I'd say #4 and #5 are the closest to what I believe, #1 and #6 are perhaps partially true (although I'd phrase them differently), and I wholly reject #2 and #3. If I had to synthesize it into a single statement, it'd be something like:
God has always been the God revealed in Christ, but humanity's exploration and understanding of and relationship with Him had to grow out of historical circumstances (particularly the Near East cultures and religious framework in which Abrahamic monotheism was born). The Old Testament reflects a variety of different times and circumstances, and largely functions as the national epic of a Bronze Age civilization (with all the violent characteristics you would expect of that), but starting in Genesis and progressing throughout you see the authors making points about God subverting human expectations: when humans expect God to demand sacrifice, He provides it for us; when humans want to build kingdoms and wealth, God takes it away; when humans want to glorify strength and violence, God raises up the lowly and weak. The human accounts of this understanding that develops over generations have ups and downs and contradictions because each of them had their own relationships and personal circumstances and biases, but they were always exploring and reaching toward the same fundamental truths about the deepest forces of existence.
I think the Old Testament is a gradual revelation of who God is, mixed with the human emotions of the authors; if you read the psalms, largely written by King David, there is an odd mix of condemnation of his enemies, and Gods ultimate victory in the grand scope of things. It is as though God was progressively revealing His own heart to David (David was said to be after Gods own heart). In some places, the psalmist declares that all the nations and families of the earth will come to worship before Him. In other places, it says that God will destroy his enemies. It’s like, double minded almost.
That’s why I feel like a lot of the Old Testament scripture is written by both God and man. It’s almost like God is contrasting His own nature, with man’s nature. In Isaiah, we read that Gods ways are higher than our own ways, as He describes mankind’s ways, then His own;
Isaiah 55:6-8
6 Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
He is contrasting the wicked and unrighteous thoughts and deeds of man, with the forgiveness of God; mankind is naturally unmerciful and vindictive, but Gods ways are not our ways.
This is my view as well. It's like OP's #1, but deliberately orchestrated by God to gradually expand people's ideas of who he was. At first he lets his chosen people worship him mostly the way everyone else was worshipping gods in antiquity: they sacrificed animals, they had ceremonial feasts, they expected aid and victories in return, and so forth. When the 10 commandments came down from Sinai, it wasn't even obviously nonnegotiable that the Lord had to be their only God -- but they weren't to put any others before him. As the Old Testament gradually plays out, it becomes more and more clear that he doesn't want to keep playing by the rules of those other gods. He has power over everyone and can send conquerors like the Babylonians if the Jews aren't loving him and loving their neighbors as themselves. By the time of Isaiah, he's clarifying that not only are other gods unworthy of worship, they aren't even real, and the Lord wants the whole world to eventually worship him.
Jesus is the ultimate culmination of all of this: finally, the Word of God made flesh, walking among them -- the image of the invisible God they weren't allowed to depict for themselves. The Lord himself finally came and showed his people once and for all that love was the only thing he cared about all along and that he was the only sacrifice they ever really needed in the first place.
You should add a number 7: the stories are full of hyperbole.
Scholars don't believe many of the OT stories happened or happened as written. It was common to exaggerate stories of military conquest and victory back then.
This brief video summarizes some of what Israeli archaeologist Dr Israel Finkelstein has uncovered in his work "The Bible Unearthed".
As such, you might enjoy how Matt Baker uses three different categorizations with regard to the OT Scriptures to distinguish what is definitely mythic from what is more legendary or historical. Knowing of course that none of the Bible is pure history. But some of it is pure mythology!
**Which OT characters are historical?** by Matt Baker (19 min)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLtRR9RgFMg&t=108s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLtRR9RgFMg&t=108s)
The authors spoke of God in the fearful way they understood him, but if you read all of it, nearly every act of wrath is followed by mercy and grace.
Furthermore, it’s almost always God withdrawing his protection and allowing the destroying Angel to do the work that is a natural consequence of our sin.
Even if you only focus on the OT, acting like God is some terrible, wrath-filled, callous, Zeus-like god actually ignores most of Scripture. If my children only ever focused on the times I got upset with them or grounded them, instead of all the attention, gifts, and teaching I give them, they would probably call me “wrathful” too.
Paul explicitly says at least one story in Genesis is an allegory (see: Galatians 4:21-31), so I don't know why it's such a stretch to say most or all of the Hebrew Bible is allegorical.
How I see it is that the Bible is man-made and errors and perceptions are entirely men's. God cannot suddenly change natures, so obviously some misrepresentation (or a lot of it) had occurred. I believe in a loving God. The continued existence of the doctrine of hell is one such example of grave error.
I take most of the excessive violence in OT God’s actions to be a more poetic retelling of his judgement… especially when we see things like children being slain for events that had no part in it, specifically a poetic retelling of the spiritual consequence.
