Modern archaeology and historical research inform us that the Israelites did not leave Egypt in a great exodus, that there was no conquest of the land of Canaan and that it is very unlikely that the Jews and Israelites were ever really united under Saul, David and Solomon. Instead, the available evidence suggests a loosely organized people that were almost always dominated by the great empires which surrounded them. Indeed, many passages within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures reinforce the portrait of a small and relatively poor group of people subject at various times to Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans.
Of course, most Biblical literalists reject/ignore all of this evidence. Anything that contradicts anything within their sacred book can't be right. They simply bury their heads in the sand and jump on the occasional isolated find/discovery that seems to reinforce something referenced in the book and go on their merry way.
On the other extreme, we have a significant number of people who look at the evidence and conclude that the Bible (and the religions which are based on it) must be rejected/disregarded. For them, the book's lack of historicity and internal contradictions demonstrate that it is not worthy of serious consideration by modern man.
Nevertheless, when I look at the evidence, I am persuaded that something special happened relative to the Hebrews and their God - something still worthy of our attention and consideration. How could I possibly reach such a conclusion based on this evidence?
Allow me to answer that question with a few questions of my own: How did an insignificant group of people have such a significant impact on the larger world? Why did the religious beliefs of a people at the crossroads of world empires supplant the well-developed belief systems of the folks who repeatedly defeated and dominated them? And why would those conquerors be interested in adopting beliefs over which they had triumphed and in some cases had actively sought to suppress? How did the YHWH of the Hebrews become THE GOD of a large portion of humanity? And how did an ordinary Jew of questionable parentage, who was rejected by his own people and killed by their Roman overlords, become the Savior of so many billions of people on this planet? Given the discoveries of archaeologists and historians referenced above, none of these developments seems very likely or plausible - do they?
Of course, most Biblical literalists reject/ignore all of this evidence. Anything that contradicts anything within their sacred book can't be right. They simply bury their heads in the sand and jump on the occasional isolated find/discovery that seems to reinforce something referenced in the book and go on their merry way.
On the other extreme, we have a significant number of people who look at the evidence and conclude that the Bible (and the religions which are based on it) must be rejected/disregarded. For them, the book's lack of historicity and internal contradictions demonstrate that it is not worthy of serious consideration by modern man.
Nevertheless, when I look at the evidence, I am persuaded that something special happened relative to the Hebrews and their God - something still worthy of our attention and consideration. How could I possibly reach such a conclusion based on this evidence?
Allow me to answer that question with a few questions of my own: How did an insignificant group of people have such a significant impact on the larger world? Why did the religious beliefs of a people at the crossroads of world empires supplant the well-developed belief systems of the folks who repeatedly defeated and dominated them? And why would those conquerors be interested in adopting beliefs over which they had triumphed and in some cases had actively sought to suppress? How did the YHWH of the Hebrews become THE GOD of a large portion of humanity? And how did an ordinary Jew of questionable parentage, who was rejected by his own people and killed by their Roman overlords, become the Savior of so many billions of people on this planet? Given the discoveries of archaeologists and historians referenced above, none of these developments seems very likely or plausible - do they?
No comments:
Post a Comment