A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 15 )

   The "Archeology" proved the events of the "TORAH" ,. but it could not give the faith, in the inspiration process, for the unfaithful persons, who assured that these events might be real , and the historical author might be the prophet himself , but it was not, in fact { according to their point of view},a prophetic process ,he has just a writer to a historical book, or perhaps a book of literature ,                                                                                 The  Archeological discoveries, helped us by giving evidences, to face the old group of people, who criticize the contents ,and produced some false mental evidence ,which have built on some uncompleted historical knowledge.                    The Critics of the first nineteenth centuries AD ,fell under this group.                                                   But from the beginning of the second half, of the twentieth century,a group of  Critics who could not deny the historical trusted facts, in concern of the "TORAH", but they have stolen its spiritual effects .                                                                                                                                  Also,some of them, tried to allow with some covered wickedness, that they had some observations, on some of the historical facts ."The School of  Leipzig" fell under this later category,                                                                         "The School of Leipzig"  were establishing by ,"The Late Albrecht Alt",but the most popular person,who possesed some attractiveness, was "M.Noth" ,who wrote his book ,"Oberlieferungeschichte des Pentateuch" ,1948 .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   We will begin by denoting some positives opinion, of his views like :-                                                                                                                                            His idea in concern of the "Deotronomy"that , this book was the base of the books of "Joshua","Judges", "Samuel I,II " and "The Kings I,II"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  He was brilliant ,when he have discussed the theories of the origins,and the documents .                                                                                                        He was the first writer, who suggested that the story of the exodus ,as it was , the center of the theological thinking, in all of the old testament  .                                                                                                                                                                                                 He was the best Critic ,who dealt with the history of Israelite nation ,but he forgot some of the historical facts.  Also his positive historical discussion, to the opinions of "Eeinrich Euald", who was in 1875,which reflected our positive idea about his historical attitude.                                                                                                                                                                                  "Euald" said that the number of twelve, was not a real number for the Israelite tribes, it was just an allegorical number,but "Noth" defending by saying that, the sacred covenant was at its very beginnings ,a common covenant for the twelfths tribes ,after a peaceful religious living , as the stage which happened in the Greek nation's history,That covenant began at the time of the Judges ,according to the written covenant ,of the previous books, specially , the "Deotronomy"..The covenant ensured, the importance of the centric place for worshiping together, according to what have recorded in the "TORAH" . We have, in fact, some observations, about the comparing between the Greek and the Italian unity, and what have real occur to the Israelite nation . His comparison were more real, if he have used it ,to compare between them and the Palestinian unity . But in the case of the Israelite nation ,they were in their original state one nation, related to one grandfather . generally, it was positive to reveal the existence of the twelve tribes ,during the sacred covenant . Also he had a strange opinion, about some kind of the covenants, during the days of "Joshua", he called it the"Amphictigony" ,which "Joshua"made it, to the Israelite, because the Bible taught us ,that the covenant during the days of "Joshua",were the same covenant of "Moses". This "Amphictigony" were to unite the tribes together, to be a united nation, in their political and religious affairs,under the authorities of the Judges, but it was some problems, faced us to agree "Noth"'s opinion, because we have observed, their desire to be under the rule of a king .                                                                                                                                                                                  and follow later  .                                                                             Rev. Joseph                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

ASCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 14 )

