Did Jesus Exist?

[Blood]

To save time, I'll quickly summarize what modern Bible scholars say about some of the other books in the Septuagint that the early Christians used.

 

Daniel: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Judith: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Job: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a person who "may very well" have existed, but is probably also a mythical person

Ruth: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Esther: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Tobit: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Psalms: theological poetry, misattributed to David, written hundreds of years later

Proverbs: theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Ecclesiastes: philosophy, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Wisdom of Solomon: theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira: theological poetry

Song of Solomon: theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Lamentations: theological poetry

Psalms of Solomon:  theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

 

So there's a healthy chunk of the Bible with about as much historicity underpinning it as The Lord of the Rings. Endless mythical literary characters, set in real times and places, are given entirely fictional lives, ideas, labors, trials, spouses, families, and deaths by highly creative and imaginative authors. Most of these stories are not cast as "a time long ago in a place far away," but are rather assigned very specific historical times, places, and monarchs, in order to (I believe) fool the reader into believing that these people and events actually existed. So this isn't "myth" in the conventional sense of the word. It's better described as theological historical fiction, emphasis on the "fiction."

 

When Biblical authors venture into the realm of poetry, the necessity of these benign (?) deceptions do not cease, and large numbers of poems are ascribed to David and Solomon, when they are actually written hundreds of years after the deaths of those (legendary?) kings. 

 

Remember, this isn't me saying this. This is the judgement of Biblical scholars. I'm just putting their sentiments in more direct and honest language. 

 

Viewed in this context, proposing that the gospels are "100% fiction about a mythical person" would hardly seem controversial or even unconventional. Indeed, if the same Bible scholars applied the same critical standards to the gospels that they applied to the books of Daniel, Judith, Ruth, etc., then the credibility of the gospels would vanish, and anxiety about "the historical Jesus" would be seen as irrelevant as anxieties about "the historical Daniel." It is only the former's sacred cow status in the West that keeps him anchored in history. Nothing more. 

 

Next, I will explore what Bible scholars say about the supposedly more historical and substantial books like Exodus, Samuel, Kings, et al. 

[qadeshet]

 

 

Has everyone seen the SF classic, Forbiden Planet? The Hero is Morbius, the explorer of the Id, where monsters dwell. It did not end well for him. Commander Adams(played by Leslie Nielsen) was clueless, but at least he got the girl.

 

It's one of my top 10 fave movies, Q.

 

 

 

 

Thanks bornagainatheist. How about Robinson Crusoe on Mars? Don't you think that the fact that it's based on Shakespeare is important? It is obviously Archetypal.

[Blood]

how about other "major" characters?

 

adam, noah, abraham, moses, elijah, david, jonah

 

 

We'll get to everyone eventually. 

[qadeshet]

I know that it's not like we don't have enough to think about, but...what about the Book of Acts? I don't want to reveal any plot spoilers, but I think I will.

 

The Book of Acts is an adaptation of, and based on, the Epic Voyages of Odysseus.

[qadeshet]

To save time, I'll quickly summarize what modern Bible scholars say about some of the other books in the Septuagint that the early Christians used.

 

Daniel: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Judith: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Job: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a person who "may very well" have existed, but is probably also a mythical person

Ruth: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Esther: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Tobit: 100% fictional pseudo-history about a mythical person

Psalms: theological poetry, misattributed to David, written hundreds of years later

Proverbs: theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Ecclesiastes: philosophy, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Wisdom of Solomon: theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira: theological poetry

Song of Solomon: theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

Lamentations: theological poetry

Psalms of Solomon:  theological poetry, misattributed to Solomon, written hundreds of years later

 

So there's a healthy chunk of the Bible with about as much historicity underpinning it as The Lord of the Rings. Endless mythical literary characters, set in real times and places, are given entirely fictional lives, ideas, labors, trials, spouses, families, and deaths by highly creative and imaginative authors. Most of these stories are not cast as "a time long ago in a place far away," but are rather assigned very specific historical times, places, and monarchs, in order to (I believe) fool the reader into believing that these people and events actually existed. So this isn't "myth" in the conventional sense of the word. It's better described as theological historical fiction, emphasis on the "fiction."

 

When Biblical authors venture into the realm of poetry, the necessity of these benign (?) deceptions do not cease, and large numbers of poems are ascribed to David and Solomon, when they are actually written hundreds of years after the deaths of those (legendary?) kings. 

 

Remember, this isn't me saying this. This is the judgement of Biblical scholars. I'm just putting their sentiments in more direct and honest language. 

 

Viewed in this context, proposing that the gospels are "100% fiction about a mythical person" would hardly seem controversial or even unconventional. Indeed, if the same Bible scholars applied the same critical standards to the gospels that they applied to the books of Daniel, Judith, Ruth, etc., then the credibility of the gospels would vanish, and anxiety about "the historical Jesus" would be seen as irrelevant as anxieties about "the historical Daniel." It is only the former's sacred cow status in the West that keeps him anchored in history. Nothing more. 

 

Next, I will explore what Bible scholars say about the supposedly more historical and substantial books like Exodus, Samuel, Kings, et al. 

 

Blood, do you feel as energized as I do, just by one question(Did Jesus Exist)? I feel almost 60 again.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Has everyone seen the SF classic, Forbiden Planet? The Hero is Morbius, the explorer of the Id, where monsters dwell. It did not end well for him. Commander Adams(played by Leslie Nielsen) was clueless, but at least he got the girl.

 

It's one of my top 10 fave movies, Q.

 

 

 

 

Thanks bornagainatheist. How about Robinson Crusoe on Mars? Don't you think that the fact that it's based on Shakespeare is important? It is obviously Archetypal.

 

 

I'll buy that, Q.  

 

And raise you this...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces

 

Where this...

 

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

 

Can be paraphrased to this...

 

Jesus ventures forth from the world of common day into the supernatural realm of death : he wins a decisive victory : he comes back from his adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

.

.

.

Btw, please note that I'm not actually a fully-persuaded Mythicist.  

I just happen to see a number of correlations... and correlation isn't necessarily causation. 

But please continue.  This thread is... fascinating.  (Raises a Spock-like eyebrow.  )

[bornagainathiest]

Oops!  

 

Just noticed that Campbell's already been mentioned, Q.

 

Sorry to duplicate!

[Blood]

Since the NT is based on the OT, is there any reason that we might expect different results when examining the NT? I think that it matters.

 

 

 

 

Different results from Bible scholars? Of course there are. Jesus is the West's sacred cow and Judith and Tobit are not; they can be sacrificed on the alter of the historical-critical method without too much blood spilling onto the sacred cow. The composition style of the books are very much the same; in fact, since Judith has far fewer allusions to the OT than the gospels, and no supernatural events, applying the normal rules of the historical-critical method would result in Judith being considered a far, far more credible book historically than the gospels. And recall that the Anchor Bible Commentary said that Judith was completely fictional without breaking a sweat. 

 

It's the extreme double-standard that I'm pointing out. 

[Blood]

I know that it's not like we don't have enough to think about, but...what about the Book of Acts? I don't want to reveal any plot spoilers, but I think I will.

 

The Book of Acts is an adaptation of, and based on, the Epic Voyages of Odysseus.

 

 

The Acts Seminar, comprised of leading Bible scholars in America, concluded that "much of the content of Acts ... was shown to lack historical credibility."

 

https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/acts-seminar-to-complete-its-work-at-spring-meeting/

[Blood]

What happened to True Scotsman? He was supposed to be here defending the credibility of "Bible scholars" against the tomato-hurling antics of illiterate barbarians like me. 

[qadeshet]

Oops!  

 

Just noticed that Campbell's already been mentioned, Q.

 

Sorry to duplicate!

 

Really, no problem. What you are suggesting, I am plainly stating. All the Great Heroes; Persius, Thesius, Heracles, Jesus, etc, are Achhetypal residents of Mankind's Colective Unconscious. When I say that Myths are Great Literature, it's true. But Myths have a power beyond our Conscious understanding. I don't believe that we can ignore the great Mythographer Prof. Campbell. Not and come any closer to answering the question: Did Jesus Exist?

[qadeshet]

What happened to True Scotsman? He was supposed to be here defending the credibility of "Bible scholars" against the tomato-hurling antics of illiterate barbarians like me. 

 

Basicially, all he's got is the NT itself.  I am waiting too. But if Dr. Ehrman couldn't do it, TrueScotsman has a real job here. He has to also explain why he chooses to ignore the 75% Consensus of Bible Scholars who are completely or partly certain that the Resurrection occured.

