School of Higher criticism, how smart were these guys anyhow?

It's not anonymous writers, such as wrote Hebrews, that is the problem. It is not even multiple writers that is the problem. (And by the way, it is entirely possible for Moses to have written about his own death under inspiration, as Ed pointed out.) The problem concerns the unity and integrity of each book of the canon. That is where conservative scholars oppose the theories of higher criticism.

 

Thanks, Ed, I missed that. Comes from posting too late at night! :sleeping_2:

Well said. I'm with you. :thumbs:

 

Well said, Ed! (Hey, a poem!) :thumbs:

 

I choose God's word over some man's anyday....Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. What is that saying???
God said it, I believe it and that does settle it...amen.
God be praised and glorified amen

 

I like the way you put things! :thumbs:

Amen, indeed!

 

Even better : God said it . That settles it !

 

Amen to Joyce, Amy and Rippon.

 

Amen to you too, John! :wavey:

 

I give them no creedance, and see you don't. We have the Book, and it is His Book, The Word of God.

Chosen men of God wrote His Book, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we know who ever wrote the Pentateuch was chosen by God. The authority was set long ago, and critics high or low, put forth their views hoping to get a hearing. They usually do, but by few.

I Corinthians 1:19-23, "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"

I know, I know. This takes the fun out of discussing theology and our desire to seek further truth beyond what we have come to understand. In their wisdom the foolish put forth their wisdom, and the foolish believe it. Not so some of the "higher critics" here with me. We are "taste-testers", spitting out the "putrid", and hanging onto the palatable.

 

Is it any wander folks don't take Christians serious. The idea the Moses wrote about his own death in third person is as crazy as it sounds. I don't know of any serious scholar that even puts this forth as a credible theory.

What doctrine or practice is changed if Moses is not the writer of every word of the Pentateuch?

 

As to what doctrine is changed, if Moses indeed did not write the words attributed to him (although this does not necessariy include his death, I admit, for I do not think Scripture speaks to that specific Scripture), then Jesus and the other writers of Scripture who do attribute whatever words they attribute to Moses were either terribly misinformed, or did not mean what they said. Under no circumstances that I can think of does "Moses wrote..." or "Moses said..." ever equivocate to "Some 'unknown redactor' wrote...". Never mind that there is no evidence of any such Biblical 'redactor' anywhere recorded in Jewish or Christain history, aside from 'amanuenses', such as Barak and Tertius.

Around sixty times, if my memory is correct, the first five books of Scripture are attributed in part, at least, to Moses in the NT. Not once is any of these books attributed to anyone else. Why not deal with my suggestion that Joshua wrote about Moses' death. After all, Scripture does say "Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Law of God." (NJKVB) or as the HCSB words it, "Joshua recorded these things in the book of the law of God." (Josh, 24:26)

Why does that seem to be so untenable, if not unthinkable to so-called modern scholarship?

As to writing in the third person, both Matthew and John wrote in the third person of their time with the Lord, on this earth, neither identifying himself as the author, although Chrisendom has had an almost unvaried testimony from "Day 1", to the fact that they indeed were the authors. Other books also use this genre of writing, as well, both in Scripture and works not in Scripture.

Frankly I'll still take the word of Jesus, and that of the other writers of Scripture, over that of so-called 'modern criticism'!

Peter had no doubt, at least, as to the primacy of Scripture, and he was an eyewitness to the transfiguration of the Lord, saying that Scripture was more reliable than his own eyewitness testimony.


Ed

 

I have been teaching a class of senior adult women (many pushing 80) for at least fifteen years. Over that time, my primary commentary resource has been The Anchor Bible series. I have accumulated 38 volumes as I have needed them. They would have to be said to contain "higher criticism". My class has never complained about the things I've told them. That is probably because I've never claimed that these writers are proclaiming a new truth. Most of the time they do not make such claims themselves.

While it is true that the authors of most volumes present theories that would question the authorship of many biblical books, and many question the validity of certain biblcal passages, I would have to say that my knowledge of the Bible is much deeper because of my study of these commentaries. While all books of the Bible may be said to be inspired, it is equally true that they were not born in a social, cultural, and political vacuum. Having these books placed in their historical context has been a great benefit to my understanding of them. Faith that can be toppled because of new discoveries about the history of the development of the books of the Bible (e. g., whether Moses did or did not write the Pentateuch) is a small faith indeed. I am always wary of too much reliance on Scripture for direction or instruction. I feel that it tends to limit a person's awareness of what God is doing right now.

I have mentioned it before on a forum somewhere (but I'm not sure which one) that I have about decided that the most important verse in the Bible might be Isaiah 43.18-19: Stop dwelling on past events and brooding over days gone by. I am about to do something new; this moment it will unfold. Can you not perceive it?