                The problem which the form criticism have created ,to themselves, was the question .Who wrote the "TORAH" ?,because they denied the "Mosaic Authorship" .                                                                                One of their followers, his name was "The Late Ivan Engnell",have established "Uppsala School",in order to escape from this difficult question, he suggested an existence of two groups ,during the exile times, he called them the "P" group ,and the "D" group .                                                                                                                            The "P" group, kept in their memory the first four books :- Genesis,Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers .                                                                                                                                           While the second group ,kept in their memory four other books, they were :- Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges , Samuel [ first and second] .                                                                                                                                                     The eight books were collected, from the total memory ,of those two groups ???                                                                                                         The original source of their memory, was the prophet himself . BUT they did not solve the problem, which the form criticism have created to themselves, he imagined that he solved it ,by suggesting that the source were the prophet himself, but he did not mention, What was the words of the prophet, and what they have added after him ,and how did they all agreed about the differences, and if the two groups were belonging to the  grandfathers ,who were students in the school of the prophet, how did the grandfathers of the second group lived, in the times of "Joshua " ,and still alive to the end of the book of "Samuel",at the days of "David",to collect in their memory the contents of the four books .                                                                               So, he did not solve the problem, but he added some problems, without any logical reasons.                               The school of " Uppsala" ,were not the only wrong attitude, which faced the "Wellhausen"'s theory, accompanied by the school of the form criticism, and the Scandinavian school , there were other schools, like the school of the" Traditio-Historical " ,or, the historical traditional attitude . The followers of "Edhard Nielson" who have established this school ,wrote his book "Old Tradition",1954 ,which depended upon the study of the Old Hebraic People's psychology, and with the using of the Old Eastern literature , added to that some kind of imaginations ,We can not describe it as a real Scientific thinking, they were as he, who searched what was in the mind of the King "Tut" ,while he was eating his last meal !!!                                                                                                                                                   WHY they denied the old writing for the "TORAH" ?? , WHY they tried to think about how the Hebrew people collected the "TORAH" later ??, by the using of their memories !!                                                                                                         To answer about this question ,we have one definite answer ,IT was because, they were under the effects of the thoughts ,of "Wellhausen" himself who suggested that, the Hebrew language ,were not a written language ,before the exile ,this false idea led them to some closed roads .What was the archeological discoveries said, after their time ,to answer them, if they were following the themes of "Wellhausen", and attacked him at the same time .                                                                                                                                                The origin of the "Hebrew" language ,which was the "Akadean" language, were still common as a diplomatic language, before the twentieth century ,to the fifteen century BC, as we knew from the letters of "Tell -el-Amarna", the Hebrew language itself,were formed from the twentieth century BC, but we have also some Hebraic  writings ,up to the fortieth century BC, in spite of it was not developed, as the other "Holographic" language , "W.J.Martin" recorded that in his book ,"Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah " p18,at1954 , it was before "Moses"times .                                                                                                                                         The " Texts of Nuzi " and the "Texts of Mary" , proved the validity trust in the contents of the "TORAH" , and let us see later         Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 13 )

            "H.Gunkel" and "H.Gressmann"established the form criticism,after the failing of the school of "Wellhausen." . "H.Gunkel" compared between the "TORAH" and the other archeological manuscripts of the other cultures at "Moses" times .                                                                                                                                                              He suggested that the religious thinking ,among the Israelite nation ,was transmitted to the generation ,with some written books, although it was some knowledges in their memory, their fathers have transmitted it  to them, while it belonged to many nations,by the time (as he suggested)they mixed what they have known from their fathers with what it was written in  the books,thus ,even their doctrine in God, have been formed through many stages, according to the quantity, which they have accepted from the memory, which added it to the books .                                                                                                                                             Therefore ,"Gunkel" delayed the the doctrine of the inspiration completely , since he thought that the written books were under the will,or the desire of the people ,who were not prophets . it is known to us that the oldest legal laws, during the patriarchal ages, before "Moses "were transmitted across the different generations, through the memory .therefore it was not a strange accident, to find some similarity, between what was in their memories ,and what was inspired by God to 'Moses" . It was some agreement, we do not deny it, but also some big differences .                                                                                                         At last it is expected to find some manuscripts like what "Gunkel" have found .                                                                                                                  "Gunkel" failed in maintaining the form,of the original written source, which he have suggested .                                                                                             To argue with his thoughts ,we must analyse his theory ,    He puts us before three persons, the First who composed the books,the Second,  the people who trust in this writting , the Third were the memories of the people who directed the thoughts of the people, which comes from the memories, and what was added across many ages to the written source[the form] ..                                                                                                    To discover that form, we must ask him , Who is the speaker in that form? and, Who were the listeners? and ,Who were the persons who had the right to suggest the correction ,by adding or by omitting ?                                                                                                                                   The logical and the recorded answers for these three questions are:-                                                                                                      First the inspiration of God who wrote.by using the prophet ..                                                                                                                                                            Second the people of God who listened and obey.                                                                                                                                                                           Third it was impossibility to find someone, who have authority to correct the thinking of the people, who was not a prophet .while the.prophet, was the first one who wrote ,that's means that there were not three, but two the prophet who wrote by the inspiration ,and the people who listened ,or reads ,and obey ,it was impossibility to find the third imagined group .                                                                                                                                                               "Gunkel" could not complete his task,"H.Gressmann"completed it, by publishing a serial books, called "Die Shriften des Alten Testaments ",1911 .In this collection, he have destroyed, the beautifulness of the stories of the "TORAH",also denied the existence of the inspiration, to pave the way for the "Scaninavian Formal School" .BUT "J.Pederson"who was one of this school ,announced that the documentary's theory ,gone forever.,and the "TORAH" was a memorized thoughts, have been written from its first beginning, in its common form,in a later time ."ZAW.XLIX"pp161-181,1931 and thus he added other problems, to the form schools as we shall see          followed  Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 12 )

            We have learnt before , that some of the scientists, during their attempt to defend against "Wellhausen" , failed as a victim of their self confidence,and became critics , but by using other way for criticism, in order to attack "Wellhausen".                                                                                                                                                            Their aims were not to protect the the word of God, but to prove their cleverness, against "Wellhausen" ,so some of them , have created the school of the form criticism, whom we will answer them the next essay ,but now, let us discuss one critic, who had no relation to the form school ,his name was "E.Robertson",he wrote his book "The Old Testament Problems",although he have written some positive ideas in his book ,to attack "Wellhausen"'s methods in thinking, he found himself at last ,in a strange situation , because his thoughts led him ,to find another theory against "Wellhausen's"theory,so, he said that "Samuel" the prophet ,was the composer of the book of "Deuteronomy", in order to revive the legal respect, to the Mosaic laws , and put that book of legal laws, inside the "Ark of the Covenant ", where the priests kept it, until the days of "Josiah",who used it to be the base of his reformation,.The student of "Robertson" completed this suggestion ,.his name was "R.Brinker" who wrote a book called ,"The Influence of Sanctuaries", to suggest that the sanctuary ,with its legal duties , have created in "Samuel" a sacred duty, to reform the states of the people ,who accepted the foolish practices of the priests, before him, by collecting the legal laws of "Moses",to control  his position, in the sanctuary,"Robertson" and his follower, found some one , to follow them , his name was"U.Cassuto" who wrote his book "La Questione dela Genesi"  .                                                                                                                                                      The story of "Samuel" as they have recorded, were just as a short story, imagined by some person,it have not any biblical or historical bases, only their depending on an individual  situation , have recorded to "Josiah", who had not any relation to "Samuel" .                                                                                                                                                                                Therefor, we found "E.Dornseiff", in the big refernce"ZAW.LII-LIII",1934 defended for the the "TORAH"'s authorship, as a whole, because he believed in  the unity of the "TORAH",also he wrote his book  "Antike und Alter Orient" ,about the normal unity of the "TORAH".                                                                                                       Also there was "A.R.Jonson" who warned us from the danger of these thoughts, saying that , the real danger in the Old Testament studies , is in the misconstrue, to that part of the inspired bible,Did the inspiration has a different sources ? Did it divided in its authorship stages , to rewrite it to be suitable to the generation's conceptions ? ,these are a conflicted opinions, which attacks the theory of the inspiration, which our respect to the great value of the "TORAH", depends on its bases .                                                                                   It is clear that the apologetic scientists, found themselves before the face of the critics, and , the scientists with the writers, who walked in a wrong way, to attack the critics , but they succeeded in performing their duty, due to their  abilities , this success were based on the Holy Bible ,only, but they used it,and it was sufficient and qualified  to win ,at the end. and followed ,            Rev. Joseph.

