hypothetically made. I don’t think that this commandment should be added to the laws because there should be freedom of religion. Therefore, if this were to be added to the laws, there would be consequences for not following the law as with the other laws. If anyone would want to be part of this society, they would have to accept God and be fully committed to this religion. It would push people to the sidelines and bar them from being part of the society, which would ultimately be the opposite of the society’s founding principles. Then there is the fact of enforcing the law; how would there be a way of finding who is not following this specific law? I recognize that this could set a higher being of connection and precedence for people to pay attention to the laws and not break them. However, if people are in a society together, those who set the laws up in conjunction with the people they will draw their power for obeying the laws from the head of the society. The motivation to obey the laws would be derived from the desire to not be punished for breaking the laws. There would be no need for a uniting religious figure if there is a uniting desire to not face the consequences of breaking the law and respecting the governing body.

Growing up in church, I have gone through several different Sunday school classes each of them teaching the students how to be a good person and how the Bible gave us an example of this. So, I was taught the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but in a much more PG-rated way. It was based on the lesson of how people were not leading virtuous lives as God wanted and basically being inhumane, and that we could learn from their behavior that we should be kinder to others and act in a way that was helpful to all. They cut out the part of death and destruction to not scare us when we were kids, but as we got older and progressed through the higher classes more of the controversial topics were explained to us and the violence was discussed. Not until high school was these stories fully read through and explained and discussed in our weekly Sunday school classes.

One of the more thought-provoking questions that were posed in the class today that really hit me was that if you edit out all of the violence in some of the stories of the Bible, what is really left, and does it change the story as a whole? I think that to some point you are going to have to read through the hard stories that are more violent, especially the way that religion is taught and even how you proceed with your life. You take on the task of learning and deducing meaning from things that you take in and using it for your own experiences. By teaching the moral of the stories from the Bible to younger children is a place to start because as a child you really could care less about what a big old book has written in it and what directions it gives you for life. Then incorporating in the stories from the Bible later when we start to understand more. To the point of if editing the story, yes, I do think it could change the meaning if you have the full context because there are more factors to consider when analyzing and understanding the text for what it is. Sometimes when taking little snippets of stories there is only one way to understand the story, but when the whole thing is put together it is much more complex than you would have realized when just reading the small part. The small parts lead to a lack of analyzation and creativity for the reader, they are told one way and that is it.

In the reading of comparing the Yahwist and the Priestly Writer’s version of the flood story in the Bible, there are striking differences, which accentuate a belief system that was part of the writings of these. Each of these descriptions makes it a point to say that God was not happy with the proceedings of the humans on the land, and he wanted to make a clean start, so the most fitting human that God saw was Noah and his family. At least, there is that similarity, but there are many more differences. For example, the differing types of animals that were brought onto the ark to keep for repopulating the land. The Yahwist version has seven of each clean beast, while the priestly writers have two of every animal. This certain delineation paints a picture that the Yahwist derive worth from if the animal was clean or not, and the priestly writers see that the animals were not the problem with the Earth it was the people living on it. Which comes to the next point, once the animals and Noah’s family were on board the ark, according to the Yahwist version, the waters were over the land for 40 days, but in the priestly version, the flood was over the land 150 days. This difference might account for how long it took God to decide what was sufficient rain and decide what was the next step for the receding of the flood and repopulating the Earth. And in the end, the Yahwist version has Noah sacrifice one of the clean animals and being satisfied with the smell and promising to never do this again, and the Priestly Writer’s version reestablishes God as the sustainer of Earth and then the same promise. In the ending of the Yahwist, sacrificing is the belief that there are certainly clean and unclean things, but God is in favor of the cleanliness affirming that there are clean things in the world even when some others might not be as clean. Then the Priestly Writer’s hone in on the fact that God is the ruler and that as humans we should all be followers even though that we will never have to go through a catastrophic event such as the flood ever again

The fall of Adam and Eve, I have heard the story many times growing up in the church. Going through the story on an academic level put a spin on the train of thought that I had usually gone through when reading and analyzing the story. Some of the questions from the discussion that really struck me were if the tree of knowledge was really a tree, is ‘the fall’ just a transition from child-like innocence into adulthood or to disobedience, and did the fruit have meaning, or was it just a test of obedience.

I think that the tree was not an actual tree, but a metaphorical one to represent the knowledge that God had and that was intentionally kept from Adam and Eve to keep them innocent. This was kept away because God knew that if the humans could have this type of knowledge that he would not be able to keep them in his presence in the Garden but put them down on Earth away from the presence of God. Therefore, he just had one big rule for them to stay listen and to not take from the tree of knowledge.

