The Corruption of Biblical Studies

Picaro

Gold Member
Oct 31, 2010
19,486
4,422
290
Texas
A series of essays. I haven't read them all or checked their sources yet, but they all bring up noteworthy points.

The Corruption of Biblical Studies

From the first essay:

In the 2017 edition of The State of the Bible, its annual survey, the American Bible Society reports that more than half of all Americans who regularly read the Bible now search for related material on the Internet. This shift in how the faithful learn about scripture has resulted in unprecedented public exposure to one particular kind of Bible study—namely, the academic kind. Major websites now offer the latest that scholars have to say about the Bible—its authorship, its historical accuracy, its proper interpretation—and those websites attract hundreds of thousands of unique visitors each month. In an age when interest in the humanities is generally waning, the department of biblical studies is providing enrichment to what has become the most popular online branch of the liberal arts.

This is surely a blessed development. Men and women of good faith engage with these study materials in pursuit of that purest religious ideal: the truth. In doing so, moreover, they fully recognize that academic researchers ask important questions and often offer compelling answers by drawing on resources and insights unavailable through denominational venues. For many users, these answers and insights do not merely supplement but may also challenge the traditional Jewish and Christian teachings in which they have been brought up. So the interest in academic scholarship of the Bible increases—and with it the authority of the scholars purveying it. As a Jewish day-school teacher recently put it to me: “Often, I find that students might not be so well informed about the meaning of a scientific or archaeological claim; it’s enough that many academics holding respected titles have advanced a certain way of understanding something.” In today’s climate, the university biblicist, even before he or she speaks, enjoys a deep line of credit.

For Jews in particular, nothing in biblical studies draws so keen an interest as the issue of the origins of the Torah: the Five Books of Moses, or Pentateuch. The scholarly pursuit of the Torah’s putative sources and how they evolved into the text we have today is referred to in the academy as “source criticism”: the discipline’s oldest sub-field and still its largest. And source criticism of the Torah is also front-and-center in the Jewish public eye.

Over the past fifteen years alone, four major projects by Jewish scholars have showcased the methods and achievements of source criticism. I have in mind two books, How to Read the Bible by James Kugel and Richard Elliott Friedman’s The Bible with Sources Revealed; the section on the Pentateuch in the JPS Study Bible; and, most recently, the website www.TheTorah.com, which is explicitly devoted to “integrating the study of Torah with the disciplines and findings of academic biblical scholarship.”

It would seem hard to find fault with any of this. Intuitively, readers of all ages know that their rabbis or pastors have to affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the biblical accounts. By contrast, the academic biblicist is duty-bound to “tell it like it is” on the basis of a rigorous scholarly method and rational, humanistic modes of discovery. For many raised with a traditional approach to scripture, this is a breath of fresh air. Here, finally, we find scripture without an agenda, and a method that leads only where reason and data take the faithful researcher. Here, we find the truth.

If only it were so. But the fact of the matter is otherwise. From the time of its inception 200 years ago, the field of biblical studies has never been value-free. Instead, and precisely because of the Bible’s unique and central role in Western culture, study of the Bible in the academy has been influenced—and, I would argue, tainted—by a range of cultural and intellectual forces, and repeatedly led astray from its calling as a rigorous mode of inquiry. Never has this been truer than in our own times, when many claims made in the name of the critical study of the Bible have been turned into weapons in a political struggle between liberals and conservatives.

In what follows, I offer an insider’s tour of today’s field of biblical studies—my field—and question whether some of its central conclusions really deserve the high pedestal on which they have been placed.


... and 4 responses to the first.
 
I have read the works of secular “scholars”.
Their translations are abominations.
 
I have read the works of secular “scholars”.
Their translations are abominations.

They are actually the scholars who have the least to lose by lying or otherwise misrepresenting factual info, so yes, that would be the case. The believers and apologists can never afford to do so. I exclude the assorted cultists, whose entire 'theology' is faked from the beginning, and can't be considered serious scholars from the latter comment, as they aren't real believers or 'conservatives'.
 
I do wonder why he brought up Hamas and iran when he started talking about the bible.

This is not true that this is something new:

Never has this been truer than in our own times, when many claims made in the name of the critical study of the Bible have been turned into weapons in a political struggle between liberals and conservatives.

Its true today with conservatives, Sessions and Sanders tried terribly to use the bible to make a point, but so did they use it at the time of slavery, it has been used for a long time to keep the working poor in line.
 
