Originally posted by Phobos
. . . the Bible is an edited compilation of works and it's not clear to me how much they connect and how much the N.T. relies on the O.T. as background support (other than the obvious descriptions of God-the-Father's nature).
Besides studying the Bible and interpreting it from a theological or religious point of view, one can also study it
objectively as history and cultural anthropology. In universities, in fact, serious religious studies is very much linked to historical and archeological evidence, much of it aimed at trying to find out what really happened. I thought you might find it useful to have a sampling of this perspective on the Bible. I will divide this discussion into (more or less) the Old and New Testament, and then reading suggestions.
Old Testament
When you hear religious interpretation of the Bible, it is often done in ways to support theological doctrine. Take the supposed references to Jesus in the OT (some feel the term “Old” Testament is pejorative, and prefer “Hebrew Bible”). Those Hebrew Bible references were to a savior-type person, but the savior envisioned was a King David-like military leader to help kick Rome’s butt (or any other enemy that interfered with Jewish religious practices). This “messiah” was a wish, a dream of an oppressed people. Such prophesy, when shared by all the culture members, was like a group prayer, praying for deliverance.
It was, and is, Jewish custom to read the Hebrew Bible looking for any possible bit of wisdom that might be squeezed out of scripture. So the new Christians, the first of whom were Jews, had this habit in the time of Jesus, plus the whole culture had been praying for a savior. After Jesus, many applied this cultural practice again, but this time searching through Hebrew Bible scripture to support their claim that Jesus was the awaited messiah (in religious studies this practice is technically known as
testimonia). But did the Hebrew Bible really refer to Jesus? Or did early Christians claim it trying to legitimatize Jesus to their fellow Jews?
Another example of looking at the Bible objectively is to recognize that some of the Hebrew Bible is myth. Adam and Eve has to be myth (who could have recorded their story?), and so where did the story come from? One might speculate relying on the habits of tribal peoples. For instance, we know that they would tell stories around the campfire, and in the absence of TV a good story teller was valued. Whatever the way the story was developed, it seems safe to say the Adam and Eve story is most likely how primitive peoples imagined it all. So while it is interesting as cultural anthropology, there is no reason to assume that primitive campfire stories (or whatever) say anything realistic about God or creation’s origin.
There is another type of myth too, and that is one developed from an actual event. The flood story, for example, appears to be just such a myth. It seems to have been derived from a catastrophic collapse in the Bosporus about 5000 years ago allowing water from the Mediterranean to flood into the Black Sea (see “Noah’s Flood” by two Ph.D. oceanographers Ryan and Pitman). This was not only myth in the Hebrew Bible, but earlier was part of the Gilgamesh story in Babylonia (and a little more history will explain the Jewish/Babylonia link as due to the 586 BC Babylonian captivity of the Jews).
Parts of the Hebrew Bible record events of the tribes and later the culture of Palestine. Some of it, such as the “wisdom literature” is poetry, reflections, and philosophical questions, and another part is the writings of the prophets. A most important part of the Hebrew Bible is the Law. The concept of the Law began with Moses, who may have had a genuine enlightenment-type of experience up on that mountain. From their experience with Moses, the Jews developed the concept of an agreement with God, a contract which if obeyed would garner God’s favor. So if things were going well, then they figured God was pleased, and if things were going badly, he was anrgy over them not obeying the Law properly.
Thus developed the obsession by the most fervent with Jewish Law. What started out as ten commandments eventually ended up as 633 precepts which the devout practiced. A study of the writing of the Law, all attributed to Moses, reveals very clearly there were several authors and redactors. Such textual analysis gets complicated, so I won’t go over that, but you are right to say there was editing early on. Today, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that after that original editing, the Hebrew Bible has remained essentially the same for the last 2000 years or so.
To sum up, the Hebrew Bible is very much a cultural text derived from history, myth, belief, and reflection. Its legalistic aspect also gives practitioners a precise guide for developing a relationship with God. (To answer one of your questions, personally I do not think there is any reference to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible.)
New Testament
The history of the New Testament is every bit as complex as the OT. None of the writers of the gospels (the first four books) are believed to have been eyewitness, and only Mark and Luke are believed to be who they claims to be. Matthew and John were names of Jesus’ disciples, but scholars (objective scholars, that is) don’t believe they were truly the authors. This was not always done to deceive; there was a Hebrew custom to attach a famous person’s name to a writing, as though saying they were writing in the same spirit the famous person would have. Mark and Luke were followers of Peter and Paul respectively, and not eyewitness.
The story of Jesus then, is believed to be gleaned from several sources including oral tradition, Mark’s account (which Matthew and Luke rely on), and an original source document known as “Q” which the first three gospels rely on. Two other important writers of the NT are Paul and the author of Revelation. Tradition has the book of Revelation written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of John, but textual analysis clearly reveals Revelation was written by someone else. (Personally I think the author of Revelation first fasted himself into hallucinating, and then used his delusional state to formulate a revenge-oriented curse. Why? Again history helps us, because in addition to Jesus’ execution, in 69 AD Rome flattened Jerusalem killing or pressing into slavery over 3 million Jews. It wasn’t until after WWII they were able to return in any significant numbers.)
Paul’s writing is the most historical (though some parts are considered forged). Paul was not an eyewitness either, at least to Jesus, but he was an eyewitness to the establishment of early Christianity because no one was more directly responsible for doing that than Paul. Although it didn’t make it into the “official” Bible, I also think the “Gospel of Thomas” is excellent; in fact, I believe it may be written by a disciple and the only true eyewitness to Jesus we have a record of.
To answer your overall question, Christians have relied on the OT partially to be able to use its prophesies to support theological claims about Jesus. The first Christians were Jews, and it was believed Jesus had come for them. So they did what was required, which was to make one's case through scripture. If not for Paul, who would visit synagoges and attempt this, it is unlikely Jesus would have been introduced to non-Jews. But their rejection of him, sometimes violently, led to him preaching to everyone who would listen. He also is responsible for defeating what some Christian Jews were insisting upon, which was that to be a Christian, one must first satisfy Jewish Law. Some of Pauls arguments against this, such as those found in his letter to the Galatians, are brilliant.
Suggested Reading
If you are interested in some introductory materials on the history of the Bible, there are some books around today helping to make the scholarship more interesting to lay readers. To name a few, “The New Testament” by Ehrman, “The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible,” edited by John Rogerson, “Moses – A Life” by Kirsch, “The Lost Gospel – The Book of Q & Christian Origins” by Mack, and “The Bible is History” by Ian Wilson. Interesting reading too is “The Oxford History of the Biblical World,” edited by Michael Coogan, and “Jesus Christ, the Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith” by Porter. For a general book on religious studies try, “The World’s Religions” by Ninian Smart.
I couldn’t end this without a plug for the only reason I took up religious studies, and that is what’s called Christian “mysticism.” It has nothing to do with magic or supernaturalism, but is about the practice by some Christians of a type of meditation they called “union prayer.” It is a very difficult subject to research, I’ve been at it 30 years so far (not just in Christianity, but worldwide).
I believe this meditation was taught by Jesus to his closest followers, and was continued by them after his death when they took up residence in caves in the deserts of Palestine and Egypt to practice it. Later they took it into the first monasteries, and there kept it alive for many centuries. Four introductory books on the subject I’d recommend are “The Desert Fathers” by Woddell, “The Gnostic Gospels” by Pagels, “Lost Christianity” by Needleman, and the classic work by Evelyn Underhill “Mysticism.”
That will be in the O.T., but Jesus loves you. Or so they say.