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 11 )

             When "Carlstadt "criticized the "TORAH", he assured that the story of the death of "Moses", at the end of the Deuteronomy , was his major proof ,that "Moses" was not its writer ,.he was in fact, effected by the opinions of "Ibn Ezra" ,but when he studied the contents of the "TORAH", he commented on the unity of its style, and its inside evidence in Ex 17.14,24.4-8,34.27,Nu 33.1,2,Deuteronomy 31.9about the writer of the "TORAH", he said that, it was impossible for any person, to speak on behave of "Moses" ,with using the Personal pronoun of "Moses",and produced the books of the "TORAH",which had a unity style , it is clear to us now, that some of those critics ,attacked the "TORAH" before giving a sufficient chance for the deep  thinking .                                                                                                                                                                                            But "Wellhausen"had a special privacy, .he observed the history of the Israelite people ,along many ages ,and commented on the times, when they were practicing the polytheism, after the times of "Moses",and their worshiping tn many places, after the "Tabernacle" ,because of that, he suggested that the story of "Moses",and his thoughts and deeds,were composed in a later ages ,after his existence , or , he imagined that the folkloric descriptions, were attached to his personality ,and united with the books of the "TORAH" ,along many stages {we can give him a scientific pardon, if he have shown us some scientific samples ,of the "TORAH", along the ages,but,as we know, he did not have had any sample, or any eye witness, who saw it ,or,any confidential source ,which have described what he have said}.                                                                                                                                                                               He could not understood that, the people were in Egypt with"Moses", and the paganism were their original sin, which they could not leave it ,at the moment of the exodus ,in spite of the oracles of "Moses",the "TORAH" itself described that disobedience of the people, also, when they entered the promised lands ,they found themselves between the nations, who believed in the paganism ,and the polytheism ,many hundreds of years , the prophet "Solomon" played an important part, in concentrating on the place of the worshiping, but he could not prevent the people, to be loyal to the one God,because the relation between God and his people, ,in fact,is a secret personal relationship ,BUT through these ages of the disobedience, there were some of faithful people, increased ,or decreased ,according to the political ,economical,social,and the real states of the Israelite community.                                                                                                                 The state of the Israelite people in the past, looked like the states of the people, who belonged to any religion, at any time , the faithfuls always only a percentage amount,less or more the percentage of the unfaithful persons .                                                                                                                                                         And if we added that "Wellhausen" himself, referred to the "TORAH" to prove his suggestion , the Scientific base is, To prove your themes ,it must established on the bases of the confidential sources , if the "TORAH" was confidential, then his theory was false,but if it was not, Where is his confidential sources  ? Where were these confidential origins ?.                                                                                                                                                                                                               Therefor the results or the conclusions of that theory ,did not have any validity, it was unscientific theory .   and follow,                                                                                                                              Rev. Joseph

A SCIENTIFIC REACTION (Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 10 )

