Posted by Illuminati on 5/31/2005, 10:53 am, in reply to "Source Criticism" To a limited extent I did this earlier in my discussions with the Muslims who were claiming miracles for the Koran. By studying the Greek science classics it was easy to show that the information which was supposedly unavailable to Muhammad when he wrote the Koran had already been discovered by the Greeks many years before. Thus the Sitz im Leben disproved the Muslim's claims of miracles in the Koran. I then presented material from the Koran which is scientifically wrong which disproves any possibility of Divine origin for that information in the Koran. By recreating to a limited extent the cultural setting of the writing of the Koran it was possible to offer logical and reasonable explanations for the "miracles" and to then disprove them. That skeptical scholars would attempt the same thing with the New Testament is only to be expected. The question is, how well did they do? After over 100 years of research have they succeeded in offering a reasonable Sitz im Leben which disproves the believer's faith? What kind of community have they reconstructed and how does it fit with the evidence? To try to explain the origin of the Gospels, Form Critics have created a theory that folk memory begins in small units and gradually grows to fulfill the needs of the community. They have recreated a theoretical cultural setting of the early church, Sitz im Leben, in which the Jewish Christians were so involved in missionary activity they had no interest in the actual facts of Jesus' existence or in what He taught but just made up Jesus stories as the need arose. To support this claim they sometimes broaden their claim and state that none of the ancients were interested in history or the facts as we are today. According to the form critics, honesty was apparently never considered an issue among the early Christians. The only problem with this theory is that there is no evidence to support these claims and much to disprove them. So far as I know, the general theory about the development of folklore is not supported by valid scientific studies but is made up of ad hock rules invented by the from critics as they went along to try to explain the gospels. In other words their own theories follow the pattern they claim for folk stories, since they made up the rules as they went along, expanding them as the need arose, without regard to truth, and with no interest in facts. The researchers were actually describing their own Sitz im Leben and projecting it onto the early Jewish church. In his book, ROOTS, Alex Haley tells how he discovered the accuracy of the stories passed down to him from his illiterate slave ancestors all the way back to the original African slave named Kunta. After searching the national archives he found the names of the actual ancestors just as his family had told him. He then returned to Africa and found the very village from whence his ancestor had been taken. On pages 714 & 715 he discusses a visit to Gambia where here learned of "griots" who he called "living, walking archives of oral history." He found that the senior "griots" would take on younger men as apprentices and carefully teach them their history for 40 or 50 years before the younger men could qualify as full fledged senior "griots." Some "griots" could narrate facts of African history for as long as three days without repeating themselves. The Africans told him that because we live in a society with printed material few of us understand what the human memory is capable of. That the Jews also passed on oral traditions it well known. It wasn't until much later that the "oral torah" was written down as the "Talmud." At the time of Jesus, these "traditions" were carefully passed down from Rabbi to student in a manner similar to the training of the "griot." Jesus, who Himself was often called "Rabbi" or "Teacher," chose followers to be His apostles and spent much time teaching them the truth as revealed by His father. To claim these apostles who believed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, had no interest in accurately transmitting what He had actually said or did is absurd. Jesus accepted the authority of the Hebrew scriptures and taught His disciples how to interpret them. For instance we read about a discussion between Jesus and two of his followers immediately after His resurrection: When the disciples were debating about how much of the Law to require the Gentiles to keep as recorded in Acts, they didn't make up fictional Jesus sayings or even quote genuine Jesus sayings, they discussed Peter's vision and subsequent experience in which God had clearly commanded them to accept Gentiles into fellowship and concluded by quoting a portion of Hebrew Scripture which supported that position. The Apostle Paul a great theologian quoted the Hebrew Scriptures frequently as authority for beliefs but rarely quoted Jesus in his theological dissertations. In his introduction to his gospel Luke makes clear reference to the great care the early church used in accurately preserving the Jesus material. If the Bible were really just fabrications, it should be easy to disprove it without resorting to the absurdities found in the writings of the Form Critics. The fact that the form critics have had to resort to those flawed arguments shows just how strong is the evidence for the validity of the gospels just as they have been passed on to us.
206.206.120.230
There is nothing wrong when an individual studies a holy writing from a skeptical point of view. What he does is to take the information which the believer considers miraculous and try to explain it from a naturalistic point of view. If he succeeds and his explanation is logical and factual, is greatly discredits the believer's point of view. To do this he will need to reinterpret the information logically which often involves reconstructing the cultural setting, called Sitz im Leben, in which the writings were created.
On pages 718-720 Mr. Haley describes his encounter with the "griot" who knew the history of his own "kinte" clan and told exactly same story of how Kunta was taken captive that Haley's slave ancestors had told him. Since these "griots" were a tradition from those African tribes for many hundreds or possibly thousands of years, it makes it very hard to defend the Form Critic's claims that the ancients had no interest in history and just made up things as they went along. That claim appears to be an invention of modern German chauvinism rather than the result of a sober study of "primitive" cultures.
Luke 24:45
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
NIV
The apostles didn't have to make up Jesus stories since they had learned from Him how to interpret Scriptures for themselves. When they were confronted with a problem they settled it by quoting their Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures.
Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
NIV
Luke wrote his gospel so Theophilus could know the "certainty" of those things he had been taught. This clearly doesn't fit the Sitz im Leben invented by the skeptics where the early Christians didn't care at all about the truthfulness of the Jesus material but were happy to just make things up as they pleased. Indeed the evidence is overwhelming, just as today they cared deeply about the teachings and life of Jesus and carefully preserved information about them.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread