出埃及和約書亞的歷史性

[Daniel_Cheung]

早前有一基督徒教授推薦我看這位教授的博客，頗有趣的，蒙古研究，1994 年才信主，路德宗，十分博學。在這帖裡，他談及出埃及和約書亞的歷史性的新學術發展。http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-book-of-joshua-completely-fictional.html

[if_chf24]

Very interesting indeed.

I was very interested in this when I was in school, and was deeply troubled by the massacre by the ancient Israelites on the Canaanites during my university days. To a certain extent, these problems - the historicity of the early books of the OT and the cruelty of 'God's judgements' on the Canaanites - make me swift towards a more liberal interpretation of the OT (the other thing of course is biological evolutionary theory).

But still, I am pretty much interested in this issue still.

I remember that when I was in HK, I attend a Sunday School seminar series on Deuteronomy. That was the first time I came across the Document Hypothesis. And to learn that Deuteronomy was something written during Josiah's time and representing a later stage of the worship of Yahweh was a shocking experience for me. However, this was good that I have learnt that when I was in school. Otherwise, I might even lose my faith in Christ during my university days.

Also, as far as I remember, the centralisation of the cult of Yahweh from the scattered 'high places' to the Temple in Jerusalem was also reflected in Deuteronomy, in addition to Chronicles, the priestly counterpart of Kings.

Anyway, I lament the fact that most evangelicals cannot come to terms with the latest development in biblical archaeology. One of my friend in church in London who finished a BSc in Archaeology (one of the rare birds among Hong Kong Chinese students who does archaeology for a first degree) ended up moving on to study theology in Dallas as his second degree. I can understand that because he cannot survive in the academia - given his very literal interpretation of the Bible and his conversative evangelical theology. What a sad news to me. (It is not bad to study theology. But to study theology in a very conservative seminary and as a reaction towards the 'liberal' academia is no good, from my perspective. But if it is God's calling, what can I say?)

And in a garden birthday party that I attended recently in Cambridge, I met an old pensioner who says that he is an 'independent' biblical archaeologist. I enquired more. It turns out that he is quite a biblical literalist and insists that many archaeologists got the chronology of Exodus wrong - because they do not believe in the Bible and date the Exodus in the 12th century BC rather than the 14th century BC as chronicled in the Bible. And he tried to look for the cities mentioned in the OT - and he believed that by doing so, he could 'prove that the Bible is true'.

I did not disputed with the old gentleman, but I wondered, even if you found the cities mentioned in the OT through archaeology, you still cannot prove that the Bible is true because you still have to rely on the text to give you details of historical events and the divine interventions described in it.

Anyway, I am quite wishy-washy about the historicity of the OT narratives before King Saul and David. I wished that they are true in a modern historical sense. But what if they aren't?

Is a symbolic interpretation of these OT narratives possible? and orthodox?

Personally I treated the story of Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc as a record put down by the settled Isrealites from their oral traditions passed down generations after generations. Indeed, these were the founding events of their faith in Yahweh. Thus, the theological significance should not be greatly diminished by the fact that these narratives were not historical true/exact. Just like I learn the theological morals of the Ark and Flood, but I don't take it literally as if it was a historical record of a modern sense - i.e. I do not believe in a universal flood - 'universal' defined as the whole planet Earth, but believe that there was a flood that flooded a large piece of land and end the civilisation(s) known to the ancient people(s) and thus 'the whole earth'. Along the same line, I can believe that the Exodus event was partly historical and was considered by the ancient Israelites - and later on Jews and Christians - as a founding event in the history of the faith in Yahweh. However, to what extent it was 'historically true' (in a modern sense), I am not very sure.

The sad thing is - hardly any Chinese Christian friends can bear and listen to what I think. They are all scared of all these 'unbelieving talks'.

[Daniel_Cheung]

其實我對這些歷史問題和成書問題認識甚少，但可能是因為我向來重神學／哲學，所以覺得這裡不太 literal 也不礙事。不過，最感可惜的是，那些讀了很多聖經研究的人，即使自己的看法已不再是 literalist ，到有機會在教會圈子講聖經時，仍不把這類想法告訴信徒（我是指知情權，不是灌輸思想）。

順便一問，有關底本說和 dating 問題，有甚麼書是方便的入門閱讀？

[筆是大遲]

其實我對這些歷史問題和成書問題認識甚少，但可能是因為我向來重神學／哲學，所以覺得這裡不太 literal 也不礙事。不過，最感可惜的是，那些讀了很多聖經研究的人，即使自己的看法已不再是 literalist ，到有機會在教會圈子講聖經時，仍不把這類想法告訴信徒（我是指知情權，不是灌輸思想）。

