Elaine Pagels interview

[Guest]

Hello, gentlemen,

Thank you for your responses. I am going to reply to your comments on the shared subject in one post, here.

kaufmannphillips: Check the notes in your margin. It is generally held that 16:9-20 is not part of the original text for Mark.

JC: Something probably not found in your margin: Irenaeus, who was taught by Polycarp (who was taught by John) quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies (Book3 10:5-6). Irenaeus pre-dates Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The "long ending of Mark" appears as early as the 5th century in Codex Alexandrinus/Ephraemi Rescriptus. Though there are two manuscripts that pre-date this codex, they do not pre-date Irenaeus, who wrote from the 2nd century.

roblaine: In regards to Mark 16:9-20, JC makes a very good point, and I would like to add my thoughts.

It seems to me that if anyone wants to hold to the idea that Mark 16:9-20 was not part of the original, at best they could claim that the subject is undecided. The majority of manuscripts include the long ending of Mark. This is called the Byzantine majority.

The main support cited by those who appose the long ending of Mark is in two arguments. First the oldest manuscript is the best, and seconds the use of textual criticism (which is popular among many scholars).

There are four manuscripts that do no include the long ending of Mark, and the are:

Codex Sinaiticus - (4th century Alexandrian)
Codex Vaticanus - (4th century Alexandrian)
304 (12th century Byzantine)
2386 (11th century Byzantine)

Some would say that the majority of Greek lectionaries don't include Mark 16:9-20, but all that are fully intact do include these verses.

The last of these manuscripts (2386) is missing the entire page in which these verses would be found. The 4th century manuscripts are the earliest, but of course this does not mean that the are the most accurate. There are by my research four, 5th century manuscripts that include the long ending.

Though this subject is interesting it is a diversion from the initial topic. However, I wanted to defend my use of Mark 16:15-18.

Now, JC - Irenaeus is not mentioned in the margin of my NASB, but the notes of my NRSV study bible do mention second-century evidence, and Irenaeus is mentioned in the critical apparatus of my NA27 .

Yes, Irenaeus may be used to date Mark 16:19 to the latter second century, and yes, this pre-dates the uncial manuscripts which lack vv. 9-20, but this does not demonstrate the originality of vv. 9-20. The task of textual criticism is not so simple as ferreting out the earliest manuscript testimony possible, and following it. Rather, one must look to the entire corpus of evidence, and ask what sequence of development is most likely to account for the current forms which are evidenced.

Besides the two Alexandrian uncials (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), we have two medieval Byzantine manuscripts that lack vv. 9-20. What is more, we also have supplementary evidence from manuscripts of the ancient versions, including an Old Syriac MS, a Sahidic MS, and multiple Armenian MSS. This suggests a broader textual tradition than just a couple of idiosyncratic Alexandrian manuscripts. (Also, Eusebius claims the majority of manuscripts lacked the verses following verse 8 - in his time and place, at least... and recognizing his personal bias and tradition).

Besides this, we have other textual evidence for Mark that features diverse forms for the ending from verse 8 onwards, including seventh-, eighth- & ninth-century uncials, and multiple manuscripts of the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Ethiopian versions. Assessment of the evidence requires that the textual critic account for how the aggregate body of manuscripts might arrive at such a variety of endings following verse eight, including a longer option, a shorter option, and the option of no addendum at all.

The preferable opinion is that the stark original ending of Mark was deemed unsatisfactory, and so the gospel was redacted to include one or another of cosmetic improvements. One line of tradition powdered the text with a shorter resolution, another line of tradition expanded the text more considerably, and still other manuscripts embraced other alternatives.

Why is this "the preferable opinion"? Because:
(1) the possibility that some persons would/could supplement the stark ending of verse 8 seems immensely more likely than the possibility that some persons would/could intentionally excise a full dozen verses out of some of the most important narrative of the gospel - especially because there is little apparent motive for such an excision;
(2) if the lacuna of vv. 9-20 were to be attributed to simple trauma in textual transmission, it would seem remarkably convenient that the trauma should have happened to have fallen at a place that yielded a coherent ending - and then the subsequent line of transmission would have had to have persisted despite the fact that the narrative and theological shortfall posed by the verses' omission should have encouraged copyists to be sensitive to precisely such a defect;
(3) we have evidence in other Greek literature to support understanding the stark ending as a literary device, and not a textual defect;
(4) there is a reasonably apparent narrative seam between verse 8 and whatever happens to follow it;
(5) we find a diversity in attempts to follow verse 8; and
(6) much of the content of the supplemental options seems fairly generic, somewhat slapdash, and/or easily culled from other NT sources - which may be seen as a subjective assessment, but one posed by persons who have the background to discern such things intuitively.

