an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
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?
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?