Biblical Criticism

[2PhiloVoid]

Many people have a lot invested in their church affiliation. Family, connections and history, etc. As a Catholic baptized one month old, I would find it hard to leave. But I am capable of looking critically at it all. Which brings up another issue. Inner tension. I think of it like a dysfunctional family. For all the problems it is family and I am a loyal kind of guy. Fortunately it is also a big tent. My first encounter with Biblical Criticism was in Catholic seminary. I loved it. Like pulling back the curtain.

I've always found Biblical Criticism to be fascinating, too.

I just wish "the family" could be a bit less dysfunctional, though ...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That's a brilliant way of describing the situation, Akita!

In the Catholic tent we have people from Richard Rohr, Bede Griffiths and Thomas Merton to the more conservatives.

I've always found Biblical Criticism to be fascinating, too.

I just wish "the family" could be a bit less dysfunctional, though ...

Some don't even speak to each other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the Catholic tent we have people from Richard Rohr, Bede Griffiths and Thomas Merton to the more conservatives.

Some don't even speak to each other.

Some do.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Some do.

Yah, the cool ones.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yah, the cool ones.

I'm always open for chatting with cool brethren. But the unfortunate thing is that chatting about various forms of biblical criticism and/or hermeneutics isn't very popular here on CF, it seems.

 

[linux.poet]

From what you've just said, it kind of sounds like a few folks are paranoid. Maybe they should challenge their own pre-boxed, denominational assumptions?

I think the key is being able to entertain ideas and beliefs without accepting them. People get afraid if they entertain an idea, that they will automatically start believing it. I have found that this is not the case at all.

Now that we have that cleared up, what would you like to talk about in relation to Biblical Criticsm and/or Bibliology and Hermeneutics?

You know what I know at this point. What other critics exist besides Reddish and Friedman? I think Akita mentioned some in the Catholic realms, but do you know any more? (I think Friedman mentioned some, but I forgot them.)

I'm always open for chatting with cool brethren. But the unfortunate thing is that chatting about various forms of biblical criticism and/or hermeneutics isn't very popular here on CF, it seems.

Maybe people just don’t know anything about it? Not everyone is an English major, and biblical criticism is kind of an obscure field.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the key is being able to entertain ideas and beliefs without accepting them. People get afraid if they entertain an idea, that they will automatically start believing it. I have found that this is not the case at all.

I guess they're the kind of folks who avoid encounters with Street Epistemologists. But in all of that, I'm not sure why they'd have an unfounded fear that if they engage an oppositional idea, they just automatically start believing it. That's really a non-sequitur if there ever was one. If anything, they'd become "informed."

Take for instance a time back when I first was learning the ropes on what the Christian faith "is." I remember going into a Waldenbooks, back when they had that kind of thing, and I perused the religious section. I was looking for biblically related things, but I happened across a copy of The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. My first reaction was, "Woah, hold on there! Really?" And I reached out, picked it up off the shelf, and I leafed through its contents to find some juicy, central idea within it. Guess what happened next?

You know what I know at this point. What other critics exist besides Reddish and Friedman? I think Akita mentioned some in the Catholic realms, but do you know any more? (I think Friedman mentioned some, but I forgot them.)

I know of a whole bunch more. Like tons more. ... did I say tons?

Maybe people just don’t know anything about it? Not everyone is an English major, and biblical criticism is kind of an obscure field.

In my experience, they've heard about it. They've also been "warned" about these other fields by their pastors. In simple terms, they're afraid to find out. Some have, of course, and promptly fallen away from the Christian faith once they found out that reality doesn't quite comport with the view of the Bible they've been spoon fed at their churches. But that's life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you feel about contemporary Biblical Criticism?


The major types of biblical criticism are:

(1) textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text

(2) philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period

(3) literary criticism, which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the Bible

(4) tradition criticism, which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts

(5) form criticism, which classifies the written material according to the preliterary forms, such as parable or hymn.


biblical criticism

I find it helpful as well as challenging. Sometimes even challenging to my faith. I do not see Britannica listing Historical criticism which is one of my favorites along with philological criticism.

So, Akita, which issue in the realm of biblical criticism, of any kind, do you feel is either the most problematic and in need of being addressed or the most interesting?

For example, one issue that plagues the thoughts of some people is the paucity of evidence for Moses and the Exodus as a historical event. But many of kinds of examples could be mentioned.

 

[Davy]

How do you feel about contemporary Biblical Criticism?


The major types of biblical criticism are:

(1) textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text

(2) philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period

(3) literary criticism, which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the Bible

(4) tradition criticism, which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts

(5) form criticism, which classifies the written material according to the preliterary forms, such as parable or hymn.


biblical criticism

I find it helpful as well as challenging. Sometimes even challenging to my faith. I do not see Britannica listing Historical criticism which is one of my favorites along with philological criticism.

