I've been thinking a lot about sin and the Christian fight against it recently, and I think I came up with a good analogy. The analogy has come from my recent study and love of classical history.

It is said that Alexander the Great never lost a single battle in his campaign to conquer the known world. The Macedonians had already successfully reformed ancient Hellenic warfare under his father Phillip II, but with the young Alexander as general over the Macedonian army, they were virtually unstoppable. The fact that he never lost a battle, like many historical facts, is disputed, but I will ignore those arguments for now because they ruin my analogy.

Now let's contrast the greatness of the Macedonian army under the leadership of Alexander, with the Roman army in the middle and late Republic. Rome had some massive defeats in battle. A couple big ones that come to mind were the defeat by the Hellenic kingdom of Epirus under King Pyrrhus (from which the phrase "Pyrrhic Victory" comes), and of course several decisive battles lost to the Carthaginians during the Second Punic War. This one is especially interesting. It is known for the Carthaginian commander Hannibal marching his army up the Iberian Peninsula, and entering Italy by crossing the Alps to the North rather than invading by sea as everyone would have expected (if only the Romans had their own Paul Revere, eh?). Hannibal had some massive victories in Italy, but ultimately failed to take Rome, and was defeated by the Roman army under Scipio Africanas at the battle of Zama.

So why was Rome able to persevere? Ultimately, I think, because they were so persistent and tenacious, but also because of the vast resources at their disposal. First of all, surrender was not something that was entertained by the ancient Romans. No matter how many losses they suffered, they would continue to fight until they had attained victory, or been soundly defeated (ie. the city of Rome being captured). Second, through earlier campaigns, the Romans had set up an impressive network of loyal allies and tributaries from which to draw soldiers and other resources in a time of great need. An entire legion defeated at some battle? No worries, just form another one! (Side note: one of Carthage's strategies was to turn those allies and tributaries against Rome. This had some benefit, but many of those territories shifted their loyalty back to Rome in the end, and it wasn't enough).

So with the history out there, I will explain why I chose this analogy. Many Christians approach the fight against sin the way Alexander approached his campaign in the East. Perfection is our goal, and anything less is unacceptable. The problem is that this is a completely unrealistic and unattainable standard for us Christians who, though justified through Christ, and though in the process of being sanctified, are still at war with their flesh and living in a world inundated by the brokenness caused by sin. Perfection before the general resurrection when we will receive glorified bodies is simply not going to happen. But when that's what we strive for, and that's what we expect, we are sorely disappointed.

And the enemy uses that disappointment against us. One of my favorite passages of Scripture is Zechariah 3:

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, Remove the filthy garments from him. And to him he said, Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments. And I said, Let them put a clean turban on his head. So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by.

Satan will continue to try to destroy us by accusing us of our wrong. Even though we are justified through Christ, and Satan knows this, we will be accused.  And if we set the standard of perfection for ourselves, and are not prepared to live in God's grace when we fail, his attacks may just be successful.

We need to approach our war with sin the Roman way. Although we will be defeated in battle, we cannot give up. We cannot surrender. There will be casualties, there will be losses, there will be pain, there will be heartache. We will hurt ourselves and others through our failures. But we cannot give up. And we have two types of hope that will allow us to persevere in the war, one that even the Romans did not have.

Like the Romans, we have a vast depth of resources at our disposal. We have the Spirit of God living inside us, a deposit of the inheritance that we will receive as Children of God. This Spirit gives us access to the character needed to fight against sin: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5). We also have the armor of God: the Belt of Truth, the Breastplate of Righteousness, the Shield of Faith, the Helmet of Salvation, and the Sword of the Spirit. This armor, above all else, allows us to stand our ground against the Enemy. We have Scripture, which is God-breathed, and therefore useful for teaching and training in righteousness.

With all these at our disposal, a defeat in battle should not cause us to surrender. Rather it should cause us to dig deeper and revitalize ourselves with the wonderful array of resources given to us for this war!

Additionally, unlike the Romans or any worldly army, we have the benefit of foreknowledge: we know that victory was already secured at the Cross, and now it is only a matter of that victory being consummated! We fight as soldiers knowing that there is literally no way in Hell, or on Earth, we can lose the war!

This is the fourth part in the series on Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament.  For some introductory remarks on the Exodus, see Part III of this series.

Now on to the exodus itself.  First off, from the 18th century (BC) onwards, there were several attempts (some successful, some failed) by people groups to move out of their rulers' land.  This provides some precedence for the exodus of the Israelites.  So, the criticism that the exodus itself is a ridiculous idea because no one could possibly escape the iron grip of Egypt is off-base.

Looking at the text of the book of Exodus, it is worth trying to surmise the Israelites' likely path based on topography, conditions, and logistics.  For example,  the "sea" - yam suph in Hebrew - plays an important role in the Israelites' journey .  The translation "Red Sea" is based upon the Latin Vulgate which itself follows the Septuagint; however, the original Hebrew, suph never meant "red".  The translation should be "reeds/rushes, marsh (plants)", as it is in Exodus 2:3-5 (reed basket to conceal Moses) and Isa. 19:6-7.  The term yam suph is also applied to the Gulf of Suez (Num. 33:10-11) and the Gulf of Aqaba (Num. 21:4 and others), which both extend from the "Red Sea".  This also solves the problem of how the Israelites crossed a yam suph but passed others later; if it were simply a single "Red Sea", it would not make sense; as it is, the term yam suph could have been applied to several bodies of water.

