Firstly, I quite agree with Steven. The New Testament in its entirety, and the Jesus who is its historical and spiritual core, is immutably bound to the historicity of the Old Testament, including Genesis 1-9. It is a necessary corollary of the Historical Critical approach to Genesis that Jesus was not born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that the resurrection was not literally real. Essay, do you reject Genesis as history, but accept the virgin birth of Jesus and the resurrection from the grave as literal? If so, you are completely out of step with the resources you prize. The Historical Critical methodology of many authors of the Anchor Bible volumes holds that these things ?cannot possibly be true.?

God either made man, male only, before the animals or He made the animals, then man, in both cases male and female together. He could not logically have done both, unless we're talking about different planets or different universes here, which I think you'll agree is going a bit too far. In addition, the separate, pagan origins of Genesis 1 and 2 can be, as I have pointed out, easily learned from a purely historical standpoint rather than from logic alone. Ditto the Epic of Gilgamesh, available in pretty much its original form in any good bookstore or library, and clearly fictional, from which the Biblical flood story was later adapted.

It would be amazing that for literally thousands of years believers of both Jewish and Christian heritage could see that the two perspectives in Genesis 1-2 were not in conflict, but rather complementary accounts, yet now for 150 years they?ve become irreconcilable contradictory accounts. Sometimes the mind of modern man (or is it now post-modern?) does impress me. Nevertheless, the order of creation is set before us very directly in Genesis 1, with closure in 2:4a. And then the emphasis is on man?s unique position, opportunities, responsibilities, and early history in chapter 2-5:1a. The same reasoning that puts these accounts in conflict of course puts the gospels in tension, since they are not word for word identical, and rejects the possibility of knowing anything with certainty - and yet makes assertions of certain knowledge about things that cannot possibly be known.

There are no existing sources for Genesis, pagan or otherwise. You have asserted before that the sources for Genesis 1-2 are known pagan myths, but it is only assertion. There are ancient pagan myths with some elements of the true creation account retained within them. We could surmise a progression of oral tradition by which the original (true) account from the testimony of God himself was distorted over time and recorded in various forms. The existence of distorted mythological accounts says nothing about the origin of the Biblical account, which must be considered on its own merits. There is no evidence for pagan or mythological sources, Babylonian or Sumerian or Egyptian or otherwise, either predating or influencing the Biblical accounts in any way. Nor is there anything like a scholarly consensus on such an assertion, even among those who reject the Bible as literal history. Nor do scholars in general regard the Epic of Gilgamesh as the source of the Biblical flood story. That presumption was only a presumption, based in the humanistic arrogance of one particular school of thought a century and a half ago.

Suppose there were a myth that preceded an event. If there was a pagan resurrection myth, would that somehow undermine the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus? There were pagan resurrection myths (Tammuz, for example) and pagan myths of the children of gods and mortals. Do those myths tell us anything about the truth or accuracy of the New Testament Jesus? Are they sources that the New Testament writers adapted and harmonized? There are pagan myths about human flight (Daedalus, for example). Since I know there are pagan myths about human flight, shall I reject the account of the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, and presume that the stories of human flight are fictional adaptations of older myths? The existence of thematic myths tells us nothing about the accuracy or sources of historical events, including the Biblical history, and the Bible is presented overall as a consistent and continuous history of real people and real space-time events.

Regarding Gilgamesh: Essay, have you read the myth(s)? There isn?t actually a single unified account, but several contradictory myths that existed in parallel among those sparse ancient sources now known. The differences between the simple, elegant and credible account in Genesis, and the variant stories of Gilgamesh are profound. The imaginary writer who supposedly edited the Gilgamesh mess into the Biblical account shouldn?t have wasted his time with cribbing, as you described it. He surely had the talents and the imagination to write something fresh. Or then again, maybe the simple truth that had been carefully passed along through the family of Abraham was good enough. By the way, the methodology of Historical Criticism (the whole basis of your Anchor Bible commentary on Genesis) consistently employed, should necessarily conclude that Gilgamesh came from Noah, and not vice versa. To oversimplify the methodology, it would seem to be a necessary conclusion that the embellished version develops from the terse and simple account, and not vice-versa. Simplicity and brevity do develop over time and with much handling. But consistency is not a criterion of Historical Critical Theology, which is based solely on the imagination of its proponents, and history and facts be damned.

