Historical Critical == Bible is a Lie?

[hedrick]

I view the whole OT this way. I'm struggling to give it any more relevance. I understand that it has more value than just that, but I'm being honest about where I'm at rather than perhaps where I ought to be.

You're not alone. My problem with this is that Jesus' mission was the culmination of God's work with Israel. He saw himself as an heir to the prophets, and his work establishing the Kingdom as accomplishing the renovation of Israel that is the subject of much of the OT, and the vision in passages such as Jer 31:31.

However I have to say that a friend who follows Biblical research more closely than I has become convinced that the minimalist position on the OT historical books is largely accurate. All the best NT scholarship says that 1st Çent Judaism is critical to understanding Jesus. But a lot of us are wondering how much of that is really based on the historical accuracy of the OT.

My friend goes further than I. He is convinced that we don't know that much about Jesus' actual teachings, and thus adopts roughly the position of Schliermacher.

 

[elman]

My view, as a former liberal Christian, is that any other approach to Scripture other than what is coined here as "inerrancy" ultimately turns some part of Scripture into outright lies and other parts into truth. I am not sure what is scarier. The fact the whole source of religious truth can be thrown into doubt in any point, because it is impossible to determine which sections and teachings are actually inerrant and which are not; or that someone flawed like me or anyone else is entrusted to figure that out for himself.

Anyone you rely upon to figure it out for you is flawed. James 3:2 We all make many mistakes. That was referring to teachers of theology. It is a security blanket to assume God dictated the bible, but it is false security because if He had, it would not have the mistakes and contradictions in it. God created us for the very purpose of figuring it out for our self. However God has written on our hearts about what is loving and good, so it is not the failing to figure it out that is sin. Sin is knowing what the right thing to do is, and not doing it.

 

[Sayre]

You're not alone. My problem with this is that Jesus' mission was the culmination of God's work with Israel. He saw himself as an heir to the prophets, and his work establishing the Kingdom as accomplishing the renovation of Israel that is the subject of much of the OT, and the vision in passages such as Jer 31:31.

However I have to say that a friend who follows Biblical research more closely than I has become convinced that the minimalist position on the OT historical books is largely accurate. All the best NT scholarship says that 1st Çent Judaism is critical to understanding Jesus. But a lot of us are wondering how much of that is really based on the historical accuracy of the OT.

My friend goes further than I. He is convinced that we don't know that much about Jesus' actual teachings, and thus adopts roughly the position of Schliermacher.

Thanks. What is schliermacher's position?

 

[hedrick]

Thanks. What is schliermacher's position?

This may be so oversimplified that it misrepresents, but his was one of two attempts in the late 19th Cent to construct a Christian theology that would survive the critiques of Kant and the results of the new critical scholarship.

As I read him, Schliermacher didn't believe that NT scholarship could produce enough results that Christianity could be built using just Scripture. Hence he took general concepts such as God's love and Christian experience, and advocated that the Christian community could develop theology using its experience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the criterion being that theology should facilitate our relationship with God.

Others such as Ritschl tried to use more of the results of NT scholarship. I tend to come from the side of the liberal tradition that considers Jesus' original teaching to have authority. I'm uncomfortable with the community developing with no way to judge the results.

 

[Sayre]

This may be so oversimplified that it misrepresents, but his was one of two attempts in the late 19th Cent to construct a Christian theology that would survive the critiques of Kant and the results of the new critical scholarship.

As I read him, Schliermacher didn't believe that NT scholarship could produce enough results that Christianity could be built using just Scripture. Hence he took general concepts such as God's love and Christian experience, and advocated that the Christian community could develop theology using its experience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the criterion being that theology should facilitate our relationship with God.

Others such as Ritschl tried to use more of the results of NT scholarship. I tend to come from the side of the liberal tradition that considers Jesus' original teaching to have authority. I'm uncomfortable with the community developing with no way to judge the results.

That's interesting. So how do you know His original teachings? It seems to me that even if Jesus wasn't a literalist in terms of handling scriptures He at least made it obvious that He was connected to the text as part of Israels history. I don't think he could have taught in the temple if his teachings were completely independent of Scripture. I don't think the tradition of claiming his resurrection was prophesied in Scripture would have been developed if His teaching devalued or ignored scriptures. Nor do I think he could have gathered a body of Jewish believers who seemed to retain their Jewishness if he had asked them to follow a message independent of Scripture.

So it seems that by divorcing the practice of faith and development of theology from scripture was not his intent.

That puts me in an awkward bind trying to learn more about His true teaching and me not valuing the bible like he did.

Sorry for lack of caps - posting from mobile phone.

 

[All Souls]

Jesus' mission was the culmination of God's work with Israel. He saw himself as an heir to the prophets, and his work establishing the Kingdom as accomplishing the renovation of Israel that is the subject of much of the OT, and the vision in passages such as Jer 31:31.

Would I be correct in seeing this as influenced by N T Wright? I agree that this is how Jesus understood his own mission (JVG) and how Paul re-worked Jewish beliefs of creation, covenant, and eschatology around Christ (PFG), but the problem I have is that God's work with Israel is not exactly straight forward, not least because modern scholarship suggests that the storyline of the Hebrew Bible is at the earliest a late exilic / early post-exilic work.

 

[Sayre]

Would I be correct in seeing this as influenced by N T Wright? I agree that this is how Jesus understood his own mission (JVG) and how Paul re-worked Jewish beliefs of creation, covenant, and eschatology around Christ (PFG), but the problem I have is that God's work with Israel is not exactly straight forward, not least because modern scholarship suggests that the storyline of the Hebrew Bible is at the earliest a late exilic / early post-exilic work.

