Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Gabe, I think we are essentially in agreement. Yes, I would argue that the 
biblical documents are a mixture of actual history, legend, folklore, myth, 
and drama. I think the ancients were probably honestly engaging in the task 
of history, but they didn't have the means or standards that we today use. 
Therefore, they had to use what was at their disposal: oral tradition, 
popular memory, the odd document, folklore, personal experience, and 
imagination. Think about Malory's 'Morte d'Arthur' - seems to work along 
similar lines.

The objection I have to Karl's phrasing of the situation is that he seems to 
imply that 'myth' must necessarily mean 'untrustworthy' (Karl, correct me if 
I'm wrong on this). But myth may well capture the essence of reality (this is 
what it is meant to do), albeit within a fictional medium. Jesus' parables 
work on a similar principle: using a fictional medium to convey a real 
principle or idea.

Finally, I do appreciate the parallels between Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon's 
vassal treaty. I'm not sure we can attribute direct influence of one over the 
other, but I can see the plausibility of both coming from a similar milieu.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au