|
|
With
the release of the full-length cartoon 'Prince of Egypt' has come a plethora of
criticism as to the authenticity of the Biblical record, on which the cartoon
was loosely based.
One
such source of these criticisms, Karen Armstrong, author of the book 'A History
of God' makes the following points, each of which will be commented on in due
course. Her criticisms are similar to most of the other criticisms which have
been raised, so the responses which follow should be generally applicable.
1.
"Moses may not have existed".
2.
"There is not a shred of historical evidence of the exodus . . ."
3.
The story of Moses is a "myth", that is, it is a story which has been
"liberated from its historical setting".
4.
The Law of Moses is self-contradictory.
The
first three criticisms fall into the same general camp. They deal with the
accuracy and authenticity of the events described in the book of Exodus, while
the fourth is a separate issue, aimed at finding fault with the Law of God.
Unfortunately
for Christians who believe that the Bible is God's Word, the moment any defence
is made, the label 'Fundamentalist' is attached to them. Thus 'pigeon-holed',
anything they subsequently try to say is instantly categorised and dropped in
the box marked 'Gullible, Naive and Narrow-minded'. It is very difficult to work
when one's point of view is treated this way, because the argument is considered
'lost' before it is begun.
On
the other hand, the Liberal, (such as Karen Armstrong), who views the Bible as a
collection of myths and somewhat tattered religious relics, is usually
well-received by the general public, because most people have a natural
inclination to treat the Bible this way. But logically, if the Bible is indeed
the Word of God, the Liberals and their relatives would be placed in a
terrifying position. It is therefore much easier to disbelieve, and (quite
understandably) a bewildering amount of work has gone into supporting the
Liberal views.
And
why stop at Moses? Liberals consider the whole Old Testament suspect. They
describe the entire work it mythology, and religion, and they say it is
culturally anachronistic and historically inaccurate. They look for faults in
the texts, the history, the characters, the dates, the personages, the events,
the records, the recording process and the geography. They leave no text
unchallenged.
This
is not to say that such criticism is unwelcome. It is in fact very welcome, -
but only when it is fair and reasonable. Only a bully knocks someone down and
then kicks them. The Bible has many learned and highly able champions, who can
defend its accuracy and authenticity, but when they are not permitted to speak,
or when they are labelled 'Fundamentalist' before their case is heard - that is
when Liberalism becomes a bully.
Now,
dealing (as a layman) with the 4 criticisms, I would like to say this.
1.
"Moses may not have existed".
We,
in the 20th century, seem to be labouring under a modern myth. This
modern myth is a myth which has come out of Western Materialism - namely, that,
because we know a lot about orbiting satellites, space travel, lasers, the
InterNet, DNA molecular biology, DNA, cloning, genetic engineering and because
we are surrounded by the fruits of a vast range of new branches of Science, we
are also, as a whole, a lot wiser when it comes to understanding ancient
documents. Another part of this myth is that, because we are so 'modern' and
'informed' we are therefore in a better position to cast doubt on the
records of people and events which happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.
This
'modern' scorn comes in the form of denigration of the Biblical record to the
level of "myth". Without any solid evidence against the Biblical claim
that Moses was a real man, the 'modern' mind considers him unreal -
despite the 'modern' mind's complete lack of training in that area of knowledge.
Is
this reasonable? No. Knowledge about the universe and the laws of Nature, and
the latest in technology does not equip us for correct understanding of ancient
documents. The reverse is also true. Bible scholars are not qualified to comment
on astronomy for example.
So
how do we know whether Moses was a real man or not?
One
way is to see if anyone with credibility accepts him as real. Despite the fact
that Liberals usually consider the whole Bible suspect and inaccurate, we have
the testimony of Jesus and Paul. Both of these New testament men firmly believed
in the literal accuracy of the book of Exodus.
However,
Karen Armstrong accuses Paul of mythologising the person of Jesus. Having cast
this slur at Jesus, and thus discounting (largely) the entire account of His
birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension) we are, I suppose,
expected to believe that Paul was not a real person either? Nothing, in fact, is
to be taken at face-value. The whole Bible - says the Liberal - is myth.
But
we must not stop there! If the Bible is myth, then all the people who believe it
today to be God's Word must be deluded. And further, the entire history of the
true Church (as it is based on Jesus Christ) has been a waste of time. All of
the efforts of millions of Christians, to propagate the gospel to all the world
has been based on (according to Karen Armstrong) a myth. The Church, although
sometimes useful for good works, is not much use for anything else - since all
its claims are based on a book of myths. Salvation therefore is more to do with
psychology than anything. Sin is a human problem, to be solved by counselling.
Death is the end of all consciousness.
You
see, when Moses is written off, everything connected with him is either written
off too, or considered faulty, or inaccurate, or unbelievable. When Moses is
reduced to a myth, the whole Bible starts to side down the hole, and as it goes,
it drags everything with it.
2.
"There is not a shred of historical evidence of the exodus . . ."
This
criticism is backed up, as far as I know, by Biblical scholars too. But there
may be a good reason for the lack of evidence. It hardly seems
appropriate for the Egyptian kingdom - the mighty, glorious Egyptian kingdom,
with its kings ruling under the eye and supposedly with the power of Ra,
high-priests on the throne of the sun, sun-gods all - to record a crushing
defeat. In fact, we should expect, after seeing the archaeological remains
of the Egypt which once was, with its pomp and grandeur, to find that the coming
of Moses has been erased from all national records and monuments. It is not the
sort thing the Egyptians would have wanted to remember. It was utterly
humiliating for them to admit that they, their gods and their
massive cities were no match for the God of the Hebrews.
So,
in a kind of inverted logic, the lack of evidence could be seen as
confirmation of the Biblical account.
And
let us not forget that there have been other great events in history
which have not been recorded in any great detail. And objects. The
hanging gardens of Babylon, for example, The life and times of great men and
women are only known to us through second, third, and fourth-hand accounts -
sometimes even flimsier than that. There are many things held today as accurate
history which have come to us through a 'silken thread' of material, such as the
lives of the Caesars - gathered from fragments of copies. If we were to base an
argument of accuracy on the number of copies of an original document, the New
Testament would win easily.
So
it is not reasonable to say that because there are not sufficient historical
records of an event, therefore that event is not believable. If that was the
rule, we would have to go through our history books with a pair of scissors.
A
third way to approach the criticism is to point at other criticisms. For
example, it was said that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first
five books of the Bible) because writing was not in existence . . . but the
"black stele" was discovered, which pre-dated Moses, on which
wedge-shaped characters containing the laws of Hammurabi were written.
Another
criticism was that there were no Hittite at the time of Abraham, because - the
critics pointed out - there were no written records of them. They must therefore
be a myth. But archaeology has since unearthed hundreds of records, outlining
1,200 years of Hittite civilisation.
Another
criticism was aimed at the Bible account of Daniel. Critics said it was written
400 years after the event, but gradually the archaeologists uncovered the ruins
of the area where Daniel lived, and found that his descriptions of the rulers,
the architecture and the common language or expressions were correct. They also
verified many other details which only one who lived at the time could have
known.
A
fourth view of this criticism is summed up by Millar Burrows of Yale (an
archaeologist, who wrote 'What Mean These Stones? New York, Meridian Books,
1956) "The excessive scepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from
a careful examination of the available data, but from an enormous disposition
against the supernatural."
3.
The story of Moses is a "myth", that is, it is a story which has been
"liberated from its historical setting".
There
are many "myths" in the world. Broadly speaking, they could be placed
in the bracket of folk-tales, fairy-tales, sagas, legends and so forth. They are
told with poetry or chant. They have beasts and characters which the hearers know
are not true - but the stories are enjoyed nonetheless.
But
the criticism holds that the Biblical account of Moses and the exodus is a
"myth", which Karen Armstrong defines as "an event liberated from
its historical setting". In other words she considers the Bible account as
"something which did not really happen".
But
there are problems with this criticism. The first is the critic's own
credibility. If there is no visible (written, painted, carved, etc) proof that
something did not occur, then the only other way we can prove it is by hearing
an eye-witness account. Mrs Armstrong is certainly not 1200 years old so she is
ruled out. So is the rest of the world. The only eye-witness account we do have
is the record which Moses himself wrote (as the Bible repeatedly says) but his
account has been ruled out. Who by? A critic 1200 years after the event. It is
therefore over to us to choose which of these two people we are to believe.
Another
point in favour of the Biblical account not being a myth is the way it
reads. It certainly does not read like one. If one were to evaluate it
simply as a piece of literature, the nearest modern literature it would sit
comfortably beside would be a newspaper. The style is succinct, the facts are
unemotional, objective and 'neutral', the reporting of the main events is in
some places sketchy, the faults and failings of all the participants are
recorded without bias. This is hardly the style of a myth. This is more like a
non-selective historical narrative.
As
to the "liberation from its historical setting" we have several more
problems. Are we to believe that someone, (or perhaps several people?) dreamed
up the whole story? For what purpose? The leader they dreamed up was hardly a
hero. The people he led were hardly grateful. The departure from Egypt was
followed by 40 years of wandering, complaining, idolatry and so on. Hardly the
great example to relate to one's children. If the book of Exodus was not centred
on a God who wanted to free a nation from slavery, it would be a miserable
story.
And
if the story of Moses was the figment of someone/s imagination, it is strange
that the name (or names) of the writers is not recorded anywhere. The only name
we have - which was verified by Jesus and Paul - is that of Moses. But of course
that is too simple and straight-forward for the critics. They would rather
postulate a myriad of other possibilities, for which they have absolutely no
evidence, rather than read what it actually says.
Why
is is so hard for some people to believe what the Bible says?
4.
The Law of Moses is self-contradictory.
This
criticism calls for Bible study, and it may be fair to say that it is not within
the scope of Karen Armstrong's expertise to deal with it. But even so, she has
thrown the gauntlet down and accused the Bible of being self-contradictory.
This, when you consider the implications, is a very serious charge. It reflects
on the alleged author, and in turn picks at His Character. If God has made a
mistake, by giving laws which are paradoxical, then God is not perfect.
Imperfection is sin therefore God is not the Almighty One He claims to be.
The
laws which Mrs Armstrong quotes are not self-contradictory, when read in context
and with an understanding of the situation in which they were given. The reason
many people find fault with the Bible is :
1.
Because they spend so little time studying it - compared to the enormous amount
of time they spend studying everything else, and
2.
Current modern philosophies and attitudes are incompatible with the Bible,
therefore the Bible is seen to be off-side, not modern Man.
The reality is actually the reverse. Rather than modern Man placing God in the dock and then hurling criticisms at Him, the Bible says that it is Man who is in the dock. Man is the one who must ultimately answer to God, not God to Man. The current spate of articles, all repeating the same criticisms about the authenticity of the Bible, are of the same essence. They are saying, in different words, and with different emphases, the same simple statement : "The Bible is not the Word of God." It is the lie which was first uttered by Satan to the first humans, and it has never changed.