Posted by Illuminati on 5/29/2005, 11:43 am, in reply to "Re: Validity of the Bible" A closely related field of research by skeptical scholars is the Historical-critical method of analyzing the Bible. These are also based on similar assumptions which inevitably lead to failure. The Historical-critical method involves several types of analysis; 1. source criticism, 2. form criticism, 3. redaction criticism and 4. tradition criticism. Since I'm primarily interested in discussing the New Testament, I will only discuss the first three forms of criticism. The fourth, tradition criticism, is not useful for the New Testament since the time between the events recorded and the first autographs was too short. The Historical-critical method is also based on assumptions: To study the Bible or any holy book using these principles can be very beneficial so long as the assumptions are clearly stated at all times and if the assumptions are not restated as conclusions at the end of the discussion. It can be very confusing to those not familiar to the research if the beginning assumptions are not clearly separated from the results. For instance, if a researcher begins study of the Bible determined that miracles don't happen it is inappropriate to then conclude that your study has disproved miracles simply because you didn't believe them to begin with. The researcher must be honest with the evidence and the conclusions must reflect that honesty. With those things in mind, I will discuss the various types of criticism in future posts.
206.206.120.230
If one has read my all my previous posts in this section, he will see I have already discussed the failure of the skeptical scholars to reach beyond the gospel narratives to find the "historical Jesus." This enterprise so far as I can tell was doomed from the start by logical flaws in the methodology which were undetected at the beginning of the quest. Only after many years and many careers have been wasted in this quest have people begun to understand the erronious foundation upon which it is based.
1. The principle of Correlation. This means, miracles don't happen and it is imappropriate to assume there is a divine cause for an event. This is similar to naturalism in science which has been very successful in advancing human knowledge. When people leap immediately to miracles to explain natural phenomena it shortcircuits thinking and blocks scientific progress. For instance when people think an illness is because someone put a curse on them, they will not look for the actual cause of the illness which may be an infection or dietary deficiency.
2. The principle of Analogy. The past must be explained by present experience. This is analagous to the principle of uniformity in science which has also been very helpful. If we woke up each morning and the laws of nature were completely different than they were the day before, it would be impossible to function and science would he nonexistent. We all depend upon the principle of uniformity every day for our very existence.
3. The principle of Criticism. This is also basic to scientific research where all research results are subject to revision. Most information is based on probabilities in which a statistical analysis can be performed and the probability that an outcome is significant can be measured. One must always be willing to revise the thinking if new and better information becomes available which invalidates previous ideas. It is this very willingness to change with new information which separates a living from a fossilized tradition.
4. Accurate Lower Criticism. Although not often stated, Higher Criticism or the Historical-critical method assumes that the texts upon which their analysis are accurate. Lower Criticism or Textual Criticism has been very successful in bringing us accurate texts of the New Testament which despite scribal errors are very similar to the original autographs. The probablity that there have been major changes in the texts is very low.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread