Is the New or Old Testament more believable?

Giordano

Penultimate Amazing
G
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
17,646
I opened this for CplFerro who appears to wish to discuss it. I personally think neither is believable.
 
My apologies: I have been posting in two, somewhat similar discussions of religion, and I really intended this thread for MG1962, not CplFerro, because there was a controversy if discussion of the New Testament would be off topic in a discussion of Exodus. CprFerro is certainly encouraged to join in if he wishes. In any case, I suspect this is a mute point and a dead thread.
 
Leumas said:
That would be like arguing over which is more believable Star Wars or The Foundation Series or are they both just different views about the same reality of a Galactic Empire that later became a Galactic Republic but it is the same Galaxy.


I think the blog referred to in this post says it all
Click to expand...

I agree, but relatively few people think either Star Wars or The Foundation really happened (or will happen? This is confusing in terms of tense). In contrast, many people believe that the events described in the New and Old Testaments really happened. For those, any interest in describing why you believe?

Personally, I would prefer a discussion of if Star Wars or Star Trek was better (or perhaps worse) science fiction, but that would be for another section of the Forum.
 
Giordano said:
My apologies: I have been posting in two, somewhat similar discussions of religion, and I really intended this thread for MG1962, not CplFerro, because there was a controversy if discussion of the New Testament would be off topic in a discussion of Exodus. CprFerro is certainly encouraged to join in if he wishes. In any case, I suspect this is a mute point and a dead thread.
Click to expand...

The dead usually are quite mute but that's a moot point.:)
 
Giordano said:
My apologies: I have been posting in two, somewhat similar discussions of religion, and I really intended this thread for MG1962, not CplFerro, because there was a controversy if discussion of the New Testament would be off topic in a discussion of Exodus. CprFerro is certainly encouraged to join in if he wishes. In any case, I suspect this is a mute point and a dead thread.
Click to expand...
.
The doublethink required to dismiss the OT and yet accept the NT, it's child, is both amusing and disturbing to see.
The sources are of the same type.. True believers looking through the fog of old anecdotes that can't be supported by outside evidence.
 
Since the New Testament covers a far shorter period of time and contains fewer miracles, I would say it's more believable. However, it's like saying that the second Battlestar Galactica is more believable than the original.
 
The Jewish scriptures, what those of us from a Christian background call the Old Testament, compirse a library compile by different authors writing from ca. 800 BCE to about 150 BCE. Their believability is likewise varied. The patriarchal tales of Genesis are full of anachronisms and are plainly a legendary history. The Exodus - Conquest narratives of the Books of Exodus and Joshua (with some bridging material in Numbers) comprise a grand myth. None of this is believable, since it is unsupported by either history or archaeology. Many other books of the OT are fictional romances and / or preachy material. These include Ruth, Esther, Job, Jonah - and, in Catholic Bibles, Tobit, Judith and some romances relating to Daniel (Susanna and the elders, and Bel and Dragon). The Book of Daniel is utterly unhistorical.

The histories of the kings of Israel and Judah, as presented in 1 and 2 Kings has some historical material. Assyrian records mention many of the kings mentioned in 1 and 2 Kings. Of course the history of 1 and 2 Kings is heavily slanted, biased and often fictionalized. Consider, for example, the supposed annihilation of Sennacherib's army of 185,000 men. Thus, the OT has a bare minimum of historicity.

As to the New Testament everything in the gospels and the Book of Acts, with the possible exception of the bare existence of Jesus and (possibly) his overturning the tables of the money-changers, is fiction deriving from one of four sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism / messianism and recent history seen through a messianic lens, pagan mythology, and Greek literature (particularly the Homeric epics and Euripides play The Bacchae.)
 
Giordano said:
Personally, I would prefer a discussion of if Star Wars or Star Trek was better (or perhaps worse) science fiction, but that would be for another section of the Forum.
Click to expand...

