Peter Enns講解Julius Wellhausen同Documentary Hypothesis

https://thebiblefornormalpeople.podbean.com/e/episode-125-pete-enns-voices-from-the-past-part-1/

我一向都有聽呢個podcast, 唔係集集都o岩聽, 但係最新呢集, 係Peter Enns喺度講解Julius Wellhausen同Documentary Hypothesis, 應該係我目前為止聽得最有趣味的一集. 推介.

林以諾反對原文解經

7 年希伯來文唔夠精通, 即是話要花更多時間喺語文上面, 解經時更加小心, 要保持謙虛, 而唔係放棄原文解經. 竟然有人公然反對原文解經, 除咗美國嗰D King James Only癲佬之外, 林以諾係第一個.

嗯, 即使係林以諾, 都冇理由癲得咁徹底. 可能係棟篤笑片段...

[兒童不宜] 讀聖經, 學希伯來文粗口

點解基督徒選擇性遵守聖經教導?

恥笑影音使團總幹事袁文輝

呼籲影音使團承認"挪亞方舟 驚世啟示"是超錯

恥笑香港挪亞方舟事工

精彩, 神奇, 超卓的教會講道

真係大開眼界. 呢個浸信會牧師認為, 根據聖經o既教導, 男人要企喺度呵尿, 坐喺度並唔係男人o既所為. 五月尾要去一間教會講道, 因為我一個月內連去兩次. 本來都諗唔到要講乜好, 但係而家好想講教會點解 abuse 聖經, 往往以聖經o既名義喺度自說自話, 順便講埋自己點解讀聖經研究.

Are We Servants of God like Aaron? [sermon script]

最近我有兩份教會工去見, 兩間教會都叫我去星期日去講下道. 聽日將會係第一次, 我會講出埃及記 32, 尋日練習咗幾次, 錄低咗.

恥笑真理報文章 [Ron Wyatt special]

[Sunday School] Day 7: topic 4 part 1

Woo, I'm doing it. I had always wanted to talk about the Documentary Hypothesis in church. We'll see what happens...



Traditionally, Christians believe that it was Moses himself who wrote the Pentateuch. That was what I heard in Sunday School when I was younger. But then I saw some passages in the Pentateuch that don't seem like something that Moses would have written.



A quote that I found inspiring from a mystery novel. Instead of twisting the evidence to make it fit into our theories, why not change our view to better explain the evidence? Let's give it a try.



Before we talk about the Documentary Hypothesis, let's first take a look at a few strange passages. Take out a piece of paper, and try to answer these questions. Feel free to use your bible, let's make it open-book.

ANSWERS:











These are often used as examples of contradictions in the Pentateuch. What do you think? I encourage you to look at them more closely, and decide for yourself whether they're really contradictions, or stylistic inconsistencies. In any case, these are the data. What kind of a theory do we need to accommodate these data?

The Documentary Hypothesis is some scholars' attempt to make sense of these anomalies in the Pentateuch. Next week, I'll let you know what I think, and give an introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis. I don't presume that we must accept the DH, but it is something that we should know of.

[Sunday School] Day 6: topic 3 part 3

In the past weeks, we have seen some archaeological finds that might confirm certain details in the OT. To be fair, we'll now look at stuff that doesn't sit comfortably with what the OT tells us. The most notable case is the problem of Israel's settlement in Canaan? Just how did they end up in Canaan after the Exodus in Egypt? Many scholars date the Exodus to around 1250 BCE, the time of Ramses II. Did Israel invade and conquer cities in Canaan as the OT reports?



The most famous city in this episode of the biblical narrative is Jericho. According to the OT, the city's walls miraculously collapsed and the Israelites made their way into the city and slaughtered everybody.



Do we get the same picture from archaeological research? John Garstang claimed to have discovered the collapsed walls of the Joshua invasion. But Kathleen Kenyon, with a more sophisticated and advanced technique of excavation, found out that Garstang had dated the collapsed to the wrong time. They were in fact from the Early Bronze Age, not from the Late Bronze Age, which is the period to which scholars date Joshua.



Kenyon found out that Jericho was destrued by fire by the end of Middle Bronze Age and remained relatively unoccupied throughout the Late Bronze Age. That means, there was no fortified city for Joshua to conqure in Jericho...



