Biblical Literary criticism: valid?

[an anarchist]

When I was a staunch young earther Bible literalist, I viewed literary criticism of the Bible as nothing but a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Now I’m looking at it from a different light. I have some books written by biblical scholars, the Anchor Bible Series is a great collection of the Bible with scholarly commentary.
There is this theory called the Documentary Hypothesis which organizes the first five books of the Bible into various hypothetical authors. I used to think that it was rather flimsy, (as a layman, I’m no scholar).
Just, with the Documentary hypothesis, they suppose that an author cannot use more than one name for God. They say one author says Elohim, while another author says Yahweh. Would it have been impossible for Moses to use both those names? I know when I was a Christian, I used more than one name.
With Isaiah, scholars say there is three authors. They say this because of different writing styles. As a Christian, I countered this in my head by saying that Isaiah wrote the book over the course of his life. So, it made sense that there was variation of literary style.
I was looking at biblical scholarship with a closed mind, already set that the Bible was the literal word of God. Now I’m ready to reevaluate biblical criticism with an open mind. I’m reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong for starters.
Are there any scholars on this site? I ask scholars and layman alike though the following questions, as I am a layman myself.
Is biblical literary criticism reliant on flimsy assumptions?
Does biblical criticism in general start its investigation with a decided conclusion beforehand I.e. the belief that God of the Bible isn’t real?
Is viewing the literary style of a book a valid way of determining various authors?

 

[dybmh]

Would it have been impossible for Moses to use both those names?

I vote yes. Elohim designates God operating as a mighty force of nature. Yahweh is God transcending time and space, God eternal. There are examples of the two literally combined in Tanach. Genesis 2, for example.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think this passage offers it all.

1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

Regards Tony

 

[an anarchist]

I vote yes. Elohim designates God operating as a mighty force of nature. Yahweh is God eternal. There are examples of the two literally combined in Tanach. Genesis 2, for example.

View attachment 63361

Just so I make sure I understand, that Hebrew there shows the names both Elohim and Yahweh?

 

[dybmh]

Just so I make sure I understand, that Hebrew there shows the names both Elohim and Yahweh?

Yes, here's a picture of an interlinear translation.

 

[an anarchist]

I think this passage offers it all.

1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

Regards Tony

To be frank, I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?

 

[an anarchist]

Yes, here's a picture of an interlinear translation.

View attachment 63363

Very interesting... as you practice Judaism I assume you believe Moses wrote the first five books?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To be frank, I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?

To me it is offering that the Word of God is of Spiritual understanding and not of literal purposes.

Every passage has a literal aspect, but a myriad of Spiritual truths behind every letter, word and passage.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

Very interesting... as you practice Judaism I assume you believe Moses wrote the first five books?

I believe they are all inspired by God, but I'm not sure if they were all 100% written by Moses.

 

[ChristineM]

When I was a staunch young earther Bible literalist, I viewed literary criticism of the Bible as nothing but a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Now I’m looking at it from a different light. I have some books written by biblical scholars, the Anchor Bible Series is a great collection of the Bible with scholarly commentary.
There is this theory called the Documentary Hypothesis which organizes the first five books of the Bible into various hypothetical authors. I used to think that it was rather flimsy, (as a layman, I’m no scholar).
Just, with the Documentary hypothesis, they suppose that an author cannot use more than one name for God. They say one author says Elohim, while another author says Yahweh. Would it have been impossible for Moses to use both those names? I know when I was a Christian, I used more than one name.
With Isaiah, scholars say there is three authors. They say this because of different writing styles. As a Christian, I countered this in my head by saying that Isaiah wrote the book over the course of his life. So, it made sense that there was variation of literary style.
I was looking at biblical scholarship with a closed mind, already set that the Bible was the literal word of God. Now I’m ready to reevaluate biblical criticism with an open mind. I’m reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong for starters.
Are there any scholars on this site? I ask scholars and layman alike though the following questions, as I am a layman myself.
Is biblical literary criticism reliant on flimsy assumptions?
Does biblical criticism in general start its investigation with a decided conclusion beforehand I.e. the belief that God of the Bible isn’t real?
Is viewing the literary style of a book a valid way of determining various authors?