These kinds of considerations outweigh the simple factors of manuscripts' dating or majority status. In the first case, for the church to have addressed the stark ending of Mark by the late second century (as evidenced by Irenaeus) should not be surprising, and we have evidence of sufficient antiquity to offset a charge of medieval fabrication (as in the case of the Johannine Comma). In the second case, as is widely appreciated amongst textual critics, mere superiority of numbers does not demonstrate superiority in textual sourcing; producing fifty or a thousand copies of an inferior manuscript does not suffice to elevate its textual-form to a more respectable status. And for what it is worth, we may reiterate that Eusebius claims the majority of manuscripts lacked the verses following verse 8.

Now, Robin - you have stated that "if anyone wants to hold to the idea that Mark 16:9-20 was not part of the original, at best they could claim that the subject is undecided." Of course, the United Bible Societies' most recent edition of the NT Greek text has rated vv. 9-20 as "certain[ly]" not original. And even such a conservative scholar as F. F. Bruce has opined that the verses were not part of the original gospel. The decision of most New Testament scholars, whether conservative or liberal, has not been ambivalent - and it has not been in favor of the verses' originality.

But you may derive some gratification that, for my part, I will decamp to a more cautious position, which somewhat inverts your assertion: if somebody wishes to hold to the idea that verses 9-20 were part of the original, at best they could claim that the evidence is not utterly conclusive. It is imaginable that the manuscript evidence could be accounted for by simple trauma amputating the longer form, with subsequent attempts at compensation as found in the various other forms. Such would require either that the particular line(s) of transmission involved were sufficiently isolated as not to be corrected by the longer form of the text, or that some scribal idiosyncracy in clinging to the defective form somehow became fairly influential. These scenarios are not impossible, though they may be discounted on subjective terms due to the flavor of verses 9-20 (a line of argumentation which I do not expect to be convincing to you).

And so I will withdraw my earlier statement that "Mark records nothing said by the risen Jesus," and state instead that "it is debatable whether or not Mark records anything said by the risen Jesus." But in the bigger picture, that which is attributed to the risen Jesus in verses 9-20 hardly adds much to what is found in the other synoptics, and what it does add is missions-oriented (like Matthew), and has rather little to do with articulating the significance of the death or resurrection of Jesus.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Below I will respond to the balance of your posting:

kaufmannphillips: Neither you nor I know those individuals personally, and neither you nor I have them available for direct inquiry.

roblaine: We have the next best thing. There personal testimony.

A personal testimony which cannot be personally cross-examined or clarified, much to our impoverishment.

kaufmannphillips: I am fairly confident that Jesus' disciples were humans, and as such they would have experienced emotional and psychological reaction to personal loss.

roblaine: Of course they had an "emotional and psychological reaction" to the death of Jesus, but I would add that they had "emotional and psychological reaction" to the resurrection of Jesus as well. This is evident by the life of the disciples as it is recorded in the book of Acts.

Which basically dovetails with my point, though I would articulate it as "an emotional and psychological reaction to the putative resurrection of Jesus." But whether or not there was a resurrection, it does not necessarily follow that the disciples, in their personal emotional and psychological reactions, accurately recognized and articulated the significance of such a resurrection.

As you are aware, John's Gospel was the last to be written. He likely had seen the gospels written by the Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Perhaps John didn't want to record all the events that were covered by the synoptics. On top of that, John's Gospel seems to be written on a spiritual level, (more so that the other Gospels). However these facts don't through into question the reliability of Johns Gospel, but rather they shows John's independents and gives him credibility.

It is not given that John was the last to be written. But regardless, the difference in content is not merely incidental, but substantial; the material is not merely unique, yet consonant, but rather unique and incongruous.

The "spiritual" excuse is a pious whitewash for theological fabrication; the gnostic texts were highly "spiritual" by comparison, too.

And the argument of greater credibility through independence is woefully misapplied here. Such an argument attains limited traction in cases of marginal distinction, but it fails in cases of gross divergence. One might argue in parallel that apocryphal or gnostic documents should be embraced, since they are so obviously independent of the synoptic tradition.

I'm fully aware of the differences that exist between John's gospel, and that of the Synoptics. However, I don't take the illogical leap to cast aside John's gospel as "ahistorical", or rank with odor.

