Higher criticism

[juvenissun]

Juvie, this is ridiculous. If I wasn't on a conservative forum I'd give you a serve.

The consequence is that we interpret the text as it should have been interpretted. To "discredit a prophesy of Daniel" really means to tear down the false idea that Daniel was a book foretelling a future apocalypse. Why is it such a bad thing to correct prior errors?

There is no prior errors. The "correction" introduced serious errors.

How do you know the correction is right? Impossible.

 

[Sayre]

There is no prior errors. The "correction" introduced serious errors.

How do you know the correction is right? Impossible.

How do you know you were right to start with?

 

[ebia]

Nobody wants to understand the Scripture in any particular way. We just read what the Book says and understand it as it says. It is the Higher Criticism who WANTS to make the Scripture fit their logic.
The Book of Daniel describes prophecies. H.C. looked at it and said, it is impossible, and somewhere must went wrong.

You speak as though higher critisism were a single entity that could have an agenda. While there are some critics who might be said to have an agenda, but many who don't and have no prior conviction that, says, predictive prophesy can't be genuine.

On the other hand anyone who says "we can't accept any findings from higher critisism if it dismisses prophesy" (or the many similar comments in this thread) is displaying a clear agenda and a need to fit the facts to that agenda, whether they admit it or not.

 

[Sayre]

There are certainly some in HC who date passages based on an assumption that there is no such thing as predictive prophesy. Of course I disagree with those scholars. But a critical reading of scripture, for me, is to critically review the assumptions underpinning the criticism of the text as well. I am equally critical of both.

 

[ebia]

There are certainly some in HC who date passages based on an assumption that there is no such thing as predictive prophesy. Of course I disagree with those scholars. But a critical reading of scripture, for me, is to critically review the assumptions underpinning the criticism of the text as well. I am equally critical of both.

And curiously I think, some a little odd about it. People who don't have a problem with the idea that God can and does go beyond the norm, yet will date Mark post 70 for a comment that doesn't really go beyond what an exceptionally insightful person might say.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you know you were right to start with?

I don't have to know. I just read the Bible without fuzzing with it.

 

[juvenissun]

You speak as though higher critisism were a single entity that could have an agenda. While there are some critics who might be said to have an agenda, but many who don't and have no prior conviction that, says, predictive prophesy can't be genuine.

On the other hand anyone who says "we can't accept any findings from higher critisism if it dismisses prophesy" (or the many similar comments in this thread) is displaying a clear agenda and a need to fit the facts to that agenda, whether they admit it or not.

Fine. Some studies in the H.C. are innocent. That is OK. But some are not. That is bad enough. So those innocent studies of the Bible history should distant themselves far away from the contaminated H.C. label. The name itself shows the problem. Why should their study be "higher" than other studies? They label themselves "high" because they think those "lower" studies are wrong, or not good enough.

Defending the validity of prophecy is not an agenda. It is the formal way to read the message. The agenda is to ward off any attempt to change it.

 

[juvenissun]

And curiously I think, some a little odd about it. People who don't have a problem with the idea that God can and does go beyond the norm, yet will date Mark post 70 for a comment that doesn't really go beyond what an exceptionally insightful person might say.

What are you talking about?

 

[ebia]

Fine. Some studies in the H.C. are innocent. That is OK. But some are not. That is bad enough. So those innocent studies of the Bible history should distant themselves far away from the contaminated H.C. label. The name itself shows the problem. Why should their study be "higher" than other studies? They label themselves "high" because they think those "lower" studies are wrong, or not good enough. Defending the validity of prophecy is not an agenda. It is the formal way to read the message..

My understanding is that the label "higher critisism" already is out of vogue in academic circles.

 

[pshun2404]

Take for example the alleged Deuteronomist source. Allegedly it was not composed until the 6th century B.C., after the return from the captivity (around or after 586 B.C.). The D source is supposed to contain the book of Numbers. Aside from a number of historical references from earlier times that make this unfathomable, in 1980 the final nail was driven in into their coffin. The Silver Scrolls from at least the 7th century (according to liberal scholars) places these amulet like pendants at least 100 years before the alleged D source was composed.

