The Epigenetic Image of God?

 

At the recent 2021 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, William Lane Craig's book, "In Quest of the Historical Adam", was reviewed by several scholars from an Old Testament perspective, a theological perspective, and a scientific perspective. As well, he had a chance to respond to their critiques as well as respond to questions from the audience. This blog post involves the content of the book as well as the discussion and clarifications made by Craig at that meeting.

Craig, in his book, is trying to present an interpretation of the Bible which is maximally harmonious with the available scientific observations while, at the same time, affirming a historical Adam and Eve without having to have people "outside of the garden of Eden" as suggested by Swamidass.  Craig affirms an ontological understanding of the image of God.  He identifies the image with four observable characteristics.  He then observes that Homo Sapiens, Denisovans, and Neanderthals all seem to have these characteristics.  So, he argues that the first Adam and Eve must be a common ancestor, which, as a placeholder, he tentatively proposes as Homo Heidelbergensis. In doing so, Craig assigns the first eleven chapters of Genesis as "historical-myth" where we should not consider them to be literal.  Thus, Craig's book denies a global flood, extremely long aged people, talking snakes, and other things which seem to him to be "fantastic" and out of harmony with the scientific data. As well, he considers the city-building and farming in Genesis 4 to be "an anachronism by the author of Genesis". He does this while affirming that God can and does still do Special Divine Action miracles on occasion. Craig affirms that Adam and Eve received the image of God and a soul by God's fiat creation at 500kya (thousand years ago).  His view is agnostic toward Traducianism vs. Soul Creationism after Adam and Eve's soul creation.

As part of the scientific critique, it was argued that the same genetic process which creates the Habsburg Jaw would seem to prevent, even in theory, the idea that a single pair of humans can be the parents to all of humanity. The royal family of the Habsburgs, because of inbreeding, had a 50% infant mortality rate while the peasants who lived around them had only a 25% infant mortality rate. The high infant mortality rate caused the Habsburg family line to cease within a few hundred years. As an illustration, it was mentioned that when an endangered species is below 100 in population, that species is functionally extinct already because of this.  Thus, it was argued that the behaviors that Craig wants to originate with a single pair of people cannot be done so through a genetic process over DNA propagation.

Instead, the author of the scientific critique suggested that a more viable possibility might be through an epigenetic process, instead of a genetic one. It was a brief statement without further elaboration on what that would look like.  However, if the image of God were epigenetic, it would seem that God is performing a creation of the soul, perhaps at conception, such that the genes will interpret our DNA sequence differently.  The problem with this approach would be that epigenetic changes are reversible and the Bible does not present the image of God as a reversible thing, assuming an ontological understanding of the image.  Still, this does seem like a possibility and maybe something that could be testable and researched.  An alternate option would be to investigate if there were some type of DNA factor which would not suffer the genetic defect that produces the Habsburg Jaw.  That issue seems to be occurring only in species with a male and female sex.  I wonder whether or not starfish or amoebas have that same problem.  If starfish and amoebas do not have this problem, perhaps that could clue us into some, as yet undiscovered, DNA genetic process that would overcome the Habsburg Jaw issue.  Otherwise, our options would seem to be limited to the epigenetic factor, or perhaps simply to another unknown factor altogether.

Gnosticism, Existentialism, and Other Non-Christian Movements

Gnosticism, Existentialism, and 

Other Non-Christian Movements

As a Christian living in a particular sociological and political context in a given time-period, we are all exposed to, and raised up in, a plethora of ideas and images which constitute what we consider normal, common, and even, at times, good.  Though we strive to be Bible-based first and foremost, we are often subject, consciously or unconsciously, to the hegemonic ideology of the society that we are born within.  