            (3)The double recorded stories:-                                                                                                                                                                                       They are as follows,                                                                                                                                                                                     {a}"Wellhausen" said that it was a double recorded story, about the casting out of "Hagar"at Gen 16.4,9.21 .The first refer to "J" but the second to "E"                                                                                                                                                                         BUT,when we refer to the two stories, we find them Two Different Stories, The first about "Hagar's"escaping by her free will ,when she was pregnant, and ,The second is the story of her casting out by the will of "Sarah"when The Son of "Hagar "was a teen ager.                                                                                 {b}The story of  "Beersheba"in Ge21.31,Gen26.31 .                                                                                        "Wellhausen "did not know ,that their were two words in the Hebrew language, both of them consists of three letters, (sheen),(beth),(ain), [SHABA and SHEBA] The first root means satisfaction, but, The second means seven. The three letters "SH,B,A"could not reflect the same root, at Ge 21 "ABRAHAM " named the "WELL"which is the translation of the Hebraic word "beer" of the seven" BEERSHEBA",     but the second at Gen 26.31"ISAC" named the "COUNTRY" "beer" which also means "well"or"source"of the" satisfaction" the Hebrew word is "shaba""BEERSHABA" .                                                                                           {c}The story of the denying  wife three times Gen 12.10,Gen20.1,Gen26.6  .                                                                                                                          "Wellhausen "also did not tray to understand that three were different, it was not a single story, recorded three times, The first one occurs by "ABRAM"at "EGYPT" because the "FAMINE" ,but the second one was by"ABRAHAM" [the same person but after many years] at"GERAR" while he was "TRAVELING" far after the accident of "Sodom" ,also, The third were by "ISAC" because of a"FAMINE",                               "Gerar" and "Abimalech" ,the king of "Gerar ",were "Wellhausen's" bases ,for his suggestion, But now we have found in the Archeology, that the name of "Abimalech",was common at that time ,as a title for the king of "Gerar", it was not the same person ,it was the name which the pharaohs have used, to call the chieftain of the Palestine leaders,.as they called themselves Pharaohs .They were three accidents, every one of them has its circumstances ,                                                                                                                                               "Aalders" and "Allis"made a study for these stories, and proved that ,the changing in these stories, ensured the anti Wellhausen's thoughts,because the repeating was common style of the old semitic literature ,and it employed to prove the story ,and to  make it easy (see J.Muilenburg,"A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric Repetation and Style in Supplements to the New Testament" 1953),also the book of "J.Pederson" "Israel,I,II,1926",                                                                                                                                      The christian scientists, were not the only persons ,who attacked the "Wellhausen's"assumptions, in concern of the double recorded stories {due to his idea), but some of the critics, also ,defended the repeating , like "B.D.Eordmans" who accepted the theme of the origin "P", he said that all these stories,  referred to the same origin "P" not to many origins, although he have suggested other origins for other parts .                                                                                                                            And followed                                                                                      Rev.Joseph.

A Scientific Reaction ( Biblical - Archeological - Literal - Historical 9 )

 (2) The claims of the different literal style :- The modern science have developed the statical measurements, in order to be able to help the scientists ,by giving them , a definite probabilities , to test it ,due to its actually occurrence, in the fact real present order , to reach to many results, in their scientific research .                                                                                                        We must observe that, the statical methods, has given us a probabilities, not the results , probabilities to study it, not to find a definite positive or negative conclusion . For example, if you analyse my Message when I was angry, you may conclude that,I have used some expression ,from the vocabulary ,different than the expressions of some other people else, it may reflect my personality,or my literal style,but it also may not reflect it , perhaps I was under the influence ,of some variable expression,which was used by the media ,at the moment of my writing, or perhaps it was a unique accident, that it has been occurred to me, and can not be occurred again ,also perhaps it is my real habitual style , therefor  if any other analytical study, found another     Message used these expressions, it will reach to a probability ,that may be that,the later Message is mine,because it used my expressions ,or my style of writing .                                                                                                                              Observe that I said MAY BE ,because the verbal analytical studies , has given  us probabilities, not  results,but it alert us, to study this probability,in order to find, if it was positive or negative, as it is a just probability only .                                                                                                                                        But what the Critics have done is, to jump over their research's responsibilities, to record the probability ,as if it was a result or conclusion . This kind of scientific methods, is not able to measure and control the human literature, without any limits, but it is only a helper method .                                                                                                                                                  What about the Divine literature? Can this kind of the indefinite measure valued it ?                                   "W.J Martin" in his book "Stylistic Criteria"1955,.rejected the way which the critics was using, to deal with the Holy Bible because :-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (1)The Holy Bible is not a normal book of literature, to measure it by some indefinite, or definite measures of the human literature .                                                                                                                                     (2)All these measures are variable ,the measures of the modern literature, can not measure the old literature,the eastern literature measures can not measure the western literature.....etc,                      and follows                 Rev. Joseph