Systematic disparagement of Biblical Literalism in Scholarly Biblical studies.

[danieldemol]

@Xavier Graham SA
If you are prepared to laugh at ideas which are flagrantly contradicted by the archaeological record you might enjoy this article by the onion which takes an imaginary look at how pre-existing civilisation would have received God's creation of the world had the Genesis narrative been literally true.

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

 

[firedragon]

The arguments go something like “yes, there is evidence supporting that the book was written before the events it prophesied about, however, it is impossible for a book to tell the future so it had to be written at a later date.” That is their argument.

Who makes that argument?

 

[blü 2]

When I say Scholarly Biblical studies, I mean just what the name implies. Studies and research put forth by so called prestigious college institutions and organizations on the topic of the Bible. I am getting my personal frame of reference from the Anchor Bible Series. It is published and produced by Yale University. It is a book series which systematically studies the individual books of the Bible through scholarly means. Personally, the series has been very useful, as it dives into the science of the text: understanding it in it’s original language, describing the culture of the time, etc.. It generally ascribes legitimacy to the Deuteronomistic Historical theory. This theory hypothesizes multiple authors for each of the Old Testament books, not accepting people like Moses as the authentic authors. The authors of the Anchor Bible series, who are called scholars, always speak very dismissively of Biblical Literalism. This is a paraphrase, but very close to a quote, found in several of the books from the series I’ve read so far. “Biblical Literalism *purports some theory contrary to author opinion*, however, Biblical Literalism is not considered in serious inquiries of Biblical studies, so we can disregard that view entirely.”
Besides this book series, when researching the prophecies of Daniel 11, I have found much evidence supporting that it was written well before the prophesied events. (This particular chapter contains over 100 prophecies, some pertaining to the division of Alexander the Greats kingdom amongst his generals.) The Biblical “scholar” holds that this chapter must have been written well after the prophesied events. When reading the arguments to support this claim, published on college websites, I have been amused. The arguments go something like “yes, there is evidence supporting that the book was written before the events it prophesied about, however, it is impossible for a book to tell the future so it had to be written at a later date.” That is their argument. That it is impossible for the book to tell accurate prophesies, I.e. it is impossible for God to be real. Is this not a non scientific approach that Biblical scholars take? From my perspective, it seems that being condescending towards Biblical Literalism has been systematically normalized among “serious Biblical scholars.” It permeates to all the college institutions that are secular it seems.
The danger of this prevalent condescending attitude towards this view is that it restricts scholarly research, in my opinion. I think an example of this is the theory of panBabylonianism, PanBabyloniansm was a theory that was hypothesized in the late 1890’s. It said that all of the world religions could be traced back to Babylonian religion. A archeologist was the one who founded the theory, and he attempted to gather evidence, but shortly died after. A couple years later, a scholarly paper was published, disputing his theory. It said that the theory was a result of having that silly Biblical Literalist view, and looking for evidence to support it. Just like that, panBabylonianism was considered disproved and no further research has been done since then. The panBabylonianism theory is the one a Biblical literalist would find themselves supporting naturally, as they believe all man came from Babylon at the Tower of Babel.
To conclude, I think that it is that a majority of “Biblical scholars” have an unscientific stance, when it comes to their view on Biblical Literalism, and furthermore, their stance on God Himself. As they do not even consider it a possibility that God is real and the Bible is literal, they restrict the scientific study of the Bible. It frustrates me greatly, as I take this condescending attitude rather personally. I usually end up scribbling angrily into the bookmarks next to the passages that quote such views.
Does anyone else perceive this systematic disparagement of Biblical literalism?

There is not a single authenticated example of magic anywhere.

It follows that evidence purporting to show that Prophecy A foretold improbable remote events with great accuracy is overwhelming evidence that Prophecy A was written after the event.

(A handy example of that is found in Mark 13.2 where Jesus prophecies the destruction of Jerusalem, thus dating the authorship of Mark to after 70 CE.)

 

[firedragon]

I've never believed in the division of Isaiah, but now I really roll my eyes when I hear people tout this claim. When people are willing to be honest about it, the only thing that can stand to some scrutiny is Isaiah prophesying about Cyrus. There really is no other textual evidence that there were two prophets. But Bible Critics are generally unable to admit this.

Do Bible critiques claim there were two different people called Isaiah? Or was it two different people or like you said, prophets? And was that based on textual analysis?

Thats interesting.

 

[Harel13]

Do Bible critiques claim there were two different people called Isaiah? Or was it two different people or like you said, prophets? And was that based on textual analysis?

The claim is that there was at least one other anonymous prophet (and some stretch it to three, four, five or more such anonymous prophets) whose book (or books) was/were stuck onto Isaiah's book, who really was a person who lived during the time of Kings Uzziah, Yotam, Ahaz and Hezekiah, and made to look like one book. The anonymous prophet is known as "Second Isaiah" (and Third Isaiah etc for the rest). Thus, the first half of the book (until chapter 23 or so, I believe) was written by the real Isaiah, while the rest was written by other, much later prophets whose identities are unknown.

 

[firedragon]

The claim is that there was at least one other anonymous prophet (and some stretch it to three, four, five or more such anonymous prophets) whose book (or books) was/were stuck onto Isaiah's book, who really was a person who lived during the time of Kings Uzziah, Yotam, Ahaz and Hezekiah, and made to look like one book. The anonymous prophet is known as "Second Isaiah" (and Third Isaiah etc for the rest). Thus, the first half of the book (until chapter 23 or so, I believe) was written by the real Isaiah, while the rest was written by other, much later prophets whose identities are unknown.

They're all called prophets?

 

[Harel13]

They're all called prophets?

Prophets, sure, but in the world of Biblical Criticism, the prophet had no special spiritual capabilities. Heavens forbid that God would converse with such a person and reveal secrets to him! No, the prophet was merely what the ancients called the political analysts and thinkers of their time.

 

[pearl]

This is a paraphrase, but very close to a quote, found in several of the books from the series I’ve read so far. “Biblical Literalism *purports some theory contrary to author opinion*, however, Biblical Literalism is not considered in serious inquiries of Biblical studies, so we can disregard that view entirely.”

I do not think this represents the scholarly view of literalism. As it must all biblical study begins with the literal.
Literal Sense: That which the inspired author intends to convey; the literal sense may be expressed poetically, prosaically, or figuratively.
Literalism: An interpretative approach which focuses only on the surface meaning of the text, without reference to authorial intent. Taken into consideration the reasonable demands of educated and cultured persons of our time, clearly distinguishing for their benefit what in the Bible is to be regarded as secondary detail conditioned by a particular age, what must be interpreted as the language of myth and what is to be regarded as the true historical and inspired meaning. The biblical writings were not composed in modern language nor in the style of the 20th century. The forms of expression and literary genres employed in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text must be made meaningful to men and women of today, who otherwise would be tempted to lose all interest in the Bible or else to interpret it in a simplistic way that is literalist or simply fanciful.
Because Scripture is the word of God that has been entrusted to writing, philological and literary analysis are necessary in order to understand all the means biblical authors employed to communicate their message.
Philological and literary analysis contribute to determining texts, understanding vocabulary and syntax, distinguishing textual units, identifying genres, analyzing sources, and recognizing internal coherence in texts (I.A.3.c). Often they make clear what the human author intended to communicate.

 

[sayak83]

I guess my point of contention is that I disagree with most scholars refusal to even consider literalism. I believe that one can entertain a view that they don’t agree with. This is most important in theological and philosophical discussion and debate. As a literalist, I can see how people believe that the Bible is not a literal account. I like to believe that I understand why people believe it is not God made, and hope I can empathize with their point of view. I at the very least try, and that opens my personal studies to their evidences. The work put forth by the Documentary Hypothesis I find enlightening, even though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Their refusal to even consider literalism as hypothetically viable restricts their vision on the topic. It limits the conclusions that are available to them, which harms the scientific process as a whole. I don’t mean to just repeat myself here, I just think that the condescending attitude towards it is inherently an unscientific approach. Like, they have their conclusions already decided before examining the evidence. One can charge the literalist of the same thing, I suppose. With me I like to think it not to be the case, and with most scholars it appears they already have their minds decided on the Bible’s legitimacy before even beginning the study.

Perhaps they have a condescending attitude because the theory has been widely debunked for quite a lot reasons and contrary evidences? Situation is the same for young earth theory or intelligent design theory in the case of biology. Experts don't want to waste time by talking about old debunked theories in biology or evolution textbooks. But I am not an expert in the field. You may have to do an online degree or a course for you to have at least the background knowledge to understand the reasons why at a critical level, and I have neither.

 

[firedragon]

Prophets, sure, but in the world of Biblical Criticism, the prophet had no special spiritual capabilities. Heavens forbid that God would converse with such a person and reveal secrets to him! No, the prophet was merely what the ancients called the political analysts and thinkers of their time.

I was asking because this is the first time I hear redactors being called prophets in Biblical Criticism.

 

[Harel13]

I was asking because this is the first time I hear redactors being called prophets in Biblical Criticism.

Oh, no, I wasn't talking about the redactors. Perhaps some think they were prophets. I'm talking about portions of Isaiah being ascribed to other authors, who are anonymous but considered to have been later prophets by the world of Biblical Criticism.

 

[firedragon]

I'm talking about portions of Isaiah being ascribed to other authors, who are anonymous but considered to have been later prophets by the world of Biblical Criticism.

I understand what you are saying. But biblical criticism is a field of study and what you are talking about is either form criticism or redaction criticism. So what ever the method is, I have never heard the anonymous author being called a prophet. Not by the person applying criticism.

An evangelist would maybe later say "maybe it was another prophet".

For example, as every tom dick and harry knows the latter part of Deuteronomy was written by a different author. Anonymous. Christian fundamentalists or evangelists later made the case that it was Joshua. But the bible criticism does not say anything of the sort.

You get it?

 

[Harel13]

I understand what you are saying. But biblical criticism is a field of study and what you are talking about is either form criticism or redaction criticism. So what ever the method is, I have never heard the anonymous author being called a prophet. Not by the person applying criticism.

An evangelist would maybe later say "maybe it was another prophet".

For example, as every tom dick and harry knows the latter part of Deuteronomy was written by a different author. Anonymous. Christian fundamentalists or evangelists later made the case that it was Joshua. But the bible criticism does not say anything of the sort.

You get it?

I do. I'll find some sources for you that regard the anonymous author/s is prophets.

 

[firedragon]

I do. I'll find some sources for you that regard the anonymous author/s is prophets.

Thank you so much.

 

[Brian2]

Does anyone else perceive this systematic disparagement of Biblical literalism?

Yes, even when it comes to Biblical history minus the supernatural bits, there seems to be a resistance to take the Bible literally, even when the evidence points to it being historically accurate. It seems it is not true until proven to be true by some other source which for some reason is true.
Conservative scholars are a good place to go for evidence of the truth of the history of the Bible.
I would not call it a conspiracy by people, just the work of Satan and it seems it was rampant in many non secular Biblical Colleges last century and caused many to lose faith. It still exists of course but I don't think it is to such an extent.
But calling it a conspiracy is saying that the scholars are biased and many people don't like hearing that on this forum, which you will probably find out.
However in some disciplines it seems that the truth is seen as the majority view of the scholars.
Who knows, maybe that is how it always has been.

 

[Brian2]

Why should it even be consider a viable hypothesis? For literalism to be considered viable, every single detail in the narrative of the text would have to be exact or at least potentially exact. To falsify literalism you would only need to point a single thing that is false or exaggerated and there are many. Amongst them we have the fall of Jericho for example. Jericho was basically a ghost city at the time it should have been conquered as it had been destroyed by Egyptians about three century prior. Another important one is the Exodus itself. We have no traces of it anywhere neither of the Plagues which ravaged Egypt prior to it and genetic evidence that points to it never taking place either. Why would anybody give any credit to a hypothesis which has already been falsified. At best you could try to defend a triumphalist view which holds that while the Bible does contain errors, it still gets most of its fact straight (but important events like the Exodus never taking place would also discredit that view).

To read literally does not mean that metaphors and genres of writing etc are not taken into consideration.
When it comes to Israel being in Egypt and the Conquest the truth is that there is evidence of Israel being in Egypt and when the archaeological evidence of Canaan in the 15th cent BC is lined up with the Conquest story the fit is good.
Interestingly the Bible can be read to mean that the Exodus took place in the 15th cent BC and not the 13th as most scholars say.
But even with the evidence for the conquest in the 15th century and for Israel being in Egypt, Biblical minimalists do not change their views, but they sell many books that diminish the truth of Biblical history.

 

[an anarchist]

it was based upon the problem of explaining why God seemed to have two names in the texts. Since everyone thought that these two names 'El' and 'L-RD' were speaking of the same being, a natural question arose. Why the two different names? That was enough for a fairly scientific question to arise.

For me, I think that this problem has only come about because scientists, who are generally atheists (wide generalization not entirely accurate), do not have a personal relationship with God. So when they see Him called by two names, they ask “Why?” More importantly, they ask, “Could this be proof of multiple sources within singular books of the Bible?” I see how the atheist scholar’s view is reasonable, from their perspective. I know for myself I call my God by multiple names. Sometimes He is Jah, sometimes He is Buddha, sometimes I call out to my only friend. I think the fact that the atheist does not have a personal relationship with God naturally prevents this view from occurring to them. I know the argument that followers of God could simply use differing names of God interchangeably isn’t based on deep textual research, like the Documentary Hypothesis. However, when I read the textual analysis done through the lens of the Documentary Hypothesis, I feel it relies completely on assumptions. I feel the arguments are flimsy, in many passages, their hypothesis relies solely on the singular word that is used for God, whether it be this or that. For me, I perceive it as the singular author calling his God by a different name, something normal.

We now have the text of the Gilgamesh Epic, and you can read it for free on the internet. It predates Noah's flood story

Can the Epic of Gilgamesh simply be based on the same flood event that the Bible records? I have to reread the Akkadian creation myth, but I found lot of parallels between it and the creation myth of the Bible. Are parallel stories indicators of illegitimacy? Or are they indicators that multiple civilizations initially recorded the same event. Myths are parallel across the world.

I have a personal theory that I have yet to do any research on. Genesis 6:4 says “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
I think the last sentence implies that the fallen angels and their children were the inspiration for original mythologies, such as Sumerian and Akkadian ones.
Is this relevant? IDK but thanks for the reply

 

[Harel13]

scientists

Wait...you define Bible Critics as "scientists"?

 

[an anarchist]

Who makes that argument?

I can find you a source. For the OP, I’m basing it off past research I’ve done, in this particular case it was years ago. Where these arguments were posted was .edu websites from college institutions. Like their scholarly research papers, I’d have to find current examples, if I have time I will.

 

[an anarchist]

Wait...you define Bible Critics as "scientists"?

That’s what they keep telling me they are (very loudly) ;/