I think, if you have time, that reading the bible from front page to back, as a book rather than selected segments can give great insight into its writing.

 

[joe1776]

Layman here. If God exists, I'm convinced by almost 2,000 years of evidence that the founders of the world's most popular religions knew no more about it than I do.

I think they meant well. I think they probably believed themselves to be divinely inspired, but they were not. The evidence I rely on is the failure of the sacred texts on moral guidance.

We humans have made moral progress, but the sacred texts only reflect the morals of the societies in the authors' time. The older the texts, the more likely we are to read of God's doubtful orders to kill or maim. In Torah, God instructed us to kill disobedient children.

The texts condone slavery, treat women as property, and so on.
If God exists, Conscience is God's simple, intuitive moral guide. I think we can credit Conscience with the abolition of legal slavery, for example. When we put ourselves in the shoes of a person enslaved, it FEELS wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

I think, if you have time, that reading the bible from front page to back, as a book rather than selected segments can give great insight into its writing.

Also, realizing each book of the Bible is a *separate book*. They were written separately and then *brought together*.

It's always a good idea to ask why any collection of books was brought together and organized as it was.

 

[Polymath257]

One thing to realize is that the techniques of literary criticism don't only apply to the Bible and its books. They apply to *any* text.

So, the same techniques are used to determine the authenticity of a book attributed to Aristotle, to determine whether there was more than one author of the Iliad, and to understand the motivations of Livy when writing his history of Rome, or to compare different treatments of any historic event.

These techniques were used and improved with other texts and other authors long before being used on the Biblical texts.

 

[dybmh]

In Torah, God instructed us to kill disobedient children.

Tradition teaches that this has never been enforced.

There is no record of a rebellious son ever having been executed, except for a dictum of R. Jonathan stating that he had once seen such a one and sat on his grave (Sanh. 71a). However, it is an old and probably valid tradition that there never had been, nor ever will be, a rebellious son, and that the law had been pronounced for educational and deterrent purposes only, so that parents be rewarded for bringing their children up properly (ibid.; Tosef. Sanh. 11:6).

jewishvirtuallibrary.org - Rebellious Son​

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I think, if you have time, that reading the bible from front page to back, as a book rather than selected segments can give great insight into its writing.

To be frank, I think that’s the best way to misinterpret almost everything and also risk falling asleep! It’s a very difficult way to study Scripture; as if it were a story. Just my own view, obviously.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[joe1776]

Tradition teaches that this has never been enforced.

On what moral authority was it decided that it should not be enforced --- if not Conscience?

And since in moral situations we can't "serve two masters," why not always follow your conscience and ignore the sacred texts?

 

[ChristineM]

To be frank, I think that’s the best way to misinterpret almost everything and also risk falling asleep! It’s a very difficult way to study Scripture; as if it were a story. Just my own view, obviously.


Humbly
Hermit

How does reading as written and compiled misinterpret? I would have thought cherry picking did the misinterpreting by missing out all the bits that the average person does not want to know about

 

[sun rise]

I don't have anything specific to add to this thread but since you're looking at the authors of the Bible, there's a broader question of what wound up in today's Bible and what did not. New Testament apocrypha - Wikipedia to me has a somewhat mind-boggling list of various documents that did not make it into today's Bible. So the question goes beyond authorship to include the selection process for today's Bible.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

How does reading as written and compiled misinterpret? I would have thought cherry picking did the misinterpreting by missing out all the bits that the average person does not want to know about

There is no reason to think that the books included in the Bible were written in the order that they are presented. Furthermore, each biblical passages can be seen as an individual “download” of divine wisdom. Thought of and studied as such, it makes better sense to deal with them independently.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[dybmh]

On what moral authority was it decided that it should not be enforced --- if not Conscience?

The intention for this one is at the end of the passage: "וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יִשְׁמְע֥וּ וְיִרָֽאוּ" "all Israel shall hear, and fear". So the issue of the rebellious son is only supposed to be taught, not enforced.

And since in moral situations we can't "serve two masters," why not always follow your conscience and ignore the sacred texts?

It's a good point. Using both conscience and a sacred text offers the best option, imho. As long as the text can be viewed as a negative role model when it conflicts. This way mistakes of the past generations are not forgotten.