In a previous reply you said ?In the Anchor Genesis you can read the entire Pentateuch broken down, verse by verse, and even word by word where necessary, by source, D, E, J, P, or 'X', (that is a source other than one of the other four). These scholars' work is good enough for me, until something better comes along, and as I said, it won't be during my lifetime.?

Well, it isn?t good enough for the scholars responsible. Why should it be good enough for you? Something better has come along. Try letting the Bible speak for itself. It?s amazing what God has to say, through his own word. But regarding the Anchor Bible Genesis, by Ephraim Speiser, the ?scholarship? represented therein is now two generations old. Is that fresh enough for you? And it is one man?s interpretation. The fact that Speiser was an expert in Semitic languages did not mean that he was qualified to have the last word on the meaning of Genesis. About the freshness of the scholarship, It isn?t fresh enough for the general editor, David Noel Freedman. In March, 1998, following a lecture, I heard Professor Freedman, in response to a question about deficiencies in the Anchor Bible, explain that it was time to redo several volumes of the Anchor Bible, and he specifically mentioned Genesis. Dr. Freedman doesn?t espouse the ?documentary hypothesis? and has authored several books and papers presenting a very different perspective on the formation of the canon of Hebrew scripture. While I occupy a very different position religiously, and in regard to Biblical inspiration and authority, than Dr. Freedman, I have a lot of respect for his intelligence and his scholarship. He would not agree with you about Speiser?s sufficiency on Genesis. The documentary hypothesis and historical critical theology are flights of fantasy, not discovered truth. In 1991 Professor Gabriel Barkay visited the U.S. for a lecture tour and he presented his discovery of the ?silver scrolls?, artifacts from the 7th century B.C. with the prieslty blessing engraved on them (Numbers 6:24-26). At that time, in his lecture on April 21, he said, with evident satisfaction, ?that?s another nail in the coffin of Historical Criticism.? I laughed, and so did most of the mixed audience, in which there were very few conservative Christians. Do not be mislead into thinking that you have the last or best scholarly word, or factual presentation, in your Anchor Bible Genesis commentary.

Steven, you are blaming the messenger here. It is an ancient error that cost many messengers their lives in earlier times. I might add that, were it not for Bible scholarship, we would not have the Bible at all. It didn't just come together by itself.

Actually, Steven was careful not to ?blame the messenger.? In a very nonthreatening way he disagreed with your assertions, but avoided blaming or accusing you. He did not criticize the man, he disagreed with the claims, and for good reason.

May I say also, without attacking the messenger, to suppose that ?Bible scholarship? has somehow preserved or produced the Bible is not accurate. In Bible times, Ezra would probably qualify as a scholar, but few of the other authors would have. The New Testament heroes and writers found themselves at odds with the most respected scholars of their generation. Bible believers, people of faith, have done their part in preserving and passing along the text, but the scholars have often done their best to either seal up or distort the message and retain a monopoly on both the message and its interpretation. Let?s not give up our own capacity for critical thinking because someone attaches letters to their name.

I have no problem with someone claiming that the Bible is God's word, but that is an oversimplification. What about the various books that were canonical for centuries and later removed? Were they the word of God until their removal, after which they became the word of man? Once again, you have a logical problem here. Bible scholars realize things like this. They realize, for example, that Paul could not possibly have written many of the letters creditted to him. They realize that 2 Peter is little more than a plagiarism of Jude and should probably not even be in the canon. They realize that if John the Apostle wrote the fourth gospel, then he could not possibly have written Revelation because a literary analysis of the two books precludes common authorship.