In the 1st and 2nd century A.D. (Ad Dominum  = "In the Year of Our Lord"), the newly created Church was battling against the heresy of Gnosticism.  Gnosticism was not an idea that originated with a perversion of Christianity.  Rather, there was a greater Gnostic Movement in that time that affected the ideologies of Judiasm, Christianity, and Middle-Platonic thought.  It was an idea and concept which everyone began to talk about, an idea that mixed aspects of Ancient Near East mythology with some of the teachings of Judiasm and Christianity.  The Church did not become Gnostic so much as the secular world, which under the "good" Roman emperors who showed more tolerance and less tendency to torture people, began to experiment with Christianity.  In doing so, the ideas of the Gnostic movement began to interact with the teachings of the apostles of Jesus Christ. Regardless of whether you are talking about Simon Magus (a.k.a. Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24), or Cerenthus, or Saturnilus, or Basilides, or Valentinus, Gnosticism, along with its spurious and pseudepigraphal writings, was completely incompatible with Christian teaching.  It took the concerted effort of Irenaeus, in his work "Against Heresies," to put a stop to the in-roads of such ideology within the Church.

In the 20th century, the Church again encountered ideological movements which affected both athiest and Christian communities.   On one hand was Darwin's theory of evolution, which originally was a God-guided evolution in contrast to an initial creation of all kinds by God.  Interacting with this theory, both scientifically and theologically, has had an impact and continues to guide dialogue and debate in the Church.  On the other hand was the ideology of Existentialism.  Existentialism can be said to have begun in the 19th century with Soren Kierkegaard who chose to believe that Christianity was true (in a leap of faith) even though it made absolutely no logical sense to him. It was in the 20th century where Existentialism began to get mainstream popularity and people began to forsake God's will for their lives and simply embrace "making your own meaning".  The late Ravi Zecharias poignantly observed that, for many people, Existentialism often leads to Nihilism.  We can see this blending of Existentialism and Christianity and Eastern-Mysticism in popular movies like "Soul", where the "narrow road" or "staircase to heaven" simply zaps a person out of reality when they reach the top, where the idea of a purpose of life is considered "such a basic idea", where the ultimate goal of a person is simply considered being happy where we are.  Or, as Joel Osteen might say, it's "living your best life now". Or as Robert Schuler or Norman Vincent Peale might say, "it's the power of positive thinking." 

As Christians, we need to be aware of the messages that society tells us that we might consciously interact with them and to truly live a God-honoring life and to hold true to the Bible's teaching.

"To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 

2nd Thessalonians 2:14-15 (ESV)

作业

请你写一写

开心、高兴、快乐、幸福、喜乐

的区别

开心：

to feel happy; to rejoice; to have a great time; to make fun of somebody

昨晚我玩得开心。

高兴：

happy; glad; willing (to do something); in a cheerful mood

我太高兴！

快乐：

happy; merry

春节快乐！

幸福：

happiness; happy; blessed

钱买不到幸福。

喜乐：

joy

喜乐 是  重  內心  而 不  重  外在  的  物质。

A Lion-Eating Poet

I recently came across this amazing poem by Zhao Yuanren (趙元任) (1892-1982).

It is even more beautiful and poetic in Mandarin.

Story of Shi Eating the Lions
施氏食獅史
A poet named Shi lived in a stone room,
石室詩士施氏,
fond of lions, he swore that he would eat ten lions.
嗜獅, 誓食十獅.
He constantly went to the market to look for ten lions.
氏時時適市視獅.
At ten o'clock, ten lions came to the market
十時, 適十獅適市.
and Shi went to the market.
是時, 適施氏適是市.
Looking at the ten lions, he relied on his arrows
氏視是十獅, 恃矢勢,
to cause the ten lions to pass away.
使是十獅逝世.
Shi picked up the corpses of the ten lions and took them to his stone room.
氏拾是十獅屍,適石室.
The stone room was damp. Shi ordered a servant to wipe the stone room.
石室濕,氏使侍拭石室.
As the stone den was being wiped, Shi began to try to eat the meat of the ten lions.
石室拭,氏始試食十獅屍.
At the time of the meal, he began to realize that the ten lion corpses
食時, 始識十獅屍,
were in fact were ten stone lions.
實十石獅屍.
Try to explain this matter.
試釋是事.

This story reminds me of the bittersweet victory in "The Old Man and the Sea" where a victory is granted but at great cost.    Yet, the story here is different, because it is merely all the effort that was put into hunting the lions that is cost.  He worked so hard for his lion dinner, only to find it turned to stone. 

Many times, our own efforts can come to failure when we think we've succeeded.  Many people work long hours at their job at the expense of time with their family with the result that their marriage collides and they never know their children. Such people may stop one day and notice in surprise, "what happened"?  Or, it can be like running a race and finding yourself positioned for a clear victory, only to have it taken away unexpectedly at the last moment. 

The tragedy of Shi's stone lions can echo tragedies in our own lives.  But, one thing is for sure, that following Christ will never be a tragedy in eternity.  And, in the small tragedies that we encounter on this earth, we always have Christ to get us through the situation.

The Effect of Sin

In the narrative of David and Bathsheba, David commits adultery and murder, among other sins.
For these crimes, God brings judgment upon David.
David repents and we see in 2nd Samuel 12:13-14 how God forgives him.
Though the punishment of sin is forgiven, the effect of sin remains and David's son dies.

At first, it can seem a bit confusing on how the effect of sin is different from the fair punishment that David deserves.
That is, how is David's son dying not a judgment against David?
Does it suggest that David was only partially forgiven?

I find that it can be helpful to clarify terms and think of a few illustrations.

• Sin: A missing the mark, namely anything which deviates from God's perfect order (For 1st Corinthians 14:33 teaches that our God is a God of perfect order).
• Law: A requirement given (in our case, given by God to help us make known God's perfect order).

Imagine a store where neither the store owner nor a potential robber know of God's Law.
And in this case, God's Law consists of the requirement "Thou shalt not steal."
At night, a robber breaks the store window and steals merchandise from the store.

The sin, in this case, is the deviating from God's perfect order of "never steal."
The effect of sin is the broken glass, the merchandise taken, emotional distress on the store owner, costs to the insurance company to pay for the repair, etc.
The imputation of sin is the recognizing the robber as the thief and declaring him guilty.
The punishment of sin is putting the robber into prison.

As any fan of Star Trek: Deep Space 9 will tell you, there indeed is a difference between order and justice.
Any authority can establish their own conception of order (and Romans 13:1-7 teaches that God's order often works through even evil secular authorities).
Not every ordering is a just ordering. And so, how can we know which orderings are just?
C.S. Lewis' book, "Mere Christianity", highlights our intuition of a Universal Morality.
However, Alasdair MacIntyre has shown in his book, "Whose Justice, Which Rationality", how secular attempts (a.k.a. Natural Law) to identify the Universal Justice (which we all implicitly have an intuition of) are merely their own traditions.
Though we have an intuition of Universal Law (i.e. a law on our hearts), true and Ultimate Justice is revealed by God in the Bible.
Meditate upon the Law! Joshua 1:8 is the answer.

Now, that's very nice, but the example given above does not seem similar to the David and Bathsheba situation.
Never fear, this indeed can happen where the effect of sin seems like a punishment.

Imagine a child in their parent's house. The parent's perfect order is that no-one plays around with the stove fire.
The parent gives a law to the child explaining this perfect order.
If the child violates the law, the effect of sin is that their finger is burned.
The imputation of sin is the parent's recognizing and declaring of the child as guilty lawbreaker.
The punishment of sin is the parent's discipline to the child, whether it be spanking, a timeout, or a stern rebuke.

The problem with David's sin, and with all of our sins, is that sin has a cascading effect.
Our sins bring harm not only to ourselves, but to others, and can start a continuing pattern of negative effect.
This can be seen in the example of Achan's sin in Joshua 7. Achan was one person who violated God's perfect order in the attack upon the city of Ai.
His sin brought negative consequences, not only upon himself, but upon all of Israel. This highlights a corporate aspect of sin which we often do not think of today.

The prophet Isaiah, in Isaiah 6:5, pleads before God as both an unclean person and as a member of unclean people. There is both an individual and corporate aspect to sin and its consequences.

In fact, the most prominent example of the cascading effect of sin can be seen in Adam's in in Genesis 3. The apostle Paul elucidates the full implication of this cascading effect in Romans 5:12-21. The Law makes sin increase just as a magnifying glass makes things that are hard to see more clearly visible.

The cascading effect of sin brings an infinite offense against our infinite God, resulting in a just infinite punishment.

