Emory University is offering an on-line seven-week course on
"The Bible's Prehistory, Purpose and Political Future" taught by Prof. Jacob Wright. You can either participate for free, or pay a little to gain a certificate. It looks worthwhile, and apparently doesn't demand any particular prior knowledge. I haven't even considered any MOOCs up till now, but am considering this one. Thanks to
The Biblical Studies Online blog for drawing attention to this offering.
I signed up for it a few months ago. There's another, as well, that's looks really good being taught by Oded Lipschitz of Tel Aviv Univ. on the "Fall and Rise of Jerusalem," starting October.
ReplyDeleteIt might be interesting to read his perspective on the falls and rises of Jerusalem, for Jerusalem fell more than once. Why Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians is well documented in the OT, especially in the book and Lamentations of Jemimah. Why it fell to the Romans in 69-70AD was prophesied by Daniel and confirmed by Jesus.
DeleteHowever, I suspect that Oded Lipschitz will not bring himself to ever mention the name of Jesus or give any credibility anything he taught.
The title of the course "Fall and Rise" are a clue to the fact that the session is narrowed to consideration of the first. Otherwise, he would have to name it "Fall, Rise and Fall" which would need to cover way more territory than one class should reasonably attempt. From what I have seen, it isn't so much an examination of the "why," (and for that, it is advisable and very informative to study extra-biblical history about the imperial context of the time -- material not included in the biblical accounts, since we know that the biblical authors narrated the "why" from their own perspective, which is not the whole picture). The course is more about sharing the newer information from archaeology of the area during that 100 year period surrounding the Babylonian event. It isn't about affirming or dis-confirming Jesus. That's a theological class. This will be a history class. You should sign up -- it's free. Just search it at coursera.org
DeleteOr you can get a copy of the 2011 book, Jerusalem, A Biography, by Simon Sebag Montefiore. It's a big book, but Jerusalem has had so many falls and rises that it needs to be that big. The only error I spotted was that he misspelled the name of Denis Michael Rohan, whom many readers of Otagosh will remember.
DeleteCorrection: "...is a clue..." -- my apologies for subject/verb disagreement ... ;-)
DeleteIf the course is about sharing interpretive and speculative findings of archaeology, then it is not for me.
DeleteIn addition, the prophets, whom you called, "the biblical authors," did not write from their own perspective. God sent them to warn the nation of Judah of its sins, and the consequences of its failure to repent. Its failure to repent resulted in the destruction of the nation, followed by 70 years in captivity. That was God's judgment and his perspective, not Jeremiah's.
Tom, I once believed the same thing about how the scripture was inspired. As I learned (and it was very difficult to honestly admit), the actual evidence and historical track of the text is uninspired, in the sense that God delivered it directly to the prophets. At least, I hope that what is now the Bible was not the actual work of God, since it is clearly an imperfect and earthly production. That is not to disrespect it -- rather, to give its rightful due. One does not need to take the Bible literally in order to take it seriously. Your stand on the authorship is, itself, reliant upon the interpretations and speculations of centuries of men who had a stake in giving it the "authority" of God.
Delete>I once believed the same thing about how the scripture was inspired.<
DeleteOn what was that belief based?
>Your stand on the authorship is, itself, reliant upon the interpretations and speculations of centuries of men who had a stake in giving it the "authority" of God.<
Your are sadly mistaken! I know that the bible is the inspired word of God because Jesus says, it is given unto God's elect to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to those on the outside it is not given.
"...I know...because Jesus says..."
DeleteIf your belief is based on what Jesus said, you are doing the same thing that I used to do in believing the Bible. The only reason Jesus' sayings has any credibility is if you believe what men have said about the Bible, that it's the Word of God. You are using the source to prove the source. How are you sure the New Testament is from God? Because the New Testament says the Spirit is in you and leads you to all truth? Then you are believing the New Testament as authority because the New Testament "says so." This is not sound as a basis to believe. More is needed, and it always leads back to what humans have determined is so.
I note, with no surprise, that you failed to answer the question: "On what was that belief based?" For if you had proven your previous belief, it would now be impossible to disprove it. So it is now evident that you accepted your previous belief without proof. So why should anyone believe that your current belief is any more credible than your previous?
DeleteIn other words, your were previously deceived, and according reason you are still deceived, albeit from a different perspective!
I answered your question. In the first sentence, "...you are doing the same thing that I used to do in believing the Bible." If that was unclear, let me clearly state that my belief was based on the same thing you say yours is based on (please refer to your last two lines of May 31 reply).
DeleteYou will forgive me if I suggest that you have no standing to determine whether I was or am now deceived. This is only your opinion and cannot by *according reason* be argued as a valid statement. There are rules to logic, and your statement on that do not abide. So be it. It is good that I am not concerned at all whether you find my current belief credible.
Regardless, I will circle us back to the top of this and the OP regarding the online course. The one that I recommended to Gavin that will be presented later this year appears to be a very interesting study. You seem to have pre-determined that it is not for you, based on some expectation that it will somehow disrespect or misalign with what is "for you." So be it. I think that's a shame, because what if it actually turns out to be some fascinating and supportive archaeological history without harm to your beliefs? Does it hurt to learn from people in the field? Dismiss what you don't like -- keep the stuff that's useful. No harm, no foul. It cannot possibly be any threat to God.
Here is perhaps not the place to conduct this discussion, but if Gavin will indulge me, this is my final comment. If you are now admitting that your previous belief was not true, then logic says, you were deceived. If you can't understand that, all further discussion is pointless.
DeleteI agree that this has gone afield, somewhat, which is why I tried to take it back to the less personal beginning. What you do not seem to understand is that you just do not have enough information about my previous situation to speak of deception. To say "deceived" is to say something more than what you have the facts to assert. One could just as easily say my beliefs were based not necessarily on deception, but on incomplete evidence. That is not a "deception," per se and can only be called such by willful bias. So when you keep insisting on the assertion that "a previous belief that was not true means a person was deceived", you are not forming a logical conclusion, but are adding premises that have not been provided. It may be true in some cases, but may not always be true in every case. You simply would need more information about MYsituation to lay out such an argument. And you just don't have that information (no standing). If you cannot understand this, I agree further discussion is pointless.
DeleteTruth only, you might as well be trying to explain the true nature of lightning to Plato.
DeleteAnd thank you for drawing my attention to this course. I signed up and have thoroughly enjoyed the first session. It's refreshing and nice to hear a secular perspective on the Bible that is positive and acknowledges its importance.
ReplyDeleteJacob Wright said in an interview "Thus in the case of Moses, they needed to explain why Israel’s leader has an Egyptian name and grew up at the Egyptian court". His presumption is that the Bible could not possibly be correct. And then from this flimsy and skeptical point of departure, he postulates that Moses is a myth.
ReplyDeleteThis academic course, rather than being a forum for honest inquiry by interested scholars, would be more like a bunch of Republicans watching Fox News and feigning surprise at the biased revelations that pass as truth.
I like another statement that Jacob Wright made: "I don't know anything for certain." I think this places him at a level of honesty rarely found among scholastic Biblical detractors.
-- Neo