Am I wrong in thinking that the Bible is very similar to the Quran ? an interesting work, maybe some wisdom in there, but only the work of men.
No input from a "higher power" can be proven , or even seems likely.
For both of those "Holy" books.
The End of Biblical Studies?
by slimboyfat 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Vidqun
Over-simplification, I know, just like the title End of Biblical Studies is a HUGE over-simplification. So my post is in the spirit, and well within the boundaries, of the current thread. The quotes might be somewhat dated, but they do explain where I come from and what I believe. When Theological Seminaries close their doors, and Theology is not offered as a course in foremost universities and colleges, let me know, then we can re-examine the subject. Until such a time, I would call it wishful thinking. As I mentioned above, thousands of scholars and students will not agree with such an all encompassing statement. Perhaps Avalos is trying his hand at prophecy? Then time will tell whether such a statement is to stand or fall.
Textual basis: Here the Bible and its translations do exceptionally well, as the quotes suggest. In recent times the Bible has been examined as any other book. So far it has stood its ground rather well. Most objective scholars will attest to its value. Sorry to disappoint, but we do not have original works of any historical work. Does that mean we must shoot them all down because we do not have original autographs? Not a good argument at all.
Historical basis: The Bible contributes to the understanding of the origins of writing, language, translation, history and the development of religion. Archaeology of the Holy Land has confirmed a substantial portion of the written record. By visiting Palestine and surroundings, one can acquaint oneself with many landmarks mentioned in the Bible. And by just strolling through the British Museum, you will find many an artifact that could be connected to biblical figures and their neighbours (in the shop there's a whole book about it).
The figure of Jesus: Here one should read through the NT and decide for yourself what you want to believe. Those who ignore what Jesus taught will be poorer for it.
Impressive literature: Of all ancient writings, the Bible is unique. If there is anything to compare with it, I would love to hear of it.
Avalos certainly has a knife to grind: "Avalos argues that much of the poetry is repetitive, poorly constructed, grammatically problematic and ethically and aesthetically unsuccessful." I have not encountered a single Bible scholar with such a view. Granted, those with such a view, would not be studying the Bible anymore.
-
slimboyfat
I looked over the book again last night and the arguments were a bit more nuanced than I remembered and that I outlined in my first post. Avalos argues that the results of the enterprise of biblical studies over the past few hundred years has essentially undermined its own foundation in the following ways.
Textual criticism: the traditional goal of textual criticism was to determine the original text. The culmination of centuries of work in this area has been the realisation that the original text cannot be recovered because of the fluidity of the text in its earliest transmission to which there are scant witnesses. The conclusion that original ext is unrecoverable means textual criticism has effectively come to the end of the road.
The historical Jesus: the quest for the historical Jesus began optimistically in the nineteenth century, took many twists and turns in the twentieth century, but has come to the end of the road in the Jesus Seminar which periodically concludes that less and less of the authentic Jesus can be known for certain. Jesus, the incredible shrinking man has come to the end of the road.
Literary criticism: the Bible is not all that. In terms of poetry and stories there are other ancient text more worthy of consideration. The fixation in the Bible has meant that many ancient texts have been neglected by scholars. It's time to refocus, and that probably calls for the end of biblical studies as it is currently constituted.
He is also pretty scathing in his criticism of the Society of Biblical Literature, which he argues has an interest in keeping up the pretence that the Bible is somehow an exceptional book deserving of study above others. It was interesting to learn that the SBL has around 7000 members. I think Leolaia has stated in the past that she is a member. I wonder if she has read this book and what she makes of its criticism of society of which she is a member.
-
OldGenerationDude
Hi Sulla...It's hard for me to retrieve all the PMs. For some reason they appear some times and at others they don't. I've noticed I am not the only one who finds the PM system on here problematic. Just as well, I don't mind answering questions in front of everyone.
To answer your question about me, I didn't get to run with the big dogs at all in my 18 years with the Watchtower. They tried a few times--some of the members of the elders in my hall, and visiting overseers always asked me in those last years especially if I had a problem with a certain elder. I would always answer that I didn't.