[Nitpick]Star Wars is a space opera not science-fiction, that would be like trying to compare Star Trek with Lord of the Rings.[/nitpick]
 
TimCallahan said:
The histories of the kings of Israel and Judah, as presented in 1 and 2 Kings has some historical material. Assyrian records mention many of the kings mentioned in 1 and 2 Kings. Of course the history of 1 and 2 Kings is heavily slanted, biased and often fictionalized. Consider, for example, the supposed annihilation of Sennacherib's army of 185,000 men. Thus, the OT has a bare minimum of historicity.
Click to expand...
You left out the period of the Judges and the period of the the unified kingdom under Saul, David and Solomon. The continuous strife with Philistines is believable. The existence of a single kingdom could be, though there is no corroboration of such a kingdom, and the claimed extent of the kingdom under Solomon is certainly wildly exaggerated. The existence of Solomon's Temple hasn't been attested either, and won't be as long as the Jerusalem Wafq refuses permission for digs on Temple Mount. (nor is the Second Temple archaeologically attested, for that matter - all we have is the Herodian Western Wall).
 
Thanks for the invite. I think the OT is more believable because it has the more compelling character: the Jewish nation. I've read over and over that the Jews are an historical anomaly, that all their contemporaries in antiquity have perished through dispersion or absorption, and that only the Jews have maintained a common identity throughout the intervening centuries through the Torah. That anomalous nature of the Jews suggests (doesn't prove) divine intervention.

NT comes in a close second (in this race of two) with the compelling character of Jesus.

Cpl Ferro
 
Linguistically, the Basques may have a better claim for survival as an ethnic unit.

Genetic evidence over the next few decades may paint a clearer picture of which groups have preserved gene lines longest. Whether that constitutes survival of identity is a complex question.

As for the OP, The OT contains survivals of stories recognisable as dating at least from the days of Sumer. The flood story clearly refers to some event or events, for instance. But to call such stories "true" would be to stress the word beyond sense.

The NT mentions Caesar Augustus, who was real. I'd say it's ahead on points.
 
CplFerro said:
Thanks for the invite. I think the OT is more believable because it has the more compelling character: the Jewish nation. I've read over and over that the Jews are an historical anomaly, that all their contemporaries in antiquity have perished through dispersion or absorption, and that only the Jews have maintained a common identity throughout the intervening centuries through the Torah. That anomalous nature of the Jews suggests (doesn't prove) divine intervention.
Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

The Greeks don't have a common identity? The people who believe in Confucianism?? The Brahmin Indians? There are a lot more. The Jews are only one of many.
 
jhunter1163 said:
The OT is completely fictional; the NT is almost completely fictional.
Click to expand...

I would say neither is completely fiction: they both name some real places (e.g. Egypt in the OT) and include some real events. But neither is by any means limited to these realities.
 
CplFerro said:
Thanks for the invite. I think the OT is more believable because it has the more compelling character: the Jewish nation. I've read over and over that the Jews are an historical anomaly, that all their contemporaries in antiquity have perished through dispersion or absorption, and that only the Jews have maintained a common identity throughout the intervening centuries through the Torah. That anomalous nature of the Jews suggests (doesn't prove) divine intervention.

NT comes in a close second (in this race of two) with the compelling character of Jesus.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

An historical anomaly, why?
You might as well argue the Ancient Egyptians were an anomoly.
Or the Chinese.

Nothing suggests the 'compelling' character of Jesus wasn't a compilation of other characters or total fiction, correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Giordano said:
I would say neither is completely fiction: they both name some real places (e.g. Egypt in the OT) and include some real events. But neither is by any means limited to these realities.
Click to expand...

That's called allusion, or historical fiction. Obviously any story set on Earth is going to mention real places and events. It makes your fiction more plausible and easier for audiences to relate to.

I can't say either the OT or NT is more believable, but I do have a personal preference. Jesus in the NT is the archetypal tragic hero. He has some admirable qualities, so you're sympathetic towards his plight. Extraordinary circumstances surround his life. However, he suffers from incredible hubris, screws up his life and the lives of others, acts like a total hypocrite, starts fights with the wrong people, and ultimately suffers and dies as a result. He makes bad decisions and cannot escape what fate has in store for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom