cdowis Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Higher criticism hadn't been invented yet. Knowing what we know now, the Biblical quotes in the Book of Mormon are a bit hard to explain naturally in a Mormon way, Please help me. Tell us exactly what we KNOW from higher criticism. Please convince us that, like physics, chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics, that higher criticism "tells" us anything. It is a fake science similar to alchemy and astrology. 2 Link to comment
Pete Ahlstrom Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 19 minutes ago, cdowis said: Please help me. Tell us exactly what we KNOW from higher criticism. Please convince us that, like physics, chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics, that higher criticism "tells" us anything. It is a fake science similar to alchemy and astrology. Why do you consider higher criticism fake science? Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 14, 2017 Author Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Why do you consider higher criticism fake science? Those who question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon using higher criticism have the burden to prove demonstrate that it is based on sound scientific principles I withhold my comments until they respond. Edited October 14, 2017 by cdowis Link to comment
Physics Guy Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Hey, I only mentioned higher criticism in the other thread to point out that people in Joseph Smith's time had never heard of it, and to propose that they mostly thought of Scripture as simply being dictated by God. Whether that belief of theirs (if I'm right that they had it) was right or not was irrelevant to the discussion I was pursuing. The point I was making was, that's what they thought. I'm not an expert in Biblical criticism. As far as I know, no-one considers it a science. It's a discipline in the humanities, like history. That having been said, I did once read a bit about source theory. It said that the beginning of what got called "higher criticism" (for a while—the term itself is old-fashioned) came in the 19th century when this guy noticed something that anyone could have noticed for, like, three thousand years. Which is that Genesis is a patchwork as far as the name of God is concerned. For a whole string of verses, God is always just "God". Then for the next long string of verses, suddenly it's always "the LORD God". Then it goes back to being only plain "God" again. And it flops back and forth. So when I read that, I said, "Wow. Could it be?" And I just looked, and it was. The names for God in Genesis are not a random mixture. It's all one name and only that name, for a while; then for the next while, it's only the other. The breaks happen abruptly, and they happen at points where the story also makes abrupt shifts. Now, if you really want, you can still say, "God dictated this all to Moses. God flipped and flopped about how to refer to himself. Who knows why. God is like that." But just why would we ever suppose that God dictated all of that stuff to Moses? That was a traditional view for, like, thousands of years. But there's no evidence for it. There's not even warrant in Scripture for it, if you count "warrant in Scripture" as evidence. The Bible doesn't talk much about itself. And if God did dictate the Torah to Moses, it's pretty hard to see why God would refer to himself in such a patchwork way, namewise. Suppose we just scratch our heads, though, and ask, "How would a text ever come about, in which the name of God changed from chapter to chapter?" There's an obvious answer. There were originally two (or more) separate documents, each of which referred to God by a different name. At some point these two texts got spliced together. Suddenly it's not so weird that the Bible starts with the "Let there be light" creation story culminating in the creation of both men and women, and then jumps back to a different story in which Eve gets made out of Adam's rib. These patches of story also happen to be the patches of different names for God. The penny drops: these are two different stories, told by people who knew God under two different names. The two stories were each made separately, and only later slapped together. So the composition of the Bible was a process within a human history. It was not simply dictated by God. That's how "higher criticism" started. I don't know much more about it. It's not at all about imposing human preconceptions on the Bible, though. It's about reading the Bible carefully and actually noticing the patterns that really are there, instead of simply ignoring them on the basis of traditions which are, in fact, human preconceptions. 2 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Higher criticism is an outdated term some in the Church used to discredit Biblical science, archaeology and anthropology in the 1920s. I think the Church has embraced that kind of science since then. I have never heard the term used for the Book of Mormon. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Why do you consider higher criticism fake science? Higher Criticism isn't a science at all. It is a literary technique used to attempt to justify contradictory claims in ancient writings. So the Tales of Gilgamesh become impossible modern science claims. 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: The two stories were each made separately, and only later slapped together. So the composition of the Bible was a process within a human history. It was not simply dictated by God. Unless God is Man and Man is God. If you could only see that! We worship our ideal selves and texts We create. Human history IS God's history. How could a Mormon who thinks deny that? I did not invent the idea that we are gods in embryo, blame it on Joseph if you don't like it. These are the implications of the First Vision, nothing more, nothing less. Edited October 14, 2017 by mfbukowski 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Congrats on your modern usage of the word "fake", which is now used to call out information that someone doesn't like or understand 2 Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 14, 2017 Author Share Posted October 14, 2017 This thread has been instructive for all of us. Don't be bamboozled by textual criticism. When I have more time I will talk about how it is used against the BOM -- but think of the examples of Deutro Isaiah, and 3 Ne 13:13 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Congrats on your modern usage of the word "fake", which is now used to call out information that someone doesn't like or understand A certain leader of a certain nation hopefully has a certain special place in a certain place of damnation for popularizing this certain stupid damnable term. 4 Link to comment
SmileyMcGee Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: A certain leader of a certain nation hopefully has a certain special place in a certain place of damnation for popularizing this certain stupid damnable term. This just sounds like fake criticism to me 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, cdowis said: This thread has been instructive for all of us. Don't be bamboozled by textual criticism. When I have more time I will talk about how it is used against the BOM -- but think of the examples of Deutro Isaiah, and 3 Ne 13:13 Just like fake vaccines and fake evolution! God wants us to forgo the use of our brains. Reading the scriptures totally out of their context is the only way to understand their true meaning! /s Edited October 14, 2017 by Gray 4 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Higher criticism is an outdated term some in the Church used to discredit Biblical science, archaeology and anthropology in the 1920s. I think the Church has embraced that kind of science since then. I have never heard the term used for the Book of Mormon. One seldom hears the term "higher criticism" these days, but it was at one time current even with respect to the Book of Mormon: Quote . . . the Book of Mormon must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest. Indeed, it must submit to every analysis and examination. It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism. . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way. . . . Lower Criticism concerns itself with the integrity or character of particular passages or texts, and is sometimes called "Textual Criticism." B. H. Roberts, Improvement Era, 14:667-668. Edited October 14, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 3 hours ago, cdowis said: This thread has been instructive for all of us. Don't be bamboozled by textual criticism. When I have more time I will talk about how it is used against the BOM -- but think of the examples of Deutro Isaiah, and 3 Ne 13:13 Textual criticism, which used to be called "Lower Criticism," is a tool used by scholars to find the most reliable/dependable text of a given work of literature. Like a hammer, it can be used to build or to bash -- put a hammer in the hands of a yokel, and you can expect damage. Prof Royal Skousen has been doing textual criticism (lower criticism) for many years now, and I don't see him doing damage. To the contrary, he has thrown some very helpful light on the Book of Mormon. 1 Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 14, 2017 Author Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Textual criticism, which used to be called "Lower Criticism," is a tool used by scholars to find the most reliable/dependable text of a given work of literature. Like a hammer, it can be used to build or to bash -- put a hammer in the hands of a yokel, and you can expect damage. Prof Royal Skousen has been doing textual criticism (lower criticism) for many years now, and I don't see him doing damage. To the contrary, he has thrown some very helpful light on the Book of Mormon. Of course, and he is using contemporary documents with a relatively known history. Making a comparison with Skousen is comparing astronomy with astrology. In this case, some of the yokels have a PhD with distinguished credentials and reputations. No less a yokel was Newton himself in his persistent pursuit of alchemy. Edited October 14, 2017 by cdowis Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 14, 2017 Author Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: Reading the scriptures totally out of their context is the only way to understand their true meaning! Yes, on occasion ( Isaiah 7:10-16 comes to mnd), and sometimes we find truth through contradictions and a paradox. Edited October 14, 2017 by cdowis Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, cdowis said: Quote 11 hours ago, Physics Guy said: Higher criticism hadn't been invented yet. Knowing what we know now, the Biblical quotes in the Book of Mormon are a bit hard to explain naturally in a Mormon way, Please help me. Tell us exactly what we KNOW from higher criticism. Please convince us that, like physics, chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics, that higher criticism "tells" us anything. It is a fake science similar to alchemy and astrology. "Higher Criticism" is an outmoded term for the broad study of literary structure, sources, identification and intention of author, dating, etc. I don't understand why you see it as "fake" in some way akin to alchemy and astrology. That is ridiculous. Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, or Northrop Frye's The Great Code help us to make sense of some very mysterious works of literature. The same applies to David Bokovoy's Authoring the OT, vol. 1. His very accessible explanations and examples help us understand why source critics assign various parts of the Bible to more than one source. We can extend such biblical analysis directly to the Book of Mormon, which frankly describes itself as an abridged and edited version of a variety of explicit sources. What's not to like? The Anchor Bible translation-commentary series combines both textual and literary criticism in order to provide a full frontal experience with Scripture. Edited October 15, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, cdowis said: Of course, and he is using contemporary documents with a relatively known history. Making a comparison with Skousen is comparing astronomy with astrology. Hogwash. The principles applied by Skousen are those familiar to every text critic, irrespective of the age of the available documents. Who are these fabled astrologers you speak of? 8 minutes ago, cdowis said: In this case, some of the yokels have a PhD with distinguished credentials and reputations. No less a yokel was Newton himself in his persistent pursuit of alchemy. We are not discussing academic titles or degrees here, but substantive scholarship. Who is guilty of smash, rip, and ruin in your estimation? Such that you condemn an entire discipline. 2 Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 15, 2017 Author Share Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hogwash. The principles applied by Skousen are those familiar to every text critic, irrespective of the age of the available documents. Who are these fabled astrologers you speak of? I cannot help you if you do not see my meaning. In this field there are both the competent and the hack, but the discipline itself does not lend itself to distinguishing between the two by scientific principles. There is only "peer review" which can be....gasp.... notoriously flawed even in the hard sciences. We are not discussing academic titles or degrees here, but substantive scholarship. Who is guilty of smash, rip, and ruin in your estimation? Such that you condemn an entire discipline. I already gave you two specific examples. Edited October 15, 2017 by cdowis Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 While I respect the learning of the textual critics I am not as convinced that their judgement is as good. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 hour ago, cdowis said: 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hogwash. The principles applied by Skousen are those familiar to every text critic, irrespective of the age of the available documents. Who are these fabled astrologers you speak of? Quote I cannot help you if you do not see my meaning. In this field there are both the competent and the hack, but the discipline itself does not lend itself to distinguishing between the two by scientific principles. There is only "peer review" which can be....gasp.... notoriously flawed even in the hard sciences. We are not discussing academic titles or degrees here, but substantive scholarship. Who is guilty of smash, rip, and ruin in your estimation? Such that you condemn an entire discipline. Quote I already gave you two specific examples but have interest in getting into the weeds. You gave me no such examples of who those "astrologers" are supposed to be. CFR, good buddy. And please don't confuse textual criticism with higher criticism, neither of which is a "science" -- your category mistakes here are the primary indicators that you have no idea what you are talking about. 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 For reference for the OP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism 1 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 14 hours ago, Gray said: Congrats on your modern usage of the word "fake", which is now used to call out information that someone doesn't like or understand Thanks to Mr. Trump. I think it might have been better had cdowis used the term pseudo-science to describe higher criticism. Not that I'm saying his statement is true (not the point I'm trying to make) even if we swap out the less charged term, just saying pseudo is more appropriate. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 10 hours ago, cdowis said: Of course, and he is using contemporary documents with a relatively known history. Making a comparison with Skousen is comparing astronomy with astrology. In this case, some of the yokels have a PhD with distinguished credentials and reputations. No less a yokel was Newton himself in his persistent pursuit of alchemy. Which was due ironically to the same kind if epistemological dualism you see here all the time, the difference between appearance and reality. You could change lead into gold by simply changing its appearances while it's metallic substance stayed the same. Alchemy actually sought a kind of scientific transubstantiation. And we do the same here when we think that language represents reality. All we can know or speak about are appearances. If one is not a philosophical Pragmatist one might just as well be an alchemist looking for a substance that does not exist. There are no facts only interpretations. Now that is a good example of higher criticism. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Thanks to Mr. Trump. I think it might have been better had cdowis used the term pseudo-science to describe higher criticism. Not that I'm saying his statement is true (not the point I'm trying to make) even if we swap out the less charged term, just saying pseudo is more appropriate. Is this the set for Jimmy Kimmel Live or something? We are going to ridicule Trump right into re-election. Half of America just doesn't get it. And I'm not going to say which half. Edited October 15, 2017 by mfbukowski Link to comment
Recommended Posts