"Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament"

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SteveC]

Thanks everybody.

Hopefully we will get through this.

[Howiedds]

Lilly:

On the contrary, I believe that much of the literary analysis of the New Testament, as well as the Hebrew Scriptures, is a result of disbelief, not the cause of it.

I see the testament as a human product in the sense that it was written by people using a human vocabulary to describe the indescribable.  I didn't think that you thought that it was literally written by God which is the only way it could be more divine than as I think of it.

As a human document,inspired as it might be, it can be analyzed and studied for its language choices, the time in which it was written, the writers themselves, etc. I don't agree that the analysis itself either adds to or results from disbelief.

Why is a discussion about the relationship of the synoptic gospels to each other and which might have been written first with dependence on the other likely to be either from a position of disbelief or the cause of it? Why are those the only two choices? How does Mark being written first or Matthew being first bring into question one's faith that they are from God and written by men? Or, why is the very discussion of it a result of disbelief as you suggested?

What is literary analysis?  Analysis is breaking something down into its more basic parts in order to study it.  The analysis of literature is breaking down a written text and giving your own theories as to how it was written and why.  It's breaking down the text to understand why the author wrote as he did, but not necessarily believing what is written.

Why is presenting theories of how the text was written and by whom and why it was written "as he did" have anything to do with believing what is written or not? I just don't get the connection or your concern with it.

Reread the title of this thread:  "Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament."  Do you think scholars are engaging in literary analysis of the NT in order to gain a better understanding of the Christian message? 

I know some for whom that is the reason.

No, of course not.

It really is too bad that your world view cannot imagine it. You ascribe such negative motives to a world that you know nothing about. If you had ever attended a Christian seminary where such studies go on, you would learn how wrong you are about the faith and beliefs of those who study their relationships.

They are breaking it down to discredit Christianity and influence others to reject it.  They do this because they already don't believe.  Many have come from the Christian tradition and now see it as their role to refute that tradition for the greater good. 

In the name of all those with whom I have studied and are as committed to their faith as you are and who then went on to pulpits of their own, your statements about their disbelief are appalling. It's as if they are more confident and believing than you, giving them the freedom to make such inquiries.

And one more point that I didn't realize I should have made clear until I read Steve's quoting of something you said, which I introduced in a much earlier post at the beginning of the thread about Q which I am now confident you misunderstood. I fell into the jargon of those  who have studied the gospels in an academic setting, although it was in a seminary classroom. I mentioned the "synoptic problem." I realized that you may have misunderstood the common use of that idiom so that your "hackles" immediately responded in defense mode as you are so prone to do regardless of content or meaning. That is the name given universally to the study of the gospel relationships as to dependence and which came first. That was the original topic in which  "Q" was mentioned.

I didn't mean that the gospels had a problem. I don't even know why the topic is so labeled throughout the academic Christian world except perhaps that the various proponents have a problem, not the gospels themselves being the problem, on agreeing as to which came first and who depended on whom while writing theirs. I fail to see how such an investigation detracts from faith or begins because of lack of faith.

I suppose I could see how such a discussion could be accused of originating out of lack of faith if one had faith that God dictated the writing itself. In which case such a study of interdependence would be without merit or utility; i.e. God wrote them so there was no dependence. Surely you don't believe that God wrote them since you give the names of the writers in the titles.

There's no accusation here or setting of traps. I just don't understand why you think any study of them as literary works of a certain time and place, written by people about whom they knew Jesus to be in the history of salvation, divinely inspired as you may think of them, somehow diminishes belief in their inspirational source. What does thinking either Matthew had read Mark or Mark had read Luke have to do with belief in their content and message? You just protest too much.

[SquirleyWurley]

Hello everyone.  I might as well come back on this thread.

Re: protesting too much, would you agree that it may be reasonably argued that the proponents of various types of literary-critical theories as applied to the scriptures protest too much?

Why turn a complete text with lots of copies in existence into minute little parts of a jigsaw puzzle torn into categories and layered by speculation?  Why not just read the text as a whole, and then compare it to other whole texts, and look for things like themes, meanings, idioms, types, references to persons/concepts, etc.

[SteveC]

Hello everyone.  I might as well come back on this thread.

Re: protesting too much, would you agree that it may be reasonably argued that the proponents of various types of literary-critical theories as applied to the scriptures protest too much?

Why turn a complete text with lots of copies in existence into minute little parts of a jigsaw puzzle torn into categories and layered by speculation?  Why not just read the text as a whole, and then compare it to other whole texts, and look for things like themes, meanings, idioms, types, references to persons/concepts, etc.

Hi SW,

Welcome back!

Your suggestion works if you don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[SquirleyWurley]

What do you mean by literal?  I mean, do you mean that literally, or are you making connotations and indirectly implying lots of things by saying 'literal'?

[kwd111]

hello SQ - it is good hearing from you again. 

[SteveC]

What do you mean by literal?  I mean, do you mean that literally, or are you making connotations and indirectly implying lots of things by saying 'literal'?

I mean literally.

[SquirleyWurley]

Kwd,

It's nice to stop in for a bit and say 'hello'

Steve,

What is your argument, or is it just a judgment?

[SteveC]

Kwd,

It's nice to stop in for a bit and say 'hello'

Steve,

What is your argument, or is it just a judgment?

It's both my argument and judgment, praise be me.

If you're going to present the bible as literally the perfect WOG, then it ought to be perfect. It should withstand all scrutiny. Believers who criticize scholarly examination and doggedly refuse to admit that there are issues and inconsistencies, are cowards for not wanting to deal with the issues and for labeling those scholars as anti-Christian and anti-Bible.

[Howiedds]

Sq:

protesting too much, would you agree that it may be reasonably argued that the proponents of various types of literary-critical theories as applied to the scriptures protest too much?

I would not agree. Those that critique the texts as literature of a certain time and place with a message simply present their analysis; I don't read protests from them when they do. I do read protest by folks like you.

Why turn a complete text with lots of copies in existence into minute little parts of a jigsaw puzzle torn into categories and layered by speculation?

I think it's reasonable to compare the sayings and events in one gospel and compare them to the same accounts in another gospel and derive conclusions as to whether or not one was used as a source for the other. I don't understand why that threatens faith. It's just an academic exercise/study about a book written at a certain time, in a certain place, with a message. Why the fuss? What's the threat?

[SteveC]

Why the fuss? What's the threat?

"cowards die many times before their deaths"

[SquirleyWurley]

Steve,

I was asking you to articulate more clearly your criticism re: approaching a given book of the Bible as a whole, dealing with themes, references to people/places, relationship to other whole books, rather than dicing things up and rearranging the pieces.

Sq:

protesting too much, would you agree that it may be reasonably argued that the proponents of various types of literary-critical theories as applied to the scriptures protest too much?

I would not agree. Those that critique the texts as literature of a certain time and place with a message simply present their analysis; I don't read protests from them when they do. I do read protest by folks like you.

You don't read protests from the likes of the Jesus Seminar, Spong, Crossan?

Re: JEPD/redactor and Q speculations, I don't  necessarily read a protesting too much when it is presented as a use of a method a use of various linguistic tools.  I do see it as protesting too much, however, when the results are paraded as some sort of scientific conclusion that any rational mind would prefer to a more straitforward literary treatment.

Why turn a complete text with lots of copies in existence into minute little parts of a jigsaw puzzle torn into categories and layered by speculation?

I think it's reasonable to compare the sayings and events in one gospel and compare them to the same accounts in another gospel and derive conclusions as to whether or not one was used as a source for the other. I don't understand why that threatens faith.

I don't either.  Where it gets questionable is when other conclusions are then drawn and ideologies are brought into it and then all of a sudden a what-if game turns into an ideological axe against the benighted believers.

[SteveC]

Steve,

I was asking you to articulate more clearly your criticism re: approaching a given book of the Bible as a whole, dealing with themes, references to people/places, relationship to other whole books, rather than dicing things up and rearranging the pieces.

There are two ways to interpret the Bible - literally & allegorically. I have no issues with allegorical interpretations, but the literal interpretations are simply bizarre and an insult to my intelligence. Not only that, but literalists tend to be exclusive and a scurge on society for attempting to force their religious beliefs into society's various cultures and lifestyles. I will continue to dice up the Bible and present those pieces as evidence that the Bible was written by men, not god, and as a consequence, the Bible is hardly perfect, as literalists tend to believe.

[SquirleyWurley]

There are two ways to interpret the Bible - literally & allegorically. I have no issues with allegorical interpretations, but the literal interpretations are simply bizarre and an insult to my intelligence.

I was coming at this from a different angle, with a different lense/filter.  I was contrasting an approach that took a text as an integral whole and then sought to understand the personages, themes, messages, the story, to enter into it and to appreciate it, versus an approach that took a text as something to break up and analyze and put back together in different shapes.

I was probably also implying a contrast between an approach that entered the story seriously with an approach that took the text as a toy.  At least, on other threads I have raised that sort of question.

I do contrast the difference between trying to understand these stories about Jesus and dealing with the picture of Jesus which is presented, from other approaches which do not focus on relating to Jesus.  It really boils down to that, to a Christian.  Which is why I think Lilly and others are  misunderstood sometimes around here.  As a Christian who is relating to God, to Jesus, through the NT, we have much better things to do than to play games with redactor theories, Q, 'historical Jesus' speculations, etc.

[Howiedds]

Sq:

You don't read protests from the likes of the Jesus Seminar, Spong, Crossan?

No, I don't read protests. I read their opinions, but protests? No.

Re: JEPD/redactor and Q speculations, I don't  necessarily read a protesting too much when it is presented as a use of a method a use of various linguistic tools.

Thank you. That's all I said. You protest that they should do that.

I do see it as protesting too much, however, when the results are paraded as some sort of scientific conclusion that any rational mind would prefer to a more straitforward literary treatment.

So which is it? They protest or they don't? You may object to their conclusions. You may call them names and say they parade their opinions, but they are not protesting; you do. You are now.

Why turn a complete text with lots of copies in existence into minute little parts of a jigsaw puzzle torn into categories and layered by speculation?

Not that anything you just said is relevant, but what's with this "lots of copies" crap that you parade? What does 2 or 3 thousand copies have to do with the historicity or validity of any of your gospels much less the study of the literary relationships between the gospels? Again, why the protest when someone compares the similarities and differences in the gospels and comes to conclusions about their relationships?

I don't either.  Where it gets questionable is when other conclusions are then drawn and ideologies are brought into it and then all of a sudden a what-if game turns into an ideological axe against the benighted believers.

That's what I call protesting; not what they do, but what you do.

[Today]

• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [Today at 07:16:04 PM]
• Religion gets ugly by charliejohn [Today at 02:48:42 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [Today at 12:09:55 PM]
• God No Longer Male by CCC460 [Today at 10:34:45 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 09:23:57 AM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• Jewish Understanding by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:57:12 AM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]
• Adult Stem Cell Research ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 07:37:57 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87095
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 74
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 4
Guests: 52
Total: 56

SteveC
Ed.W
CCC460
kwd111