FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-06-2007, 03:39 PM   #1
BH
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2,285
Default Bible meant to be scripture

I was thumbing through the Old Testament the other day and noticed lots of the geneologies and so forth that seemed to make the text more of a secular record than scripture.

This and the fact the OT mentions other books for sources got me wondering if the books of the OT, or at least some of them, were really never meant to be " holy scripture" by the author but only came to be used as such by later users?
BH is offline  
Old 09-06-2007, 04:24 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BH View Post
I was thumbing through the Old Testament the other day and noticed lots of the geneologies and so forth that seemed to make the text more of a secular record than scripture.

This and the fact the OT mentions other books for sources got me wondering if the books of the OT, or at least some of them, were really never meant to be " holy scripture" by the author but only came to be used as such by later users?
Accurate genealogical records were crucial for the Israelites. Not only were they essential for inheritance claims, by which a form of internal egalitarianism was preserved, but also to prevent entryism by Gentiles who could in time have suppressed the worship of Yahweh.
Clouseau is offline  
Old 09-06-2007, 05:46 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
Accurate genealogical records were crucial for the Israelites.
Umm, gee, where'ja get that idea from?? Did some Israelite tell ya? Or are ya just crapping on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
Not only were they essential for inheritance claims,
Hmm, inventive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
by which a form of internal egalitarianism was preserved, but also to prevent entryism by Gentiles who could in time have suppressed the worship of Yahweh.
And genealogies did that? Well, whaddaya know!

For people who want to think about the issue, one might start by attempting to understand when genealogies become popular in Jewish culture. For example, Kings showed little interest in the long drawn out genealogies, but were food for Chronicles.

At the same time Chronicles contains the longest and therefore latest version of the high priestly genealogy. One can watch this specific genealogy grow from 1 Esdras 8:1-2 to Ezra 7:1-5 then to 2 Esdras 1:1-3 finally to Josephus and Chronicles, ie we are dealing with an exceptionally late manifestation.

Genealogies are stuck on the front of Genesis while the rest of the pentateuch seem little interested in them.

It's no surprise that there were imaginary genealogies for Jesus built into diverse Davidic genealogies (which are both in conflict with the latter part of the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr 3).

We can scrap the notion of accurate genealogies, especially when some (such as the high priestly genealogy) seem apparently artificial in construct.

Yet the purpose of these genealogies if one can be divined from the biblical texts seems to be for theological (and perhaps political) purposes, justifying connections, giving importance and prestige.


spin
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.