Biblical Criticism

[Akita Suggagaki]

Maybe the two that are related to the sometimes vastly different interpretations readers and faith groups come up with are

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

and

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

Quite often there is difference of opinion as to whether something should be taken figuratively or literally. And whether it is to be taken as history, poetry or parable. Accounts in Genesis are good examples.

I am reminded of Shakespeare and his work, Julius Caesar. He takes a historical event and brilliantly adds dialogue and sequence to explore motifs of betrayal, murder, power and common good, conscience. The fact that he "adds" his own dialogue does not make it any less valuable. It remains a masterpiece.

 

[Leaf473]

One thing that the world of biblical criticism / analysis introduced me to was the possibility that the Bible doesn't present a single unified theology.

I fully understand that this idea may be too far out for many people. And when posting on other threads here at CF, I often take as a given that the Bible all fits together perfectly.

But myself, I found great freedom and insight and just letting each book or document speak for itself.

I think each book is inspired by God, but the inspiration is that God wanted each person to write about what they honestly felt and believed to be their relationship with him.

 

[Leaf473]

Maybe the two that are related to the sometimes vastly different interpretations readers and faith groups come up with are

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

and

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

Quite often there is difference of opinion as to whether something should be taken figuratively or literally. And whether it is to be taken as history, poetry or parable. Accounts in Genesis are good examples.

I am reminded of Shakespeare and his work, Julius Caesar. He takes a historical event and brilliantly adds dialogue and sequence to explore motifs of betrayal, murder, power and common good, conscience. The fact that he "adds" his own dialogue does not make it any less valuable. It remains a masterpiece.

Exactly! And doesn't the book of Job make more sense if we see it written similar to the way you're describing Julius Caesar? And possibly including the idea that the original work was added to over time by various authors?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Exactly! And doesn't the book of Job make more sense if we see it written similar to the way you're describing Julius Caesar? And possibly including the idea that the original work was added to over time by various authors?

I sometimes wonder if the authors even intended for the works to be read literally. Jesus certainly did not expect his parables to be taken that way.

Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis for the Pentateuch? It has been around since the 17th century. But there have been more recent reassessments of it.

It posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents: the Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) sources.

Some scholars, following Rendtorff, have come to espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases. By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a supplementary hypothesis, which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of work.

Some scholars use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another. The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses. Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain. The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.

The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, likely completed during the Persian period (539–333 BCE).[40][41] A minority of scholars would place its final compilation somewhat later, however, in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE).

A revised neo-documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel. This distinguishes sources by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of Israel's religious history. Its resurrection of an E source is probably the element most often criticised by other scholars, as it is rarely distinguishable from the classical J source and European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-existent.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I came across a few interesting things.
Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.

Doubting the Story of Exodus


The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia

 

[Leaf473]

I sometimes wonder if the authors even intended for the works to be read literally. Jesus certainly did not expect his parables to be taken that way.

Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis for the Pentateuch? It has been around since the 17th century. But there have been more recent reassessments of it.

It posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents: the Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) sources.

Some scholars, following Rendtorff, have come to espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases. By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a supplementary hypothesis, which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of work.

Some scholars use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another. The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses. Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain. The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.

The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, likely completed during the Persian period (539–333 BCE).[40][41] A minority of scholars would place its final compilation somewhat later, however, in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE).

A revised neo-documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel. This distinguishes sources by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of Israel's religious history. Its resurrection of an E source is probably the element most often criticised by other scholars, as it is rarely distinguishable from the classical J source and European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-existent.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

Yes, I've heard of the documentary hypothesis. I've never taken the time to study any of the various proposals in depth, but it makes a lot of sense to me to read the pentateuch as a compilation that took its final form at a much later date. The exile or even a bit later.

It can make some details easier to deal with, imo. Like in Genesis 6 people begin to call upon the name of the Lord. But in Exodus 3, it sounds like Moses is unsure what name to use for the God of their fathers.

 

[Leaf473]

I came across a few interesting things.
Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.

Doubting the Story of Exodus


The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia

I've heard of something similar to that. The version I heard can sound a little humorous at first, but I still think it's an interesting possibility:

Start with Karl Marx's idea that history is the story of class struggle. The people called the Canaanites in the scriptures where some kind of elite class in that area. There was some kind of uprising, and the new ruling class came up with the backstory that their fathers had originally come from Mesopotamia and been enslaved in Egypt, etc.

