I don’t know why Glenn doesn’t get out and enjoy the warm summer sun instead of doing things like this:
Episode 42 presents the “minimal facts” approach to the resurrection of Jesus.
This episode doesn’t just present the argument in order to persuade you, it’s also meant to show you what the argument is like so that you can use it yourself (if you find it persuasive of course). It starts out with four facts granted by the majority of New Testament critics, and then works towards an explanation of those facts.
via Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Episode 042: The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection.
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 | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God.
Poor guy… trying… to make sense… but failing horribly so. Further, the purposed mischaracterizations are a little annoying.
By far, this is the among the stupidist view of historical criticism that I’ve read.
“Mary had a little lamb”
All of us are familiar with this line from childhood. Many may recall seeing pictures of a little girl with a prancing pet lamb at her feet. You may not be able to hear these word, even now, without that mental image in your mind. As charming as the iconic scene may be, this is simply not what the poem is about.
Th poem was first published in Boston in 1830. It is essential, then, to understand that it is an ancient New England (ANE) text, and needs to be interpreted in that milieu. The ANE world was not in the least interested in the activities of small children, and social interaction with livestock was not at all their concern. Rather the focus of the age was on health and hygiene. The now-familiar Graham cracker was invented in this era as a health food, for example.
Thanks to Jason for calling attention to this garbage.
Granted, Marv hasn’t blogged since last year sometime (Update: Jason says he is blogging), and we can all be thankful for that, but retreating to Theologica still allows him a place to spout his silliness.
So many things wrong with in. First, he takes as an example a cultural situation very relative to ours. It was New England, 181 years ago. Now granted, this has stopped David Barton and his ilk from failing to understand what the people of the time, well, the time just before that one, actually were talking about about. One should actually understand what higher criticism actually is before they start to attempt to make satire.
This is pretty easy, actually. I think that we have to have critical analysis of the text in order to give a better theological exegesis. Yes, I agree that too often, theologians see the two wholly separated, but that doesn’t need to be. Anyway, Jim has a good send up at the Bible and Interpretation site today,
But have the various methodological tools really assisted scholars in untangling the textual web or have they left their practitioners with more questions than answers? And if they simply provoke more questions, then what is their ultimate purpose or “end game”?
To say it a bit differently, historical-critical tools are useful but in and of themselves inadequate.
But Jim, isn’t theological exegesis really eisegesis?
Most certainly not. Theological exegesis is dependent upon a text correctly established, words correctly defined, and Sitz im Leben as clearly delimited as possible.
via The Bible and Interpretation.
I hope that people will take some of the fine work produced in the critical fields and use it to correct theological exegesis, but I doubt it…
Granted, I realize that scholarship has not room for the supernatural, divine foreknowledge and all, but couldn’t most of these ‘reason’s be explained away by accepting some form of supernaturalism?
Read the rest of this entry »
Oh, this is just too rich -
Gerd Lüdemann has an op-ed at The Bible and Interpretation website pointing out one of the obvious benefits of the historical critical method. That is, the historical critical method exposed a quite prevalent claim of New Testament and other early Christian writers – that the Old Testament predicted or prophesied or otherwise pointed to Jesus of Nazareth – to be a false claim.
via Historical Critical Interpretation Reveals Christian Distortion of the Old Testament « The Dunedin School.
Have you ever seen such offal? Whew…good thing we have this historical critical method to tell us that everyone for 2000 years got it wrong when they viewed Christ as the Incarnation of many of the ‘prophecies‘ of the Old Testament. Frankly, Gerd might need to do a bit more studying in the ‘mad house’ before he attempts anything else.
I am currently reading through Anthony Le Donne’s book, The Historiographical Jesus, and came across his entry into presuppositions, which he quotes Goulder on Acts. Michael Goulder laid down two presuppositions for the study of Act in his 1964 work, Type and History in Acts:
Read the rest of this entry »
Found an excellent quote this past week:
“Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible as the source of all material and logical possibility, and hence failing effectively to challenge or internally criticize the very feasibility of knowledge, logic, factuality, interpretation, or predication as based on the boasted autonomy of ‘free-thinkers,’ apologists found their defenses razed by those who (likewise) postulated the bare possibility was a principle more ultimate than God. Deterministic science disqualified miracles, positivistic sociology relativized morality, historical criticism faulted the Bible, and Kant’s transcendental dialecticism invalidated cognitive revelation. Idealism made God finite, pragmatism made him irrelevant, and logical analysis made Him meaningless. Process thinking limited God by pulling Him down from the throne of His sovereignty and pulling everything up into Him for the panentheistic drive to omega point, while phenomenology made the universe into a machine for the fabricating of gods, and existentialism made man himself the being who strives to become God. By appealing to probability, apologists saw Christianity relegated to the museum of mere religious hypothesis (i.e., – ‘possibilities’), rather than embraced as the actual truth of God.”
Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Presuppositional Apologetics; Stated and Defended
If we will not presuppose the Sovereign God we will presuppose sovereign man and sovereign man will inevitable conclude that a Sovereign God cannot exit in order to compete with his sovereignty….
Go read the rest here:
Iron Ink – What Is Birthed When God Isn’t Presupposed.
Click to Order
Rudolf Bultmann is very much the founder historical criticism of the bible, adding much to the works of those who would seek to understand the historical Jesus apart from the Christ of faith. To be honest, I have yet to find the interest to read Bultmann, however important he may be to others. While reading Torrance’s work on the Incarnation, I came across a few moments of interaction with Bultmann (one-sided I am sure) on the matter of historical criticism.
Before people vilify Bultmann, he was among those who spoke out against Nazism when so many German Christians were welcoming Nazi’s into the pulpits.
Read the rest of this entry »