[qadeshet]

 

I know that it's not like we don't have enough to think about, but...what about the Book of Acts? I don't want to reveal any plot spoilers, but I think I will.

 

The Book of Acts is an adaptation of, and based on, the Epic Voyages of Odysseus.

 

 

The Acts Seminar, comprised of leading Bible scholars in America, concluded that "much of the content of Acts ... was shown to lack historical credibility."

 

https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/acts-seminar-to-complete-its-work-at-spring-meeting/

 

 

I think that we must insist that our friend TrueScotsman show the existence of an Historical "Paul" as well. Could there even be a Jesus without Paul?

[qadeshet]

 

Since the NT is based on the OT, is there any reason that we might expect different results when examining the NT? I think that it matters.

 

 

 

 

Different results from Bible scholars? Of course there are. Jesus is the West's sacred cow and Judith and Tobit are not; they can be sacrificed on the alter of the historical-critical method without too much blood spilling onto the sacred cow. The composition style of the books are very much the same; in fact, since Judith has far fewer allusions to the OT than the gospels, and no supernatural events, applying the normal rules of the historical-critical method would result in Judith being considered a far, far more credible book historically than the gospels. And recall that the Anchor Bible Commentary said that Judith was completely fictional without breaking a sweat. 

 

It's the extreme double-standard that I'm pointing out. 

 

 

Sorry Blood. Should we, here at ex-C, expect to find that the NT is a different category of Literature than the OT? The NT begins with Astrologers following a Star. I think that the entire Gospel account was never intended to be taken literally. It is an Allegory, like Plato's Cave and The Golden Asse by Apuleius.

[qadeshet]

I'm getting tired guys, but I wanted to sure every caught this one:

 

Contra Celsum Book 1-CHAP. XII.

 

Quote

And what I have said regarding the learned and ignorant among the Egyptians, I might have said also of the Persians; among whom there are mysteries, conducted on rational principles by the learned among them, but understood in a symbolical sense by the more superficial of the multitude. And the same remark applies to the Syrians, and Indians, and to all those who have a literature and a mythology.

 

Yes, the ancient Mysteries do matter. In the Mysteries, there were 3 Stages, or Degrees, of Initiation.

1. The Outer Courtyard

Here, Initiates were taught the literal interpretation of the Mythic Cycle.

2. The Inner Courtyard

Now, Initiates were taught the Mythical understanding.

3. The inner Sanctuary

Ask Joseph Campbell.

[qadeshet]

Hello everyone. I have now mentioned many of the keys that we need to help unravel the Gordian Knot. Sorry, I know that Alexander found it easier to cut it, but we are taking the harder Path. By even trying to answer the "simple" question "Did Jesus Exist", we have set forth on an epic journey. Welcome onboard the Argonaut!

 

Friends, why do Guests come to visit us? What question do they type into Search? In my Thread "To Our Guests", I'm trying to talk directly to the visitors in our Home. I can use some more ideas on this, and if you like, say hello to our new potential friends. I intended "To Our Guests" to be for all of us.

 

Todays Key: The importance of the Power of Symbols, the Language of the Unconscious.

[Blood]

Should we, here at ex-C, expect to find that the NT is a different category of Literature than the OT? The NT begins with Astrologers following a Star. I think that the entire Gospel account was never intended to be taken literally. It is an Allegory, like Plato's Cave and The Golden Asse by Apuleius.

 

The gospels are far more derivative of other books in the Septuagint than the books we've surveyed so far. The methodology of the gospels is to take a pericope or prophecy and re-write it to make it about Jesus. However, the authors did retain the same pseudo-historical setting that characterizes the books we've examined so far. Just as The Book of Judith begins, "It was in the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians from the capital, Ninevah, that Arphaxad was ruling over the Medes from Ecbatana ...," so begins the gospel of Luke: "In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron ..."

 

This pseudo-historical setting is no different from fiction writers today who set their novels in real times and places. It's a literary technique designed to fool the reader into believing that the fictional story they're about to read actually happened. The only difference is that today's books are clearly labeled as "fiction" and have the authors' names attached to them. 

[qadeshet]

 

Should we, here at ex-C, expect to find that the NT is a different category of Literature than the OT? The NT begins with Astrologers following a Star. I think that the entire Gospel account was never intended to be taken literally. It is an Allegory, like Plato's Cave and The Golden Asse by Apuleius.