(And yes, I'm fully aware that this doesn't fit with a literal reading of the scriptures )

 

[Leaf473]

Also, I've heard that Canaanite and Hebrew are very similar. I haven't checked that out myself.

 

[timothyu]

Victimization is a beneficial way to achieve self justification of actions or that which might not be achievable otherwise. Look how it is being used today by all manner of groups seeking gain based on that early model.

 

[PloverWing]

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

Thanks for the references. I hadn't kept up with the latest archaeological/historical scholarship, so this information is new to me.

If it's correct, it does come as a relief, in a way. The book of Joshua is one of the most difficult books in the Bible, morally. God commands genocide? It's a little easier to cope with if it's how the people viewed their origins, but not necessarily reflecting a command from God.

It leaves the problem of dealing with the Exodus, of course. The Exodus is really important mythologically. It's troublesome if there's not a genuine historical event underneath it.

 

[timothyu]

No matter how you look at it, the House of Israel has been a historically self shown case of woe is we. However Christians seem to look at it in a different way, as a matter of putting their will ahead of the will of God, thus paying the price over and over again for denying Him. Even kids today can gain personally when punished by running elsewhere and crying abuse. In continually doing so, how will they learn self interest is not the way as God has shown.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thanks for the references. I hadn't kept up with the latest archaeological/historical scholarship, so this information is new to me.

If it's correct, it does come as a relief, in a way. The book of Joshua is one of the most difficult books in the Bible, morally. God commands genocide? It's a little easier to cope with if it's how the people viewed their origins, but not necessarily reflecting a command from God.

It leaves the problem of dealing with the Exodus, of course. The Exodus is really important mythologically. It's troublesome if there's not a genuine historical event underneath it.

Yes, These days I am a little tired of just accepting what is written as historical. We all know about history. Imagine years from now someone reading about today. For example, an Obama book or a William Barr book. The Bible was written by people invested in their story. Especially the OT is a Jewish work trying to make sense of Jewish experience and hold the community together. Our approach to narrative today, I think, is not so different. We interpret reality. What is fact? What is real? What is the truth? We have a variety of versions. Even here on this very forum there is very little all can agree to.

Bart Ehrman is a contemporary to blow up the NT. Scholars have been poking at the OT for a few centuries now. I like to question things and I think God likes that also. We wont find that in the Bible though because the people who wrote it were trying to get others to conform and stay loyal...even to go so far as to put words in the mouth of God.

Sorry if my view offends but it is my honest opinion.

 

[Leaf473]

The tablets with the Commandments of Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 were shattered in Exodus 32:19 "When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain."

They were replaced by the commandments of Exodus 34:11-28. These were then the ones actually put in the ark. For some reason people like to ignore these.

11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 “Do not make any idols.

18 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

“No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.

25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

The above quote is from a different thread, I hope you don't mind if I comment on it here as well.

It's possible that there was more than one version of the ten commandments floating around. The Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 versions differ slightly, and the one from Exodus 34 is way different.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The above quote is from a different thread, I hope you don't mind if I comment on it here as well.

It's possible that there was more than one version of the ten commandments floating around. The Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 versions differ slightly, and the one from Exodus 34 is way different.

Ya, I though that was a mind blower. It really forces us to ask about the author and the intent. More going on here than God speaking. I think many do not want to acknowledge the differences. But I for one, am tired of accepting things that just don't add up. And I don't think God expects us to not ask questions and search for answers.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We can usually expect a "clash between a critical approach and traditional faith".

"The term “biblical criticism” is an unfortunate one, because it gives the impression that the scholars who practice it are engaged in criticizing the Bible, in a hostile sense. In fact, like the related term “literary criticism,” it refers not to hostility towards the text, but the application of one’s critical faculties to reading it. The term seems to have arisen in the seventeenth century, to refer to the use of humanistic insights in reading ancient texts, and thus also the Bible.

"For Spinoza, as part of the Jewish community, the immediate and most obvious clash between a critical approach and traditional faith had to do with the authorship of the Pentateuch. The Rabbinic Jewish doctrine of תורה מן השמים, “Torah from Heaven,” affirms that the Torah is a document transmitted to Moses by God. Traditional Christians often have a similar approach, claiming that it was written by Moses under divine direction."
Biblical Criticism: A Common-Sense Approach to the Bible - TheTorah.com

 

[linux.poet]

Hmm. What I have found is when Biblical Criticism is engaged in by unbelievers, the results are an attempt to undermine the Faith and are rather comical. I read the book Who wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman as part of my English major college career, and it was quite the academic exercise in bemusement.