The Silver Scrolls themselves were only a copy of a passage from Numbers (the priestly blessing) which had to already exist, that obviously had become popular and commonplace enough to be worn by individuals in at least the 7th century, and we know it would have to have been from before the 70 year captivity period. So the original must have been from at least the late 8th century (which we still have no reason to believe). Thus not only does this prove their unfounded suppositions of D to be utterly contrived (made up…invented, fictional) but offers nothing to refute or bring doubt to the historical tradition of it being part of the Torah as composed by or near to Moses.

So you see (if you include my other posts) we are not speaking of an instance here and an instance there, they project many unfounded disproved accusations (probably without an agenda)....they are just incorrect, but like them I suppose you will not adjust to fit the data we have (true critical thinking) but will support the sourceless theory.

 

[hedrick]

According to the Word commentary, the section of Numbers on scroll 2 was attributed to the P source by Wellhausen, et. al., but "The blessing itself in vv 24–26 has been widely recognized as earlier and traditional. Its linguistic characteristics link it with the psalms, and it may have influenced Ps 67, and possibly Ps 4:7"

The sources themselves are assumed to be based on earlier material. What's post-Exilic is the final editing. That affects some of the theology, and maybe wording. The OT is not intended as abstract history. It's intended to tell a story of God's interaction with Israel. Items are chosen and put together to make points. It's that final choice that is reflected by particular editors. But they didn't so radically rewrite old material as to remove all vestiges of older viewpoints.

I'm skeptical about some of the detailed source analysis. However I do find it helpful for commentators to describe the specific points being made by various OT accounts. At times there are multiple accounts of the same thing, and you can see the same viewpoint across multiple events. Some are clear. E.g. the book of Deuteronomy clearly tells the same story as other books in a different way. Others are more hypothetical. Some of the hypotheses are more plausible than others.

 

[hedrick]

Why should their study be "higher" than other studies? They label themselves "high" because they think those "lower" studies are wrong, or not good enough.

Huh? Higher criticism is literary and historical criticism. Lower criticism is textual criticism. Neither is better than the other. Apparently those terms go back to the 18th Cent. Currently the more common term is textual criticism for lower criticism. For higher criticism I think the tendency is to use more detailed terms, e.g. source criticism or redaction criticism.

 

[juvenissun]

Huh? Higher criticism is literary and historical criticism. Lower criticism is textual criticism. Neither is better than the other. Apparently those terms go back to the 18th Cent. Currently the more common term is textual criticism for lower criticism. For higher criticism I think the tendency is to use more detailed terms, e.g. source criticism or redaction criticism.

Alright. My ignorance. Thanks.
Funny names.

 

[juvenissun]

According to the Word commentary, the section of Numbers on scroll 2 was attributed to the P source by Wellhausen, et. al., but "The blessing itself in vv 24–26 has been widely recognized as earlier and traditional. Its linguistic characteristics link it with the psalms, and it may have influenced Ps 67, and possibly Ps 4:7"

The sources themselves are assumed to be based on earlier material. What's post-Exilic is the final editing. That affects some of the theology, and maybe wording. The OT is not intended as abstract history. It's intended to tell a story of God's interaction with Israel. Items are chosen and put together to make points. It's that final choice that is reflected by particular editors. But they didn't so radically rewrite old material as to remove all vestiges of older viewpoints.

I'm skeptical about some of the detailed source analysis. However I do find it helpful for commentators to describe the specific points being made by various OT accounts. At times there are multiple accounts of the same thing, and you can see the same viewpoint across multiple events. Some are clear. E.g. the book of Deuteronomy clearly tells the same story as other books in a different way. Others are more hypothetical. Some of the hypotheses are more plausible than others.

I don't really care the change and how it was changed. The only concern of me is that the change should not modify the theology as it is understood from a literal interpretation. For example, a vision should not be revised into a review. I believe any such change would be stretched and not solidly founded.

