Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Biblical Criticism - Someone noticed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biblical Criticism - Someone noticed

    Some aspects of Biblical Criticism, not only source criticism, need some serious reconsideration. Someone noticed, and wrote a pointed satirical paper in which A A Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" books were examined by "Source Critical" methods . Those who have noticed the problems in Source Critical scholarship will find it amusing.
    A copy of the opening section -

    Pooh Corpus.jpg
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  • #2
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Some aspects of Biblical Criticism, not only source criticism, need some serious reconsideration. Someone noticed, and wrote a pointed satirical paper in which A A Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" books were examined by "Source Critical" methods . Those who have noticed the problems in Source Critical scholarship will find it amusing.
    A copy of the opening section -

    Pooh Corpus.jpg
    You should have posted the link.

    https://www.uniontheology.org/resour...n-pooh-studies

    Of course many here may only of Winnie the Pooh through the ghastly Disney travesties.

    Those of us familiar with the texts know that Tigger likes his extract of malt and does not care for either honey or thistles!
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #3
      Source: David J A Clines. "New Directions in Pooh Studies." [URL="https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/bible/biblical-theology/new-directions-in-pooh-studies"

      https://www.uniontheology.org/resour...n-pooh-studies[/URL] ]


      An excellent example of the redactor's method in intertwining his sources may be seen in the account of Pooh's being stuck in the entrance to Rabbit's house (W 2. 24). When Pooh realizes he is stuck, according to the first source:

      'Oh, help!', said Pooh. 'I'd better go back.'

      But according to the second source:

      'Oh, bother!', said Pooh. 'I shall have to go on.'

      The redactor has simply set down these two contradictory statements side by side, and then has attempted to harmonize them by his own conflation:

      'I can't do either!', said Pooh. 'Oh, help and bother!'

      © Copyright Original Source



      This passage has readily apparent parallels in Source Critical studies: for example,

      Genesis 37:20-28 is supposedly comprised of two different accounts of events, one in which Reuben saves Joseph, the other in which Judah saves Joseph.
      The record in fact states that Reuben, intending to rescue Joseph later, dissuades the brothers from killing him immediately and persuades them to throw Joseph into a well.
      The plan to kill Joseph was simply suspended. When slave traders are passing, Judah persuades the brothers to sell Joseph instead of killing him.
      No effort needs to be exercised to harmonise the account ("accounts" so called): the record itself shows no inconsistency.

      And of course, atheist detractors have uncritically picked this "contradiction" up to trumpet "yet [imaginary] another Biblical contradiction."
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Source: David J A Clines. "New Directions in Pooh Studies." [URL="https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/bible/biblical-theology/new-directions-in-pooh-studies"

        https://www.uniontheology.org/resour...n-pooh-studies[/URL] ]


        An excellent example of the redactor's method in intertwining his sources may be seen in the account of Pooh's being stuck in the entrance to Rabbit's house (W 2. 24). When Pooh realizes he is stuck, according to the first source:

        'Oh, help!', said Pooh. 'I'd better go back.'

        But according to the second source:

        'Oh, bother!', said Pooh. 'I shall have to go on.'

        The redactor has simply set down these two contradictory statements side by side, and then has attempted to harmonize them by his own conflation:

        'I can't do either!', said Pooh. 'Oh, help and bother!'

        © Copyright Original Source



        This passage has readily apparent parallels in Source Critical studies: for example,

        Genesis 37:20-28 is supposedly comprised of two different accounts of events, one in which Reuben saves Joseph, the other in which Judah saves Joseph.
        The record in fact states that Reuben, intending to rescue Joseph later, dissuades the brothers from killing him immediately and persuades them to throw Joseph into a well.
        The plan to kill Joseph was simply suspended. When slave traders are passing, Judah persuades the brothers to sell Joseph instead of killing him.
        No effort needs to be exercised to harmonise the account ("accounts" so called): the record itself shows no inconsistency.

        And of course, atheist detractors have uncritically picked this "contradiction" up to trumpet "yet [imaginary] another Biblical contradiction."
        I think you will find the piece was written satirically. You also forget the documentary hypothesis.
        Then of course for those who wish to read it there is the Latin translation.

        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #5
          The relevant section of the OP
          Some aspects of Biblical Criticism, not only source criticism, need some serious reconsideration. Someone noticed, and wrote a pointed satirical paper in which A A Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" books were examined by "Source Critical" methods
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            The relevant section of the OP
            Precisely. It has no academic relevance.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              It is the final essay in Clines' collection of essays On the Way to Postmodern (Volume 2; JSOTSupp 293; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 830-39

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Some aspects of Biblical Criticism, not only source criticism, need some serious reconsideration. Someone noticed, and wrote a pointed satirical paper in which A A Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" books were examined by "Source Critical" methods . Those who have noticed the problems in Source Critical scholarship will find it amusing.
                A copy of the opening section -

                Pooh Corpus.jpg
                This is priceless , bookmarked and reminds me in a way of this satirical piece about the War of 1812

                You say that the War of 1812 is "certain", eh? Well, it just so happens that there's this group of historians called the In-Credulous Research: Incorporated Institute (ICR:II) who work down the block from me. They call themselves a historical organization, but in fact they're more of a religious group who believes that Great Britain is a tool of the devil, and cannot ever have won a war against the United States, which is entirely Good and Holy. They will not accept the War of 1812 unless I can prove to them 100% that it happened.

