Vinnie

This is a minor nit-picking suggestion. First off I don't follow every thread but I do generally keep up in there. Anyways, I suggest thinking about a name change or more exactly, a shortening of the name for two reasons. (1) I think archaeology is rarely discussed in there. (2) According to my understanding of the definition of "Biblical Criticism" archaeology is already included under such a concept. In that light the name seems a bit superfluous. I understand that in discussions or books about Biblical Criticism we usually see Lower Criticism, Higher Criticism, Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism, etc., and never (or rarely as I have not read all such books or even most of them but I am inferring from a limited sample and that in itself is a fallacy) archaeological criticism but I seem to think of "Biblical Criticism" as representing "the application of historical science ot the study of the Bible." Isn't the historical science of archaeology covered in that?

Consequently, if that idea is accepted a new forum description is in order. I suggest modifying the current one to something like "Discuss the application of historical science to the Bible in order to challenge and illuminate the stories therein."

Vinnie

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

-DM-

[Copied here from Feedback in order to enable open discussion. --Don--]

Toto

I see no need to change, but in any case object to this proposal.

I have always understood "Bibical criticism" to be a form of literary criticism. I would object to calling it "historical science," because 1) that gives a spurious sense of accuracy to the whole business and 2) history, while it may use some scientific methods, is not a hard science, and its conclusions are not entitled to the respect that conclusions derived by a scientific method would be.

In fact, I take the position that the history of the biblical era is often not knowable. If we confined ourselves to what could be discovered scientifically, we would have nothing to say.

Bill Snedden

Hmmm...I see the point Vinnie is trying to to make, but I also see Toto's point.

How about changing the name to "Biblical Criticism", and changing the forum description to "Discuss the application of historical, literary, and scientific criticism to the Bible in order to challenge and illuminate the stories therein."

Does it cover all the bases or exclude any?

Bill

CX

I agree that the archaeology in the title is superfluous.

Vinnie

"""""1) that gives a spurious sense of accuracy to the whole business and""""""

Are you saying the historical critical method has not illuminated any of the Bible? Higher and lower criticism have not told us anything?

"""""history, while it may use some scientific methods, is not a hard science, and its conclusions are not entitled to the respect that conclusions derived by a scientific method would be.""""""

Toto, I think your understanding of "science" is too limited. I honestly don't see how this can be an issue of "respect"? Historical science differs from natural science in that it is not afforded the luxury of repeatable observation and repeatable experimentation and it findings ar not as conclusive but it certainly uses a scientific method of sorts.

From the Merriam and Webster Collegiate Dictionary:

Science:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study &lt;the science of theology&gt; b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge &lt;have it down to a science&gt;
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

Vinnie

Toto

Sure, we know a lot. We know enough not to believe in the accuracy of the Bible. But do we know anything substantive? Can we use the Bible as a guide to history or psychology or ethics? There is no consensus. Biblical criticism is more like literary criticism. No one tries to call literary criticism a "science", although it would fit your definition in the next section.

Physics is a hard science. Economics is a wannabe science (a "social science".) It tries to use mathematical equations the way physicists do, and it has gotten to the point where you can make some use of its predictions. History is not even up to the standards of economics.

It is a question of respect. Hard science has earned respect by changing the world, giving us a comfortable standard of living, and a longer life span so we can afford the luxury of arguing about ancient texts. Every huckster would like to grab some of that good will. Karl Marx called his theories "scientific socialism". L. Ron Hubbard talked about his "technology". I think that people who talk about Biblical criticism as historical science are in the same class of trying to claim some of the legitimacy of science for an enterprise that can at best be called an art form, and is more likely to be an exercise in political persuasion.

If you want an example of the application of "historical science", you can read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520234693/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Denying History: Who Says Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It</a> by Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, and Arthur Hertzberg. Shermer is the head of the Skeptics Society and a professor of the history of science. The book provides proof in the face of holocaust denial that the Holocaust really happened, using all the tools of modern investigation. (And this is an event that happened within the memory of my parents. What could be done for events 2000 years ago or more?)

How can Biblical criticism compare with this? There is so little data, that partisans can use their imaginations and reasonable inference to come up with a wide variety of possibilities, none of which can be shown to be false. And the field is full of partisans, not disinterested scientists. If you confined this forum to what can be known scientifically, it would wither away.

&lt;/end rant&gt;