1. No, I do not see the relationship between the OT and NT in the way that you do. For one thing, the verse (from Isaiah) Matthew cites re the Virgin Birth says nothing about a virgin birth. We could have an entire, separate discussion about the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, which could go on for weeks. I accept both Testaments as 'inerrant' in the sense that their study will always lead us to God rather than away from him. I have never heard anyone say that s/he became an atheist by studying the Bible. I began reading the Bible about as soon as I was able to read at that level, more than a half century ago. I began noticing the many factual errors, contradictions and inconsistancies almost from the start. That did not hinder my appreciation of the Bible at all. Of course I do not consider it literally true in matters of science, and as history its accuracy varies. The Jews, of course, realized this by separating out 'the Writings' from the Law and the Prophets.

2. I don't accept your premise that for thousands of years both Jewish and Christian readers accepted both creation accounts as fact, and complimentary. The editors obviously considered them irreconcilable, or they would have combined them into a single narrative. The fact that they did not speaks for itself. I've never read an attempt to reconcile them that was not so ridiculous as to be almost laughable, and quite unnecessary.

3. You are, of course, quite correct that there are many non-Biblical myths that parallel Biblical narratives.

4. The Anchor Bible was certainly 'good enough for the scholars involved' at the time it was published. I am delighted to hear that some updates are planned, and I don't think, in a project of this magnitude, that 20 years is an unreasonable interval; I would even be comfortable with 25 or 30. In any case, I shall look forward to reading the revisions, and I would guess that, in the case of Genesis, they will be rather minor (but interesting all the same), and will by no means reject the so-called documentary hypothesis. No one is claiming, of course, that the AB commentary is the work of God rather than of man.

5. By referring in passing to 'the Hebrew Canon' you skirt the issue of the changes in the canon over the centuries. The Hebrew canon was not determined until long after Christ's time on earth. During His lifetime, the LXX was the state-of-the-art, and as you know, nearly all NT allusions to the OT refer to the LXX. This includes dozens, or is it scores - I haven't actually counted - of references to the books that were later dropped. These were certainly counted as canonical by the NT writers, and while these books were ultimately determined to be too recent to be included in the Hebrew canon, they remained in the Christian OT until separated out by Jerome in the 4th cent. AD - but then you knew that. So my unanswered question remains: Were these books originally the Word of God and then later merely the word of man? Not very logical.

6. Regarding the Pauline letters, you are certainly correct that all are Pauline in their outlook. When you say that their authorship is not in dispute - according to whom? Here is my best concensus of contemporary NT scholarship, Protestant and Catholic (once again, caf, this is not my opinion, but that of dedicated scholars whom I respect):

Paul almost certainly wrote Romans, I & II Corinthians, and Galatians.

He probalby wrote I Thessalonians and Philemon.

He may have written fragments of Philippians.

He probably did not write Colossians.

He almost certainly did not write Ephesians.

He could not possibly have written 2 Thess, I & II Timothy, or Titus, unless he wrote them from the grave, because these can all be reliably dated to the last half of the 2nd century AD, and in fact, 2 Thess is a forgery, written in conscious (but unconvincing) imitation of I Thess, and probably should not even be in the canon.

There is nothing unusual in anonymous authors writing in the name of the famous writers of the past. It was quite common in Biblical times, OT and NT, thus we have at least 3 authors writing as Isaiah, several more as Ezra/Nehemiah, and even today one can go into any bookstore and buy a Webster's dictionary, Roget's thesaurus, and books on etiquette by Emily Post and on economics by Adam Smith, none of which have any connection whatever with the named but long-dead authors. It's no big mystery or affront to one's faith - certainly not to mine.

7. No, I don't imagine that many of the AB contributors refer to themselves as 'devout'. That would be rather prideful, but they are nonetheless very dedicated to their profession, as well they should be.

8. Finally, I will take your advice and look into the work of the authors you mentioned, some of which I've already read. Whether or not I agree, I respect the work of any author who starts with the facts and forms conclusions , rather than starting with the conclusion and ignoring the facts.

Caf, you seem to be saying - and this is my inference, I am not trying to put words in your mouth - 'I believe what I believe is true because I want it to be true', and this is OK as far as it goes; we all have to right to believe what we wish. But you seem to go a step further and say, in effect 'Everyone should, or must, believe that what I believe is true, because I want it to be true'. - and that, in my opinion is a step too far. Faith is fine, faith in that which is factually untrue is faith misplaced.