Rise to the Level of our Times

Introductory Question / Discussion

Did you grow up thinking that there was an apple tree in the Garden of Eden?  Well, if you’ve read the story, you know that there is no mention of an apple tree.  If you google “apple tree and the garden of Eden” you can learn the history of how we began to associate the apple tree with the garden.  As we study these early stories we might find more than just the apple tree are in our imagination but not in the story.  It takes discipline to read the words as they are; the starting point of any adult study is attention to the words.

I would invite you then to reread our passage, again paying attention to the notes for this chapter. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3.  If you have your own bible [hard copy] notice whether there is a heading to the chapter and compare the heading in your bible with that of the online version, our version has the heading, The Fall of Man, while the online version has Expulsion from Eden.  Which of these two heading is a more accurate account of the story itself?  Which one is more an interpretation of the meaning of the story from a Christian perspective?  See if you can determine what is the copy right date on you bible, the online version is the New American Bible with a copy right date of 11/11/2002. Now you are in a position to have an educated guess at which heading was written earlier.  At least in our version, they are both “Catholic;” yet quite different.  What do you think about the change?  How do you feel about it? Why was the heading changed?  Hint: Biblical Scholarship.  To Rise to the Level of our Times is to be informed by the best opinions of the day, even if the change makes us feel uncomfortable.

More questions / Discussions

Jody observed that there are two trees in the garden but the Lord God forbade them to eat from only the tree of good and bad.  The story doesn’t say anything about not eating of the tree of life.  Yet at the end of the story we read, “He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life.” Obviously the woman is expelled too but the story just assumes that without saying it. What is the meaning of these two trees?  How do they relate to one another?  What different roles do they play in the story?

To move from a literal interpretation, identify meaningful symbols in your life, times when you were moved are clues to symbols; a song, a poem, a gift, a view, a movie, etc.  The two trees are not literal, to imagine them in that way is to rob them of their symbolic value, they mean so much more and the more depends upon your own inner life.  And they have something to say about that inner life.

Our group saw in the tree of good and bad a symbol for right and wrong, a symbol of our moral landscape.  We talked about the fact that much of our moral discernment is culturally influenced.  This lead us to ask, for Catholics at least, are there moral rights and wrongs, period, absolutes.  Without giving away our discussion, how would you respond?  Why does the scripture tells us not judge?  What would be a moral choice between God and country [USA]?  What role does “being naked” and shame play in the story?

Does “the middle of the garden” have a meaning, does “East of Eden” have a meaning or are they simply directional pointers?

What would happen to the story if there was no commandment? Only after you try to answer that question, should you move to this, what is the role of the commandment in the story?  What does the man and woman’s failure mean to us today?  Can we blame them for what is wrong with us, our community, our society, our history?  Or are they simply representative of us?  Are we, in our core, good or bad?  Is bad manifested in our “unwillingness.” If you were to identify the areas of life in which you are simply “unwilling” where would those areas be?  How do you respond to the “unwillingness” in the other?

As we struggled with these questions, Sean remarked … in the catechism it says to look at the scripture either in a literal sense or a spiritual sense and then it subdivides into a moral, anagogical, and analogical.  And … so I’m seating there running those things through my head, trying to see what fits.

Your questions, comments, responses to any or all of the questions posed are welcomed.

Highlights from Session Five 

Our session began with highlighting three points that came up during Session Five.  Ken mentioned that one of the things he likes about this gathering, it’s an opportunity to express yourself, to get involved with the things and to make … to get out of your box … to express yourself and still believe.

The second point was not so much what Mike said as what he did.  In our discussion on the meaning of us being created in the image of God, Mike went back to the account in the Bible to observe that it doesn’t say that God made the animals or the plants or anything else in his image.  He went back to the actual words and that really takes discipline.

Finally Diana, also in the context of our discussion on the image of God, reminded us that Christ is the very Word of God and, therefore, the very image of God in the flesh.  As Christians we are bound to read the Hebrew Scriptures from that point of view.  At the same time, our faith is the lens, as it were, through which we read the Hebrew Scripture; a lens not shared by others.

