Another Blatantly False Notion of Historical Criticism

In the mind of author James Carroll, on the other hand, the book of Daniel was “anonymously composed during the thick of the Maccabean war,” although it “pretends” to have been written much earlier.

It’s not like it’s uncommon for scholars to reject the Bible as God’s authoritative Word. But why won’t they just dismiss the book as a fraudulent work and walk away? Why is it so critical for them to put books like Daniel in another time period, as if composed by a phony?

They theorize about new time frames because of how accurate the books are prophetically!

Where Would We Be Without Modern Biblical Scholarship? | Columns | by the Philadelphia Church of God.

Poor guy… trying… to make sense… but failing horribly so. Further, the purposed mischaracterizations are a little annoying.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

4 thoughts on “Another Blatantly False Notion of Historical Criticism

  1. Can you provide more detail more on the “purposed mischaracterizations”?

    And what informs your take?

    Not trying to be snarky, just genuinely curious…

    1. Understood –

      For one, just in the part I quote –

      They theorize about new time frames because of how accurate the books are prophetically!

      That implies malicious intent.

      Or this:

      So they create totally implausible scenarios in order to remove the divine role God played in putting the Bible together.

      Biblical studies have actually informed my view, so that I look at authors, trends, and evidences.

  2. Unfortunately this guy espouses a very common view. If the Bible is not 100% as we see it, then it is a lie.

    The idea that there are more than two options — totally true or evil — doesn’t occur to a lot of people. That a book was written with good intentions (to inspire the Jews in the face of oppression) while at the same time being not a literal story about a historical figure, does not sit well with a lot of people.

    The world of scholarship, if there is such a thing, needs to get the point across.

Leave a Reply, Please!