Talk:Biblical criticism

From Theopedia

I think it would be helpful to try and give examples of each criticism under each heading. That would help the reader see how each one is done and the significance of it. Just a thought. JordanBarrett 18:19, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Statistical criticism

The addition of this material is a concern. It seems somewhat spurious, does not give any significantly relevant description of approach or results, and includes inappropriate phraseology such as "in my opinion". I would like to see a scholarly reference cited and pertinent quote included. If this is not forthcoming, I may elect to delete the material temporarily. Gomarus 08:15, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

I don't even know where this came from. I would delete it. JordanBarrett 13:47, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

I put in the Statistical Criticism section. This method of textual criticism was very interesting to me when i read it in Metzger's book, "The Text of The New Testament - 3rd edition".

If you find is spurious please delete it. I don't want to have the section on there if others are not going to get something out of it.

Larryjf 16:04, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Larry, I am sorry. I should not have written that so harshly. In regards to Gomarus' comment, on Theopedia we try and avoid writing from a personal perspective, and not use terms like "I think" or "to me" that sound like more of an opinion. Please feel free to add more to the Statistical Criticism section. Again, I am sorry. JordanBarrett 16:15, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Jordan, there is no need to be sorry, I wasn't offended. I went in and deleted the part that was more opinion. I can't really think of much more to add as it was a little while ago that i read about this method of criticism. Larryjf 16:24, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Evangelical higher criticism?

Under the introduction to higher criticism, we say that higher criticism is "the approach usually taken by secular or liberal Christian scholars", and that it "usually assumes the supernatural elements, such as miracles, are fictitious". That's a bit of a broad brush, given I have read evangelical commentaries (such as Leon Morris on Luke) interact with methods of higher criticism with a tone which isn't simply "rah! it's all secular nonsense!" He looks at redaction and source criticism to determine how Luke constructed his gospel; he takes form criticism to the cleaners', though, but more for being out-moded than anything else. In the wider context, literary and historical criticism are well-established among evangelicals as a necessary part of determining how to handle a text and tradition criticism can be just a fancy name for certain aspects of Biblical theology. Basically, there is an evangelical way to do higher criticism, and it doesn't necessitate a denial of its validity. Is there a way to make the article a bit more nuanced on this point, while maintaining the important line that liberals and secularists approach Biblical criticism with wrong assumptions? Wooster (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

The write-up may reflect an attitude which is somewhat outdated, though I'm not sure. However, in order to establish your point, we should find some sources and quotes of notable evangelicals interacting specifically with the subject of "higher criticism" and its useful elements. Then perhaps adding a section on that would be appropriate. Some nuancing of the existing statements may also be in order, but as you say, I would not downplay the liberal/secular use which is at odds with an evangelical approach to Scripture. Jim, . . . Gomarus 05:01, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Nice link to Osborne's paper, Wooster. After an initial glance, I need to read it more thoroughly. It may give just the perspective we need to include (to some degree). Jim -- Gomarus 07:41, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I wrote what follows while you wrote what you just wrote, so we just missed each other. W

I added a link to a paper by Grant Osborne, published in JETS 42/2, 193–210. I commend it for reading. Pages with good soundbites include 195 (quoting a reference text), 197 (Osborne himself) and 205 (one from Guthrie, and one from a book by Carson, Moo and Morris). Osborne's argument, in its most basic form, is that higher criticism is applying the theory of human documents to the Bible; classical evangelicalism has always believed that the Bible is a human document — more than a human document, but certainly a human document; ergo, higher criticism with evangelical assumptions is both useful and profitable. Wooster (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Good stuff. I agree with the way we are moving here. Feel free to incorporate some modifications along these lines as you have time. Thanks!! Jim -- Gomarus 08:12, 23 June 2006 (PDT)