Martin Luther on Christ's Atonement

MARTIN LUTHER  ON CHRIST'S ATONEMENT

“We were not ashamed to proclaim our doctrine before the emperor, the pope, yes, at all diets and publicly before all our enemies.” –Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, p. 412

“Daher kann und will ich nichts widerrufen, weil wider das Gewissen etwas zu tun weder sicher noch heilsam ist. Gott helfe mir, Amen!” –Martin Luther (source: http://www.luther.de/leben/worms.html  )

Building Concensus

On June 1st, 1538 A.D., Luther gives sermon where he elaborates a detailed account of the work of salvation, as it pertains to atonement. The Turk tries to achieve atonement by living morally.  On the other hand, the pope followed Bonaventure’s theory of atonement (which is later modified further by Thomas Aquinas).  Bonaventure’s theory of the atonement was a modification of Anselm’s theory in that Christ’s death on the cross only covered original sin and sinful acts committed by a person needed additional atonement.  Luther rejects both the Turk's and the pope's approaches as salvation by works. (Bertram 1575, 333)

Because Christ was one person with two natures, we can see that all of the attributes from each nature were in one person.  (Bertram 1575, 361) Because Christ suffered during crucifixion, and all attributes from each nature were in one person, it can be said that both God and man suffered on the cross.   Support for God as one who suffers can furthermore be found in Hebrews 6:6 and 1 Corinthians 2:8.  (Bertram 1575, 362)

The Apostles ’ Creed affirms a God who suffers, though the papists don’t understand this. If they had understood it, they would not have added works. Seeking God apart from Christ leads to hell, but faith in Christ saves. (Bertram 1575, 366)

Engaging the Argument

Is it possible that evidence of two atonement theories, Anselm and Christus Victor, in Luther shows more of a progression of thought rather than holding to both ideas together simultaneously?

Apart from the Anselm/Christus-Victor debate, there is also debate concerning theosis. Tuomo Mannermaa
 argued that Luther held to theosis, which is divination or participating in God’s divine nature. Based upon Luther’s Galatians commentary from 1531, Mannermaa focuses on Christ as the “form” of faith.  Thus, Mannerma argues that instead of a forensic declaration of righteousness, it is the uniting of the believer with Christ through faith which saves.  However, Timo Laato responds by arguing that the 1531 Galatians commentary provides more support for a forensic justification rather than an indwelling Christ who deifies.
(Mattes 2014, 267-268)  This evidence is pretty clear against Mannermaa and so there is not much debate here.

Yet, on the Anselm/Christus Victor issue, when we look at the entire corpus of Luther’s works, there is some debate.  

Satisfaction can be seen in Luther’s writings in several places.  In the commentary on Romans, written in 1515-1516, Luther writes, “God does not grant grace freely in the sense that He demanded no satisfaction, but He offered up Christ, that He should render satisfaction for us, in order now to give grace freely to those who had rendered satisfaction through another.” (Spitz 175)  As well, Luther’s 1519 Meditation on Christ’s Passion strongly suggests substitutionary atonement in its reference to Isaiah 53.

However, one can also find Christus Victor in Luther’s writings.  Michael Plathow finds Christus Victor themes in Luther’s illustration of the baited-Leviathan.   He gives an example from Easter Monday, on April 2nd, 1526 where Luther preached in Wittenberg.  He also cites an example from Luther’s Galatians commentary written from 1531-35. (Plathow 2003, 128)  In the 30^th Sermon of the Gospel of John series from 1538, we saw the baited-Leviathan theme come out as well. (Bertram  1575, 355)  

Johann Christian Konran von Hofman argued that Anselm’s teaching could not be found in any of Luther’s writings.   Theodosius Harnack argued that Anselm’s ideas can be found in Luther’s emphasis on the wrath of God. Albrecht Ritschl argued that Luther did not hold to Anselm’s theory of the atonement.  Rather, Luther emphasized the Christus Victor ideas of victory over evil.  However, according to Ritschl, Luther held this only as left-over medeival theology which was ultimately irreconcilable with Luther’s reformation theology. Paul Althus agreed with Harnack that Anselm was Luther’s primary atonement theology while holding to Christus Victor as a secondary atonement emphasis in Luther. (Arnold 274-275)

Yet, it is not inappropriate to talk about a progression of thought in Luther’s life. 

Progression of thought can be seen in some other areas of Luther’s theology.  In the 27^th Sermon, the footnote mentions that in this sermon Luther took up the position of each new soul being separately created. This is in contrast to his former writings where Luther held that the soul was passed from parent to child. (Bertram 1575. 327)

In 1525, Luther married, endured a large peasant revolt, parted ways with Erasmus over the bondage of the will, and was well on his way to creating an institutional Lutheranism. (Mullet 159)  This marked a point where Luther was more careful on his doctrinal teachings.  Where previously, he affirmed Augustine’s teaching of Christ as both example and sacrament, Luther later clarified that Christ is first a sacrament and only afterward becomes an example.  (Arnold 277)

In his interpretation of Galatians 3:13 and Philippians 2:9, Luther advocated an Anselmian atonement conception.  After 1518, Luther rarely quotes Anselm.  Lienhard writes that Anselm held to Christ’s work made effective on the basis of His human nature, while Luther held to Christ’s work made effective on the basis of both human and divine nature.  Luther’s Large Catechism explicitly states, “he has obtained satisfaction for me and paid what I owed.”  Uwe Rieske-Braun showed that Luther sometimes alternated between Christus Victor and satisfaction, while other times combined the two together.  However, Luther never considered the two approaches to be opposed to each other. (Arnold 284) 

Implications

Millard Erickson highlights some important implications for atonement theology:

The substitutionary theory of the atoning death of Christ, when grasped in all its complexity, is a rich and meaningful truth. It carries several major implications for our understanding of salvation:

1. The penal-substitution theory confirms the biblical teaching of the total depravity of all humans. God would not have gone so far as to put his precious Son to death had it not been absolutely necessary. Humans are totally unable to meet their own need.

2. God’s nature is not one-sided, nor is there any tension between its different aspects. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving. He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice himself.

3. There is no other way of salvation but by grace, and specifically, the death of Christ. It has an infinite value and thus covers the sins of all humankind for all time. A finite sacrifice, by contrast, cannot even fully cover the sins of the individual offering it.

4. There is security for the believer in his or her relationship to God. For the basis of the relationship, Christ’s sacrificial death, is complete and permanent. Although our feelings might change, the ground of our relationship to God remains unshaken.

5. We must never take lightly the salvation we have. Although it is free, it is also costly, for it cost God the ultimate sacrifice. We must therefore always be grateful for what he has done; we must love him in return and emulate his giving character. (Erickson 840)

“whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;” (Romans 3:25 NRSV)

ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων 

(Romans 3:25 NA28)

Arnold, Matthieu. “Luther on Christ’s Person and Work.” Pages 274–93 in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka. First. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Bertram, Martin H. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan. Vol. 22. 82 vols. Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1957.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 840.

Luther, Martin. “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion.” Pages 1–8 in Devotional Writings I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Martin O. Dietrich. Vol. 42. 55 vols. Digital Edition. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. http://www.lutheranmissiology.org/Luther%20Meditate%20Passion%20of%20Christ.pdf.

———. “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion.” Pages 7–14 in Devotional Writings I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Martin O. Dietrich. Vol. 42. 55 vols. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Mattes, Mark. “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka, First. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 267-268

Mullet, Michael A. Martin Luther. Routledge Historical Biographies. London ; New York: Routledge, 2004.

Plathow, Michael. “‘Der Geköderte Leviathan’: Martin Luthers Kreuzestheologische Metapher in Der Römisch-Katholischen Theologie Und Ihre Konfessionskundlich-Ökumenische Bedeutung.” Lutherjahrbuch 70 (2003): 127–47.

Spitz, Lewis William. “Luther’s Concept of the Atonement before 1517.” Concordia Theol. Mon. 21.3 (1950): 165–80.

Who is Abraham?

The Bible cites Abraham as the father of the faith who was chosen by God and responded in a faith which Christians, Jews, and Muslims strive to emulate.  But, who is this man?  Is he mere legend, a patchwork of exaggeration and mythological projection across the Jahwehists, Elohimists, Priests, and Deuteronomists?  Or, is there tangible historical evidence in favor of his existence?