I wonder if you are "fully aware," because you hold the opinion that you do. Would you mind giving a catalog of said differences that you are "fully aware" of?

And you do like to throw down that adjective "illogical." How about backing it up with some "logical" demonstration? I notice that you neglected to quote the section where I gave a rational (if brief) explanation for my perspective.

Beyond which - religious studies, like any discipline amongst the humanities, is an art as well as a science. Logic is only one tool for engagement, and abstract or intuitive contributions also have their place.

kaufmannphillips: Would you do me the service of explaining your understanding of "historical evidence"?

roblaine: We have the "historical" writings of the apostles, and none of them indicate the disciple felt slighted or lied to by Jesus. As a matter of fact, we have just the opposite. The apostles show nothing but adoration for Jesus, and constantly refer to Him as Lord.

And how is this different from appealing to the "historical" writings of Muhammad or Paramhansa Yogananda? The claims of these documents are a part of history, but this does not mean that they are fully reliable evidence for what actually transpired in the past.

Some of the writings we have may fairly reflect the personal opinions of certain disciples (though this is not a given, due to the potential for redaction and pious fabrication). But if the apostles' writings fairly indicate their glowing opinions, this does not demonstrate the means by which they came to such glowing opinions; neither does it demonstrate that their adoration and trust was rightly placed. Historical documents bear no shortage of imprudent adulation and devotion.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

The "spiritual" excuse is a pious whitewash for theological fabrication; the gnostic texts were highly "spiritual" by comparison, too.

And the argument of greater credibility through independence is woefully misapplied here. Such an argument attains limited traction in cases of marginal distinction, but it fails in cases of gross divergence. One might argue in parallel that apocryphal or Gnostic documents should be embraced, since they are so obviously independent of the synoptic tradition.

Christians don't deny the Gnostics credibility bases on their independence, but rather because they are inconsistent with what we know to be true about Jesus. None are written by men who knew Jesus while bearing the names of such men (Judas, Thomas, peter, Phillip). All are late (2 & 3 century) documents, and when compared with the reliable history of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) they don't bear any resemblence to what we know about Jesus.

Christians accept Johns Gospel because we know that John was the author, the same John that lived with Jesus, was taught by Jesus, and witnessed His death and resurrection.

I wonder if you are "fully aware," because you hold the opinion that you do. Would you mind giving a catalog of said differences that you are "fully aware" of?

So, if I don't hold your opinion, I must not be aware of all the facts?

I will be happy to explain some of the difference that I find in Johns Gospel, but I must ask you once again to defend you statement that Johns Gospel is ahistorical. And perhaps you can come up with more than "it stinks".

The birth of Jesus.

John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
1:7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
1:11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

These verses are a perfect example of how John spoke of Jesus in spiritual fashion. Referring to Jesus as the "light", and the "Word". John also speaks of Christ’s deity by stating "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.". Perhaps this is why you don't like John's Gospel?

Events that John mentions that are not mention in the other gospels.

The discussion with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21)
The woman at the well (John 4:1-26)
Turning the water into wine (John 2:1-11)
Healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-15)
Healing of man born blind (John 9:1-12)
Raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-16)

Other differences in John's Gospel.

John puts the cleansing of the temple early in Jesus' ministry, when the others put this late in His ministry. However I would consider these to be separate events.

The events of the last supper are described in more detail. John records Jesus washing the feet of His disciples, when none of the others mention this.

At the resurrection John only records Mary's experience at the tomb, and the ensuing events that occurs afterwards are described in greater detail by John (Jesus' appears to Thomas, The miraculous fish catch, and the reinstatement of Peter.

But what does this all mean? Should we toss aside John testimony because he records a different set of events than the synoptic Gospels, or should we consider the possibility that John's intentions were not to give us information that the others left out? We should also consider the reliability of the testimony of the person. John by all accounts had a close relationship with Jesus, and witnessed these events first hand.

And how is this different from appealing to the "historical" writings of Muhammad or Paramhansa Yogananda? The claims of these documents are a part of history, but this does not mean that they are fully reliable evidence for what actually transpired in the past.

I have not read the historical writing of Muhammad or Paramhansa Yogananda, so at this time I would be unable to engage in a critique of their writings. However I do consider them to be historical writing and they should be looked at in the same light of skepticism as any other historical books.

Some of the writings we have may fairly reflect the personal opinions of certain disciples (though this is not a given, due to the potential for redaction and pious fabrication). But if the apostles' writings fairly indicate their glowing opinions, this does not demonstrate the means by which they came to such glowing opinions; neither does it demonstrate that their adoration and trust was rightly placed. Historical documents bear no shortage of imprudent adulation and devotion.