It turned out that I was constantly approved for that type of service but one elder didn't like me. I know who it was now only because years later he approached me to confess all he had done in regards to me when he used to be an elder (he stepped down just before I made my exit). Being that I was educated and had some natural talents (don't know if that is what you would really call them, but he did) that he had always wanted, he always managed to bully the elders into keeping me from serving. I am glad I didn't as I spent those last several years wrestling how I should bow out. I just got up and left, went back to my family and the faith I was brought up in and was never bothered by anyone after that. I did catch up on some needed formal education too, with a background in etymology, Jewish studies, and theology.
Great post, Kepler. Yeah, I recall that Tolkien worked on the literary construction of Isaiah in the first Jerusalem Bible, but I don't recall if that was for the translation in the original French or if that was his handywork in the English translation (which was based on the French). The NJB, though based on the style of the previous version, still retains some of that "Tolkien" touch.
I can say one thing I learned about stories like Judith (and for that matter Job, Jonah and Tobit). It is not "non-canonical" outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Catholics refer to it as Deuterocanonical and Protestants as Apocrypha. The book of Judith was indeed canonized (but "canonization" is not what most people think it is--I will get to that in a moment) as it was part of the Alexandrian Septuagint used by the early Church. It has always been regarded as a work of fiction, a parable, or better yet a "novella" by both the Jews and the Catholics/Orthodox. Though as a Jew I have to admit that my people don't include it in the Tanakh, it isn't considered bad or worthless or unimportant as the Governing Body claims it to be. It is a very important fable which teaches valid truths about the way God saves his people--usually contrary to the logic of the smartest humans. Judith, Job, Esther, Tobit, and Jonah are considered novellas or parables. They are based on real people but instead of history their story is told wrapped up in the garb of legend (just like Americans say: "His acts of heroism became the stuff of legend" meaning a real person inspired "legends" to be told about their actual heroics).
As to Judith being "canonized"--Jehovah's Witnesses are not educated enough to teach their people that canonization is an act of the Roman Catholic Church. No other religious group has ever made such pronouncements regarding the books in the Bible or engages in "canonization" of any type. We Jews never canonized our texts and the Protestants don't believe in a general authority that can make such a pronouncement. What the other religions of Christendom have done is "accept" certain texts as "inspired" (and those they do not consider "inspired" then tend to call "spurious"--and that word has a different meaning outside of Protestant usage). The "Scripture canon" is a unique mark of Catholicism. Since their religion existed before the New Testament texts were composed, and since it was a heretical member from their ranks (Marcion of Sinope) who raised the issue, an official "canon" was created by the authority the Church makes claim to having due to its historical connection to the original apostolic college. Other religions don't have ecumenical colleges or bodies that claim to speak in the "name (or 'seat') of Peter," so Jews and Protestants don't use the term "canonization" in any official or definite sense.
And for those wondering, yes, Judith was indeed written originally in Hebrew. Except for the Wisdom of Solomon and the editions to Esther (which were both written originally in Greek), all the other Deuterocanonical/apocryphal books were discovered in Hebrew in texts dating before the time of Christ in either the Qumran scrolls, the texts of Masada, or some of the other texts discovered in the last half of the 20th century.
-
kepler
Vidqun,
I think there are a couple of things wrong with the picture drawn about the End of Bible Studies. Bible studies would end if everything was cut and dry and not to be a matter of uncertainty or controversy. And from what I can tell, there are a lot of things that are still uncertain or controversial. Based on that premise, let’s take another look at those three areas of consideration mentioned.
Textual basis: It is asserted that the Bible is the best preserved. Really? Other documents come down to us based on originals written in stone. Exodus gives an account of things that might have happened in the reign of Ramses III. If you look up Ramses, you can observe his mummified remains and numerous texts that he or his scribes wrote on monuments he commissioned. We have in our hands manuscripts of the NT that date from 3 rd or 4 th century, but not complete. We also know of the debates about what to include as NT and OT from that same era. The manuscript dating of the OT is another matter . We are aware of the Hebrew texts from which the Greek Septuagint was produced in the Alexandrian period in Egypt. We have things that were available from Qumran in Hebrew, but certainly not from the time of prophets such as Isaiah. Other original records in the middle east go back to the 2 nd and 3 rd millennium because they were not scrolls or bound books but written in stone form. This has implications for the historical basis.