順便一問，有關底本說和 dating 問題，有甚麼書是方便的入門閱讀？

教會除了主日學，可以有Q&A時間外，我都不會提出這些問題。因為要接受新的paradigm，需要很多反省和解答。偶爾見面，一句起兩句止，就最好不談了。情況好像Issac與那獨立考古的前輩的接觸一樣。我自己教主日學的時侯，有機會便會講，歷史耶穌的問題，聖經的底本說和正典化過程，我都講過。但如我所料，有很多提問，所以我一直assure下次再談，下次再談。有時候，整個主日學後來都變了探討這些問題，反而原初的計劃都打散了。(還好，主日學校長沒有太緊張這些課程的進度如何。) 據我所知，有很多教會沒有常設的主日學，除了兒童和青少年外。這些教會，因此也缺少平台教這些問題。我估，這些題目，無論如何是難以在講道時間講吧？

[蒲先生]

Anyway, I am quite wishy-washy about the historicity of the OT narratives before King Saul and David. I wished that they are true in a modern historical sense. But what if they aren't?

Is a symbolic interpretation of these OT narratives possible? and orthodox?

.

閣下是聖公會教友.....前幾年英格蘭及威爾斯教會甚麼委員會不是公佈了一份聖經詮釋指引嗎......你應該很容易取得......應可滿意解答你的疑問........

[維記wei_kei]

......To a certain extent, these problems - the historicity of the early books of the OT and the cruelty of 'God's judgements' on the Canaanites - make me swift towards a more liberal interpretation of the OT (the other thing of course is biological evolutionary theory).

But still, I am pretty much interested in this issue still.

I remember that when I was in HK, I attend a Sunday School seminar series on Deuteronomy. That was the first time I came across the Document Hypothesis. And to learn that Deuteronomy was something written during Josiah's time and representing a later stage of the worship of Yahweh was a shocking experience for me. However, this was good that I have learnt that when I was in school. Otherwise, I might even lose my faith in Christ during my university days.

其實我對這些歷史問題和成書問題認識甚少，但可能是因為我向來重神學／哲學，所以覺得這裡不太 literal 也不礙事。不過，最感可惜的是，那些讀了很多聖經研究的人，即使自己的看法已不再是 literalist ，到有機會在教會圈子講聖經時，仍不把這類想法告訴信徒（我是指知情權，不是灌輸思想）。
深感認同。有些傳道人或牧師常為了恐怕信徒接觸這些所謂liberal的思想或經銓釋後，就會影響信仰（這當然是負面義），其實殊不知不少信徒卻正因這樣而在往後的日子中，會因而變成不信，或變得對一切理性的討論抱著抗拒甚而是敵視的態度，轉過來又使那些較為開放的信徒留不下來。

[Daniel_Cheung]

我估，這些題目，無論如何是難以在講道時間講吧？

我說他們有機會回教會圈子講聖經，不是指主日講道，而是學成歸來，在神學院、機構、或主日學裡找到一官半職。

[wilson]

順便一問，有關底本說和 dating 問題，有甚麼書是方便的入門閱讀？

1. Umberto Cassuto and Joshua A. Berman, The Documentary Hypothesis,Shalem Press, 2006, ISBN: 9657052351

2. Richard E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed,HarperOne 2005, ISBN: 006073065X

3. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament,Eerdmans 2006, ISBN: 0802803962

第1本是經典, 第3本是這思路較近期的作品, 第2本資料豐富.

[Daniel_Cheung]

1. Umberto Cassuto and Joshua A. Berman, The Documentary Hypothesis,Shalem Press, 2006, ISBN: 9657052351

2. Richard E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed,HarperOne 2005, ISBN: 006073065X

3. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament,Eerdmans 2006, ISBN: 0802803962

第1本是經典, 第3本是這思路較近期的作品, 第2本資料豐富.

:ani_bowdown2: 感激不盡！

[Daniel_Cheung]

那人又在博客裡寫約書亞記的歷史性問題，有興趣者不妨追看。
The Book of Joshua Isn't Fictional (http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2007/11/book-of-joshua-isnt-fictional.html)

他還找到一段經文，看來好像支持人類砍伐樹木，破壞環境，但這個似乎只是說笑而已。
A Curious Passage from Joshua on the Environment (http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2007/11/curious-passage-from-joshua-on.html)