One should be careful applying the tools of unbelievers that are usually used to understand ancient literature to the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Yes, the bible has all of the literary forms, because it is the source of all of them. However, applying critical analysis to God's Word as you would study, say, The Odyssey falls apart quickly. It's clear that the Odyssey is a story with many fictional elements, and there is a difference between analyzing fiction and examining reality. The devil is in the details.

Therefore, I much prefer hermeneutics and theology as tools to understand the Bible, rather than using forms of criticism. I find that simply allows the door for unbelief wide open and is, unless I am debating with unbelievers who have no better tools, a largely unproductive exercise. After 4 years of English study, my conclusion is this:

The Bible explains literature, literature does not explain the Bible.

God commands genocide? It's a little easier to cope with if it's how the people viewed their origins, but not necessarily reflecting a command from God.

How, then, do you explain the Flood? Or Sodom and Gomorrah?

God, due to our sin against Him, has every right to wipe us out, and he also has the right to delegate the responsibility of killing to other agents. According to Romans 13, that is delegated to human governments at the moment, and in Joshua he delegated it to the nation of Israel.

Now I wholeheartedly agree that no human beings should be committing genocide otherwise, but in the Pentauch God's command is clear: kill everyone or you will be taken in by their idolatry. He was right. This clearly indicates that God delegated his killing authority, and said delegation was a punishment for sin by the Canaanites.

 

[timothyu]

The Bible explains literature, literature does not explain the Bible.

Good one.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Hmm. What I have found is when Biblical Criticism is engaged in by unbelievers, the results are an attempt to undermine the Faith and are rather comical. I read the book Who wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman as part of my English major college career, and it was quite the academic exercise in bemusement.

One should be careful applying the tools of unbelievers that are usually used to understand ancient literature to the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Yes, the bible has all of the literary forms, because it is the source of all of them. However, applying critical analysis to God's Word as you would study, say, The Odyssey falls apart quickly. It's clear that the Odyssey is a story with many fictional elements, and there is a difference between analyzing fiction and examining reality. The devil is in the details.

Therefore, I much prefer hermeneutics and theology as tools to understand the Bible, rather than using forms of criticism. I find that simply allows the door for unbelief wide open and is, unless I am debating with unbelievers who have no better tools, a largely unproductive exercise. After 4 years of English study, my conclusion is this:

The Bible explains literature, literature does not explain the Bible.


How, then, do you explain the Flood? Or Sodom and Gomorrah?

God, due to our sin against Him, has every right to wipe us out, and he also has the right to delegate the responsibility of killing to other agents. According to Romans 13, that is delegated to human governments at the moment, and in Joshua he delegated it to the nation of Israel.

Now I wholeheartedly agree that no human beings should be committing genocide otherwise, but in the Pentauch God's command is clear: kill everyone or you will be taken in by their idolatry. He was right. This clearly indicates that God delegated his killing authority, and said delegation was a punishment for sin by the Canaanites.

All very good. Except that you start with the presumption that your particular view of the Bible is the gold standard by which everything else is judged. iI a critique, or lets better say an analysis, seem a little threatening to that view it is simply discarded rather than objectively considered.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ya, I though that was a mind blower. It really forces us to ask about the author and the intent. More going on here than God speaking. I think many do not want to acknowledge the differences. But I for one, am tired of accepting things that just don't add up. And I don't think God expects us to not ask questions and search for answers.

I concur with the feeling that I don't like to accept things that are reported as "just so" statements. You're right that many don't want to acknowledge the differences in view about the Bible which we have among ourselves or that scholars have among themselves. Questions are usually a good thing; it's rarely that they're a bad thing particularly where religious faith is concerned.

With that said, I also think we need to be careful not to go overboard in either direction when reading and thinking over the competing views that exist in biblical criticism today. There are presupppositions that are hedged upon in each view and these sometimes go unmentioned and slide by into full legitimation where it might be they are only partially so, or even not at all.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

With that said, I also think we need to be careful not to go overboard in either direction when reading and thinking over the competing views that exist in biblical criticism today.

Like anything these days, we can seem to pick the "truth" we want to believe.

I am open to listening or reading views that are new to me. but it is always wise to be skeptical.