Historical basis: There is not an absence of historical basis in the Bible, but many of the things that are claimed based on its texts do not stand up to archeological analysis. Claims made in Joshua for the sieges of Jericho and Ai are examples that come to mind. The stories in that book appear to be concocted explanations for ruins extant then. 19 th century archeologists just assumed that the dates given in the Bible or derived from it were accurate. And as a result there were several hundred year discrepancies in Egyptian history once they were compared with translations resulting from deciphering the Rosetta stone and other hieroglyphics. What is really odd is that the Exodus wandering of 40 years seems to end on a timeline that puts the Israelites entering into the Egyptian New Kingdom’s empire in Canaan. The appendices of the NWT is full of early 19 th century Biblically derived dating. Example: Moses in Numbers supposedly writing about events between 1512-1473 BC. This appendix also attributes the writing of Job to Moses. How do we know that Moses wrote anything? Even the tablets associated with him in the account were written by God.
At my house I have a recent Egyptian history that says that Thutmose III fought at Megiddo in April of 1458 against the Syrian forces, or the forces of the kingdom of Mittani. Along with the later battle of Kadesh with the Hittites (1274, Ramses II) there are detailed records including soldiers’ accounts still standing at the memorials of their graves. The name Pharaoh, which originally meant "house", was just being invented in Thutmose's time. It was a euphemism for whom Thutmose III was step-son, Queen Hathshepsup. I would say that if there is to be continued Bible study, it should include figuring out how such discrepancies occur.
Somewhere above it was stated that gaps or re-copying errors in Biblical texts are not significant. There are numerous examples of episodes that appear to be marginal notes of copyists that found their way into texts. The beginning and (especially) the end of Mark I would consider significant issues. Mark has a very old abrupt end and several later versions with some variety. Thanks to Mark 16:18 we have sects in this country that devote much time and ceremony to snake handling...
It was only a few days ago that I heard mention of comparing the search for Biblical source text with tracing human or animal genetic variations to an earlier genetic code. In either case, we do not have the original in front of us, but we do have analytical procedures to help identify its makeup.
Impressive literature: As a compendium of books, it would have to be. But since we do not know exactly when much of it was written, we might not be comparing it with other period literatures appropriately. It is hard to find a detailed narrative of anything in the second millennium BC, but if we had a 2 nd millennium Bible with its pre-occupations with events in Egypt, I would think its original script would be Egyptian hieroglyphics, wouldn’t you? Its dating is derivative of Babylonian methods. The beginning of the year and months are much the same. The alphabet owes much more to the Phoenician. Episodes such as the “discovery” during the reign of Josiah of what appears to be Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22:3) suggests that even parts of the Pentateuch could have arrived 800 years later than the NWT appendix would have us believe. When things were actually set down as texts, it is difficult to say, especially with events like Jerusalem’s destruction. But should it be as late as the 7 th century, then the Bible could be compared shortly with a large body of Greek literature.
-
Vidqun
Keppler, the title then should have been Problems with Biblical Studies if he has a gripe about the way scholars study the Bible. But of course such a bland title creates no hype, so rather settle for one that will draw attention and sell his book. And your post proves my point. While such problems and discrepencies exist, there will always be students and scholars that will want to clear them up. While such interest in Biblical studies exist, The End of Biblical Studies is still very far away in the future. Archaeologists will continue digging, and so will Bible scholars and students. Even when scientific advances eclipse Bible studies, there will always be people interested in the past.
-
Fernando
The Bible reads very differently when approached "merely" as a book, in which there is hidden, in plain sight, a map leading to God, and away from religion.
The map is the "unabridged gospel".
There is nothing that religionists (secretly) hate or fear more than this map.
This map steals away their followers, status, power, authority and glory.
-
Sulla
Fernando, it seems you have missed the key observation that religion is prior to scripture. Judiasm was being practiced before it was written, Christianity was being practiced before it was written. The "map" of which you speak is the property of the religion that made it. Indeed, the map itself makes this point repeatedly.
-
EntirelyPossible
Sulla, you didn't address my earlier posts to you.
-
Sulla
Don't intend to, EP. Sorry.