Speaking of Science and the Farrer Theory…

In the last chapter of my book, I dissect Q, Burkett, and the Farrer theories using an evaluation process that comes form science.

Science and the bible. On dear…

Anyway, I want your thoughts on the validity of it. I haven’t much of a suggestion in examining critical theories in regards to the bible by scientific means… so…

The first one is comprehensiveness in which the theorist much have a theory that is large enough to examine various aspects of the issue, say, such as the synoptic problem. In other words, the theory must be encompassing of a wide and diverse range of data.

Following this is precision and testability. In other words, the theory should be well defined. The constructs of the theory are laid out and easily replicated. I would suggest that the testing be able to be replicated across non-biblical texts as well.

Parsimony requires that the theory should be focused. In other words, no theology, I believe.

The theory must have data to support it.

Heuristic value comes into play if the theory can not only be proved, but can be used to develop other theories and hypotheses.

Not sure about an applied value, since for me, the applied value of historical criticism is more sound theology.

Anyway… what do you think?

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “Speaking of Science and the Farrer Theory…”

  1. Key statement, “In other words, the theory must be encompassing of a wide and diverse range of data”. I’d suggest someone put all the “data” into an excel spreadsheet. Columns sorted by types of data; hard data (scientific and measurable data) , opinion data (someone’s writings), hand-waving data (data based upon a multitude of unproven assumptions). Probably a bunch of other categories I can’t think of. Then for each piece of data, identify which are consistent, repeatable, and testable. Unfortunately, the column with hard data will probably be rather sparse. Regardless of a person’s opinion on the subject, it seems like the community ought to have a common list of data to work with. Without that, everyone is going off in different directions with their own unique set of “data”. And mostly their opinions, based upon other people’s opinions. Where’s the meat, where’s the data, in a concise, presentable form?

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.