Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-03-2012, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Im not sure what divisions you are talking about . the first division should be that the pentateuch is separate and of higher authority than anything in the "OT." that isn't always made explicit enough. the pentateuch is essential; the prophetic writings superfluous

Actually, the first division should be within the pentateuch itself, since it is comprised of four independent sources. I know we all know this... I'm just thinking that it doesn't really help illuminate the purpose of the writings to view "The Bible" as a whole, or to delineate it except by author and era/context (which helps us discern the "purpose" of each writing).

Not that I'm claiming expertise here.

The Pentateuch was redacted (finally edited) as a unit. It is legitimate to ask about the message/purpose of the Pentateuch as a whole.

Andrew Criddle

steve_bnk · 04-03-2012, 01:06 PM

What i get from the ot is that we really haven't changed all that much.

Mao killed milions from the cultural Revolution. Sralin and Hitler anihilated millions. What we call euphemistically call collateral damage in Afganistan and Pakistan, the other side calls slaughter of innocents.

Video games and movies/tv are filled with gratuitous carnage that people enjoy.

Humans today have self control? Please...

The OT is a hodge podge of disjointed surviving texts from different tines. It was not writen as a coherent text as was the Koran.

The best description of the gospels I heard is as promotional literature as the church took root as a Christiaian identity. Each gospel being been writen by different people at different times presenting slighty different imnages of JC.

Godfrey · 04-03-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Actually, the first division should be within the pentateuch itself, since it is comprised of four independent sources. I know we all know this... I'm just thinking that it doesn't really help illuminate the purpose of the writings to view "The Bible" as a whole, or to delineate it except by author and era/context (which helps us discern the "purpose" of each writing).

Not that I'm claiming expertise here.

The Pentateuch was redacted (finally edited) as a unit. It is legitimate to ask about the message/purpose of the Pentateuch as a whole.

Andrew Criddle

I suppose that's true, if you're asking about the message/purpose of the redactors. However, it seems to me that the original sources would have had their own context and intentions, and possibly a different purpose. The Jahwist and the Priestly author, for instance, might have had different audiences in mind, and therefore different goals (assuming you subscribe to the documentary hypothesis, of course). It's hard to know how much the redactors shifted the original message(s) to fit a later context.

Godfrey · 04-03-2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

What i get from the ot is that we really haven't changed all that much.

Mao killed milions from the cultural Revolution. Sralin and Hitler anihilated millions. What we call euphemistically call collateral damage in Afganistan and Pakistan, the other side calls slaughter of innocents.

Video games and movies/tv are filled with gratuitous carnage that people enjoy.

Humans today have self control? Please...

The OT is a hodge podge of disjointed surviving texts from different tines. It was not writen as a coherent text as was the Koran.

The best description of the gospels I heard is as promotional literature as the church took root as a Christiaian identity. Each gospel being been writen by different people at different times presenting slighty different imnages of JC.

Good point about the Koran. A book written (if only by proxy) by a single "being" with a single purpose would look more like the Koran than the mishmash that is the Bible.

sotto voce · 04-03-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Your primary error, in a broad sense (I'm not qualified to opine more specifically, but others here are) seems to be that you view the Bible as a cohesive work with a single purpose. Approaching any mystery with prejudice of this sort will tend to yield the answer you desire. Which your approach apparently has.

Instead of musing about who certain parts of the Bible were written for, I have found myself much more interested in who they were written by. Once you know that, it's easier to discern their intended audience and their intended effect, insomuch as you can know about the politics and cultural context of the day.

You say that your interpretation requires no belief in hocus-pocus, and yet your entire approach appears predicated on the assumption that the many disparate writings that make up the respective New and Old Testaments shared some common long-term intention of guiding mankind from barbarism to civilization. Which, given the span of time over which they were written, would necessitate a long-term focused intelligence (i.e. a God).

Instead, I think you should look at the Bible as a collection of disparate writings, churned out and redacted over time, which were often intended to address immediate concerns rather than some far-sighted divine goal.

Perhaps there is an overall purpose to the Bible that is overlooked, because people tend to look in it for moral purpose. But it may be the real intention of these authors is elegance. Not a superficial elegance, but a real one, that is more than skin deep.

Godfrey · 04-04-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Your primary error, in a broad sense (I'm not qualified to opine more specifically, but others here are) seems to be that you view the Bible as a cohesive work with a single purpose. Approaching any mystery with prejudice of this sort will tend to yield the answer you desire. Which your approach apparently has.

Instead of musing about who certain parts of the Bible were written for, I have found myself much more interested in who they were written by. Once you know that, it's easier to discern their intended audience and their intended effect, insomuch as you can know about the politics and cultural context of the day.

You say that your interpretation requires no belief in hocus-pocus, and yet your entire approach appears predicated on the assumption that the many disparate writings that make up the respective New and Old Testaments shared some common long-term intention of guiding mankind from barbarism to civilization. Which, given the span of time over which they were written, would necessitate a long-term focused intelligence (i.e. a God).

Instead, I think you should look at the Bible as a collection of disparate writings, churned out and redacted over time, which were often intended to address immediate concerns rather than some far-sighted divine goal.

Perhaps there is an overall purpose to the Bible that is overlooked, because people tend to look in it for moral purpose. But it may be the real intention of these authors is elegance. Not a superficial elegance, but a real one, that is more than skin deep.

I guess that's possible, insofar as every writer likes to think of his own tracts as "elegant" (I'm basking in my own elegance even as I write this). Certainly there are parts of the Bible which can be considered elegant, as with the Song of Solomon. Also, I'm sure there was reverence on the part of many of the writers, given that they presumably considered the writings "holy".

But it's hard to imagine the poor sap who got stuck writing all the "begats" reveling in his own elegance. And the man who wrote Numbers 31 (presumably scrawling it in the blood of an infant) most assuredly had something else in mind.

No, I think it's more accurate to presume more tangible, real world motives.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2012, 01:06 PM	#12
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	What i get from the ot is that we really haven't changed all that much. Mao killed milions from the cultural Revolution. Sralin and Hitler anihilated millions. What we call euphemistically call collateral damage in Afganistan and Pakistan, the other side calls slaughter of innocents. Video games and movies/tv are filled with gratuitous carnage that people enjoy. Humans today have self control? Please... The OT is a hodge podge of disjointed surviving texts from different tines. It was not writen as a coherent text as was the Koran. The best description of the gospels I heard is as promotional literature as the church took root as a Christiaian identity. Each gospel being been writen by different people at different times presenting slighty different imnages of JC.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.