The fall of Adam and Eve was not a transition from child-like innocence to adulthood, it was more an act of disobedience. It is a flaw of humans to want more than they should and disobey the set rules because of the curiosity that is inside of us. This was a curiosity that was fulfilled, but not in a good way. They were tempted and fell into the trap, and they got knowledge. While it might be seen as a transition into adulthood, this does not strike a chord with teaching a lesson and if God was telling them not to eat from this one tree knowing that one day they would eventually transition into adulthood, this knowledge probably would not have been forbidden.

For the fruit of knowledge, it stood for something that humans could not have because they could not enjoy the fullness that it brought. This fruit of knowledge was reserved for God, who knows all things and can comprehend it. It’s almost like going out to a high-end restaurant with five-star food, as a child, all that you are looking for is something that tastes good and fills your hunger you don’t comprehend the beauty of the food and the effort that was put into everything, but as an adult, you know the price, about the food itself, and you enjoy it more fully. God knows, and as limited humans, Adam and Eve did not know what knowledge would bring, which is why God intentionally told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree. Once Adam and Eve would gain knowledge, it would be good in some aspects such as gaining a sense of yourself, but on the other hand, it would bring strife because of the differing views that would develop as a result of gaining knowledge.

I was most intrigued by the different creation stories between the Enuma Elish and the creation story in the Bible. For the Enuma Elish, there were many Gods who want a respite from their normal duties, so they create humans for the ‘dirty jobs.’ On the other hand, God creates humans in the sight of oneself to inhabit the Earth that he just made. There is a difference in this not just in the way that each party made the human, but in the responsibilities that the humans must do. God is trusting in humans and wants them to respect him, but at the same time, he gives more freely of what they can do. The gods in Enuma Elish give the humans responsibilities almost as if they need to complete certain tasks in a certain time without much freedom of movement otherwise. Another big difference between the two stories is the methodology in which things were accomplished. The Enuma Elish creates new beginnings after violent strife, while in the Bible God just creates it simply by speaking it into existence without a hardship. This greatly highlights the difference in the cultures around each belief system. The way of the Enuma Elish supports a much harder path at which things can be accomplished and that there is going to be a hardship along with any path that is taken. The Bible is a less harsh way of taking on tasks and making way for the path of least resistance. I am not saying that the people in the Bible have followed in a non-violent path, it is just that the promotion of peace to accomplish a task is more prevalent as exemplified in the separate creation stories.

For this topic, I have been aware of the indifference that some men in the Bible have shown to women and how women were not really viewed as people at this time. Or how important it was to produce offspring at this time. It was just the culture that was prevalent. When Abraham was told by God that he was to be the father of many nations, he was shocked and wanted to take matters into his own hands because, at the time, Sarah and Abraham were not reproducing. It came to the point where Sarah believed that Hagar would be better suited to reproduce and fulfill the blessing that God had brought on Abraham. However, Hagar, the slave, was not consulted on this or asked her opinion about how she felt. This is an example of how the culture shaped their opinion. First, there is a part of slavery, they had people to do their work for them without pay. Then it is how they treat the slaves, basically like they aren’t even people, telling them what to do, and the slave has to follow no matter how they feel about the action they were told to do. Between Abraham and Hagar, they were able to bear a son, but soon after Sarah had a son with Abraham too. Now the question was, who is the first son of Abraham?
An interesting aspect of Reimagining Hagar is the visualization of how she looks. We know that she is the slave of Abraham and Sarah, but many people might have visualized her as black, but nowhere in any source of Biblical significance is she physically described as black. Is this a misconception of our culture, or inferred by some aspect of knowledge of slaves at this time?

Professor Holmes is a reliable source of information for Biblical canons as he has a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. all focused around Theological studies. Currently, he teaches Biblical Studies and Early Christianity and has been involved in this profession for a significant amount of years. Furthermore, he has written several books on theological topics, which requires a multitude of time researching to provide the audience with the most accurate information. Biases that might exist in his writing are the focuses on the New Testament and being involved with this topic his whole professional schooling years and professional work years.

Oxford University Press published this book, which gives me great confidence in the reliability of the text because the authors of this book must have extensive education and experience in the field of Early Christian Studies to be considered as an author. Moreover, there must have been peer reviews on each chapter to uphold the high standard that Oxford University Press has achieved.

From the chapter, I learned more about what a Biblical canon is and about other theologically based letters and writings from authors such as Paul and Peter who wrote pieces in the Bible.  It was most interesting to read about the different arguments that have surfaced in the past about Biblical canons and what is seen as the most popular viewpoint.