So... have you really bought this notion, that we can?t know what the Bible is? I?m afraid you have. It is not true, and there is no historical basis for it. The canon of the Hebrew Bible is clear, from the first century of our era there is abundant testimony to it. The canon of the New Testament is equally clear, there is no confusion or uncertainty about the 27 books that are authoritative. The only New Testament book whose authorship is really uncertain is Hebrews. No one knows who the human author was, and there is no solid historical basis to establish it, only conjecture. However, the Pauline epistles are clearly Pauline, there is no evidence to the contrary and abundant evidence in favor or his authorship, both internal and external, despite the prejudices and preconceptions of some imaginative critics. If we?re going to talk about evidence, not skeptical opinions, then the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the New Testament we have and the authors ascribed. Literary analysis may raise interesting questions about the relationship of John and Revelation, but it cannot ?preclude? anything. Common authorship is not a tenet of faith in this matter, divine inspiration is, but literary analysis can only stimulate thinking, it is not definitive. The settings and circumstances of John and Revelation are utterly different, and it would be absurd to expect the same literary style and vocabulary whether there was one author named John or two. The two books may have been separated by 30 years in the times of their writing, and a vast body of experiences and travel would affect the style and vocabulary of the author. Literary analysis is severely limited in producing certain conclusions or authoritative pronouncements. Opinion is about all it can reasonably manage. Other evidence, more ancient and more credible, tells us that John and Revelation are scripture, and that the earliest and best understanding was that both were written by the apostle John.

The people who have discovered these things over the centuries have, in most cases, devoted their entire adult lives to Bible research. They are, for the most part, devout Jews and Christians. To refer to their work as 'calling the Word a lie' shows a certain detachment from reality. I don't think that's a legitimate part of religion, certainly not of mine, and I don't think God is pleased by people who make such condemnations. Just my opinion, as a messenger.

I?m trying to think of who, among the writers of the Anchor Bible commentary series, would describe themselves as either ?devout Jews? or ?devout Christians.? I need some help there. The one?s I?ve met and heard and questioned on the lecture circuit, only a few of the total, haven?t described themselves that way, and I don?t think they would. A few others whose books and articles I?ve read wouldn?t describe themselves in those terms either. I?ve known other competent and recognized scholars who might, but it?s too much of an assertion to say that those who write the opinions you?ve embraced are ?for the most part, devout Jews and Christians? when many of them definitely would not identify themselves in those terms. The reason Steven can accurately describe their work as ?calling the Word a lie? is because many of them do. Is the word myth less inflammatory than the word lie? Are words like ?plagiarize? and ?crib? a legitimate part of your religion, but ?lie? is not? You?d be happy with ?calling the Word a myth? (which you have done) but not ?calling the Word a lie?? Indeed, there is some ?detachment from reality here.? Whose ever messenger you are, at least be a consistent and honest messenger. Apply to yourself the standards you hold others to.

Those called ?scholars? have no monopoly on truth or insight. Their opinions and interpretations are subject to change, and necessarily must change, being founded on the philosophies of their times, and not immutable truth. May I suggest, Essay, a foray into some of those authors you spurn (and only a couple of the authors I previously mentioned could be considered conservative Christians, that was the point). Try a little Bruce Metzger or F. F. Bruce on the canon of scripture, just to round out your reading a little bit. Not that I wholly agree with either author, but that their discussion of processes and textual evidence would be broadening. Try Etta Linnemann, ?Historical Criticism of The Bible?for a different perspective on the ?scholarship? that underlies the Anchor Bible series, from one steeped in that background. Try ?The Unity of The Hebrew Bible? by David Noel Freedman, and get some new ideas. He?s an Anchor Bible scholar, test some of his thoughtful analysis. These books are not going to promote the ?creationism? that started this discussion, most of them aren't even going to promote Biblical inerrancy. They?re just going to show you that the ideas you?ve swallowed whole are by no means a monolithic consensus among ?scholars? and that maybe you should entertain some other thoughts.