The Documentary Theory

I presented a summary of the book, Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Friedman.  As a result of historical studies begun in Germany in the 18^th century, there is a general consensus that the First Five Books of the Bible were the result of four different authors written at different times under different circumstances.  These four authors or perhaps schools are identified by four letters: J, E, P, and D. Each of the authors have a certain internal range of consistency.  J identifies the author who consistently addresses God as YHWH Elohim which we translate as the Lord God.  E, on the other hand, does not address God in terms of YHWH but only as Elohim.  P represents the author whose focus of concern would represent the Priestly issues or concerns.  While D stands for the author of Deuteronomy.  There was a final redactor, someone who wove these four traditions into one, so successfully that it wasn’t until the 18^th century that these different traditions began to be recognized.  A time frame for these authors is presented in our handout:  History of Ancient Israel and its Book, http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=94.

After reading Who Wrote the Bible? Tim remarked.  It makes more sense now.  … It kind of like opens your eyes and now I have the background … I can look at it in a different light.  Ken commented.  One of the things that really helped me … how the investigators identified two different biblical authors’ accounts in one story, sort of tore them apart, and allowed me to read them separately.  And it was really amazing after reading the two separated accounts, how much better they seemed to flow.

The Second Story of Creation 

You are now invited to read Gen: 2:4b – 25 at http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2.  It is especially important that you would read the editors’ notes.

It is seems to me that we have a difficult time appreciating that these passages, like all of the scripture, are written by people of faith to people of faith to support their faith.  Because they were written by human beings though, they cannot avoid revealing the thoughts, world view, and literature of their authors’ historical times.  At the same time, they are not written as history as we expect historical writings to be written.  There is more to truth than historical truth; a story can express truth, very profound truth without the story being historically true.  This struggle came up in our group and might be what you too will struggle with.

As you read this passage what struck you, caught your attention, and raised a question, something that you were awed by.  And perhaps you might want to share it.

The group’s discussion ranged far and wide.

One of our struggles was with the story of the woman being made from the rib of the man.  Ken had heard but didn’t know if were true that men had on less rib than woman.  Valerie who is a nurse assured us that men and women have the same number of ribs.  Nonetheless, we continued to offer ways to account for woman being made from the rib of the man as though that account was historically true.  It was quite difficult to recognize the truth of the story without the need to make the story historical, an actual account of something that happened in historical times.

What is your opinion of this segment of the story?  What do you think is its meaning?

Our group then took up the question of the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad.  This, of course, raises for many contemporary Catholics and Christians of other traditions as well, questions of historical fact, was there a garden, where was it located, etc.

What is your opinion on these questions?  How would you answer them?  What does it mean to “Rise to the Level of our Times” with regard to a “Tree of Knowledge of good and bad?”  If you haven’t read the notes on this point, please do so.

What is your opinion on the positions expressed in the notes?

Handouts – Science and Religion – Cultural Wars

Even a cursory glance at our Creation Handout http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=169 shows that the Creation Story has a literary structure to it.  The beauty and power of the story is the story.  It’s quite possible that the six day structure had been influenced by liturgical practice.  In some sense, then, all the efforts to make the six days coincide with modern science is misplaced.

Let’s take again the Fourth Day of Creation.  We read that the “lights in the dome of the sky … [are to] mark the seasons, the days, and the years.” [Gen. 1:14] reveal the ancient times.  To some extent we still rely on nature to mark our times … but times have changed.  We even change time [Day light Savings.]  Over the thousands of years between when this was written and we read it much as changed.  Some clues to the differences can be hinted at in our Clues to Differences in Thinking Chart http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=193. What is different in the chart is not the areas of life but the areas of study and the resultant differences between the languages of life and the languages of study.

An example in our group might highlight this.  In our society at the present time there are very real differences but not much reflective dialogue between scientists and believers.  But in our midst is Tim who is both a scientist and a believer.  He is a geologist.  But there isn’t a Catholic geology or Christian geology or Hindu geology for that matter.  There’s just geology.  Geology has nothing to do directly, as a science, with God.  But the persons who do geology, they can be Hindu or Catholic or Protestant … it doesn’t matter as far as the science goes.  However, it does matter as far as the person goes.  Knowing how to talk from either point of view without mixing them up is what is required if we are to rise to the level of our times.  What areas of life and of study do you think get mixed up in our “cultural wars” of today?  Do you feel comfortable talking about them?  To do so is one of the goals of this adult scripture study effort.  Here is how Tim expressed his position.

Tim: I was thinking that’s one reason I have such a problem with Creationist trying to have this story [Biblical account of creation] taught in our classrooms as science because it’s not science.  It’s theology and philosophy … it’s religion … it’s not science.  And it can’t be taught as science … science is its own thing.

Now back to the fourth day, on this and every other day it is God who creates, he creates by simply saying [And God said …] and what he creates is good, in fact, after one sequence it is very good.  This is faith talking, and saying something about our world, our life, our relationship to it and to God.  And what is said transcends science.  But we are both believers and a part of the contemporary world.  We are being invited to understand both, to distinguish and unite both, to be at home in both.  [Later we will have to deal with a simple fact, evil exists … but that’s for a couple of weeks from now.]

Concluding Conversation / Questions from the First Story of Creation

Mike: Wonders if the story tells of the story of there being only one God, monotheism.  Does it not focus on God as creator of everything, beyond all else?

Heber: Recognizes some similarity to the story as told by Native Americans, part of his heritage.

Ken: Wants to acknowledge that … these were intelligent people who were trying to grapple with the meaning of life and creation.  … it’s always going to come down to an origin … what is the origin of everything?

Our conversation then turned to a single verse of interest.  The first was the meaning of the Hebrew word “adam” which is variously translated as “human being,” “man,” “mankind,” or “people.”  How is verse 26 translated in your version?  In the online version http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1 it is translated “human being.”  There is a note that is meant to clarify and explain its meaning.  It reads: “Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5.”   It’s amazing how a single word can change how we think of things.  Were you aware of this word’s mostly general sense?  If not, what does this “new” information mean for you?  All human beings would mean even those whom we have trouble with, think ill of, judge to be just mistaken, wrong; in our world that might be “liberals,” “conservatives,” “Muslims,” “Christians,” Atheists,” or fill in the blank …

We concluded with reflecting on the notion of being made in God’s image.  If all human beings are made in God’s image, however, what is that image, concretely?  Our group spent a great deal of time in discussion on this question.  We wondered if meant something physical, or was it that we wonder, that we understand, that we care, that we have virtues like patience?  It is in these exchanges with one another that we learn both that others think as we do and, perhaps more importantly, that others do not.  No matter what others might think, one thing is certain Catholics are not monolithic thinker.

And to think that people nearly three thousand years ago, had such thoughts!!

Your comments, questions, remarks are welcomed.

Order of Creation
First Story

Repetitive Phrases 

Follow up to our conversation from Session Three

We began with a discussion of some of the responses to the question, what moved you, what jumped out at you as you listened to, reread the 1^st story of creation [Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a.]

For Rosemarie it was the account of the fourth day of creation, verses 1:14 – 19.  Ken’s mention of the video Cosmic Voyage lead to a lengthy discussion, why is it that someone who already believes sees God in the wonders of nature while the person who doesn’t believe might see the exact opposite, evidence in the wonder of nature that God does not exist? Certainly nature itself isn’t any different.

Are we hardwired, as Ken suggested?  Why was Paul attracted to cars, Dick to scripture, etc?  How do we talk with others whom we don’t share a common point of view and do that respectfully?  What makes our group attractive is that it is a place where everyone’s thoughts are respected.  It is a setting in which people feel free to express whatever they think.  They can be challenged by the thoughts of others.

For example, Ken’s very choice of the word “hardwired” emerges out of the influence of science, perhaps from the advances in studies of the brain.  Now this is true whether Ken was aware of the scientific influence or not.  To recognize the influence, however, is what it means to rise to the level of our times.  The next step in the process is to ask a series of follow up question.  For instance, what is meant by being “hardwired?”   What are the implications for the idea that we are created in God’s image?  What about our being free?

Besides the natural sciences, Mark suggested that the human sciences like psychology, philosophy, even theology contribute to the differences between human beings.  It is difficult in our day to day living to allow these thoughts to influence us.  We get swept up in the conversation, especially if we don’t agree with what the other is saying; in matters of religion, in matters of politics, policy, etc.

Ken than added another point in our discussion recalling an important point from the person who responded the opposite of Ken after viewing the video Cosmic Voyage. .

Ken: Just as a follow up.  This guy wrote a little bit more that what I said initially. … Look how much they [the Bible] constrained … how much the universe is compared to what it says in the Bible.  It is obvious there is no God because it’s [the Bible] not right.