After a hiatus, we continue with our series on the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen.

Before diving into everything about the time of Joshua, it is important to note one thing Kitchen stresses in the section bridging the time of Joshua and that of the judges.  With respect to overall archaeological background, Joshua's conquests were not a sweeping blitzkrieg wiping out all the inhabitants.  When this reality is kept in mind, there is no tension between Judges and Joshua, contrary to some claims that Judges is an alternative narrative of conquest or an outright contradiction.  Judges starts soon after Joshua's death with more campaigns to further consolidate the land given.  More detail on this will follow.

This is the second part in a five part series on the reliability of the old testament, based on the book by Kenneth Kitchen.  Here are links to the introductory post and Part I.

The last post ended with Saul's rule over Israel.  We now continue studying the United Monarchy by looking at the ruling periods of David and Solomon.  This is a long post; but as it is a historical study and not a post on philosophy, it is somewhat easier to digest.

The United Monarchy (continued)

David

With respect to David, Kitchen first makes it clear that the nature and scale of the mini-empire of David and Solomon was not unique in the ANE at the time, "A fact that is almost totally unknown to nearly all commentators on 2 Sam. 8 to 1 Kings 11."¹  However, such mini-empires only occurred in the time period around 1200-900BC, as it was a period between the mega-empires.  Kitchen describes three other mini-empires of the time that also had 1) a core "heartland", 2) lands gained through conquest, and 3) vassal-like lands that were gained either by diplomacy (for example, a smaller kingdom coming under an empire through an alliance of sorts) or threat.  Such lands could break away politically when the mini-empire weakened, in stark contrast to the the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires, that had other nations assimilate completely.  Both the king's court and the lands claimed by Israel expanded significantly under David.  The kingdom David built was very much like other mini-empires.

Kitchen does not discuss the likelihood of a shepherd boy becoming king, but he does show that poetry, music, and hymn-writing were not unusual for both the common man and the official artists of the the time period.  Further, kings participated in such arts.  The hymns and psalms written by David were not written in a vacuum - they have clear connections with longstanding traditions in the ANE (Ancient Near East).  "The forms and conventions of biblical poetry, so familiar in the Psalms, go back in origin two thousand years before David's time."²

This is the first part in a five part series on the reliability of the old testament, based on the book by Kenneth Kitchen.  For more, check out the introductory post.

The Divided Kingdom

The divided kingdom is recorded in both Kings and Chronicles, as well as bits from some of the prophets.  To measure historicity, external historical sources (records from Assyria and Egypt for the most part), bullae (seals of various kings and royalty), and archaeology are used.  To boil things way down, 9 of the 14 kings of Israel are mentioned in external sources and bullae of others have been found; for Judah, 8 of 15 (and other evidence as well).  Each date given for a king of either kingdom in the external sources agrees with the record in the Bible.  Kings and Chronicles also mention kings of many other nations.  Of the records we have, those mentions corroborate with that nation's own records.  Events which are recorded in both the Bible and external sources corroborate well, once propaganda is taken into account.¹  In short, the idea that someone in the 2nd century just made this stuff up and happened to line up the dates, names, and events perfectly with Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Edomite, and other records through 350 years of various reigns is quite frankly an embarrassing hypothesis.

The reliability of the Old Testament is at once a fascinating subject and a contentious issue.  It is maligned by some for its historical inaccuracies, while at the same time it is praised by others as being a valuable primary source for ancient history.  Needless to say, it is also held by those within the church to be the very word of God.

If the Old Testament is not historically accurate, if it is riddled with inconsistencies and contains fables that have been dismissed by other ancient sources, then it seems the faith on which it is based is on shaky ground.  Indeed, if the veracity of its historical claims is suspect, why should the supernatural claims be trusted?  Doesn't it seem likely that the one book in all the world that faithfully sheds light on the supernatural should be extremely reliable historically as well?  If on the other hand, it is historically reliable, shouldn't it be considered a valuable source of history and its supernatural claims seriously considered, rather than simply being dismissed?

Those are the stakes.  The debate has often taken place in popular culture.  With films like Noah and Exodus coming to theaters this year, there will likely be a flurry of discussion.  Once in a while some new archaeological discovery finds its way to the front pages of newspapers and magazines, and the question is submitted to the American public once again: Is the Old Testament reliable?

I recently (in the last year) read an outstanding book on the resurrection by Michael Licona called The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographic Approach. What follows is a brief review of the book. I do not intend this review to be exhaustive, but encourage readers to pick up the book themselves. As will be evident in the below text, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the historical case for the resurrection. Those interested, more generally, in the philosophy and method of history will also find this book to be a fascinating primer and case study to the subject. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the conclusions of this scholarly work, one should appreciate and respect the rigor and attention to detail with which Licona approaches this highly controversial subject. There is much to learn from this work, not least of which is how to think critically when approaching the subject of history.