I think it is even more nuanced than that. The storyline was edited and redacted in the post exilic time - but that isn't to suggest that we can't find broadly similar timelines in the earlier text as it existed pre exilic.

We have to honestly question why redaction is viewed with such disdain. Does redaction reduce the value of original text, or is there synergy involved in redaction? I've been reading about redaction in the sinai theophany. I have to say that all it appears to have done is enrich the text.

To what extent does Jesus message depend on the historicity of the story of the Jewish people, rather than the historicity of their beliefs about the story?

 

[hedrick]

I think it is even more nuanced than that. The storyline was edited and redacted in the post exilic time - but that isn't to suggest that we can't find broadly similar timelines in the earlier text as it existed pre exilic.

We have to honestly question why redaction is viewed with such disdain. Does redaction reduce the value of original text, or is there synergy involved in redaction? I've been reading about redaction in the sinai theophany. I have to say that all it appears to have done is enrich the text.

To what extent does Jesus message depend on the historicity of the story of the Jewish people, rather than the historicity of their beliefs about the story?

I haven't read what I need to yet, so I'm depending upon hearsay. But it's not just redaction. Many archaeologists will now tell you that most of the OT history simply didn't happen that way. Pretty much everybody agrees that the Exodus didn't happen. In that case, was the Mosaic covenant invented in the Exile? Would that matter? How about Abraham and the covenant with him?

I'll say more after I've had time to read some more. OT isn't an area I know that much about, but I think this may matter.

I do agree that Jesus depends more upon the Judaism of his time than the accuracy of the OT.

 

[Sayre]

I don't need a historical basis of the OT events but I do need to know that there was a common story that joined them together and gave them hope. The belief in this common story needs to be historical, not the story itself.

 

[All Souls]

I think it is even more nuanced than that. The storyline was edited and redacted in the post exilic time - but that isn't to suggest that we can't find broadly similar timelines in the earlier text as it existed pre exilic.

What storyline do you think was pre-exilic? The reason I ask is that we need to make sure we are talking about the same thing The Patriarch narrative was only joined to the Moses story in the exilic period (cf. Genesis and the Moses Story).

To what extent does Jesus message depend on the historicity of the story of the Jewish people, rather than the historicity of their beliefs about the story?

The question for us, I think, is how we can apply Jesus message to us today when we know that the story of the Jewish people it was based upon, was a literary product rather than an historical narrative.

 

[All Souls]

I haven't read what I need to yet, so I'm depending upon hearsay.

Make sure you read In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel

 

[Sayre]

What storyline do you think was pre-exilic? The reason I ask is that we need to make sure we are talking about the same thing The Patriarch narrative was only joined to the Moses story in the exilic period (cf. Genesis and the Moses Story).



The question for us, I think, is how we can apply Jesus message to us today when we know that the story of the Jewish people it was based upon, was a literary product rather than an historical narrative.

It is an intereting question but you haven't quite boiled it down yet. The final literature is the collation of oral tradition that has a rich history - but how did that oral tradition form, and was it based on legitimate revelations from God?

 

[All Souls]

It is an intereting question but you haven't quite boiled it down yet. The final literature is the collation of oral tradition that has a rich history - but how did that oral tradition form, and was it based on legitimate revelations from God?

Do you have a particular example you'd like to use as a case study?

 

[Sayre]

While we are amongst friends...

I've been looking at the gospels where Jesus is claimed to have quoted scripture. In mark, there is just one quote. Luke has three. John 4. Matthew has 41. Why is matthew such a different book?

 

[Sayre]

Do you have a particular example you'd like to use as a case study?

The Abrahamic covenant seems incredibly important for soteriology - do you know much about the tradition criticism on that piece?

 

[All Souls]

While we are amongst friends...

I've been looking at the gospels where Jesus is claimed to have quoted scripture. In mark, there is just one quote. Luke has three. John 4. Matthew has 41. Why is matthew such a different book?

Is this authentic? Is it Special M. It's very hard to answer generalised questions since we have to proceed on a case-by-case basis. Ulrich Luz is great on Matt.

 

[All Souls]

The Abrahamic covenant seems incredibly important for soteriology - do you know much about the tradition criticism on that piece?

Yep, which part? Gen. 12; 15; 17?

 

[Sayre]

That's interesting. So how do you know His original teachings? It seems to me that even if Jesus wasn't a literalist in terms of handling scriptures He at least made it obvious that He was connected to the text as part of Israels history. I don't think he could have taught in the temple if his teachings were completely independent of Scripture. I don't think the tradition of claiming his resurrection was prophesied in Scripture would have been developed if His teaching devalued or ignored scriptures. Nor do I think he could have gathered a body of Jewish believers who seemed to retain their Jewishness if he had asked them to follow a message independent of Scripture.

So it seems that by divorcing the practice of faith and development of theology from scripture was not his intent.

That puts me in an awkward bind trying to learn more about His true teaching and me not valuing the bible like he did.

Sorry for lack of caps - posting from mobile phone.

All souls - any comment on this argument?

 

[Sayre]

I;m sorry - I have so many questions... I have some faith, but it honestly isn't bible based. Though I feel desperate to give it more meaning than I currently give it. It is a tad unsettling.

 

[All Souls]

All souls - any comment on this argument?

My area is OT; but, there are criteria by which we can determine the authentic Jesus, multiple attestation, dissimilarity, embarrassment, and so on.