Higher criticism

[pshun2404]

But why would you do that? To give the text proper credit and respect, you should read it for what it is. Reading Shakespeare as a recipe book is to disrespect Shakespeare. Ditto for the Bible.

What is right or correct about their bias against the only history we actually have? What actually sound points have they made worth considering? Reliance on two heavily edited discarded texts that disagree with the fathers going back to the time of the Apostles? Give us something to discuss...make a point or ask a question...

 

[pshun2404]

It can help us understand the message. If we understand the context in which, say, Daniel, or deutero-Isaiah, or Mark, or Genesis 1, was written we can better understand what it was saying to its original audience and then better understand what it can say to us. And in particular it can help us avoid anachronistic and inappropriate readings.

Of course it can, as form criticism did, take us down a complete blind-alley.

However since they are incorrect basing their non-humble opinions on speculations and consensus (like deutero-Isaiah, or Mark, or anything you mentioned) why should anyone base their faith on their contrived gospel of doubt (Did God really say...)? For example when speaking of the Law and the Prophets Jesus said they are the truth (John 17:17). They say they may or may not contain the truth because they do not know God (the great majority are either heretics or apostates). So who gets to say what IS the truth if they are correct? The Jesus Seminar?

You mention anachronisms...which one for example? Next, who gets to judge what is or is not inappropriate when it comes to readings? Could you please provide us some real-time example? Thanks

Paul

 

[ebia]

What additional information could the H.C. give us which is not already sufficiently introduced in the Bible? I would appreciate any such example. My impression to H.C. is that it suggested something like the Genesis is probably written by a number of persons at very late time; and the Daniel is written AFTER the Babylon time (so, no prophecy). I would take these information as 100% trash. I think those scholars are just fooling themselves in these studies. Regards to those two points: Genesis has multiple authors: fine with me. I wish it had MORE authors. Same attitude to all other books. The more authors of the Bible, the more marvelous the Book is. Daniel's real time of authoring: Nobody knows, including those people in H.C..

If "anything different from what I already know is automatically wrong" then they probably aren't going to teach you anything.

But if we are open to the possibility, then finding out that Daniel was written in the mid 3rd century BC enables us to understand what it is - a text that deals with living as God's people in the midst of appalling persecution. And that enables us to use it as such a text, rather than a bit of pointless supernatural prediction that would be utterly useless to a 5th century audience and equally useless today.

 

[pshun2404]

If "anything different from what I already know is automatically wrong" then they probably aren't going to teach you anything.

But if we are open to the possibility, then finding out that Daniel was written in the mid 3rd century BC enables us to understand what it is - a text that deals with living as God's people in the midst of appalling persecution. And that enables us to use it as such a text, rather than a bit of pointless supernatural prediction that would be utterly useless to a 5th century audience and equally useless today.

Well first of all I studied the work of the higher critics for a decade so your false accusation though noted is moot.

The pointless supernatural prediction (what only one?) in Daniel was certainly not utterly useless when the events unfolded in 70 A.D. and they are not utterly useless to the church today because they actually occurred.

After Messiah was cut off (a direct reference to Isaiah 53:8) after a captivity for 70 years (a reference from Jeremiah), and the other "prince" (the son of the Caesar Vespian, named Titus) came in and besieged the Holy city and caused the sacrifices to cease, we saw Jesus prophecies for Jerusalem and the Temple come to pass...this was hardly "utterly useless" then (as sure confirmation) as well as now (for we get to see fulfilled prophecies at work)...

And if one can speculate that such prophecy would be irrelevant or meaningless in the fifth century B.C. then why would it be any more relevant or meaningful in the third century B.C. (besides the HC always place it in the 2nd century B.C.)

 

[pshun2404]

Apparently, these points Irenaeus refers to, have never changed. For over a century now, attacks against the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the credibility of the Holy Scriptures, have been fierce, and relentless. The enemies of God’s Word, and His word, have mounted unending and highly financed campaigns on many fronts. In our time, these particular critics and apostates have designed extensive far reaching propaganda campaigns and used a rank form of reconstructionist revisionism to influence the ideology of the public mind.

These critics and apostates from within the ranks of the Church, and other enemies of Christ and His Church, have filled the public mind with their biased opinion toward genuine Christianity and the Bible, by inundating the media with a solid anti-Biblical bias, based actually on the mere intuition, opinion, and carefully engineered interpretations of men, void of true historical, theological, or archaeological evidence, which only serves to continuously refute their unfounded position.