 

The gospels are far more derivative of other books in the Septuagint than the books we've surveyed so far. The methodology of the gospels is to take a pericope or prophecy and re-write it to make it about Jesus. However, the authors did retain the same pseudo-historical setting that characterizes the books we've examined so far. Just as The Book of Judith begins, "It was in the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians from the capital, Ninevah, that Arphaxad was ruling over the Medes from Ecbatana ...," so begins the gospel of Luke: "In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron ..."

 

This pseudo-historical setting is no different from fiction writers today who set their novels in real times and places. It's a literary technique designed to fool the reader into believing that the fictional story they're about to read actually happened. The only difference is that today's books are clearly labeled as "fiction" and have the authors' names attached to them. 

 

 

Blood, you are completely correct. However, I am glad that you mentioned "fiction". Now that we have the correct type, or Genre, identified, that of Literature, we also have to specify that Epic Myths are not "just fiction"; they help us to identify the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. The Epic Myths are roadmaps of the Unconscious, like Theseus and the Labyrinth. Thanks!

[qadeshet]

Good morning!

 

Todays Key: The importance of the Power of Symbols, the Language of the Unconscious.

 

I asked Margee if she wanted to know the meaning of her Avatar pic:Mother Eve. As you know, I try to get up for a challenge. But really, this is something for us to discuss. I will start with a clue. First, here is her response...

 

 

And what does 'Eve' mean Mr. qade? Because I am known around here to be 'Madame Eve!!! I hope it's something good!! 

 

The first clue...

 

The Serpent in the story represents:

 

The Serpent of Wisdom

 

The Eden Myth is not about a naked man and woman eating fruit.

[qadeshet]

Hello all. I have something for you. An Ancient text that managed to survive the Centuries:

 

The Emerald Tablet

 

C.G. Jung identified The Emerald Tablet with a table made of green stone which he encountered in the first of a set of his dreams and visions beginning at the end of 1912, and climaxing in his writing Seven Sermons to the Dead in 1916.^{[citation needed]} Historians of science, Eric John Holmyard (1891-1959) and Julius Ruska (1867-1949) also studied the tablet in the twentieth century. Because of its longstanding popularity, the Emerald Tablet is the only piece of non-Greek Hermetica to attract widespread attention in the West.

 

The Emerald Tablet of Hermes

 

 

History of the Tablet (largely summarised from Needham 1980, & Holmyard 1957)
The Tablet probably first appeared in the West in editions of the psuedo-Aristotlean Secretum Secretorum which was actually a translation of the Kitab Sirr al-Asar, a book of advice to kings which was translated into latin by Johannes Hispalensis c. 1140 and by Philip of Tripoli c.1243. Other translations of the Tablet may have been made during the same period by Plato of Tivoli and Hugh of Santalla, perhaps from different sources.
The date of the Kitab Sirr al-Asar is uncertain, though c.800 has been suggested and it is not clear when the tablet became part of this work.
Holmyard was the first to find another early arabic version (Ruska found a 12th centruy recension claiming to have been dictated by Sergius of Nablus) in the Kitab Ustuqus al-Uss al-Thani (Second Book of the Elements of Foundation) attributed to Jabir. Shortly after Ruska found another version appended to the Kitab Sirr al-Khaliqa wa San`at al-Tabi`a (Book of the Secret of Creation and the Art of Nature), which is also known as the Kitab Balaniyus al-Hakim fi'l-`Ilal (book of Balinas the wise on the Causes). It has been proposed that this book was written may have been written as early as 650, and was definitely finished by the Caliphate of al-Ma'mun (813-33).
Scholars have seen similarities between this book and the Syriac Book of Treasures written by Job of Odessa (9th century) and more interestingly the Greek writings of the bishop Nemesius of Emesa in Syria from the mid fourth century. However though this suggests a possible Syriac source, non of these writings contain the tablet.
Balinas is usually identified with Apollonius of Tyna, but there is little evidence to connect him with the Kitab Balabiyus, and even if there was,the story implies that Balinas found the tablet rather than wrote it, and the recent discoveries of the dead sea scrolls and the nag hamamdi texts suggest that hiding texts in caves is not impossible, even if we did not have the pyramids before us.
Ruska has suggested an origin further east, and Needham has proposed an origin in China.
Holmyard, Davis and Anon all consider that this Tablet may be one of the earliest of all alchemical works we have that survives.
It should be remarked that apparantly the Greeks and Egyptians used the termtranslated as `emerald' for emeralds, green granites, "and perhaps green jasper". In medieval times the emerald table of the Gothic kings of Spain, and the Sacro catino- a dish said to have belonged to the Queen of Sheba, to have been used at the last supper, and to be made of emerald, were made of green glass [steele and Singer: 488].

