Biblical Literary criticism: valid?

[ChristineM]

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

So? It is presented as a series of books, one following the other

And i know of plenty of learned Christians who will readily take from one verse/book and justify it by taking another verse/book for confirmation.

The bible is abused. At lease reading it AS COMPILED gives the whole story without cherry picking the good bits and discarding the bad

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

…/At lease reading it AS COMPILED gives the whole story without cherry picking the good bits and discarding the bad

I disagree with that, sorry.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[ChristineM]

I disagree with that, sorry.


Humbly
Hermit

As you are entitled. We have different views, it happens, don't be sorry

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I am not a very great reader, yet; but I did read Karen Armstrong's Who Wrote the Bible? I didn't agree with some of her arguments. It did seem like there were some leaps in favor of proposing that the scriptures were compiled together from an 'El' tradition and a 'Yahweh' tradition. It claimed to be laying out a logical reason for why we should consider that the scriptures were likely merged from an El and a Yahweh tradition, but it tended to presume this in places -- critical places. I think they had trouble writing their material for someone unfamiliar with their conclusions. This is probably what caused the book to have a bad logical argument. But as I said I am not a great reader, so I may have just done a bad job of reading it.

I remember, however, a radio talk show where a person smartly pointed out the biblical criticism (started by Wellhausen) while inconclusive has had some positive benefits. To study something unknown requires modeling it. You have to start somewhere. You have to start with some kind of a framework to ask questions. Its like choose how to sort objects in a room. Should you sort them by color, by what they do, by how you feel about them or what? Then you can change your framework/sorting method when you have accumulated enough understanding that your framework can no longer organize the information as well as you'd like. The history of the higher critics is one of contention between schools and people disagreeing about things, but they continue to occasionally update the framework and try to outdo each other.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is viewing the literary style of a book a valid way of determining various authors?

Yes and no, to an extent. Probably for the most part, perhaps, but there are some artists who use different styles and techniques for different things so definitely not always.
Are you familiar with the idea of a plain reading of the Bible?

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree with that, sorry.


Humbly
Hermit

May I ask *why* you disagree?

We know that the different books of the Bible were written separately and then assembled together.

Isn't it reasonable to read each book as a unit to learn what *it* has to say and then compare messages between different books?

Or, if it can be determined that a book was actually written by more than one author and then merged together, isn't it of interest to know what the different views were and how they related?

Not to mention the motivations of those that chose these particular books (as opposed to others we know existed); is this not of crucial importance to the interpretation of the text?

 

[an anarchist]

Are you familiar with the idea of a plain reading of the Bible?

Is that reading the Bible without any presuppositions?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is that reading the Bible without any presuppositions?

No, it's the idea that anyone and everyone can plainly read the Bible for what is there without any external sources, teachers or understanding of the culture the Bible came from.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it's the idea that anyone and everyone can plainly read the Bible for what is there without any external sources, teachers or understanding of the culture the Bible came from.

That sounds pretty silly, I'd say.

I wouldn't recommend reading *any* book without external sources, teachers, or understanding of the culture it comes from.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That sounds pretty silly, I'd say.

I wouldn't recommend reading *any* book without external sources, teachers, or understanding of the culture it comes from.

It is a very bad idea. But it's common among the conservative Evangelicals and Biblical literalists. Encouraged as a badge of honor or point of pride even, in taking the stance that the "Word of God" (aka the "Instruction Manual) is all one needs in life.
If I recall correctly from church history this is one of the ideas that took root in America during the Second Great Awakening. Before then, and generally outside of these Protestant circles today, it never really held favor and was discouraged due to the doomed-to-fail nature of such an endeavor.

 

[blü 2]

Is biblical literary criticism reliant on flimsy assumptions?

The arguments are based on analysis of the text, looking at styles of writing and preferences for subject matter. On both fronts there's plenty of room for debate, though perhaps a little less in the first case.

But some of the questions cry out to be addressed ─ such as the existence of two different versions of the Creation in Genesis, suggesting strongly that someone at some point has sought to amalgamate two stories.

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?

Scholars proceed according to historical method which stays away from theology and focuses only on the examinable evidence. For example, Professor Alan Millard is a respected archaeologist who's done extensive work in the holy lands, and he's also a believer ─ though you wouldn't know that from his archaeological writings.

Is viewing the literary style of a book a valid way of determining various authors?

What choice is there? If the text provides persuasive evidence of different styles of writing, different word choices, different subjects, different levels of interest in particular details, and so on, then we can stare at it blankly or set out to make something of it, by reasoning from the evidence.

 

[stvdv]

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

You assume that God always give moral guidance. That is not correct from my POV

 

[rational experiences]

As a human man. Natural history man is first. Innate aware nature's medical condition nature herbal food water life's subsistence natural. Taught first.

Spiritual human consciousness.

Then wants to think about and upon any man human thought topic subject.

A man chooses chose and his brothers agreed. Exactly told.

Straight away you take upon your person superiority by word application. As compared to one human life as life continuance body a human woman.

How self deism came about as all human man's owned descriptive words. Man said he gives human title to and described of. By humans words.