The very name of Jesus is a sword dividing the sheep from the goats. For those who do not like that I say too BA-A-A-hhh-d!

 

[ebia]

If "anything different from what I already know is automatically wrong" then they probably aren't going to teach you anything. But if we are open to the possibility, then finding out that Daniel was written in the mid 3rd century BC enables us to understand what it is - a text that deals with living as God's people in the midst of appalling persecution. And that enables us to use it as such a text, rather than a bit of pointless supernatural prediction that would be utterly useless to a 5th century audience and equally useless today. Well first of all I studied the work of the higher critics for a decade so your false accusation though noted is moot. The pointless supernatural prediction (what only one?) in Daniel was certainly not utterly useless when the events unfolded in 70 A.D.

But what use would they be to the original audience?

and they are not utterly useless to the church today because they actually occurred.

And how is that useful to us?

After Messiah was cut off (a direct reference to Isaiah 53:8) after a captivity for 70 years (a reference from Jeremiah), and the other "prince" (the son of the Caesar Vespian, named Titus) came in and besieged the Holy city and caused the sacrifices to cease, we saw Jesus prophecies for Jerusalem and the Temple come to pass...this was hardly "utterly useless" then (as sure confirmation) as well as now (for we get to see fulfilled prophecies at work)... And if one can speculate that such prophecy would be irrelevant or meaningless in the fifth century B.C. then why would it be any more relevant or meaningful in the third century B.C. (besides the HC always place it in the 2nd century B.C.)

If it's written redacted in the antiochian crisis it makes perfect sense as a text that helps people understand what is going on in God's scheme; it enables them to hang on to their hope.

 

[pshun2404]

The whole first part of what stated as a quote from me If "anything different from what I already know is automatically wrong" then they probably aren't going to teach you anything. But if we are open to the possibility, then finding out that Daniel was written in the mid 3rd century BC enables us to understand what it is - a text that deals with living as God's people in the midst of appalling persecution. And that enables us to use it as such a text, rather than a bit of pointless supernatural prediction that would be utterly useless to a 5th century audience and equally useless today. was not from me...these were your words....please do not unintentionally deceive newcomers to the thread...thanks

But what use would they be to the original audience?

Unfulfilled Prophecy rarely is...however if we really look closely in Qumran and the Inter-Testament writings we can see they were anticipating the appearing of this Messiah...when Jesus arrives we see Simeon as an example of that same anticipation (they knew the 69 weeks of years was coming to a close...the watchers were surely counting it down)

and they are not utterly useless to the church today because they actually occurred.
And how is that useful to us?

Because as we see, or through historical/archaeological studies see things presciently predicted actually occurred, then this lets us know we can rely on those things presciently predicted to happen in the present or near future and trust they will also happen.

If it's written redacted in the antiochian crisis it makes perfect sense as a text that helps people understand what is going on in God's scheme; it enables them to hang on to their hope.

Only the whole redacted idea was made up. There is not one single piece of actual evidence (other than conjecture and consensus which are hardly historical or scientific...and I am a person of science...a Clinical Trial Assistant). And if you are referring to the time of Antiochus where was the slain Messiah that preceded him and why wasn't the Holy City besieged, and why didn't the sacrifices lastingly, as in actually, cease? Why does Jesus after this time call Daniel "the prophet" and refer to the abomination as yet future? See? Their whole argument fails in face of the facts. So if this is the time of Antiochus it makes no sense at all! Their position is not supported by the actual known history....

 

[Sayre]

Anti intellectualism. Makes me wish I was still an atheist.

 

[juvenissun]

If "anything different from what I already know is automatically wrong" then they probably aren't going to teach you anything.

But if we are open to the possibility, then finding out that Daniel was written in the mid 3rd century BC enables us to understand what it is - a text that deals with living as God's people in the midst of appalling persecution. And that enables us to use it as such a text, rather than a bit of pointless supernatural prediction that would be utterly useless to a 5th century audience and equally useless today.

How much confidence is on that finding? I don't know the study, but I do not have much confidence on those at all. I would call whatever it is as "interpretation". And I am not going to let interpretations interfere the literal message of the Bible. If Daniel see visions, then they are VISIONS, rather than history. It is meaningful then, and it is still meaningful now.

This is all about the attitude of reading the Bible. Take the position of H.C., then nothing in the Bible is trustworthy.