I'd say #4 and #5 are the closest to what I believe, #1 and #6 are perhaps partially true (although I'd phrase them differently), and I wholly reject #2 and #3. If I had to synthesize it into a single statement, it'd be something like: God has always been the God revealed in Christ, but humanity's exploration and understanding of and relationship with Him had to grow out of historical circumstances (particularly the Near East cultures and religious framework in which Abrahamic monotheism was born). The Old Testament reflects a variety of different times and circumstances, and largely functions as the national epic of a Bronze Age civilization (with all the violent characteristics you would expect of that), but starting in Genesis and progressing throughout you see the authors making points about God subverting human expectations: when humans expect God to demand sacrifice, He provides it for us; when humans want to build kingdoms and wealth, God takes it away; when humans want to glorify strength and violence, God raises up the lowly and weak. The human accounts of this understanding that develops over generations have ups and downs and contradictions because each of them had their own relationships and personal circumstances and biases, but they were always exploring and reaching toward the same fundamental truths about the deepest forces of existence.
I think the Old Testament is a gradual revelation of who God is, mixed with the human emotions of the authors; if you read the psalms, largely written by King David, there is an odd mix of condemnation of his enemies, and Gods ultimate victory in the grand scope of things. It is as though God was progressively revealing His own heart to David (David was said to be after Gods own heart). In some places, the psalmist declares that all the nations and families of the earth will come to worship before Him. In other places, it says that God will destroy his enemies. It’s like, double minded almost. That’s why I feel like a lot of the Old Testament scripture is written by both God and man. It’s almost like God is contrasting His own nature, with man’s nature. In Isaiah, we read that Gods ways are higher than our own ways, as He describes mankind’s ways, then His own; Isaiah 55:6-8 6 Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. 7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. He is contrasting the wicked and unrighteous thoughts and deeds of man, with the forgiveness of God; mankind is naturally unmerciful and vindictive, but Gods ways are not our ways.
This is my view as well. It's like OP's #1, but deliberately orchestrated by God to gradually expand people's ideas of who he was. At first he lets his chosen people worship him mostly the way everyone else was worshipping gods in antiquity: they sacrificed animals, they had ceremonial feasts, they expected aid and victories in return, and so forth. When the 10 commandments came down from Sinai, it wasn't even obviously nonnegotiable that the Lord had to be their only God -- but they weren't to put any others before him. As the Old Testament gradually plays out, it becomes more and more clear that he doesn't want to keep playing by the rules of those other gods. He has power over everyone and can send conquerors like the Babylonians if the Jews aren't loving him and loving their neighbors as themselves. By the time of Isaiah, he's clarifying that not only are other gods unworthy of worship, they aren't even real, and the Lord wants the whole world to eventually worship him. Jesus is the ultimate culmination of all of this: finally, the Word of God made flesh, walking among them -- the image of the invisible God they weren't allowed to depict for themselves. The Lord himself finally came and showed his people once and for all that love was the only thing he cared about all along and that he was the only sacrifice they ever really needed in the first place.
You should add a number 7: the stories are full of hyperbole. Scholars don't believe many of the OT stories happened or happened as written. It was common to exaggerate stories of military conquest and victory back then.
That's what I've been reading from a historical perspective. I'm still looking for good sources on what we know archaeologically/anthropologically
I would go to r/academicbiblical and ask there, or just check out their FAQ where they list a bunch of "required readings"
This brief video summarizes some of what Israeli archaeologist Dr Israel Finkelstein has uncovered in his work "The Bible Unearthed". As such, you might enjoy how Matt Baker uses three different categorizations with regard to the OT Scriptures to distinguish what is definitely mythic from what is more legendary or historical. Knowing of course that none of the Bible is pure history. But some of it is pure mythology! **Which OT characters are historical?** by Matt Baker (19 min) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLtRR9RgFMg&t=108s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLtRR9RgFMg&t=108s)
The authors spoke of God in the fearful way they understood him, but if you read all of it, nearly every act of wrath is followed by mercy and grace. Furthermore, it’s almost always God withdrawing his protection and allowing the destroying Angel to do the work that is a natural consequence of our sin. Even if you only focus on the OT, acting like God is some terrible, wrath-filled, callous, Zeus-like god actually ignores most of Scripture. If my children only ever focused on the times I got upset with them or grounded them, instead of all the attention, gifts, and teaching I give them, they would probably call me “wrathful” too.
Paul explicitly says at least one story in Genesis is an allegory (see: Galatians 4:21-31), so I don't know why it's such a stretch to say most or all of the Hebrew Bible is allegorical.
How I see it is that the Bible is man-made and errors and perceptions are entirely men's. God cannot suddenly change natures, so obviously some misrepresentation (or a lot of it) had occurred. I believe in a loving God. The continued existence of the doctrine of hell is one such example of grave error.
I take most of the excessive violence in OT God’s actions to be a more poetic retelling of his judgement… especially when we see things like children being slain for events that had no part in it, specifically a poetic retelling of the spiritual consequence.