Higher criticism

[ebia]

What kind of argument is this? You are talking to a scientist, not a kid.

It's a basic assumption of any text that its supposed to be meaningful first to its original audience. Throw that out the window and you've got nothing left to work with.

 

[juvenissun]

It wouldn't achieve anything. What's of interest here isn't any one suggestion that comes from higher critisism, but whether we should be thinking about this stuff.

Demonstrating which of us non-experts has access to more "facts" over one particular question doesn't even approach that question.

The problem is that if one started to consider it, then there will be consequences in related to the faith of a Christian. Even the whole theology will need to be revised. It is not a matter of personal choice. It is a yes or no question.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a basic assumption of any text that its supposed to be meaningful first to its original audience. Throw that out the window and you've got nothing left to work with.

Absolutely not in some religious literatures, particularly for the Bible.

A lot of messages in the Bible, particularly in the Old testament do not make any sense for contemporary people.

An important nature of religious literature is to write for "future" people.

 

[ebia]

It might well challenge what sort of book you think Daniel is and how you use it, but that's quite a different matter.

Of course not. But what is the point to revise the date?
Just to explain the accuracy of the descriptions? How convenient. If you want to argue on that, then I would ask for the support on that late date. Is it coming from a radiometric dating? Or is it a personal interpretation?[/QUOTE]
Again, the assumption that we choose the date to fit a way we want to read the text, rather than figure out as objectively as we can what the date is and then read the text accordingly.

 

[ebia]

The problem is that if one started to consider it, then there will be consequences in related to the faith of a Christian.

Is that what you're afraid of?

 

[ebia]

Absolutely not in some religious literatures, particularly for the Bible. A lot of messages in the Bible, particularly in the Old testament do not make any sense for contemporary people. One goal for religious literature is to write for "future" people.

I don't agree.

 

[hedrick]

And I do not agree that Old Testament Books are all written for the contemporary people to read. Let's see it from the very beginning, to whom was the Genesis 1 written for? What's said in Genesis 1 (as well as many other verses in other Books, such as the Job, Isaiah, etc.) does not make any sense to people lived before 19th Century. It still dose not make sense to people now who does not understand enough about science. Was the Genesis 1 written for them? Of course not. Genesis 1 describes the ultimate truth about God's creation and the content simply can not be imagined by any human being even at the present time. I am very sure that people in Higher Criticism know absolutely nothing about this. For them, to say that plants created before the sun is ignorant and is simply an obvious error.

I was thinking specifically of prophets, whose message was directed to a specific situation. I also said that it wasn't limited to that. It's part of a larger story of how God chose a people and dealt with them, particularly when they were disobedient. It's a story that we are part of as well.

Every critical commentary I know looks at issues such as source criticism, but then ends up dealing with the message of the passage, often with comments on how we are involved. Critical commentators are well aware of the theological significance of Gen 1 - 4.

The problem we have is that you don't think something can matter if it's not literally accurate. Many of us think that the kind of stories we see in Genesis reflect the Hebrews' understanding of themselves and their relationship to God, and that it's perfectly valid to express this by traditional "saga." Basically we think inerrancy is clueless about how literature works.

 

[juvenissun]

Again, the assumption that we choose the date to fit a way we want to read the text, rather than figure out as objectively as we can what the date is and then read the text accordingly.

It is about the nature of prophecy. You can not change the date so it becomes a history, even that would make you feel much better.

I am really curious about what is the reason to change of date? People can even make argument on data like radiometric dating, needless to say some so-called evidence of "literature style".

 

[Sayre]

OK - so this attitude pretty much confirms why I have no interesting in hanging out with Christians, especially not on a sunday morning. It isn't just that I have to navigate my way through fundamentalism and tease out from it the parts that reflect genuine Christianity, but I also need to deal with the attitude that won't even question dogma.

I think there is a fear that HC will do away with the notion or sin or the need for a Savior, and criticisms stemming from this fear are continued even when proponents of HC can demonstrate that it is not true.

Freaking frustrating.

The problem is that if one started to consider it, then there will be consequences in related to the faith of a Christian. Even the whole theology will need to be revised. It is not a matter of personal choice. It is a yes or no question.

I'm not so sure that the magnitude of theology we would have to throw out is anywhere near where you imagine. I don't see anything damaging the core of the gospel. I think it might make people reconsider the history of Israel and whether or not certain prophesies were about the end times or whether they were hope for some unpleasant event on the near horizon (or currently being experienced).

Absolutely not in some religious literatures, particularly for the Bible.

A lot of messages in the Bible, particularly in the Old testament do not make any sense for contemporary people.

An important nature of religious literature is to write for "future" people.

Why would oral tradition be developed for a story that makes no sense? There is no incentive to remember a massive poem that doesn't cohere.

This doesn't mean that there is only one layer to the onion, it just means that there exists at least one interpretation that was easily accessible to the original audience. They can miss a type within the text - and that is reasonable to assume given they still had the veil over their eyes, and we are reading in hindsight and they are reading with foresight - but they can't get the basic understanding wrong.