No deity speaking advice. Man's advice first. So some of his terms claiming highest in creation he says originally unknown and can't be known. Proved he ignored what he told his own self.

Then you have machine controlled by bio thinking a designer man. Transmitters. All his science as proven relate to earths products then machines.

Changed earth mass then changed heavens. So heavens gain man image voice recording.

Now his separated water oxygenated bio life speaks back to him. Deity he invented. Said don't self idolise I knew.

You knew. You told the exact outcome. You closed the book by last referenced testimony legal no man is God. You said don't give earths Rock products human names ever again.

Or humans genesis DNA would be removed from life. Human has to be the human to detail a human owned genesis.

Testimony written as human sciences had attacked sacrificed human life became a legal issue.

 

[DNB]

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 believe that all forms of Biblical Criticism have their merits. I would never be dogmatic about any of the conclusions derived, as far as the authorial intent, source, exemplars or autographs are concerned. But, if these disciplines assist in exegetical studies, then I endorse their practice. For, we have seen how beneficial textual criticism can be in determining where are the interpolations and emendations within the text, and which verses are authentic or not.

Literary criticism has its worth, as we all know each of us, in any part of our literary development, has parameters to our styles of writing - to me, this analysis makes it clear as to conclude that Paul was not the author of Hebrews. Yes, as you said, through the course of many years or decades, as in the ministries of Isaiah and Jeremiah, maturity, vocabulary, comprehension, circumstance, would all cause there to be an evolution in one's writing style. But, I question the extent of the dichotomy: would Isaiah ever sound like Ezekiel, for example, or Daniel like Baruch, or Paul like Peter, or James like Jude? That is, could you develop to such a degree that you don't sound like yourself anymore, ...possibly?

I personally don't know what to make of the authorship of the Bible in many cases: for how could have Samuel written Samuel II, when he died in Samuel !? I believe that the Bible is God's Word, I just am uncertain as to how it was derived i.e. direct inspiration, or endowed men by their own volition, or both?

 

[firedragon]

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?

Brother, I am glad to hear that you are looking at scholarship. But I must tell you that you have completely misrepresented the documentary hypothesis. Completely. I recommend that you actually read about it from a scholar.

The documentary hypothesis is not really literary criticism. Its too vague to say things like that. It is probably the founder of source criticism. Also I must say that Karen Armstrong is not really a good source for criticism. She is a great scholar, but not in this realm.

I would recommend that you ask your precise question without using all of these academic phrases. Just ask your question. What do you want to know? And someone will answer you and point to a proper source.

 

[Brian2]

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?

When Jesus was on earth He said that God did not want divorce but that Moses allowing divorce because of the hardness of heart of the people.
We can see the law with this in mind and so see that the law did not always express how God wanted people to act, but was written with a purpose in mind and not just as a set of rules.

 

[firedragon]

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.

From this context, what you said is completely non-workable. Won't work.

 

[an anarchist]

Just ask your question. What do you want to know?

Who wrote the first five books of the Bible?

 

[sayak83]

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 the fact that the OT is written by combining multiple sources is fairly conclusive. An example would be the flood story which is a combination of two easily separable versions. I have used NRSV and my source books on the documentary hypothesis to separate them. You can judge. What is the likelihood that one narrative can be so easily broken into two complete and consistent narratives like this if they were not originally distinct? (Lord is El or Elohim, God is Yhwh).

Version 1
The Lord saw that the wickedness of humans was great in the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the humans I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air—for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. 7 Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. 4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” 5 And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him.7 And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth.12 The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights and 16 the Lord shut him in. 17 The flood continued forty days on the earth, and the waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left and those with him in the ark. (8_2) The rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters gradually receded from the earth. 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made. 8 Then he sent out the dove from him to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground, 9 but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took it and brought it into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove from the ark, 11 and the dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days and sent out the dove, and it did not return to him any more.13 And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked and saw that the face of the ground was drying.
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humans, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

22 As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night
shall not cease.”

Version 2
(6)
9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up, and it shall serve as food for you and for them.” 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. (7) 6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth. 8 Of clean animals and of animals that are not clean and of birds and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 13 On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark, 14 they and every wild animal of every kind and all domestic animals of every kind and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth and every bird of every kind. 15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings;24 And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided; 2 the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed. 3 At the end of one hundred fifty days the waters had abated,4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. 7 And he sent out the raven, and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 13 In the six hundred first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth, 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. 15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—so that they may abound on the earth and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives. 19 And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.

 

[firedragon]

Who wrote the first five books of the Bible?

No one knows. No one knows the era, or the authors. Some guestimation could be done with the era, and there are theories or hypothesis saying that four types of schools of thought were involved in there pentateuch, as you said, the Documentary Hypothesis. It's based on source criticism. Extensive work done there.

The Jews who believe by faith have of course a different perspective, but the documentary hypothesis is a naturalistic hypothesis.

So the bottomline is, there is no information valid enough to say person X wrote the pentateuch.

(P.S. By X I don't mean Xavier )