On historical method, there is much to be said.  Roland Deines lists three different standards which Christians choose among when doing historical study.(Deines 9–20)  They are:

1. Ontological Naturalistic History – Founded by Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923)
2. Methodological Naturalistic History – Founded by Martin Hengel (1926-2009)
3. Critical Theistic History – Founded by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI (1927 – present)

The first assumes an atheist/non-supernatural universe, defined by secular naturalism.  It would take every miracle claim as historically false or misinterpreted.  Here, faith and history are divorced. As this method is frequently taught in universities, some Christians might choose this approach. The second uses secular methodology, recognizing the theoretical possibility of miracles, allowing it only in cases where there is no better historical explanation available. As for the third, it is both critical and theistic.  For Ratzinger, history is not divorced from faith, but is the foundation upon which faith rests.  He distinguishes between the merely hypothetical certainty that the secular method can provide and the faith-based certainty that faith in the Bible can provide.  Rather than merely being inductively open to the possibility of the transempirical like Hengel, Ratzinger includes faith-based certainty as a kind of historical knowledge. He starts with the assumption that God exists and is acting in history.

There is the debate over the documentary-hypothesis.  That is, did Moses really write the first five books of the Bible? Or were there four separate sources (JEPD) which were only assembled together around 400 B.C.? John Sailhamer rejects the documentary-hypothesis (Sailhamer 22–25). As well, Bruce Waltke considers that Moses skillfully used multiple sources.(Waltke and Fredricks 24–27).  Walter Kaiser rejects the documentary-hypothesis.(Ankerberg 1). As does the Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen who writes:

Where do J, E, D, P now belong, if the old order is only a chimera? Or, in fact, do they belong at all?

Here we will be concise, open, and fairly staccato. First, the basic fact is that there is no objective, independent evidence for any of these four compositions (or for any variant of them) anywhere outside the pages of our existing Hebrew Bible. If the criterion of “no outside evidence” damns the existence of such as Abraham, Moses, or Solomon and company, then it equally damns the existence of these (so far) imaginary works.(Kitchen 492)

Also, there is discussion about biblical-maximalism vs. biblical-minimalism.  The position of maximalism is that the Bible is to be taken as a historical source unless proven otherwise, and furthermore that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In minimalism, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities.(“Historicity of the Bible” 1)

Though external evidence for Abraham has not yet been discovered, there is internal evidence for Abraham.

From the viewpoint of modern historiography, internal evidence within the Pentateuch supports the narrator’s inferred claim to represent what really happened. The religious practices of the patriarchs both remarkably agree and at the same time considerably disagree with the religious practices Moses commands. For example, … contrary to the Mosaic law and without the narrator’s censure, Jacob erects a stone pillar (maṣṣēḇâ, Gen. 28:18–22), Abraham marries his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), and Jacob simultaneously marries sisters (Gen. 29:15–30; cf. Deut. 16:21–22; Lev. 18:9, 18, respectively). Were the stories faked, one would expect the author of the Pentateuch to ground his law in the created order or in ancient traditions and, at the least, not cite data that could possibly undermine his teaching. These religious traditions are ancient, having been neither tampered with nor contrived.(Waltke and Fredricks 29–30)

Combining known external societal practices with the internal Bible data, Kitchen considers Abraham to have lived sometime between 1900 B.C. and 1600 B.C.(Kitchen 359).  Kaiser considers Abraham to be living around 2000 B.C. (Kaiser, Jr 96).   Provan, Long, and Longman aptly write:

“The claim to be a critical thinker is easy to make; the reality that lurks beneath it has all too often proved to be only a mixture of blind faith in relation to the writer’s own intellectual tradition and arbitrary, selective skepticism in relation to everything else.”(Provan, Long, and Longman III 50)

 WORKS CITED

Ankerberg, John. “Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis.” John Ankerberg Show. N.p., 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Deines, Roland. Acts of God in History - Studies Towards Recovering a Theological Historiography. Ed. Christoph Ochs and Peter Watts. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Print.

“Historicity of the Bible.” Wikipedia 1 Mar. 2017. Wikipedia. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Kaiser, Jr, Walter C. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? 2001st ed. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2001. Print.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. annotated edition edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006. Print.

Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Print.

Sailhamer, John H. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009. Print.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. 1st edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Print.