                Now, I think there are several independent lines of evidence for the War of 1812, but it turns out that these sorts of things are less certain than I imagined.

                1. I first started showing them in mainstream history books about the early American history; the War of 1812 is assumed as fact in all of them. I conjectured that since the entire weight of historical opinion was in favor of the notion, that there might be something to it. The ICR:II argued that the books were mainstream, yes, but that they believed that all the writers of the books were simply "copying off each other" as it were, and not looking at the real evidence in favor of a non-War of 1812 view of history. Also, since they are textbook publishers, then they have a financial stake in telling people what they want to hear, i.e. the Anti-American message that Great Britian once defeated the United States in a war. So they rejected all the textbooks.

                2. Taking that in stride, I started assembling contemporary accounts from the time in question, accounts by some of the sailors and soldiers involved, by diplomats, the original treaties and supply orders and all that "paper trail"-type evidence that I thought was pretty conclusive that something happened that could be called the "War of 1812". But the historians over at the ICR:II shook their heads at me and said that all those paper documents might have been faked, and that since most of them are held at major institutions of learning, anyway, that the mainstream historical scientists had had plenty of opportunity to fake all those documents to suppress the Real Truth about the War of 1812. Furthermore, all of those "witnesses", even if the documents were not faked, only saw bits and pieces of what might have been called the "War of 1812"; they only saw what was on their ship, or in their battlefield, and so they might have actually been fighting another war/battle altogether, against very different enemies. So we can't be 100% certain that the War of 1812 happened, so they refused to accept it.

                3. Flummoxed now, I started going to the sites of the original battles from nearly two centuries ago. I wanted to see if I could find hard, empirical evidence that these battles had taken place. Despite the ravages of time, I found scorch patterns in the dirt in some areas indicating cannon blasts, leftover gunpowder and other munitions, centuries-old latrines, a few leftover body parts (now decayed skeletons), et cetera. I took this to the good folks over at the ICR:II and showed them off. I was certain that they'd be forced to accept the mainstream interpretation of events. But they looked at all that evidence and, at each piece, repeated what they said regarding the documents I provided. You see, those pieces of evidence, while possibly actually accurate (not faked by the historical establishment) only revealed tiny pieces of what mainstream historians called the "War of 1812". A few pieces of shrapnel here and there, a little bit of scorched Earth; they agreed with me that some sort of battles (micro-wars, they called them) had happened on these areas, but they disagreed with the interpretation that placed these micro-wars together to form the larger whole.

                For, they continued, what is a "War", anyway? It's not as concrete as we like to think; individual battles may or may not have any concrete connection to the War Declaration, and any piece of evidence I find might not be a part of the actual War itself, but simply a micro-war fought over territory or some such. And the War Declaration didn't give a list of people who would fight in the War, didn't provide a list of the battlegrounds that would be fought over, and after the war there was no mention in the Peace Treaty as to what kinds of damages were considered to have happened during that War. So, while they agreed that my so-called "naturalistic" interpretation of the evidence might be valid, it was only one interpretation of the given facts, and so had no more reason to be called true history than their own version of events.

                4. Ah, ha! I called out, which startled them a bit. You see, I said, no single piece of evidence proves that the War of 1812 happened; it's the convergence of several independent lines of evidence, within an interpretive framework of naturalism, that provides compelling evidence to accept any hypothesis regarding historical information. The War of 1812 is accepted by every historian of note; it is the mainstream view of those who have spent decades in some cases understanding the evidence. The ICR:II, if they disagreed with the mainstream view, should put together an alternative understanding of the independent lines of evidence and try to get it published in a peer-reviewed historical journal. That way, their ideas could be tested by the actual historians who studied the field. By the way, I asked, what exactly is your interpretation of the evidence supporting the War of 1812; what is your version of events?

                The guy I was talking to (his name was Dwayne Fish, I think) hemmed and hawed and said that they were working on that, that naturalistic historians refused to fund their research entities, and that a "Historical Theory of Anti-War of 1812-ism" was probably years away. Then he kicked me out of his building, saying something about a meeting at an Ohio school board he was late for....