Ken’s recollection points out another challenge if we are to rise to the level of our times.  This person assumes something about the creation story that is simply mistaken.  What we are learning in our group is first to come to an adult understanding of reading the Bible; from that understanding to recognize the source of his mistaken view.  Finally we are challenged to learn how to talk with him in a way that respects his different point of view.

What do you think is the source of his mistaken point of view?  If you know, how would you talk with him?  If you don’t know, is it important to know?

Rosemarie offered a wonderful story of a non believing friend of hers who exemplifies a truly moral life.  One simple example may capture the heart of Rosemarie’s story.

Rosemarie: … I’ll tell you how good she is.  I mean this is a beautiful teacher.  From the time that she was in high school … she’s about 50 now.  On her birthday she will send her mother   … a rose.  … Isn’t that … to me … I think that’s awesome.

First Story of Creation – A few new observations, questions, discussion.

Jody wondered what other group members thought of the fact that the story has God creating light on Day One and not until Day Four does God create “Sun, Moon, and Stars.”

Various members brought out that light can have a number of different meetings.  It can mean the physical light that comes from the Sun or from other energy sources like electricity or a battery.  But it can also mean the light that is thought of when we catch on to something, an intellectual light. The word light can be a symbol with different meanings all held together in the one word.

What does it mean in the Bible, though; that is another and perhaps more pertinent question for us?  Next week we will discuss how literary studies allow us to understand how primitive people spoke, wrote.  Additionally in handout for next weeks we will recognize there is a certain symmetry in the author’s presentation; Day 1 and 4, Day 2 and 5, and Day 3 and 6.  Stay tuned!

Ken pointed out that not all literature raises questions such as the Bible does.  As a programmer, he doesn’t question the meaning of directions to write a HTML script, for instance.  Tina doesn’t question much of what is assumed in her CPA education.

But the Bible is a different kind of literature?  We want to know its meaning for us.

It was hard to believe but the hour and a half of our time had disappeared.  I wanted to make sure that we focus on the meaning of this First Story of Creation in our gathering next week.  So I concluded [I thought] with this question:

And I don’t want to leave this story without asking ourselves what is it about, what is this author trying to teach us?

In response Annette responded:  About Heaven and Hell.

In some ways Annette’s response points to the truth and in other ways it fails to capture what is unique to this story.  So next week we will tackle this issue, hopefully.

Your comments, etc. are welcomed.

Opening Prayer

As we began to pray I wanted to point out that something different happens inside of us when we pray. The Spirit of God can be present to us, inside of us, working with us and yet we don’t know it. Not knowing doesn’t mean that the Spirit is not there for discerning the Spirit is a delicate matter.

Background – Resources
Last week I passed a handout, The History of Ancient Israel and its Book http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=94; if you are interested in learning more, visit http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html. This 2 year old Nova show presents an archeological detective story that traces the origins of the Hebrew Bible. Another resource is the book by Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible, http://amzn.to/nhvr3F.

For much of Western civilization, the Bible was, for all practical purposes, the one and only account of ancient times. All of that has changed over the past two hundred years or so. To state the obvious, the earlier we go back in to time the less evidence we have for the biblical account of things. Investigators have still not found extra biblical evidence for the Ancient Israelite’s Slavery in Egypt, Moses and the Exodus, and Joshua’s military campaigns to seize the Promised Land. It is also worth keeping in mind that the composition of the bible in its final form and the known historical events are separated by 300 to 500 hundred years; longer than the entire history of the United States.

Are the ideas expressed above new to you? Do you have any questions, comments, observations?

Background – Contemporary Issues
The study group also identified some of the issues, questions, concerns that Genesis stories have given rise to in our times. The apparent conflicts they identified were

1. Between the creation account of the beginning and the account of modern science.
2. Between the time frame of the Bible – Seven Days – and the billions of years of modern cosmology.
3. Between the theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design
4. The social / political / cultural “wars” that swirl around these topics.

Do you have any other ideas to add to this list? We hope to discuss these and other questions in our study.