Archeology, discovering of ancient tablets and papyrus add valuable and important info that requires honest intellectual rethinking &
updating, especially when some things like Dead Sea Scrolls helps through it's commentary and Biblical era poetic use of words/slang that helps in deciphering usage of words in that era, for us to understand the meaning from their era not ours. Other Examples: If ancient predated tablets show the death scene of Baal is plagiarised in the NT then one has to honestly accept the scene is created to mimick the baal mythologies and is merely a new name and cultures mask for the same mythology and money grabbing scams that the priests of Bel used in their age, still mirrored today by the Evangelists and Priesthood.
 
I always used compendiums of the Bible in book form before the internet. Does that mean they were wrong also?
 
Well. 1st century Bishops sure did a number on Latin. Ha. Mst be nice to create your own version of it. It makes one the best teacher because nobody understands enough to ask questions. Boss!
 
The writer conveys a message but is that message received correctly by humans over a span of thousands of years?
No matter which language is used to interpret?
 
We can only wonder why Hebrew was not the dominate language of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, etc. in the first century.

I have noticed changes in the Jewish history on the net, esp on Wikipedia. I read an article that they have trained Israelites in Israel to edit WIKI articles, bias in their favor.
 
We can only wonder why Hebrew was not the dominate language of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, etc. in the first century.

I have noticed changes in the Jewish history on the net, esp on Wikipedia. I read an article that they have trained Israelites in Israel to edit WIKI articles, bias in their favor.
Many groups and factions major in wiki bias.
 
I do wonder why he brought up Hamas and iran when he started talking about the bible.

This is not true that this is something new:

Never has this been truer than in our own times, when many claims made in the name of the critical study of the Bible have been turned into weapons in a political struggle between liberals and conservatives.

Its true today with conservatives, Sessions and Sanders tried terribly to use the bible to make a point, but so did they use it at the time of slavery, it has been used for a long time to keep the working poor in line.

What thread with you posting in it would complete without mentioning your favorite ME peeps?
 
We can only wonder why Hebrew was not the dominate language of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, etc. in the first century.

lol lol lol ... few people 'wonder' about it, just you and Jake, is all.

I have noticed changes in the Jewish history on the net, esp on Wikipedia. I read an article that they have trained Israelites in Israel to edit WIKI articles, bias in their favor.

Oh my, you READ AN ARTICLE, did you??? Well, that settles it, then. lol
 
The writer conveys a message but is that message received correctly by humans over a span of thousands of years?
No matter which language is used to interpret?

One of the points is that the usage of literature then was indeed very different than how modern people would interpret the writings then, yes. What moderns would call 'errors' or 'contradictions' would have been viewed differently then.

One of the writers points out an Egyptian example of a single event with three different versions, written side by side, at the same time, and yet they all contradict each other, for instance. Understanding why they would do that and their use of that technique isn't understood by a lot of modern scholars, hence the confusions and biases among academics.
 
We are discussing your inability to argue sensibly, Picaro, not the blog.

Yes, you're avoiding the blog entirely, we know that and it's already noted, Jake. We know you can't really discuss anything, you don't have the reading skills or the attention span necessary.
 
Well. 1st century Bishops sure did a number on Latin. Ha. Mst be nice to create your own version of it. It makes one the best teacher because nobody understands enough to ask questions. Boss!

What are you babbling about? The only 'bishops' using Latin were a handful in North Africa in the '1st century', so your post makes no sense to anybody except conspiratards and probably Jake.= and Rosie.
 
We can only wonder why Hebrew was not the dominate language of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, etc. in the first century.

lol lol lol ... few people 'wonder' about it, just you and Jake, is all.

I have noticed changes in the Jewish history on the net, esp on Wikipedia. I read an article that they have trained Israelites in Israel to edit WIKI articles, bias in their favor.

Oh my, you READ AN ARTICLE, did you??? Well, that settles it, then. lol
We can only wonder why Hebrew was not the dominate language of Galilee, Samaria, Judea, etc. in the first century.

lol lol lol ... few people 'wonder' about it, just you and Jake, is all.

I have noticed changes in the Jewish history on the net, esp on Wikipedia. I read an article that they have trained Israelites in Israel to edit WIKI articles, bias in their favor.

Oh my, you READ AN ARTICLE, did you??? Well, that settles it, then. lol


ABDALLAH IBN SABA:
By: Hartwig Hirschfeld
A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman's administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed's vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah's teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, "Thou art Thou!" Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali's assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled "Al-Ali" (The Most High).

Bibliography:
  • Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken's translation, i. 200-201);
  • Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.

Did I mention from the Jewish encly.

I am sure Moses did not write the Torah , it took him long to carve the commandments in the stones.

So now genius, why did the jews speak Aramaic in the first century?
 

Forum List

Back
Top