 

[ebia]

It is about the nature of prophecy.

Conservatives want to make it about that. And there are some liberal academics who do as well. But that's not what it's about.

The goal should be to understand the text, whatever that understanding turns out to be. It shouldn't be driven by wanting any particular understanding

 

[juvenissun]

I was thinking specifically of prophets, whose message was directed to a specific situation. I also said that it wasn't limited to that. It's part of a larger story of how God chose a people and dealt with them, particularly when they were disobedient. It's a story that we are part of as well.

Every critical commentary I know looks at issues such as source criticism, but then ends up dealing with the message of the passage, often with comments on how we are involved. Critical commentators are well aware of the theological significance of Gen 1 - 4.

The problem we have is that you don't think something can matter if it's not literally accurate. Many of us think that the kind of stories we see in Genesis reflect the Hebrews' understanding of themselves and their relationship to God, and that it's perfectly valid to express this by traditional "saga." Basically we think inerrancy is clueless about how literature works.

If so, why did they say something stupid as "move the mountain"? Who gives them (anyone) idea that a mountain could be moved or even leveled.

I know I am talking about science. But what we take as science today should be common idea (even only a vague idea) for ancient people. There are A LOT of precisely described messages in the Bible which I strongly doubt has anything to do with Hebrew's "understanding". It they understand, or want to make their people understand, then they would not say what they said. What they said only confuse their people.

 

[hedrick]

If the time in the prophecy reaches to my time, then it is written for me. If all prophecies described in the Daniel have been fulfilled, then I wouldn't really care so much about this Book.

I'm a bit concerned about juvenissun's approach as applied to prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Is their primarily message of judgement irrelevant? We pick out a few passages that we can say predict Jesus, and visions of the future, and ignore the main body of their work? To my knowledge, even conservative interpreters don't work that way.

 

[juvenissun]

Conservatives want to make it about that. And there are some liberal academics who do as well. But that's not what it's about.

The goal should be to understand the text, whatever that understanding turns out to be. It shouldn't be driven by wanting any particular understanding

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.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm a bit concerned about juvenissun's approach as applied to prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Is their primarily message of judgement irrelevant? We pick out a few passages that we can say predict Jesus, and visions of the future, and ignore the main body of their work? To my knowledge, even conservative interpreters don't work that way.

Agree. Some prophecies have been fulfilled. But not all of them.

The H.C. does not want to see any prophecy fulfilled in the Bible (they do not believe that). They criticized whatever they can put their hands on with arguable reasons. Other things like what's said in Isaiah and Jeremiah, they simply don't have material to say anything about it. Otherwise, I am sure they will do.

 

[hedrick]

Agree. Some prophecies have been fulfilled. But not all of them.

The H.C. does not want to see any prophecy fulfilled in the Bible (they do not believe that). They criticized whatever they can put their hands on with arguable reasons. Other things like what's said in Isaiah and Jeremiah, they simply don't have material to say anything about it. Otherwise, I am sure they will do.

The key issue for critical scholarship is what the text. Who is it directed to? What is the historical background? What is the literary form and style? The goal isn't to discredit Scripture but to understand what it's about. This is ad hominem argument, unworthy of Christians dealing with each other. (The critical scholars I read are usually Christian.)

 

[Sayre]

Hedrick, I'd love to know who you read (because I seem to click with your understanding).

 

[juvenissun]

The key issue for critical scholarship is what the text. Who is it directed to? What is the historical background? What is the literary form and style? The goal isn't to discredit Scripture but to understand what it's about. This is ad hominem argument, unworthy of Christians dealing with each other. (The critical scholars I read are usually Christian.)

And the consequences? They discredited the prophecies of Daniel. (And others, I guess). The main thing I don't like them and strongly against them is that they use questionable evidences to make suggestions that lead to the consequences. And they seems to be proud of doing that.

Satan does not have to tell lies to discredit God.

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick, I'd love to know who you read (because I seem to click with your understanding).

Unfortunately it's a pretty long list, much of which I can't even recall. After all, I'm 64, and I've read theology since I was in high school. I'm most interested in the NT. I've followed NT criticism since Bultman. (I read his best-known work in high school.) I found him too speculative to be satisfying, as I found the OT source critics' theories a bit over the top. (While it's clear that the OT histories used sources, assigning passages to sources at the level of half verses seemed to be getting way more detail than the evidence supports.) However work for the last couple of decades seems to me to be better founded in historical understanding. 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). OT criticism seems to have become a bit more sane as well, because there's now more focus on the final form of the text. However I'm not as familiar with current OT work.

As an IT manager and someone active in Church, I have a limited amount of time for this, so there are surely things I should have read that I haven't.

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

 

[Sayre]

Thanks Hedrick, that at least gives me somewhere to start.

 

[Sayre]

And the consequences? They discredited the prophecies of Daniel. (And others, I guess). The main thing I don't like them and strongly against them is that they use questionable evidences to make suggestions that lead to the consequences. And they seems to be proud of doing that.

Satan does not have to tell lies to discredit God.

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?