Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Course 6 Week 2 Tyler's Topics

Tyler, you may post your initial comments and answers to questions here.

16 comments:

Tyler Owens said...

The title of my course is N.T. Survey: The Gospels. The instructor is Dr. Kevin Hester. I will be watching four DVDs this week. The title of my book is JESUS AND THE GOSPELS. The author is Craig L. Blomberg. I will be reading three chapters this week.

4. Historical Criticism of the Gospels

5.Literary Criticism of the Gospels

6. The Gospel of Mark

Tyler Owens said...

The first DVD talks about the N.T. canon. There were several people who were responsible for this. Most of the names are hard to pronounce. It did talk about four criteria that a book had to meet in order to be in the N.T. They are apostolicity, orthodoxy, universality, and use in the Church.

Tyler Owens said...

The book is talking about different types of criticisms. This does not mean to "talk down" about the Bible. It does mean ways of discovering accuracy in the texts. Some of it is helpful, but some of it seems like just another way to try and disprove the Word of God.

sremery said...

My course started with about the same thing. It lists the 4 things as
1. use of writing in the community
2. quotations in ancient lit. (OT)
3. Apostolic origin (relate to Apostles)
4. rule of faith & practice (orthodoxy)
This definetely was needed, but even afterwards people interpret it different and we have different denominations because of it. I'm finding the more I study it, the less I know. But I also am realizing that I need to just allow it be applied to my life,(not sure if that describes what I'm thinking, applied meaning a "part" of) and thats really why God gave it to us. I feel that unless we allow it be that, we're really just trying to justify our actions or thoughts.

Dr. Randy Carney said...

As you said, "criticism", in ths context, does not mean to "talk down about." However, there were some Bible schlars, who talked about "Higher criticism." They were mostly not orthodox (what we would loosely call, "liberal.") They did seem to do a lot of harm because they did not accept things such as miracles, etc. It looks sort of like a bunch of "unbelievers" talking about the Bible.

Their is another type of criticism that is engaged in by Bible believing Christians. It is called textual criticism. It basically is involved in trying to discover the accurate words that were probably in the original manuscripts of Scripture. The oldest things we have are based on handwritten copies of the originals. So, that type of criticism does not destroy faith, nor does it attempt to tear down Scripture. Rather, it ia an attempt to delve into the Word of God. Textual criticism is also an attempt not to twist the words of Scripture, but to portray those words and their meanings accurately.

Summary: (In my mind, and a little oversimplified) "Higher Criticism" = "Bad."
"Textual Criticism" (Sometimes called "Lower Criticism) = "Good!"

Tyler Owens said...

The nest DVD talks about the paper that the original manuscripts were on. This was called papyrus. It was not a very good form of paper. It broke down rather quickly. This may be why the original manuscripts are gone.

Tyler Owens said...

One thing that the "critical" scholars are not taking into account is the role of the Holy Spirit. They don't believe in Him, so they can't "see past there own nose". I think that God made it that way so we would have to step out in faith. These scholars are very knowledgeable. But there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

roger said...

Hey Tyler, hope your having a good week. But I was thinking about criticisms, and how negative that sounds, and knowing me the way I do I know I don't handle criticism in a way I could benefit from it. How did Jesus's ministry benefit from criticism? Or maybe his disciples benefitted from criticism?

Dr. Randy Carney said...

Tyler, the critical scholars that don't take into account the Holy Spirit and so forth were the "Higher Critics" I talked about earlier.

Roger, you are using criticism in its usual sense as we know it. That is different what is being described by some uses of the word in scholarly religious circles. However, your question is a very good one about how Jesus and the disciples could have benefitted in criticism.

I can think of one right off the bat. The criticism could have caused gossip and gossip spreads. That could have caused curiosity and perhaps cause many of the common people to be interested in what jesus had to say.

Maybe it was like one guy told a reporter, "I don't care what you print. Just make sure my name is spelled right."

Sean and Tyler what do you think?

Tyler Owens said...

When Jesus was criticised, He would simply show what He could do. As far as the disciples go, I think about the time when Jesus and the "three" came down from the mountain of transfiguration. The remaining disciples where probably getting criticised for their inability to help. Even Jesus was frustrated with them. Not them as people, just their lack of faith. I wonder how many times Jesus feels that way about us?

roger said...

Bro Randy, textual criticism is a huge thing with my Sunday School Teacher. When we read and see a "therefore", "and" , "wherefore" we must go back and read preceding verses and that is a good type of criticism.

roger said...

Tyler, some some things in God's creation that still just amazes me. One thing is how our paper is made, and that amazes me that whatever they (the paper makers) made it out of it would hold up as well as it did. Papyrus amazing. Have a blessed day.

Tyler Owens said...

It is interesting to think about how God works. If they would have been able to make paper like what we have today, we may very well still have the original manuscripts today. It takes faith to believe the Bible and the things that it teaches. We have to have faith in order to please God.

sremery said...

One area of textual criticism I've heard of is that words have been mistranslated in the Bible. I've read that the Red Sea is actually the sea of reeds. This again is something trivial but still makes me think about how before there was paper, all was passed down orally, so if something is mistranslated from paper, it could have been influenced humanly. Now in saying that, I believe the "ultimate truth" or idea behind any of it still is the same. So again, I think its a way of seperating instead of uniting if you dwell on it too much. Have any of you ever thought about this or have any thoughts on it?

roger said...

Well Guys, I'm not sure I understand yet about "Higher Criticism", Textual Criticism is understandable, almost self-explanatory. Could someone help me out before I have to do that study. May God richly bless you.

Dr. Randy Carney said...

You'll recognize it when you get there. I know the definition of higher criticism is vague to you now. They will explain it more later.