No, I'm not spreading heresies. I tood these two books off the shelves of the church's library. They say the same thing.



To make you feel better, more recently a guy named Bryant Wood argues that Garstang was correct and Kenyon wrong. Though still a decidedly minority, there's someone (a real scholar, archaeologist) who disagrees with Kenyon. His arguments are too technical for me to fully appreciate. I personally have more faith in Kenyon than in Wood, but I'll let you decide for yourself.



Similar problem with the City of Ai.



Excavations show that there are only 2 major periods of occupation. First in the Early Bronze Age, then in the Iron Age.



There's a destruction level by the end of the Early Bronze Age, and the city remained unoccupied throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages! Again, according to archaeologists, there's nothing for Joshua to conqure in Ai.



The site was occupied in the Iron Age, but there are no walls. Strictly speaking, it was more a village than a city.



Scholars have tried to think of a solution to these problems. May be we should move the date of the Exodus to much earlier? But if we do that, we'll move many other things in the biblical timeline and numerous other things won't fit. I think we're actually attacking the bible if we do that.

Albright suggests that the Ai story in the OT was originally a story about Bethel, which was indeed destroyed in the Late Bronze Age. But somehow, the locus of the story shifted from Bethel to Ai. Possible, but hard to prove. Besides, this is still saying that the OT is wrong. The bottom line is that there was no fortified city in Ai, but the bible says Joshua conqured a city there.



So that's what things are. I'll leave it up to you to struggle with how to coordinate this kind of information with your views of the bible. I think now is a good time to ask ourselves some questions. Why is it that we're so keen on the historicity of the OT? Why does it have to be 100% accurate? And so what if it isn't anyway? Does Christianity collapse if there's an error in the bible?



I can't answer all those questions for you, and I think it is most benefitial for you to find your own answer. But I'll tell you this: I don't think Christianity will collapse even if there's an error in the bible. In the 1600s, christians used to say that if the Earth were a sphere, if the Earth weren't flat, it'll render the bible false and injure the holy faith. But apparently christianity didn't die after people realized that the Earth is actually in a sphere shape.

When I was younger, people used to say that if the evolution theory were true, the bible and the church will be shattered to pieces. But look at the news today, just like that, the Catholic church survives this without a problem. There's no consequence even if Charles Darwin were right.

I don't know if the evolution theory were true, I'm not a scientist, but I want to say is this: even IF it were true, so what?

[Sunday School] Day 5: topic 3 part 2

[cont']



A famous story in the OT. Hezekiah saw the invasion of Sennacherib, but he somehow fended off the powerful opponent.



The Sennacherib Prism tells a similar story. It says that Sennacherib took a lot of cities of Judah, and laid siege to Jerusalem, but it is interesting that it never says he succeeded in taking Jerusalem.



We have also found the tunnel associated with this story. Hezekiah feared that Sennacherib might cut off their water supply, so he dug a tunnel to channel water from Gihon Spring to inside the walls of Jerusalem.



In the tunnel, we found an inscription recording how the tunnel was dug. Apparently, they started digging on both ends of the tunnel and tried to meet in the middle, which sounds so ridiculously difficult, but they did it nonetheless somehow.



A seal that might have belonged to a subordinate of Jeroboam II, the Israelite king.



Possibly a seal that belonged to the last king of Israel.



Cool, a ring-seal!!



It might have belonged to the son of Hilkiah who found the "scroll of torah" (some scholars thought that this might be the Book of Deuteronomy) in the temple during the reign of Josiah.



This one was discovered from an official dig site, so it must be the real deal.



Might have belonged to the grandfather of Ezra.



This bulla might have belonged to Baruch, the secretary of Jeremiah.



A similar one, but with a portion of a fingerprint of someone.



Might have belonged to Jerehmeel the prince, who tried to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch.



Might have belonged to a contemporary of Jeremiah.

Now, we have seen a lot of archaeological finds that might have confirmed a number of details that are told in the OT. We have not "proved" the OT this way, because there are more things that can't be proved than those that can be proved. But I think, these things are cool to look at. At least much cooler than those fake stuff (e.g., Jesus' blood, the ark of Noah).

But to be fair, next time, we'll look at things that contradict the OT. Gird your loins!!!

[to be cont']