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry, yes it was the alleged "P" source said to be constructed after the captivity, but as for "The blessing itself in vv 24–26 has been widely recognized as earlier and traditional" it has only been widely recognized since their foot was placed firmly into their mouth (like there was no alphabetic Semitic writing till centuries after the Mosaic period, the word Tehom, domesticated camels at the time of Abraham, and many, many more errors declared as facts yet never repented of...they just jump to ever newer criticisms). How many things must be shown to be in error before people will stop placing their faith in the arm of flesh?

Redaction criticism is a totally assumption based conclusion which is what they would have done had they controlled the formation of the texts. They needed to emphasize this to explain away history that if true would shine light on their own need to excuse their lack of faith and immorality. The total purpose of redaction criticism was to deny the reliability of the word and the power of the Spirit to maintain it in light of the human tendency to alter it to fit their needs and agendas.

There approach is exactly the same in all areas. Even with the Illiad they first claim the author is not really the author, and because we only have surviving copies from later they claim it was not really written when claimed, then of course it was redacted into what we now read by latter copyists from multiple sources, and so on and on and on....The Illiad was a mythological story as an end result. Only now we have confirmed over 50% of the details showing it to be what the ancient Greeks believed (a history)...we have found Troy, Helen, the wars, etc., now of course history, archaeology, or forensic science can never confirm the gods part but that does not take away from the fact the war really occurred over this woman between these factions, etc...

Foolish made up assumptions are not good historical analysis and not a quality exercise in critical thought.

 

[Keachian]

I don't really care the change and how it was changed. The only concern of me is that the change should not modify the theology as it is understood from a literal interpretation. For example, a vision should not be revised into a review. I believe any such change would be stretched and not solidly founded.

I assume you mean the Historical-Grammatical literal interpretation as a strict Literary Literal interpretation is rejected by the text itself. And then Higher Criticism in the case of Daniel is to be found efficacious in communicating to us that God is faithful to his people and this should elicit faithfulness from us the people. The method for the communication of this truth is hardly of any consequence in my mind.

 

[hedrick]

Sorry, yes it was the alleged "P" source said to be constructed after the captivity, but as for "The blessing itself in vv 24–26 has been widely recognized as earlier and traditional" it has only been widely recognized since their foot was placed firmly into their mouth

Do you have any evidence for this?

"But while it formed part of P, there neither has been nor can be much doubt felt that it was not composed by P, and that it is, consequently, of earlier origin than the date of its incorporation in P."

["A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers", George Buchanan Gray, 1903. This is from the older International Critical Commentary series.]

Even the commentary I cited probably didn't use the scrolls. They were found in 1979. It was published in 1984. When you consider how long discoveries typically wait for publication and how long it takes to do a commentary, it's unlikely that it was influenced. But a book published in 1903 certainly was not.

I believe you, or the source you're using, misunderstand what the sources are claimed to be. They are final editing. They use older material. I also believe your hostility is causing you to see something that didn't happen.

 

[pshun2404]

Even the commentary I cited probably didn't use the scrolls. They were found in 1979. It was published in 1984. When you consider how long discoveries typically wait for publication and how long it takes to do a commentary, it's unlikely that it was influenced. But a book published in 1903 certainly was not.

Hi Hedrick, I did not say 'hoof and mouth' came by the discovery of the Silver Scrolls, I said this was the nail in their coffin (metaphorically speaking)...many aspects of what was once only found in the book of Numbers has been demonstrated by Archaeology and other sources. For another example see "Biblical Archaeology" Vol. 12: Deir ‘Alla Inscription where we hear of Balaam, the son of Beor, on some of the 119 fragments of plaster with ink writing carbon-dated to no later than 800 B.C. This means that stories of Balaam had been circulating since at least the time of Ahab/Jezabel. The fragments demonstrate Aramaic and Canaanite words in an archaic text which even predates the date of the samples found. What other conclusion can we reach if we accept the actual evidence we have, than that the Book of Numbers already existed before the Babylonian Captivity. There is no evidence that it did not except from the imaginations of moderns (thus evidentially they are simply incorrect, so why keep teaching the HC perspective as "truth" in Universities and Seminaries?