 

Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Welcome!

 

This will get us started on the Serpent of Wisdom:

 

Serpent Wisdom

 

Serpent is a very old, wise creature.  As she sheds her skin and emerges anew, she teaches us about the cycle of life, death, and rebirth.  She teaches us about vitality, sensuality, and fertility.  Humans have been making images that evoke snake�s spiraling energy since the upper Paleolithic times...

 

Sound a little familiar? Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Hello guys.

 

I hope some lightbulbs will accompany this one:

 

Socrates was to Plato, as Jesus was to Paul.

 

by Dr. Hermann Detering:

Paul, Mark, and other substitutions:Richard Carrier on The Fabricated Paul

 

Finally, Carrier broaches an important view—one that many New Testament scholars discuss with self-assurance but for which they rarely give substantiation. On the basis of internal contradictions in the seven alleged authentic epistles, even conservative scholars have long adopted various ‘division theories’ whereby larger epistles are composed of several smaller ones. While they gladly assert the existence of a ‘stable common basis’ consisting of seven authentic epistles, they somehow argue the existence of a corpus consisting of more than seven epistles (thus, J. Becker). For example, most scholars today consider that Philippians consists of three authentic shorter letters of Paul (letter A, B, C) assembled into the present composition by a later redactor (thus H. Schenke and K. Fischer).

 

 

Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Sorry guys; more work.

 

Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

 

Jung said that, in addition to unconscious memories from an individual's past, there was a second, more universal source of unconscious information: the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious might be described as patterns that are in the unconscious because of evolution, rather than because of the individual's experience. Jung described the collective unconscious as "unconscious images of instincts themselves." This is one of Jung's most original contributions to psychology. Underneath the modern surface of the mind, he said, lurks the original primitive mentality of our ancestors, complete with vivid stories and symbols that have a natural appeal to us and seem to appear unbidden in our dreams and fantasies.

 

The collective unconscious showed itself in patterns called archetypes, which are mostly symbols of common human social realities such as heroes, maidens, and babies. Jung wrote that archetypes were projection-making factors in the brain. To project is to see something in the outside world when its actual source is inside you. Jung believed that archetypes were instinctive patterns in the brain that led us to see certain patterns in the people and events around us.

 

Click the above Link for: A Sampling of Jungian Archetypes

 

Never said that this stuff is easy. Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Hey guys, and Margee. More Garden of Eden stuff.

 

So, we've got the first important Symbol identified; now to the second.

 

The Tree of Life

 

Originally, in the OT version of this Epic Myth, there were two Trees, remember. The Church wants you to forget the second Tree: The Tree of Immortality.  The Tree of Good and Evil is a different matter. Guess what? there is only one Tree: The Tree of Life. The Serpent of Wisdom guards theTree of Life.

 

So, since this is Myth, is it likely that Adam and Eve are really a naked man and woman eating fruit? Nope. The Serpent of Wisdom winds around and guards the Tree of Life. Subjectively and Symbolically!

The Tree of Life is a roadmap of the Collective Unconscious.

 

Just for those who might like this: What is the difference between objective and subjective?

 

An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable.

A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.

 

Cheers!

p.s. Based on Margee's profile pic, which Archetype do you think she currently most resembles? And is everyone ready to leave Plato's Cave?

[Blood]

I have no intention of going through every Bible commentary and excising the scholar's judgement of the book's historicity, or lack thereof, although that may be a profitable theme to explore sometime in a separate thread. However, having surveyed the books that scholars have grudgingly admitted to be "more theological than historical," we need to see what they say about the (supposedly) more substantive, complex, and "early" books such as Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, and Kings. It would indeed be surprising if they held these books in the same low regard with which they hold such marginal works as Judith, Tobit, and Ruth, yet paradoxically, these books are said to be far older than those "late" books, and therefore by any normal standard one would expect them to be even less reliable historically. 

