|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion The Bible: a HistoryWorse than I imaginedTHE BIBLE: A HISTORY In the Lion tradition, 'The Bible: A History' is attractively produced with many illustrations on its A4-sized pages. It does not give an account of the contents of the Bible. The aim is to focus on the Bible itself, how it came into existence, its influence, and how it has been spread around the world. Huber is a Roman Catholic Franciscan and Miller, judging by the content of the book, is a liberal Protestant. There are five basic sections:1. The Old Testament Takes Shape. The opening two sections take the humanistic liberal critical view on every issue of importance. The word 'inspiration' does not even appear once in the index. A few illustrations from the text will show the reader what the method involves in the formation of the Scriptures. Take the familiar story of Joseph resisting Potiphar's wife. We are informed that 'some scholars' say that a Hebrew storyteller borrowed an ancient Egyptian 'Tale of Two Brothers' and adapted it for use in the saga of Joseph. Many of us would be entitled to think that 'some scholars' are totally wrong. Those readers who thought Moses had something to do with the writing of the first five books of the Bible are wrong according to this book. Why? 'Today scholars believe that the Pentateuch was not written down until well after the time of Moses and that it was the work of numerous authors.' And who are these numerous authors but our old fictional 'friends' J,E,D and P! So apparently the very earliest the first five books existed as a unit was the time of the Babylonian captivity. Having made this appalling start, things get worse. Take the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. 'For about 2,000 years students of the Bible assumed that these books were written by different authors at different times. Then in 1943 all of that changed.' Why? German scholar Martin Noth 'proved' that after the exile these books became a unit with Deuteronomy as an introduction. So, 'no one really knows who wrote the "Deutero-nomistic history".' The reviewer had the dubious duty of studying Noth's theories as an undergraduate, and thought he was wrong then on al-most every issue he touched. One wonders how many people have had their faith in the Bible destroyed by men of Noth's type? The writers of the book being assessed merely put their faith in the wisdom of men, and not God. Readers will not be surprised to learn that Isaiah was written by three 'Isaiahs'; then follows the usual liberal theorising about the rest of the Old Testament which is too boring to rehearse. The New Testament gets the same treatment. John did not write John. Who said so? Father R. Brown who is 'the pre-eminent interpreter of John's Gospel and letters in the late 20th century.' If you believe that you will believe anything. Further, 'exactly which letters Paul wrote is a matter of continuing debate'. According to this book he certainly had nothing to do with 2 Timothy and Titus. They will have bought poison.D. J. Stephens,
|
|