                I went into a nearby convenience store and bought a cup of coffee, for such tends to help me think. I sat on the street corner and considered Mr. Fish and his group at the ICR:II. It occurred to me that no single piece of evidence is truly compelling in and of itself for much of anything, particularly historical and scientific theories, and that a sufficiently driven individual could deny virtually any hypothesis with the same amount of gusto, if it conflicted with already-held, deep-seated opinions (particularly those of a religious nature). What matters is not 100% truth, but convergence of independent lines of evidence onto a single conclusion which is testable and theoretically falsifiable. And, if a group like the ICR:II wanted to disagree with that, then all they'd have to do is figure out a new way of interpreting all the evidence that fit into an established interpretive framework. Pity that instead of doing that, Mr. Fish and his colleagues spent all their time in school-board meetings.



                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  [cite]Dr Steven DiMattei http://contradictionsinthebible.com/reuben-or-judah/[/cite]

                  DiMattei's assessment the account of Genesis 37 is typical of the processes satirised by Clines, demonstrating just how flawed the process can become.
                  Steven DiMattei David Clines
                  There are a number of textual inconsistencies in Genesis chapter 37 that have consistently led commentators [to conclude that] the Joseph narrative is a composite text of two, once separate, Joseph stories .
                  The editor of these two textual traditions carefully attempted to safeguard both by stitching them together in an almost seamless and unperceivable manner. The redactor has simply set down these two contradictory statements side by side and then has attempted to harmonise them by his own conflation
                  Last edited by tabibito; 06-30-2021, 07:25 AM.
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    [cite]Dr Steven DiMattei http://contradictionsinthebible.com/reuben-or-judah/[/cite]

                    DiMattei's assessment the account of Genesis 37 is typical of the processes satirised by Clines, demonstrating just how flawed the process can become.
                    Steven DiMattei
                    There are a number of textual inconsistencies in Genesis chapter 37 that have consistently led commentators [to conclude that] the Joseph narrative is a composite text of two, once separate, Joseph stories .
                    The editor of these two textual traditions carefully attempted to safeguard both by stitching them together in an almost seamless and unperceivable manner. The redactor has simply set down these two contradictory statements side by side and then has attempted to harmonise them by his own conflation
                    The footnotes also are instructive. The first one:

                    [1] I follow here the view of S. R. Driver, An lntroduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 9th edn, 1913), p. ix: 'The age and authorship of the books of the Old Testanent can be determined (as far as this is possible) only upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied by the books themselves . . . no external evidence worthy of credit exists'.


                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                      It is the final essay in Clines' collection of essays On the Way to Postmodern (Volume 2; JSOTSupp 293; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 830-39
                      A text, with which, of course, you are intimately familiar! Ha ha.

                      Which volume by the way?
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        This is priceless , bookmarked and reminds me in a way of this satirical piece about the War of 1812

                        You say that the War of 1812 is "certain", eh? Well, it just so happens that there's this group of historians called the In-Credulous Research: Incorporated Institute (ICR:II) who work down the block from me. They call themselves a historical organization, but in fact they're more of a religious group who believes that Great Britain is a tool of the devil, and cannot ever have won a war against the United States, which is entirely Good and Holy. They will not accept the War of 1812 unless I can prove to them 100% that it happened.

                        Now, I think there are several independent lines of evidence for the War of 1812, but it turns out that these sorts of things are less certain than I imagined.

                        1. I first started showing them in mainstream history books about the early American history; the War of 1812 is assumed as fact in all of them. I conjectured that since the entire weight of historical opinion was in favor of the notion, that there might be something to it. The ICR:II argued that the books were mainstream, yes, but that they believed that all the writers of the books were simply "copying off each other" as it were, and not looking at the real evidence in favor of a non-War of 1812 view of history. Also, since they are textbook publishers, then they have a financial stake in telling people what they want to hear, i.e. the Anti-American message that Great Britian once defeated the United States in a war. So they rejected all the textbooks.

                        2. Taking that in stride, I started assembling contemporary accounts from the time in question, accounts by some of the sailors and soldiers involved, by diplomats, the original treaties and supply orders and all that "paper trail"-type evidence that I thought was pretty conclusive that something happened that could be called the "War of 1812". But the historians over at the ICR:II shook their heads at me and said that all those paper documents might have been faked, and that since most of them are held at major institutions of learning, anyway, that the mainstream historical scientists had had plenty of opportunity to fake all those documents to suppress the Real Truth about the War of 1812. Furthermore, all of those "witnesses", even if the documents were not faked, only saw bits and pieces of what might have been called the "War of 1812"; they only saw what was on their ship, or in their battlefield, and so they might have actually been fighting another war/battle altogether, against very different enemies. So we can't be 100% certain that the War of 1812 happened, so they refused to accept it.