Well it seems that the burden of proof is on you. Why don't you try and make your case, and explain in detail why the apostle’s testimony is less that trust worthy. And would you mind applying the same level of critique to the Torah and see if it holds up?

Thank you,
Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response.

Christians don't deny the Gnostics credibility bases on their independence, but rather because they are inconsistent with what we know to be true about Jesus. None are written by men who knew Jesus while bearing the names of such men (Judas, Thomas, peter, Phillip). All are late (2 & 3 century) documents, and when compared with the reliable history of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) they don't bear any resemblence to what we know about Jesus.

My comments addressed your argument of extending credibility based upon independence.

As for lack of resemblance, I concur that this is a valid reason for adopting a skeptical posture toward a document. It is a reason I have already introduced as a point of criticism against John: "[T]he difference in content is not merely incidental, but substantial; the material is not merely unique, yet consonant, but rather unique and incongruous."

Christians accept Johns Gospel because we know that John was the author, the same John that lived with Jesus, was taught by Jesus, and witnessed His death and resurrection.

And which John was this? The gospel itself, of course, does not identify the author by name.

Beyond which: even if the author lived with Jesus, was taught by Jesus, and witnessed the crucifixion and its aftermath, this does not demonstrate that the author's work is accurate or trustworthy. Groupies can harbor quite distorted views of their gurus, based not so much upon actual reality, but upon their personal hopes and phantasies. In addition to which, we may consider the relative tolerance (and even expectation) for margins of flexibility and inventiveness in ancient historiography.

It is most regrettable that we lack first-person testimony from Jesus of Nazareth. I wonder why we encounter such a deficit? If Jesus were the linchpin of divine self-revelation, why would he not supply as many people as possible with his own words, from his own hands?

I wonder if you are "fully aware," because you hold the opinion that you do. Would you mind giving a catalog of said differences that you are "fully aware" of?

So, if I don't hold your opinion, I must not be aware of all the facts?

I "wonder"ed; you "must"ed.

It is appropriate, when persons have differing perspectives on an issue, to consider that they might have differing acquaintance with the data. Now, you claimed that you were "fully aware of the differences that exist between John's gospel, and that of the Synoptics," which is a claim to extraordinary awareness - and such a claim evokes suspicion that the claimant may be prematurely satisfied in their own understanding.

I will be happy to explain some of the difference that I find in Johns Gospel...

Which fall into two categories: (1) relatively pedestrian issues of unique detail or minor narrative distinction; and (2) a citation from the prologue. As I will discuss further below, these do not quite demonstrate a full awareness of the issues at hand.

I will not bother much with the pedestrian issues you have identified. They are not a primary concern.

As for the material from the prologue, this does broach a significant concern:

These verses are a perfect example of how John spoke of Jesus in spiritual fashion. Referring to Jesus as the "light", and the "Word". John also speaks of Christ’s deity...

This provides a serviceable example of how John portrays Jesus in cosmic terms, far beyond what we find in the synoptic gospels. It would be inadequate to pawn this off as a mere distinction of John's, as if it were something the synoptics overlooked. The cosmic/divine character of Jesus in the Johannine gospel is qualitatively different from what we find in the synoptics, and the thundering question is: if Jesus truly were cosmic/divine as thus, how could the synoptic writers possibly neglect such a profound and important datum in their portraiture of Jesus?

Besides which, we may acknowledge another dimension here; you describe John as writing about Jesus "in spiritual fashion," but there is more to it than that. It is rather plain that John's prologue draws upon philosophical thought from a Hellenistic quarter (either paralleling or springboarding from certain Jewish thought of the era, which was influenced by Hellenistic paradigms). Traversing beyond the synoptics, John tacks into that foetid estuary where the stream of Jewish faith swirls under the force of mighty tides from external Greek thought.

Now, it is very easy to understand how this development might occur in the context of the first century. But it is rather a different order to validate such a development, when the end result is such a departure from the character of the previous stream of faith. The problem is not merely that John is different here - it is that John is different in such a fundamental way, and in such profane and syncretic terms.

John also speaks of Christ’s deity by stating "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.". Perhaps this is why you don't like John's Gospel?

Actually, that particular statement does not demonstrate Jesus' deity - at least, not in the way most Christians understand deity. The logos theology found here is potentially more nuanced than most Christians appreciate. John's contemporary, Philo, has a significant theology of the logos, which may be of great relevance to understanding what John is getting at here.