Matt 16:6-12
6 Then Jesus said unto them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "It is because we have taken no bread."

8 Which when Jesus perceived, He said unto them, "O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"

12 Then understood they how that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
KJV


It takes some time for the new babe in Christ in disciplined Bible study, to begin becoming aware that the majority of information out there available about The Bible isn't really in the devout Christian's interest. And those are not going understand what the system of Textual Criticism has been busy doing since the 3rd century A.D. starting with the Greeks.

I highly recommend the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon about it for the past several centuries.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

2:51:21? Pretty long. please summarize.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Matt 16:6-12
6 Then Jesus said unto them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "It is because we have taken no bread."

8 Which when Jesus perceived, He said unto them, "O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"

12 Then understood they how that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
KJV


It takes some time for the new babe in Christ in disciplined Bible study, to begin becoming aware that the majority of information out there available about The Bible isn't really in the devout Christian's interest. And those are not going understand what the system of Textual Criticism has been busy doing since the 3rd century A.D. starting with the Greeks.

I highly recommend the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon about it for the past several centuries.

...oh, here we go! It's time for "King James Only" jingo-ism! A Gish gallup style video full of shallow assessments (and half truths) about scholars of Biblical Criticism. This video is a good example of how the Dunning-Kruger Effect works and it is essentially a smear campaign, a kind of "poisoning the well."

Am I going to agree with the video? Not exactly since there's hundreds of points within it that can be argued against and/or refined by deeper, more expansive research.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2:51:21? Pretty long. please summarize.

It's a long commercial for "King James Only."

 

[Davy]

...oh, here we go! It's time for "King James Only" jingo-ism! A Gish gallup style video full of shallow assessments (and half truths) about scholars of Biblical Criticism. This video is a good example of how the Dunning-Kruger Effect works and it is essentially a smear campaign, a kind of "poisoning the well."

Am I going to agree with the video? Not exactly since there's hundreds of points within it that can be argued against and/or refined by deeper, more expansive research.

The KJV Bible was not the only Bible version that used the Greek Received texts, which make up the majority of New Testament Greek manuscripts, and were the most quoted by the early Church fathers.

So claiming I'm preaching 'KJV onlyism' is a BOGUS claim.

And 'deeper and more expansive research' is just another BOGUS claim by those who support the textual critic's working against The Word of God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The KJV Bible was not the only Bible version that used the Greek Received texts, which make up the majority of New Testament Greek manuscripts, and were the most quoted by the early Church fathers.

So claiming I'm preaching 'KJV onlyism' is a BOGUS claim.

And 'deeper and more expansive research' is just another BOGUS claim by those who support the textual critic's working against The Word of God.

OH really?! So, what other counter sources have you engaged to balance out your research?

Because if all you've done is watch this video, you haven't done diddly squat, Davy! I hate to have to be the one to tell this unfortunate truth ...

 

[Davy]

OH really?! So, what other counter sources have you engaged to balance out your research?

Because if all you've done is watch this video, you haven't done diddly squat, Davy! I hate to have to be the one to tell this unfortunate truth ...

Wishful thinking doesn't prove anything, which is what your speech amounts to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wishful thinking doesn't prove anything, which is what your speech amounts to.

... ...

 

[linux.poet]

Wishful thinking doesn't prove anything,

If one is determined to believe something regardless of what everyone else thinks, he or she will indeed believe it regardless of what everyone else thinks. No further sources required.

 

[Davy]

If one is determined to believe something regardless of what everyone else thinks, he or she will indeed believe it regardless of what everyone else thinks. No further sources required.

Same goes for what God's Word as written says, if one is determined to STICK WITH THE SCRIPTURES AS WRITTEN, then why in the world would they want... to change just to suit someone's Biblically illiterate opinion?

 

[linux.poet]

Same goes for what God's Word as written says, if one is determined to STICK WITH THE SCRIPTURES AS WRITTEN, then why in the world would they want... to change just to suit someone's Biblically illiterate opinion?

This is a Christian forum, and this is in the Christians Only section. I doubt anyone is biblically illiterate.

Further, this section we are in is dedicated to Bibliology and Hermeneutics, which is a rather advanced Christian topic involving understanding the Scriptures in light of the original Greek and Hebrew and how all of them fit together. New Christians who are less biblically proficient won't be in here.

 

[Davy]

This is a Christian forum, and this is in the Christians Only section. I doubt anyone is biblically illiterate.

Further, this section we are in is dedicated to Bibliology and Hermeneutics, which is a rather advanced Christian topic involving understanding the Scriptures in light of the original Greek and Hebrew and how all of them fit together. New Christians who are less biblically proficient won't be in here.

Then you SHOULD learn to NOT mock other Christians LIKE MYSELF, as you tried to do in your post I responded to in my post #98. And saying that no Christian can be a Christian and still be Biblically illiterate is a very suspect thought.