Skip to main content

Home/ BS2615-1-WI10/ Group items tagged Survival

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Brenda Goodman

http://books.google.com/books?id=ooGh9TTe0jUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1 - 2 views

books.google.com/books

'Hermeneutics of Survival

shared by Brenda Goodman on 14 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Brenda Goodman on 14 Feb 10
     
    Let's see if this works..."Hermeneutics of Survival"
Angie Steinhauer

Q - 0 views

www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

source

shared by Angie Steinhauer on 18 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Angie Steinhauer on 18 Feb 10
     
    The German researchers who pioneered in this work called this lost document "Quelle" which means "source". This is usually abbreviated as "Q." The Gospel of Q remains a hypothetical document. No intact copy has ever been found. No reference to the document in early Christian writings has survived. Its existence is inferred from an analysis of the text of Matthew and Luke. Much of the content of Matthew and Luke were derived from the Gospel of Mark. But there were also many passages which appear to have come from Q. Many theologians and religious historians believe that Q's text can be reconstructed by analyzing passages that Matthew and Luke have in common. If the Gospel of Q exists, it might best be regarded as a reconstructed Gospel. Many believe that it was written much earlier than the four canonical gospels in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament): Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. It may have been the first of the 40 or so Gospels that were written and used by the early Christian movements. The Gospel of Q is different from the canonical gospels in that it does not extensively describe events in the life of Jesus. Rather, it is largely a collection of sayings -- similar to the Gospel of Thomas.
Joe MacDonald

Historical Criticism - 0 views

www.webspawner.com/...historycriticism

historical criticism

shared by Joe MacDonald on 19 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Historical criticism is the art of distinguishing the true from the false concerning facts of the past. It has for its object both the documents which have been handed down to us and the facts themselves. We may distinguish three kinds of historical sources: written documents, unwritten evidence; and tradition. As further means of reaching a knowledge of the facts there are three processes of indirect research, viz.: negative argument, conjecture, and a priori argument.
  • The critic must now make the best possible use of the written sources at his disposal, i. e. he must understand them well, which is not always an easy matter. His difficulty may arise from the obscurity of certain words, from their grammatical form, or from their grouping in the phrase he seeks to interpret. As to the sense of the individual words it is supremely important that the critic should be able to read the documents in the language in which they were written rather than in translations.
  • In general, whenever there is occasion to verify the exactness of a quotation made in support of a thesis, it is prudent to read the entire chapter whence it is taken, sometimes even to read the whole work. An individual testimony, isolated from all its surroundings in an author's work, seems often quite decisive, yet when we read the work itself our faith in the value of the argument based on such partial quotation is either very much shaken or else disappears entirely.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • What is now the value of a text rightly understood? Every historical statement or testimony naturally suggests two questions: Has the witness in question a proper knowledge of the fact concerning which he is called to testify? And if so, is he altogether sincere in his deposition? On an impartial answer to these questions depends the degree of confidence to be accorded to his testimony.
  • Joe MacDonald on 19 Feb 10
     
    This is a Catholic work dated in 1908. One can see the negotiation of science and faith in the writing. While Kantian terms such as a priori and a sence of evaluating data, there is a space for accepting unquantified data as part of the author's definition of historical criticism.
  • Carlene Hill on 22 Feb 10
     
    I think that when we start to talk about what is authentic in the Bible versus what isn't authentic can lead us to call things "false" or untrue when in fact the stories may very well be true and authentic, just not in the modern way of what we deem as true. This is why I found Philip Davies commentary posted by Michael H. quite helpful because it talks about reading the Bible from the perspective of what the writer or scribe was trying to convey to his audience instead of reading from the perspective of trying to figure out for example, if hundreds of thousands of Hebrew people actually lived and survived in the desert for more than forty years.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page