As for "lik[ing]" John's gospel: as a piece of religious literature, it is artfully composed and historically interesting (like Yogananda's Autobiography). But I "don't like" the grievous error the text springboards into.

Perhaps you "don't like" 3 Nephi?

We should also consider the reliability of the testimony of the person. John by all accounts had a close relationship with Jesus, and witnessed these events first hand.

We would have better grounds for "consider[ing] the reliability of the testimony of the person" if we could determine who that person was. The gospel itself is anonymous, and its philosophical content and fine composition are not quite what we might expect from John the son of Zebedee (cf., e.g., Acts 4:13).

I have not read the historical writing of Muhammad or Paramhansa Yogananda, so at this time I would be unable to engage in a critique of their writings. However I do consider them to be historical writing and they should be looked at in the same light of skepticism as any other historical books.

"[A]ny other historical books" including the documents of the New Testament?

I affirm that historical books merit some skeptical consideration before their claims are taken at face value - especially historical books that have a clear partisan stance, whether political or religious.

Well it seems that the burden of proof is on you. Why don't you try and make your case, and explain in detail why the apostle’s testimony is less that trust worthy.

It seems that, for some Christians, the "burden of proof" is chronically upon persons who don't subscribe to their dogmas. One wonders what "burden of proof" they require of those who do subscribe.


Anyway, to introduce a few specific items:

We don't have to proceed very far beyond the prologue you have cited to run into some eyebrow-raising material. In John 1:23 we find John the Baptizer quoting Isaiah 40:3: "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said." In the synoptics, we certainly find this verse applied to John the Baptizer, but we do not find its citation in his very own mouth (q.v., Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4). Are we to imagine that the other gospels neglected to mention that John himself articulated this connection?

Placing the quotation into John's own mouth is a step in narrative creativity that befits apocryphal narrative, where persons are made to speak, not historically, but iconically, according to pious imagination. The commonly-accepted proof-text associated with John the Baptizer is thus dislocated from the voice of the narrator (as in the synoptics) and invested with John's own tongue.

Moving from the Baptizer, then, to the main character of the gospel, we find that John's Jesus speaks in a rather different way from the Jesus found in the synoptics. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus recurringly stays on the "down-low," asking persons not to speak of his messiahship or his miraculous activity (q.v., Mt 8:4; 9:30; 12:16; 16:20; 17:9; Mk 1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9; Lk 4:41; 5:14; 8:56; 9:21); in John, he is not so secretive about his messiahship and/or special personhood (q.v., 4:25ff.; 10:24ff.).

Rather, John's Jesus goes on and on about himself and how nifty he is, including a passel of unique "I am" metaphors (e.g., 10:7ff.; 15:1ff.). It is worth noting that in a synoptic witness, God's people are "the light of the world," while in John it has (characteristically) become all about Jesus (q.v., Mt 5:14; Jn 8:12; 9:5).

In the synoptic tradition, Jesus' message is not so much his own person, but rather the Kingdom of God/Heaven (mentioned some 25+ times in Mt; some 10 times in Mk; some dozen-and-a-half times in Lk). But the kingdom of God is mentioned only once in John (and Jesus refers to his kingdom on one other occasion).

We find in John a distinct treatment of "the Jews," as compared to the synoptic gospels. Usage of the diction itself is telling: Matthew features "the Jews" four times, thrice by Romans and once (neutrally) by the narrator; Mark features the diction four times, all by Romans; Luke features it five times, thrice by Romans and twice (neutrally) by the narrator; John, in contrast, features the diction some sixty times, often to denote bloc antagonists of Jesus (q.v., 5:16, 18; 6:41, 52; 7:1, 13; 8:48, 52; 9:22; 10:31, 33; 11:8; 18:31; 19:38; 20:19), and even placing the diction in the mouth of Jesus himself (q.v., 13:33; 18:36).

This evidences a dislocated perspective, polarized and inattentive to the fact that Jesus and his supporters were also Jews, and that many Jews took no significant stance toward Jesus whatsoever, either for or against. John features here the language and posture of rhetoric, not responsible (or credible) historiography.

We may find further indication of this perspective in John 8:17 and 10:34, where Jesus speaks to Jewish persons of "your law," as if it were not also his law. Synoptic diction is reserved to "the law": Matthew features this in the mouth of Jesus seven times (see 12:5 for strong contrast); Luke four times (see 10:26); Mark (surprisingly) never mentions the law at all. John likewise employs "the law" on some occasions, but his unique usage of "your law" is remarkable.