Apply their logic to other works...would any rational person insist that every word and person or place mentioned in Caesars Gallic Wars must be proven by such standards (against false unfounded claims)...I chose this example because there was about the same distance of time between the original and the first accountable copies we can reference (about 1000 years), yet who doubts the historicity of this book or that it was written in the time inferred by its historical tradition? No one! Would one say that Caesar was not the author? Or that what we now have is a later scribal redaction? Absurd! Real historiographers would adamantly disagree.

Could be's or might have been's do not equal IS....they are the imaginations of men (make believe, pretending for arguments sake)...and consider other types of foolishness in their perspective. What if 1,000 years from now we find some documents that mention "the President" and elsewhere "Obama" and then "President Obama" in yet other sections? Seriously.

It is only assumption based foolishness which insists this means there was a "P" and "O" school of thought at different times which later harmonized these sources in statements regarding "President Obama"...there is no historical, truly literary, or scientific reason to believe such an assumption based conclusion to be sound. It is irrational to make such an unfounded assumption. Could have been or might have been is the stuff of the imaginary...nothing couched in the subjunctive mood can be assumed to be what is actual without proof. "More than likely" is an opinion based assumption contrived to fit someone's preconceived conclusion. Considering the possibility is one thing but holding it true in light of the only evidence contradicting such a view makes no sense.

Nothing in Gray's work (though masterfully done from a scholarly perspective) proves their theory to be true...it indicates possibilities that in fact question the only history we actually do have so why should I not also question their unfounded questions. Questions are great and some have no answers, but eliminate all the projections in the subjunctive mood and you will see you are not left with that much. I realize this is not something we will totally agree on and that we are called to believe in Christ not the Bible, but He said the word IS truth (John 17:17) or are you now going to say we have no proof these are the words of Jesus? Matthew 12:5 refers to Numbers 28, John 3:14 to Numbers 21, 1 Corinthians 10 refers to passages from Numbers 9, 11, and 20, Hebrews 3 refers to Numbers 12, and Numbers 14…why would the Holy Spirit use these references (some specified in relation to Moses) if they were not the word as He has given it to us (and this is not an exhaustive representation)?

Now if you have followed my posts elsewhere on this forum, you know I am not some ignorant, or antiquated, superstitious, fundie (not that all fundies are any of these adjectives) but after years of looking into this and after studying endless pages (from Archaeology for example) I must ask, where's the beef? It is all based on unfounded conjecture and consensus. I am not above correction, I love it if I am truly amiss and admit to it thankfully (prefer lining up with the truth) but there is no reason to believe the approach of HC is sound, or historic, or scientific, so show me some evidence (preferably B.C.) as I have shown you! I have given you some reasons to believe what I have come to believe (the most powerful of which for me is Jesus testimony regarding the reality of the books of Moses)...now give me some meat not just some modern's opinion (scholar or not).

In His love

Paul

 

[hedrick]

Even the commentary I cited probably didn't use the scrolls. They were found in 1979. It was published in 1984. When you consider how long discoveries typically wait for publication and how long it takes to do a commentary, it's unlikely that it was influenced. But a book published in 1903 certainly was not.

Hi Hedrick, I did not say 'hoof and mouth' came by the discovery of the Silver Scrolls, I said this was the nail in their coffin (metaphorically speaking)...many aspects of what was once only found in the book of Numbers has been demonstrated by Archaeology and other sources. For another example see "Biblical Archaeology" Vol. 12: Deir ‘Alla Inscription where we hear of Balaam, the son of Beor, on some of the 119 fragments of plaster with ink writing carbon-dated to no later than 800 B.C. This means that stories of Balaam had been circulating since at least the time of Ahab/Jezabel. The fragments demonstrate Aramaic and Canaanite words in an archaic text which even predates the date of the samples found. What other conclusion can we reach if we accept the actual evidence we have, than that the Book of Numbers already existed before the Babylonian Captivity. There is no evidence that it did not except from the imaginations of moderns (thus evidentially they are simply incorrect, so why keep teaching the HC perspective as "truth" in Universities and Seminaries?