 

[juvenissun]

Anti intellectualism. Makes me wish I was still an atheist.

When compare to God's (literal) words, human intellectualism can take a hike. There are MORE intelligent messages in God's word.

 

[juvenissun]

If "anything different from what I already know is automatically wrong" then they probably aren't going to teach you anything.

But if we are open to the possibility, then finding out that Daniel was written in the mid 3rd century BC enables us to understand what it is - a text that deals with living as God's people in the midst of appalling persecution. And that enables us to use it as such a text, rather than a bit of pointless supernatural prediction that would be utterly useless to a 5th century audience and equally useless today.

If H.C. is picking this and that on the Book of Daniel, can they do the same to the Pentateuch? If they can not, then how do we treat the Pentateuch? Trash it?

H.C. is hypocrite !

 

[ebia]

If H.C. is picking this and that on the Book of Daniel, can they do the same to the Pentateuch? If they can not, then how do we treat the Pentateuch? Trash it? H.C. is hypocrite !

Nobody's talked about trashing anything. Figuring out what Daniel is isn't trashing it, it's treating it as what it actually is, valuing that, and allowing god to speak through that.

 

[juvenissun]

Nobody's talked about trashing anything. Figuring out what Daniel is isn't trashing it, it's treating it as what it actually is, valuing that, and allowing god to speak through that.

If so, H.C. "can not" figure out the similar to the Pentateuch, how would you look at, for example, the Genesis then? Can H.C. say something about the Book of Isaiah? If not, then how much can you trust Isaiah?

Once you have the attitude of H.C., then the Bible is finished. Threw it to the trash can.

 

[pshun2404]

Deleted

 

[ebia]

If so, H.C. "can not" figure out the similar to the Pentateuch,

What? That doesn't connect to anything I've said.

how would you look at, for example, the Genesis then? Can H.C. say something about the Book of Isaiah? If not, then how much can you trust Isaiah? Once you have the attitude of H.C., then the Bible is finished. Threw it to the trash can.

Why do you assume that critically examining something means throwing it away?

 

[Keachian]

What? That doesn't connect to anything I've said.


Why do you assume that critically examining something means throwing it away?

My guess is that inspiration for him happens dependent on the writer, if someone holds that view then questioning say the traditional authorship of the Torah then comes down to basically rejecting it as Scripture, disregarding that it is Scripture because it is what we received/were given.

 

[pshun2404]

Thanks both of you.

I would agree that often the conclusions of higher criticism are over stated. Often there is no consensus from higher criticism. What I really want is permission to retain some academic rigor in reading the Bible. When I was younger I was in a church where this was mocked and I'm still rather [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off by it. I don't see the breadth of the mainstream and liberal church enough to know whether or not I have that permission inside the church or if I have to stay on the bleachers as a spectator.

Sayer...I hope you read this. Here is the bottom line. Do you believe Jesus?

 

[pshun2404]

Ebia, you said, Why do you assume that critically examining something means throwing it away?[/QUOTE]

Please note there is a distinction between exercising critical thought (which is based on the data we actually have) and ever creating newer and newer criticisms (usually based on conjecture and provisional interpretation of evidence to fit an already unfounded theory).

Take for example the reasoning (an assumption as I will show you) that whenever the genre changes this implicates a different author (like their accusation against Isaiah). This is not true because as any writer knows (even to this day with the exception of technical writers) when you are gathering writings written over many decades, you have a narrative here an epic there, maybe you throw in a poem...also the technical skills of your writing change (not always becoming better, just different). I use different metaphors to express certain points or describe certain events than I did 10 years ago.

The need to divide an authors collected work by genre is absurd and illogical. Examine Plato's Republic for example and this was not even a collection...if we divide it based on genre change or even vocabulary used, we get at least 6 authors. Again, this is absurd and illogical since we know this book was written by a single author. Try Homer's The Illiad and the same thing happens. Why saw old Isaiah in half like Manasseh? Why not tritto or quatro like they now speculate?

When we found Isaiah as part of the LXX we find it as one book written over the reigns of four kings. When we discovered the Isaiah Scroll at Qumran it was one single scroll attributed to one single author.

As far as critics of Isaiah are concerned, certain aspects of the book, like the details leading up to, and regarding, the Babylonian Captivity, that allegedly would not happen for about another 100 years or so, are just way too precise (denial of the power of God and the possibility of His omniscience). They would insist, that only someone well after the fact, looking retrospectively, could have written such a work (the “not written until centuries later“ theory). Believing these two philosophical presuppositions void of any actual evidences and proofs, other than their secular humanist, finite, frame of reference, they further “intuit“ that various scribes from the Isaiah School (confabulated to support their presuppositions), many generations, if not centuries later, blended various embellished “Isaiah Traditions“ (again a totally unsupported presupposition), filling in the blanks with their own after thoughts, and comments, editorially, and then signed the name of the revered Prophet to the finished work, thus giving it the appearance of credibility and authenticity (the likewise presumed “later redacted evolvement“ theory).

Now one more piece (non-exhaustive) that I would like to share with you.

Paul

 

[ebia]

Take for example the reasoning (as assumption as I will show you) that whenever the genre changes this implicates a different author (like their accusation against Isaiah).

There can't be a sensible conversation while you see everything in terms of "accusations against".

 

[pshun2404]

Legitimate critical scholarship does not ”assume” what we cannot know, and then label it as if it is "the truth“! The rules of evidences and proofs in any U.S. Court of Law says, that the claims of a document or contract are to be considered true and binding unless refuted by an adequate presentation of evidences and proofs to the contrary. Also, the plain wording of a text is to be considered as exactly what the author intended to say, and that it is a true witness to the facts, unless absurdity would result, or unless the credibility of the witness has been adequately impeached.

They claim (again a presumption based on the assumption that the supernatural cannot exist...yet they claim to believe in God) prophecy is actually a recording of evidence after a fact to make it appear as if it were supernatural or prescient, but I have shown you one example that cannot be denied already. You see, though most of this school of thought claims to be either Jewish or Christian, they actually do not ‘believe God’, and in fact they entirely dismiss the idea of there being anything supernatural. They claim to believe “in God’, but simultaneously claim that they do not believe that if there is a god, or that he/she/it would ever bother with becoming personally involved with the History of this world, let alone us flyspeck individual humans. Thus, any kind of, what they would define as, supernatural intervention in human history, is a closed book to their closed minds. It appears they are not genuine believers but rather make-believers!

An additional way that the Book of Daniel is a witness of the book of Isaiah being one scroll, is the dual inferences to comments in Isaiah from later and earlier passages. In Chapter 9, Daniel refers to the time of the restraining of Israel’s apostasy and rebellion (Isaiah 59:20/Tritto), the rebuilding of the City of Jerusalem (Isaiah 44:28/Deutero), and culmination after 70 weeks of years and the birth of Messiah and the ceasing of sacrifice for sin after He is “cut off“ (Isaiah 53:8/Tritto). Eventually sinning would cease in Jerusalem (Isaiah 27:9/Uno), and there would be a subsequent, eventual coming age of God’s righteousness (Isaiah 1/again Uno). All this testifies to sections 1, 2, and 3, as all being one Scroll before the time of the end of the Medo-Persian empire, before the time of Cyrus, and is an amazing, serious, piece of evidence as to the actual “outside of the natural order“ prescient nature of the text of Isaiah!

in John 12, we have a quote from the latter part of the Book of Isaiah followed by the connective phrase, “and that Isaiah also said“, and then finishes with a quote from the early section of the Prophet‘s book. The word “also“ clearly identifies the opinion of John the Apostle, and thus that of Y’shua (Jesus the Christ), that both sections are from the same author and the same book.

Again in Paul’s letter to the Romans, from chapter 9 through 11, the shrewd Lawyer Rabbi Sha’ul (Saint Paul) does the exact same thing more than once, and even Y’shua Himself, whom they call the Lord, quoting extensively from Isaiah, draws no lines of distinction between authors or sections.

Finally, in this regard we see the same pattern of confirmation present in the writings of the early Church fathers. In Justin Martyr’s, First Apologia, Chapter 35, Justin tells us, “There are the following predictions: Unto us a child is born, a Son is given...” citing Isaiah 9:6, and then turns around and says, “and again the same Prophet Isaiah being inspired by the prophetic Spirit said, “I have spread out my hands to...” quoting from Isaiah 65:2! Note carefully the connective phraseology “...and again the same Prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the...”, connecting the first part of the book of Isaiah to the last part, under one author.

So if Isaiah was a lie or a contrived hoax, then this means Jesus was deceived by it as well and could not possibly be the Messiah. John was so fooled as was Paul and Justin was in fact taught the deception. Do you really buy these possibilities? And why isn't Sayre weighing in?

Think on these things...

In His love

Paul