For a final example, we may consider John's treatment of the Eucharist in chapter six. On the one hand, it is curious that Jesus is having a controversy with "the Jews" (including some of his disciples) over the cannibalistic imagery of the Eucharist - before the Last Supper has even transpired! On the other hand, it is interesting that the discourse in chapter six appears to be levelled at an alternate casting of the Eucharist in the early church (as I have discussed elsewhere), which further raises the question of anachronism and thus ahistoricity (this, assuming that the eucharistic ritual was first instituted at the Last Supper, and had not been celebrated earlier in Jesus' ministry). And on yet another hand, it is worth noticing that John exacerbates the imagery to be yet more intense and offensive to Jewish sensibilities, dealing with flesh(sarx)/blood rather than the body(soma)/blood found elsewhere in the NT; this bears the odor of rhetorical evolution.


We may note, then, a number of hallmarks of ahistorical religious literature from the time period: introduction of Hellenistic philosophical construct; importation of secondary theology or evolved rhetoric into the mouth of an iconic figure; portraiture and/or thematic emphases that contrast with trends in more trustworthy sources; perspective that is dislocated from the historically-appropriate context; and (likely) anachronism. Such elements alert a sensitive reader to be wary of taking a document at face value (as a fair acquaintance with ahistorical religious literature from the Second Temple/Early Christian periods will bear out).

Which brings us to "the sniff test." Greater familiarity with a relevant body of literature makes impressionistic appraisal of a document's character both natural and worthy of attention. Perhaps I should not expect an appeal to abstract or aesthetic impression to be convincing per se, but concrete and clinical analyses are not the only tools available to humanity. Arts can be practically useful, and not only sciences; the more one learns in a field, the more one utilizes abstract and aesthetic tools - and the more accurately so, too.

And would you mind applying the same level of critique to the Torah and see if it holds up?

Allow me the economy of referencing a previous thread (edited a bit):

kaufmannphillips: I will mention briefly that raising questions and involving critical suspicions does not necessarily result in an utter annihilation of data – in either testament. It is not an all-or-nothing affair, as some might try to portray it. Beyond this, doubt about a narrative’s historical accuracy should not inhibit one’s ability to discover moral/transcendent lessons through it, any more than from a sheer fable.

As for my own religious life, it does not hinge upon the historical sections per se, but upon the legal codes preserved in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Formation and transmission of legal material is qualitatively different from historical literature, to some extent. However, it may be granted that there are relevant avenues for critical inquiry even with the legal codes. These are pertinent and applicable, and I am willing to entertain such objections. I am suspicious of the book of Deuteronomy as a possible interloper to the legal tradition, for example. [Accordingly, I do not conform to the legal codes found in Deuteronomy.]

It is accurate to say that there are broader grounds for critical skepticism toward the Hebrew bible than for the New Testament. [...I]ts production is farther removed from the events it describes (probably), and there may be some archaeological contraindication. [But I have to admit that Hebrew bible studies are less a part of my scholastic activity. The literacy quotient for Hebrew bible would add another seven languages, another 2000 years, and a gaggle of cultures to my load, and I have already pretty well focused my scholastic life on the Second Temple/early Christian period.]

[...]

I should also point out that critical skepticism plays, at most, a partial role in my withholding credence from the New Testament. I withhold credence in large part because the New Testament claims continuity with the Israelite/Jewish faith, but actually involves profound discontinuity. Christianity is, in vague terms, the Jewish Mormonism. Both Christianity and Mormonism claim a continuity with their parent faith which does not actually exist: both make what is not God to be God, and both make God to be what God is not.

As for my devotion to Torah (i.e., the legal codes enumerated above), it is based upon history, but in sizable part my personal history – my decision in the last fourteen years to adhere to its practice as part of my religious life. This is twentieth/twenty-first-century [CE] in nature, not thirteenth [BCE]. [...] I have experienced, enjoyed, and benefited from the sheer practice of Torah for many years, and the present value of its precepts is not dependent upon the historical veracity of its narrative setting in the Hebrew text. But if I came to understand that part or all of the legal paradigm was not acceptable to God, then I would abandon it. Authority rests with God himself. Everything else is ancillary, and if I should understand that God wishes me to disengage from Torah, then so it will be. But whether the Torah came to be part of covenantal relationship with God in the way the Hebrew bible describes or not -- this does not determine whether or not it is a justifiable paradigm for covenant with God in the present day.

Shlamaa,
Emmet