Apply their logic to other works...would any rational person insist that every word and person or place mentioned in Caesars Gallic Wars must be proven by such standards (against false unfounded claims)...I chose this example because there was about the same distance of time between the original and the first accountable copies we can reference (about 1000 years), yet who doubts the historicity of this book or that it was written in the time inferred by its historical tradition? No one! Would one say that Caesar was not the author? Or that what we now have is a later scribal redaction? Absurd! Real historiographers would adamantly disagree.

Could be's or might have been's do not equal IS....they are the imaginations of men (make believe, pretending for arguments sake)...and consider other types of foolishness in their perspective. What if 1,000 years from now we find some documents that mention "the President" and elsewhere "Obama" and then "President Obama" in yet other sections? Seriously.

It is only assumption based foolishness which insists this means there was a "P" and "O" school of thought at different times which later harmonized these sources in statements regarding "President Obama"...there is no historical, truly literary, or scientific reason to believe such an assumption based conclusion to be sound. It is irrational to make such an unfounded assumption. Could have been or might have been is the stuff of the imaginary...nothing couched in the subjunctive mood can be assumed to be what is actual without proof. "More than likely" is an opinion based assumption contrived to fit someone's preconceived conclusion. Considering the possibility is one thing but holding it true in light of the only evidence contradicting such a view makes no sense.

Now if you have followed my posts everywhere on this forum, you know I am not some ignorant, or antiquated, superstitious, fundie (not that all fundies are any of these adjectives) but after years of looking into this and after studying endless pages from Archaeology I must ask, where's the beef? It is all based on unfounded conjecture and consensus. I am not above correction I love it if I am truly amiss but there is no reason to believe the approach of HC is sound, or historic, or scientific, so show me some evidence B.C. as I have shown you!

In His love

Paul

This is simply too diffuse for me to respond to. I was responding to the one thing you said that seemed specific enough to check, the citation of Numbers in the scroll. The scrolls didn't put a nail in anyone's coffin. There was no coffin. From as early as 1903 commentaries claimed that the prayer was earlier than the final editing.

I'm not an expert historical critic. As a layman I've looked at a fair number of commentaries. I find the case that parts of the Pentateuch are written from a theological point of view that reflects the situation such as Ezra / Nehemiah pretty reasonable. To go beyond that kind of identification and project a whole process of editing does seem pretty conjectural to me. But it's been a while since I've seen people doing that kind of thing.

I do remember from my college days in the last 1960's, theories about multiple editors. J, E, the guy who put J and E together, the guy who integrated it with P. Verses were allocated to various sources in great detail. I didn't take that seriously then and I don't now. But still, the basic observation of theological themes behind how the story is still useful. And some of them are pretty clearly dealing with concerns that developed later than the events described. E.g. both of the commentaries I have on Lev believe that God gave laws to Moses, but that we can see signs of priests developing adapting laws and ceremonies over time to new situations.

To get more detailed than this you should talk with an actual OT expert.

 

[Unix]

Hi hedrick and Sayre!
I don't have any Word volumes, and I avoid Dunn.
But I do have the Hermeneia and Continental commentaries almost complete (just missing one Psalms -volume and one Enoch -volume) in Logos as well as some other commentaries. I have started to read Calvin. I have the best translation of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (the translation from 1960) and I have a 365 day Calvin devotional which came from the previous version of the Devotionals Topical Bundle in Logos, discounted of course:

I tend to read the people involved in historical Jesus work, Wright, Dunn, Borg, etc. I have a couple of commentary series in Logos: Word, Hermeneia, and Calvin, of which I find Word most generally useful (though Calvin's perspective is often interesting).

Tomorrow morning I'm going to a specifically Reformed local Bible Study, for the first time:

My theology is pretty typical of the PCUSA, at least what's being taught in the seminaries.

Sayre, what would You like to know?