 

Generally speaking, I've found that the less theologically-important a book is, the more honest and critical the scholarship. Scholars can sacrifice The Book of Judith on the alter of the historical-critical method, because nobody really reads it anymore except other scholars and specialists, and it can be deconstructed without doing any perceivable damage to the field of Biblical Studies as a whole. In fact, such hard criticism of minor books is probably encouraged, as the doctors of theology can use such critical studies of certain unimportant texts to offset accusations that they are mere apologists uncritically giving the entire Biblical canon a free ride. 

 

Genesis is, of course, one of the most important books in the Bible, and therefore it is of the utmost importance to Biblical studies that it be evaluated far more carefully than any of the books previously mentioned in this thread. I have a three volume commentary:

 

Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann (1974; English translation, 1994)

Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann (1981; English translation, 1995)

Genesis 37-50: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann (1982; English translation, 2002)

 

This is the most massive and comprehensive commentary on Genesis yet undertaken; the three volumes total about 1,500 pages. 

 

Westermann was professor emeritus at the University of Heidelberg, and stands in the fine tradition of other great German Bible scholars like Wellhausen, Gunkel, Bultmann, and Noth. Right away this tells you that the bullshit factor will be at a minimum. There will be no attempt whatsoever to "prove" Adam, Eve, and Noah were historical personages, or that the Flood was an actual historical event, i.e., something you would expect to be argued at length in an American commentary. This gets back to my earlier point about geography playing a major role in what is acceptable to write or think in Biblical Studies, and this fact alone proves that it isn't a serious or scholarly academic field. 

 

So there isn't much to say about Genesis 1-11. Westermann examines it the same way ancient historians examine other literary works of the ancient near east: Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, and so on. The thrust of the analysis is linguistic and theological. Like other German scholars, he talks about "tradition history," a somewhat ambiguous phrase meaning the telling of stories generation after generation until there becomes an identifiable "history" of stories that have become "traditional." It says nothing about the historicity of the stories themselves. 

 

"The Pentateuch is now seen as the result of a centuries-long process of the formation of tradition instead of a scribal composition.The formation of the book is one stage among others in this process ... the crucial point is that the written version is the result of an unbroken line from its beginnings in word of mouth, through many stages of oral tradition, right up to its fixation in writing." (Vol. 1, p. 575)

 

So Westermann sees a "centuries-long process" of story-telling behind the first five books of the Bible. This doesn't prove anything about the reality of the stories being told, or the barnacle-like accumulation of new characters, different outcomes, and alternate versions that each new story-teller adds to the stream. Westermann would have done well to quote Claude Levi-Strauss here: every re-telling of a myth is indeed a totally new myth. The important thing is the transmission process itself, not the myth, much less the scribal composition (which would also be a new myth). Nothing was "preserved;" creativity is the chief characteristic of the entire process, up to and including the writing. 

 

The situation changes with the introduction of Abraham and the patriarchs of Israel in Chapter 12, but not by much. Westermann still refers to "tradition history" (as opposed to actual history), "oral history," and similar phrases. 

 

"If these texts, or even parts or motifs or traces of them, actually go back to the period of the patriarchs, actually originated with those living persons Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, then the scholar must account for the path of these traditions from that period (2000-1400 BCE) to the written works in the tenth, eighth, or sixth centuries. And this path is virtually inaccessible because 80% to 90% of it is oral tradition, and all we know of it is the written end product. To bridge the time gap is so difficult a task that no one can expect easy and certain results. A wealth of uncertainties encumbers the explanation of the individual texts of the patriarchal narratives ..." (Vol. 2, pg. 36)

 

 

The path is not "virtually" inaccessible; it is completely inaccessible. Westermann never explains why we should accept that the written product reflects oral history, much less how such oral history could have possibly been transmitted over the course of 1000 years.

 

"It is a matter of dispute whether one can speak of the time of the patriarchs at all. It is contested because it has been established that the patriarchal stories do not contain historical information in the strict sense, and no historically attested information about persons or events in the stories has been discovered so far in documents from the ancient near east -- nor is it expected." (Vol. 2, pp. 73-74)

 

There's the core of "tradition history." The said "traditions" "do not contain historical information in the strict sense." 

 

To summarize:

Genesis 1-11: myth and "tradition histories" which "do not contain historical information in the strict sense." 

Genesis 12-36: oral history and "tradition histories" which "do not contain historical information in the strict sense." "No historically attested information" has ever been discovered to establish the existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob