Literary Critique of the Bible

[AnimatedDirt]

As far as I'm concerned, his statement is non-canon.

So then again, here ends your thread.

[Event_Horizon]

And it doesn't bother me one little bit. You have a good night.

[penfold]

My question to you is this. In general we interpret historical texts by trying to understand the particular context of authorship; why should the bible be exempt from such analysis?

It shouldn't.  When have I said as much?  What I said to Event_Horizon is simply if latter books further enlighten certain things that are unclear, then we should certainly use the latter to form a better understanding of the former.  We can agree that the author may've not understood exactly everything God was inspiring him to write.

This is what I have a problem with in the context of a literary interpretation of Genesis. The questions asked by a literary interpretation of the text are not the same as the questions asked by a theological interpretation. Here's the difference. A literary interpretation of Genesis asks "who/what was YHWH/Elohim to the author(s) of Genesis?". A theological interpretation asks "What does it mean for God to be creator?".

The former question is asking about historical truth. The latter is asking something about divine truth. In answering historical questions we must have a strict methodology. Central to historical method is that we look at texts in the historical and literary context in which they were written. That means to understand a text I can look to anything written before it, as it is reasonable to assume that it was an influence upon the author. It is unreasonable to use a text written generations later in interpret a text.

To take an example. If we allowed later texts to answer historical questions then we could argue that Julius Caesar's last words were "And thou, Brutus" because Shakespeare said they were. However we have no sources close to the lifetime of Caesar which says this, so historians assume that it was a later invention.

In the case of Genesis it is equally anachronistic to use an idea of Trinity to interpret Genesis when the concept of Trinity would not be around for another 2,000 years. If you are saying it can be then you are giving the bible special treatment. You are treating it in a way we would treat no other historical text.

[AnimatedDirt]

This is what I have a problem with in the context of a literary interpretation of Genesis. The questions asked by a literary interpretation of the text are not the same as the questions asked by a theological interpretation. Here's the difference. A literary interpretation of Genesis asks "who/what was YHWH/Elohim to the author(s) of Genesis?". A theological interpretation asks "What does it mean for God to be creator?".

Maybe a source from the ever-present web will help.
LITERARY ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 1:1â€"2:3
While the author holds to a literal 6 day/24 hr period of Creation week, I *think from his analysis he means that each day was a 24 hour period, but not necessarily consecutive days or 144 hours straight.

The former question is asking about historical truth. The latter is asking something about divine truth. In answering historical questions we must have a strict methodology. Central to historical method is that we look at texts in the historical and literary context in which they were written. That means to understand a text I can look to anything written before it, as it is reasonable to assume that it was an influence upon the author. It is unreasonable to use a text written generations later in interpret a text.

Says the skeptic whose only point in it all is to debunk.  When you do a thorough investigation/critique/analysis/interpretation of anything, you must include the whole, or at least the best interpretation includes the whole.  If the NT wasn't available, then it may be slightly more difficult, but not impossible.

To take an example. If we allowed later texts to answer historical questions then we could argue that Julius Caesar's last words were "And thou, Brutus" because Shakespeare said they were. However we have no sources close to the lifetime of Caesar which says this, so historians assume that it was a later invention.

Of course Caesar didn't claim to be the Almighty or claim to have influenced the writers of many books/letters, so whether his last words were that or something else is really of simple general historical interest and of no lasting value.  

In the case of Genesis it is equally anachronistic to use an idea of Trinity to interpret Genesis when the concept of Trinity would not be around for another 2,000 years. If you are saying it can be then you are giving the bible special treatment. You are treating it in a way we would treat no other historical text.

Who is interpreting Genesis through the idea of the Trinity?  I simply made the statement that the NT, and as you mentioned earlier, specifically John 1:1-18, gives rise to God being a Trinity is referenced as early as creation.  It is simply evidence that substanciates the claim of John 1:1-18.  This fact is not needed to interpret Genesis.

[Event_Horizon]

AnimatedDirt, did you bother reading the material you linked to? The piece does not seem to address Genesis on a narrative level, but leans toward a linguistic level. Secondly this post has no intention on "debunking" the Bible, and if you think it is the purpose of the discussion, then you haven't been listening. Third, you admit over and over that we should take the text as a whole, but what literary background do you have? What are your credentials? You base your assertion on a theological level, and if the post was examining the beliefs of a religion it would be entirely appropriate, but that is not what the post is about. A literary critique has certain methodologies in which to approach the text, otherwise the text becomes something different than what the authors intended. As penfold said, when looking at a specific piece of ancient literature it is important to understand who wrote it, their culture, and the ideas of other narratives at the time which might have influenced the text. However it is not appropriate, on a literary level, to change the original text by allowing interpretations of future texts to alter the original content. You can justify and reason the actions of God all you want in a theological debate. That's perfectly fine. However a literary critique looks at elements of story in a certain methodology.

[AnimatedDirt]

AnimatedDirt, did you bother reading the material you linked to? The piece does not seem to address Genesis on a narrative level, but leans toward a linguistic level.

It seems to do exactly what is being questioned here.  I did read it.  Literary, linguistic, narrative...all encompass the same and influence each other.

Secondly this post has no intention on "debunking" the Bible, and if you think it is the purpose of the discussion, then you haven't been listening.

Ignore for a moment how plants were created without having the sun, or that the Earth was made in darkness, or both man being created before and after all the animals. [...]especially in light of later chapters when they go into retroactive character development.[...]This being is obviously not all powerful because [...]an all powerful being has no need to rest [...]This also means the being is not perfect

Just a few points made in the OP.  The evidence is against your "no intention" claim.

Third, you admit over and over that we should take the text as a whole, but what literary background do you have? What are your credentials?

I didn't realize this was a "Peer-Reviewed" forum in which credentials, etc. were requirements prior to posting thoughts, ideas, knowledge...

You base your assertion on a theological level,

We are critiquing the Judeo-Christian BIBLE...right?  I've not made any assertions, but rather have based my "assertions" as you claim, in line and with backing from Bible, of which Genesis is one part.

and if the post was examining the beliefs of a religion it would be entirely appropriate, but that is not what the post is about.

Please refer to the few quotes above from the OP...if it isn't examining beliefs, then why are you claiming some beliefs are wrong or can't be right?

A literary critique has certain methodologies in which to approach the text, otherwise the text becomes something different than what the authors intended. As penfold said, when looking at a specific piece of ancient literature it is important to understand who wrote it, their culture, and the ideas of other narratives at the time which might have influenced the text.

Agreed.  Hence the reason I mentioned the people of the time and what they knew or were interested in knowing.  Whether the plants were made before the sun or not really is of no consequence to the point of the opening chapters of Genesis.

However it is not appropriate, on a literary level, to change the original text by allowing interpretations of future texts to alter the original content.

I haven't changed the text, nor the meaning of the original text.

I'm going to say this once more and if you cannot understand it and continue to accuse me of doing something I am not doing, I will report your post as harrassment.

All I mentioned is that the  "...like us, ...in our image..." in Genesis simply gives evidence to the John 1:1-18 book of the NT as Penfold brought up.  That God has always been ONE in at least THREE, a Trinity.  This, however, does not change, nor does it take away from the literary interpretation or critique of Genesis in and of itself.

You can justify and reason the actions of God all you want in a theological debate. That's perfectly fine. However a literary critique looks at elements of story in a certain methodology.

It is not me that is bringing up "reason" and actions of God...look at your points in the OP.  It is you that fails at doing exactly what you're claiming I am doing.  I'm simply following along and proposing answers to YOUR questions.

The fact of the matter is, this link, LITERARY ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 1:1â€"2:3 answers many of the points/questions your OP brings up.

[Event_Horizon]

The link you sent deals with the 7 days of creation, and not the Garden of Eden. So I can't see how you read all of it because if you did you'd know that it isn't relevant to Genesis 2 and 3. Especially since, linguistically, Genesis 2 and 3 were written separately from Genesis 1.

This also was not a debunking post. Nowhere did I bring up the Christian religion, or talk about Theology. I spoke of how if the later text were allowed in the story, the story doesn't make sense. There is no jab at religion there. If you think there was, that's your opinion, but since I wrote it, and I know my own intent, your opinion is wrong.

I didn't realize this was a "Peer-Reviewed" forum in which credentials, etc. were requirements prior to posting thoughts, ideas, knowledge...

That's a fantastic straw man. I ask for your credentials because you don't seem to understand what a critique is. You don't need to have a degree to contribute to the discussion, but you say things with such certainty and you don't understand why they're wrong.

We are critiquing the Judeo-Christian BIBLE...right?  I've not made any assertions, but rather have based my "assertions" as you claim, in line and with backing from Bible, of which Genesis is one part.

The title of the post is says "Literary Critique of the Bible" but I should point you to the first paragraph, where it says I'll be talking about Genesis. Nowhere did I say I'd take on the Bible as a whole, but instead look at the story of Genesis, just the story of Genesis. And in the first post I explained why the rest of the Bible would be left out - because it makes the story incoherent. If you think I'm going after the entire Bible, then you misread. If you think I'm going after beliefs then that is also incorrect. I explained why story elements completely conflict when the God character (and I referred to him as a character) is characterized by later passages in the Bible. I stated that for the sake of simplicity, consistency, and to examine the story itself, I wouldn't address it. But fine. This is a critique of Genesis, and only Genesis. Now what? My post really doesn't change all that much, but your argument is gone.

Agreed.  Hence the reason I mentioned the people of the time and what they knew or were interested in knowing.  Whether the plants were made before the sun or not really is of no consequence to the point of the opening chapters of Genesis.

But the people at the time didn't know of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, so why do you ascribe those beliefs to them? This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you look at archeological evidence, literary influences from Babylon, and the linguistic composition of the Torah, you would see that the evidence points to a polytheistic religion that the ancient Hebrews once believed in. Now the storyline of Genesis has the same structure as other creation myths at the time, and the character traits of the God character are similar to those in a polytheistic pantheon. If you try to justify the text with the Trinity, then you are deleting the author's views with your own.

I'm going to say this once more and if you cannot understand it and continue to accuse me of doing something I am not doing, I will report your post as harrassment.

Oh please.

It is not me that is bringing up "reason" and actions of God...look at your points in the OP.  It is you that fails at doing exactly what you're claiming I am doing.  I'm simply following along and proposing answers to YOUR questions.

A critique doesn't look for answers. A critique is a critical evaluation. If you don't like it, leave. I am so done arguing back and forth.

[AnimatedDirt]

But the people at the time didn't know of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, so why do you ascribe those beliefs to them? This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you look at archeological evidence, literary influences from Babylon, and the linguistic composition of the Torah, you would see that the evidence points to a polytheistic religion that the ancient Hebrews once believed in. Now the storyline of Genesis has the same structure as other creation myths at the time, and the character traits of the God character are similar to those in a polytheistic pantheon. If you try to justify the text with the Trinity, then you are deleting the author's views with your own.

Holy Mother of God...I'm not ascribing any beliefs to them at all.  All I'm simply saying is that Jesus, in the NT, claims be to the "I AM" of the OT.  He claims to be the Creator...of Adam and Eve...the God of the OT.  The NT claims a God that has "split", if you will, from ONE to Three, but clarifies ITSELF as ONE in Three.  Father, Son, and Spirit.  None of this changes the text you are referring to.  NONE WHATSOEVER.  You are right, the people of God did, in captivity (and at other times), for the most part, depart from the worship of the God that they originally followed and did get influenced by their captors.  Not a point of contention at all.
It is Penfold that brought up the point of John 1:1-18 here and here.

I have no need to "justify the text with the Trinity".  That point is not made known until the NT, however the OT, and Genesis in particular, gives evidence to the NT claim.  That is all.

Now...you may disagree that the link doesn't discuss your critique, but it does.  A few of your OP points are directly dealt with in that link.

[Event_Horizon]

The link goes into Genesis one, and barely into Genesis two, where as my critique looked at Genesis two and three. On the first post I made a mistake, and in a later post I stated I made a mistake, explaining where and what it was. Genesis one and the creation of the Earth isn't a problem for the narrative as much as the later parts in the story because it is literally setting up the world within the narrative. The character interactions afterwards take place in Genesis two and three, which is what I focused on most.

You are looking at the story in the context of a Christian, but the original writers weren't Christians. By all accounts they worshiped completely different Gods. For you to say that it is your God in their story means to are dissolving any intent the authors might have had. The original writers had no concept of the trinity, so when the character of God speaks to itself in plural, I have no reason to assume it's the trinity. The author who wrote the trinitarian character attribute was not the same author who wrote the original narrative. The writers of the Old Testament didn't attribute benevolence or justice to their God - as seen from other passages in the OT. There is little reason to believe that the God character of the OT and the NT are the same person since they are given fundamentally different character attributes and written by different authors, at different times, with different concepts of the God character.

In a theological sense, it causes problems for believers when they confronted with absolute grotesque acts perpetrated by an all knowing and all loving God. The Christian has to justify God commanding slavery, murder, genocide, etc. in the Bible. However those problems don't exist if you imagine for a moment that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are two different Gods. Everything then falls into place and makes perfect sense when it is recognized that there are two sets of authors writing two accounts hundreds of years apart, especially if the original authors came out of a polytheistic era in which Gods were mean and nasty and killed people on a whim.

[penfold]

The former question is asking about historical truth. The latter is asking something about divine truth. In answering historical questions we must have a strict methodology. Central to historical method is that we look at texts in the historical and literary context in which they were written. That means to understand a text I can look to anything written before it, as it is reasonable to assume that it was an influence upon the author. It is unreasonable to use a text written generations later in interpret a text.

Says the skeptic whose only point in it all is to debunk.  When you do a thorough investigation/critique/analysis/interpretation of anything, you must include the whole, or at least the best interpretation includes the whole.  If the NT wasn't available, then it may be slightly more difficult, but not impossible.

The point of scepticism is not merely to debunk. I am sorry if your experience of sceptical method has been that. The point of scepticism is to determine facts about the world. Three people sit in a room, the first says "I believe objects will rise when dropped", the second says "I believe objects will fall when dropped"; the third is a sceptic, he takes an apple and drops it. So doing he established which of the two others were correct. The first two guys were just talking, the sceptic discovered how the world works.

Everyday you rely on sceptical method. All the technology you use was arrived at by sceptical process. Your government, with its constitutional system of checks and balances, was borne of sceptical thinking. The medicine you take, the logistical systems that give you food, the fact you look both ways when crossing a street; these are the products of sceptism. Do not underestimate its benefit.

As for the particular issue of the literality of Genesis. I fear that if you reject historical method we will never come to agreement. I would just say this. I have met many people of deep, impressive, faith who do not believe the bible to be literal. Many of these people have spent thier lives studying these texts and the history of 1st Century Palestine. I get the impression you are not desperately interested in engaging with these ideas, but they do not merely "debunk", they also enrich. There is a whole world of biblical scholarship out there written, mostly by Christians, who aren't afraid of asking deep questions. Faith in a literal bible, it seems to me, lacks this depth. Simply put, it is too easy; a child's answer.

peace