Background – The Passage Itself
Let’s open the bible to Genesis 1:1. In bold print as a title are the words, First Story of Creation, and it begins with chapter 1 verse 1 but it continues into chapter 2 and stops at verse 4a. Then we note a second title again in bold print, Second Story of Creation. The two titles are obviously not part of the original composition, nor are the verse numbering. From the very beginning, therefore, we have evidence of editing of the text and that editing is based on modern textual research.

As we begin to listen / read, here are a few questions that might guide us, prompt our thinking.

1. See if you can identify certain phrases that are repeated throughout the telling of this the first story of creation.
2. Identify what happens on each day of creation [it might be helpful to actually write them down]; then we will know the order in which the author presents God’s creation of everything.
3. A final question, why are they telling this story of beginnings?

If you have a bible available, please open it and with these questions in mind, read the passage for study.

As you read this passage what was going through your mind? What were you feeling or thinking? What questions might have arisen? What comments might you want to make?

By recording them in the comment section below, we can begin our study on line.

Study Group Responses

Jody: What jumped out at me … it’s around verse 26. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Is this like Greek mythology, a bunch of gods up there? Its kind like there was more than one person doing all this.

We actually spent nearly 20 minutes discussing Jody’s question. Tim suggested that the “us” is like the use of the royal we. The idea that we were made in God’s image though seems central to this verse.  In a latter gathering we will spend more time on what is the biblical message expressed in us being created in the image of God. What do you think that means? How are we an image of God?

Rosemarie: What jumped out at me was the fourth day. I’ll tell you way. I’ve always been intrigued by the stars in the sky. That fascinates me since I was a little girl. … many times on a summer night I sat on the steps of my porch or on the porch and looked up and just looked at the stars. And each one of those stars … there’s thousands of them. … it takes my breath away. … well personally I see God there. I do. I just think God … just made everything so wonderful. It’s such a …  well he’s divine to me.

Ken told us of a video Cosmic Voyage, now on You Tube, there are three separate links to view the entire video:

Viewing this for Ken was a very moving experience and provided convincing evidence for the existence of God.  While for another viewer it was clear evidence that God did not exist.  These apparent conflicting points of view raised a question, why do some people see God in the majesty and awesomeness of our ever expanding universe while for others the very same universe is evidence that there is no God. What would your comment on this fact be? It wouldn’t be until the following session that the group tackled this question.

At this point I passed out the Biblical Cosmology handout http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=148 . This picture depicts the image ancient people had of their world.

Tina: I have a comment on this … model. I’m flashing back to my philosophy class … the people want to understand … so they’re not afraid as to what’s out there

Carol: So like two hundred years from now somebody in the solar system is going to be saying … I was out there searching the solar system and I found this digitally recorded … It could happen. And we’re here discussing what happened so many thousands of years ago. Two hundred years from now, somebody is going to pop on the site that you are putting on the web and say look what I found while searching the solar system. And we’re here discussing what happened and they will be discussing this.

Tim: Going back, what did the scriptural authors want to convey? And what I’m hearing around … from you guys … is the awesomeness of God. And that’s what I’m kind of feeling here is that the author was trying to convey the awesomeness of God to everybody who he was trying to reach.

Your questions, comments, observations are welcomed.

As we begin our second session [09/25/2011] Ken remarked that even Pope Benedict XVI is on Twitter.  He read one of the Pope’s tweets that seemed appropriate to our online efforts.

“I invite Christians with an informed and responsible creativity to join the networks of relationships which the digital era has made possible.”

Reflection on our conversation from last week, Session One. 

The wording of the question from last week proved problematic.  A number of the participants responded as though the question was, when do you receive the Holy Spirit? Or how do you know that you have received the Holy Spirit.  To focus on the issue at hand, I asked the question in different words, is there anyone who thinks that God the Father gives his Spirit ONLY to Catholics?  ONLY to Christians?  ONLY to people of the Book, that is ONLY to Jews, Christians, and Muslims? We can turn the question around, Does God give his Spirit to everyone as Michael said last week.

By rewording the question, we were able after a bit more discussion to come to a consensus that God does give his Spirit to everyone.  We reached that consensus, however, only after we distinguished between God giving and us receiving. Is there a difference?  As last week, we left unanswered the question; can anyone receive the Holy Spirit without a prior gift of that same Spirit?  Medieval theologians actually answered this question but only after nearly a century of their own struggle and retrieving their answer for us today will have to wait for another day.