                        3. Flummoxed now, I started going to the sites of the original battles from nearly two centuries ago. I wanted to see if I could find hard, empirical evidence that these battles had taken place. Despite the ravages of time, I found scorch patterns in the dirt in some areas indicating cannon blasts, leftover gunpowder and other munitions, centuries-old latrines, a few leftover body parts (now decayed skeletons), et cetera. I took this to the good folks over at the ICR:II and showed them off. I was certain that they'd be forced to accept the mainstream interpretation of events. But they looked at all that evidence and, at each piece, repeated what they said regarding the documents I provided. You see, those pieces of evidence, while possibly actually accurate (not faked by the historical establishment) only revealed tiny pieces of what mainstream historians called the "War of 1812". A few pieces of shrapnel here and there, a little bit of scorched Earth; they agreed with me that some sort of battles (micro-wars, they called them) had happened on these areas, but they disagreed with the interpretation that placed these micro-wars together to form the larger whole.

                        For, they continued, what is a "War", anyway? It's not as concrete as we like to think; individual battles may or may not have any concrete connection to the War Declaration, and any piece of evidence I find might not be a part of the actual War itself, but simply a micro-war fought over territory or some such. And the War Declaration didn't give a list of people who would fight in the War, didn't provide a list of the battlegrounds that would be fought over, and after the war there was no mention in the Peace Treaty as to what kinds of damages were considered to have happened during that War. So, while they agreed that my so-called "naturalistic" interpretation of the evidence might be valid, it was only one interpretation of the given facts, and so had no more reason to be called true history than their own version of events.

                        4. Ah, ha! I called out, which startled them a bit. You see, I said, no single piece of evidence proves that the War of 1812 happened; it's the convergence of several independent lines of evidence, within an interpretive framework of naturalism, that provides compelling evidence to accept any hypothesis regarding historical information. The War of 1812 is accepted by every historian of note; it is the mainstream view of those who have spent decades in some cases understanding the evidence. The ICR:II, if they disagreed with the mainstream view, should put together an alternative understanding of the independent lines of evidence and try to get it published in a peer-reviewed historical journal. That way, their ideas could be tested by the actual historians who studied the field. By the way, I asked, what exactly is your interpretation of the evidence supporting the War of 1812; what is your version of events?

                        The guy I was talking to (his name was Dwayne Fish, I think) hemmed and hawed and said that they were working on that, that naturalistic historians refused to fund their research entities, and that a "Historical Theory of Anti-War of 1812-ism" was probably years away. Then he kicked me out of his building, saying something about a meeting at an Ohio school board he was late for....

                        I went into a nearby convenience store and bought a cup of coffee, for such tends to help me think. I sat on the street corner and considered Mr. Fish and his group at the ICR:II. It occurred to me that no single piece of evidence is truly compelling in and of itself for much of anything, particularly historical and scientific theories, and that a sufficiently driven individual could deny virtually any hypothesis with the same amount of gusto, if it conflicted with already-held, deep-seated opinions (particularly those of a religious nature). What matters is not 100% truth, but convergence of independent lines of evidence onto a single conclusion which is testable and theoretically falsifiable. And, if a group like the ICR:II wanted to disagree with that, then all they'd have to do is figure out a new way of interpreting all the evidence that fit into an established interpretive framework. Pity that instead of doing that, Mr. Fish and his colleagues spent all their time in school-board meetings.

                        I have snitched a copy - it is sure to be useful again, some time in the future.
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          A text, with which, of course, you are intimately familiar! Ha ha.

                          Which volume by the way?
                          Just showing how easy it is to post the so-called pertinent information in the same manner that a certain faker around here does -- and how it doesn't prove anything.

                          And I guess you can't read since I said volume 2.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Just showing how easy it is to post the so-called pertinent information in the same manner that a certain faker around here does -- and how it doesn't prove anything.
                            Well I am fully aware that you like to go fishing. And you did not answer my question. Which volume contains that paper?
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              Well I am fully aware that you like to go fishing. And you did not answer my question. Which volume contains that paper?
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                              It is the final essay in Clines' collection of essays On the Way to Postmodern (Volume 2; JSOTSupp 293; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 830-39
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Just showing how easy it is to post the so-called pertinent information in the same manner that a certain faker around here does -- and how it doesn't prove anything.

                              And I guess you can't read since I said volume 2.

                              Folks, this is an example of what I mean when I say H_A will repeatedly demand an answer to a question she got a direct answer to while refusing to answer questions put to her

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by tabibito, 09-14-2021, 05:15 AM
                              23 responses
                              173 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 09:03 AM
                              183 responses
                              1,116 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 07:35 AM
                              0 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by seer, 08-28-2021, 05:41 PM
                              5 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Machinist  
                              Started by MehdiR, 08-25-2021, 01:44 PM
                              9 responses
                              122 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Bill the Cat  
                              Working...
                              X