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

  • #46
    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
    That X can be satirised, is no objection to its methods or coclusions.

    It would be easy to make a case that NT Christianity was the Babylonian Mystery Religion of "The Two Babylons" - but what would that prove ? That the author eas ingenious - but not that his argument was of any merit.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Oooh, someone Googled it! So can I: "The distinction between the Bible as literature and the Bible as scripture is largely artificial. The church can properly hear its Bible as scripture only when it reads it as literature."
      The converse, however, is not true: it can be respected as literature, without being treated as Scripture (or even as scripture). One can appreciate the Odyssey without believing that there is a goddess Athene, or Muses, or Olympian Zeus; and one can appreciate the legends of the patrisrchs in Genesis, without believing in the real existence of the god of Israel. Nor need one share Milton's theology, to appreciate "Paradise Lost".

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
        A// That X can be satirised, is no objection to its methods or conclusions.

        B// It would be easy to make a case that NT Christianity was the Babylonian Mystery Religion of "The Two Babylons" - but what would that prove ?

        C// That the author was ingenious - but not that his argument was of any merit.
        Point A is true enough - except when the satire uses a control text using those same methods to produce similar outcomes: the method cannot be relied upon to produce accurate outcomes - at best, it needs refinement.

        Point B makes it clear that the methods and conclusions that the article is satirising are to be used and regarded with caution, if not outright suspicion.

        Point C would more appropriately be ascribed to the people using those methods indiscriminately, and promoting conclusions based on the outcomes.
        Last edited by tabibito; 07-14-2021, 09:16 PM.
        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Thank you for telling us what our point was. I don't know what we would ever do without you.
          In a spot quiz during a lecture, 5 conclusions based on a few points of the JEPD theory were presented. Not one of them survived close scrutiny.

          If the theory has any merit at all, careless use of the methodology produces nothing more than material for opponents of Biblical scholarship to laugh at.
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            In a spot quiz during a lecture, 5 conclusions based on a few points of the JEPD theory were presented. Not one of them survived close scrutiny.
            I'm not sure what you're meaning by this.

            I don't see how anyone who's actually looked at the evidence can seriously doubt the general outlines of the JEPD theory. Anyone reading the bible can see that Deuteronomy differs in style to the other first 5 books, and that it flows on into Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings in a way that is narratively cohesive and stylistically similar. This 'Deuteronomic history' block is clearly the work of a different person or school to the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers group. So 'D', the Deuteronomic history writer(s) is clearly a thing.

            The theology and concerns in much of Leviticus contrast sharply, and at times seem explicitly contrary to, the Deuteronomic history. Labelling it 'P' for Priestly seems totally reasonably, given the writer's focus and theology.

            'J' + 'E' in the Genesis/Exodus narratives is more debatable, and some people, perhaps reasonably think 'E' is a very small source. But there do seem to be plenty of passages that seem to show the inclusion of a 2nd source outside the main source, e.g. when an event is described twice with two very different stories about it.

            So it seems to me pretty rock solid that there are 4 or so general sources for this part of the bible. Obviously there's going to be verses where it's not very obvious which source the verse originates from, so there will always be debate over the minutia.

            Comment


            • #51
              If you have read the full article, you might have noted the section where Pooh was trapped - in the article, the account is attributed to three authors. A supposed first claims that Pooh couldn't go back. A supposed second says he couldn't go forward. A supposed editor reconciles the contradiction by saying that he could neither go forward nor back.

              Our lecturer (who incidentally accepts the JEPD theory, though not as whole-heartedly now as he did then) presented "evidence" supporting the JEPD theory in the form of a spot quiz. The "evidence" got torpedoed.

              One of the quiz items: A supposed first author claims that Joseph was saved by Reuben. A supposed second author claims that it was Judah. Obviously, two stories were patched together, according to the writer who "evaluated" the account.

              Since that lecture, I have encountered a write-up that even says the Midianites rescued Jacob from the well. (The author didn't address the issue of why the Midianites subsequently sold him to themselves.)

              Another item: People left one place. They were on the way to another place. They were in a third place. Somehow, the commentator drew the conclusion that the passage contradicted itself, providing evidence of multiple authors. That evaluation came to grief on the basis of an elementary reading comprehension exercise.

              I won't deny the possibility that some merit attaches to the JEPD theory, but the evidence advanced using Biblical texts in support is, for the most part, nothing short of execrable.
              Last edited by tabibito; 07-15-2021, 04:25 AM.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • #52
                I saw this recent video today on the subject of JEPD theory and variants that might interest some here:



                I guess the takeaway is that P, D, and miscellaneous other, definitely seem to be sources, but the nuances of the exact timing of those sources or the relationship between them, is difficult. Also notable with the newer theory in the video is that it depends on the bible being less historically accurate than previously assumed.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  I saw this recent video today on the subject of JEPD theory and variants that might interest some here:



                  I guess the takeaway is that P, D, and miscellaneous other, definitely seem to be sources, but the nuances of the exact timing of those sources or the relationship between them, is difficult. Also notable with the newer theory in the video is that it depends on the bible being less historically accurate than previously assumed.
                  It is an interesting thought, and will take some time to evaluate. On first face, the two separate traditions Moses/Patriarchs looks viable.
                  Last edited by tabibito; 08-09-2021, 02:38 AM.
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  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
                  1,118 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