More wondering … What concretely does “everybody” mean?  One way to answer the question is to approximate a number.  At present there are just over 7 billion [7,000,000,000] persons on the globe. But how many human beings have ever lived that is a complicated question with a reasonable response at the Population Reference Bureau http://www.prb.org/. Like me, you may be stunned by the estimate.

Another aspect of “everybody” is the many persons whom we might question having the capacity to receive, infants, the severely handicapped, maybe primitive peoples.  To rise to the level of our times means to be open to the questions that arise in our times and to search out the resources of our times that point to answers. What would psychologists, anthropologists, etc. have to offer?

We may not recognize it but discussion of this question in today’s world can be very divisive.  Does God intend all to be saved?  A common response from some Christians is, unless you accept Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior, you cannot be saved.  How can that statement be true and also the affirmation that God gives his Spirit to everyone?  Truth matters but …

Background to the Writing of Genesis – “History of Ancient Israel and its Book.” Go to  http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=94

There is a tremendous difference between the composition of the Christian Scripture, what we call the New Testament, and the composition of the Hebrew Scripture, what we call the Old Testament.

In the most general of terms we can say that Jesus was born at the beginning of our era, lived in Nazareth for most of his life, conducted his ministry over a period of a little more than two years primarily in Galilee, with traditional journeys to Jerusalem for the high Holy Days and some forays into other locations, was crucified under Pontius Pilate when he was perhaps 33 years of age.  And for Christians, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.  The first literature we have was written about 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection and the last literature of the Christian Scripture was written around 100 AD or 70 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Whereas the Hebrew Scripture tells stories of the very beginning of creation, a long period of ancestral times of unknown duration, slavery in Egypt, wandering in the desert, capture of the Promised Land, formation of Kingdom first with Saul, then David and Solomon, a period of divided kingdom, times of the prophets, and repeated subjugation under Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires.  Minimally the Israelite story is more than 1000 years in the creation, not a 100 years as with Christianity.

When we turn to the Hebrew Scriptures the time between events and their being recorded is certainly of a different scale.  If we turn to the first words of Genesis we hear the writer say, In the beginning … Obviously no one was there at the beginning.  So when were the words written?  Who wrote them?  Why were they written?  And a host of other questions can be asked.  A very accessible book which addresses these and other questions is Who Wrote the Bible?  written by Richard Elliott Friedman, available on www.amazon.com.

To rise to the level of our times, let’s turn to the bottom of our handout, History of Ancient Israel and its Book.

What is startling is that until the 18^th century, almost everyone assumed the Moses had written the first five Books of the Hebrew Scripture, the Pentateuch.  They also assumed that the events in which he is portrayed as being involved he wrote from the perspective of a personal witness to the events.  Maybe you too think or perhaps thought at one time that Moses, of course, wrote the Five Books of Moses.  To question what  you have taken to factual, simply the way things are, can be challenging.

What changed?  Well investigators first recognized that some of what was written occurred after Moses died.  He couldn’t have written that.  Then they recognized that there were many duplicates, even triplicates, of the same events; often told in different and at times contradictory ways.  The more they investigated the more questions they had.  With the advance of linguistic studies investigators began to place the texts in somewhat of a chronological order and that order was not the order of the books as they appear in a modern Bible.

The investigations into the text itself were greatly expanded by archeological finds. This further helped to develop a time line of development. Other texts were discovered from peoples in the Ancient Near East, supporting evidence was discovered for some of the events mentioned in these five books but for other events no evidence to date has been found.  All of this contributed to answers that began to coalesce around what later became know as the Documentary Hypothesis.  In summary there were four authors or schools of authors identified by letters J, E, P, D, and a final editor who put theses accounts together, a redactor, R.  More on this as we progress.

What we have to keep in mind as far as we are concerned, we don’t know any of these findings on our own.  We don’t know Hebrew.  We don’t know Greek.  We aren’t archeologists. Etc.  So we are in the position of believing.  It becomes a question of what is more credible and that depends in large measure on the world in which we live.  Many Christians reject this historical method because it challenges their world of fixed truths, unchanging realities, etc.  Changes at this level in our lives can create a great deal of fear.

Where are you?  What are your questions? Where does it all end?  That is what we head toward in our next session, Session Three.

Your comments are welcomed.