The whole Bible is a record of God's "doing something new". If we get too tied up with Scripture now, we'll never recognize what new thing God is doing in our time.


Tim Reynolds

 

You mean you don't believe in prophecy? Jesus prophesied His own death. Why could not Moses have described his own death ahead of time?

 

How much better it would be if you stuck to more conservative commentaries such as "The Expositor's Bible Commentary," every bit as scholarly as Anchor.

Then why call yourself a Baptist? Baptists historically believe in the Bible as "the sole rule of faith and practice."

You have drunk too deeply at the wells of existential theology (neo-orthodoxy). God's truth is eternal, just as relevant now as it was when it was revealed to humankind.

 

All I can say is
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

 

Is it any crazier than Matthew 17:3, "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him"?

 

You are arguing a non-issue, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in prophecy and you know it. Your questioning of my belief in scripture is dully noted. You have for whatever reason chosen to argue about something you nor I could possibly actually know. There is some stylistic evidence that there is more then one writer, if so it is another writer God used to record his inspired word. If it is only Moses, then we are lacking enough evidence to make that determination to the satisfaction of modern methods. Either way, it is God's inspired word.


To Ed's point above I will state again, it is possible for Jesus and other NT writers to be correct about attributing words to Moses and there be a multiple of writers, they are not mutually exclusive.

The question is why do you and others have such great doubt concerning the inspiration of scripture? Could not God inspire others, though unnamed to us, to record what he wanted? Why is that such an untenable possibility? What are you afraid of?

 

Personally, I have no doubt about the inspiration of scriptures, what I do have great doubt in is modern methods of men ever ceasing from false claims of “modern scientific evidences” in attempts to prove their distorted and sometimes unorthodox views to fit their prideful philosophies and agendas as they eagerly jump on the latest and greatest “higher” critical methodologies. I just don’t feel the need to base my faith in inspiration on the “satisfaction of modern methods”.

It’s already been recorded, translations are one thing, but are we now to presume inspiration according to “modern methods” and re-record what God really wanted?

A better way to put it would be suspicious and warned of:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vein deceit, after the traditions of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:8

 

It is simply an effort to say what the text does not say and in a context in which it was not written. If people would stick with the text and context then correctly interpret the text in light of its historical context then perhaps there might not be so much questioning of the text.

 

Personally, I find the so-called 'stylistic' arguments less than overwhelmingly persuasive, to say the least. l certainly 'write' differently in a 'theological setting', such as this, than I do on the humor, sports or games forums to give three examples. And I certainly write differently on all these, than I do and did on notes and letters to my bride. Does that mean there are really five EdSuttons out there? No, it merely means that when the subject or genre changes, the style changes. That is common sense. Paul wrote differently to the Roman and Ephesian churches, than he did in the personal, 'pastoral' Epistles to Timothy and Titus, for example, in Scripture. John (assuming it was indeed John) wrote differently in I John and the Gospel of John, than he did in II and III John, for again, the subject changed.

I somewhat agree with this, but it would be incorrect, if Moses indeed did not speak or write, at least the essence of which is, the words attributed to him.

Why will no one still address that Joshua may have written some in the 'Law'?? That is a direct statement of Scripture!! "Why is that such an untenable possibility" (as you worded it) to "modern scholarship", so-called??

Wait, I know! It don't 'zackly fit the agenda!!

I have no such doubts, at all. I can speak for no other. ("They are of age; Ask them!")

And God certainly did inspire many, who are unnamed to us. Probably a fourth of all the books of Scripture are by "unnamed" authors, in the whole or in the part. Judges, Ruth, 'Samuel', 'Kings', 'Chronicles', parts of Psalms, four Gospels and Acts, Hebrews, and three Epistles of John, include all or parts of eighteen books, and the way I count that is over 1/4 fourth of all the books of the OT and NT. (BTW, You might note I did not include Job in this list, for that 'writer' can be deduced from the book as Elihu, FTR.) On most of these books, we have some, often fairly substantial, 'tradition', both 'Judeao-' and 'Christian', but there is no direct reference in Scripture, for this authorship. Yet I seldom hear the Gospels, or Acts or the first Epistle of John questioned as to 'authorship', for example. But some have no problem questioning some where the author is explicitly named, such as much of the Law, part of Isaiah (Were there two, three, or four Isaiahs?? Jesus only seemd to mention one!), Ephesians, the pastoral Epistles, or II Peter. What gives with this? The assumption is that any document is authored by its supposed author, unless and until the evidence provided, can be proven that the document is indeed a forgery. Sorry, that evidence simply does not exist, save in the assumptions made, and hence assumed to be true.

Kinda' like the 'assumed' existence of "Q"!

Ed