Liberal Christian Scholarship ...Redaction Criticism, and Islam (Part 1) - 0 views
aomin.org/...index.php
christianity Islam christians muslims religion bible scripture scripture interpretation
shared by Gary Patton on 27 Mar 12
- No Cached
-
Some Brief Thoughts Regarding Liberal Scholarship, Redaction Criticism, and Islam
-
Gary Patton on 27 Mar 12In this article, Dr. James White, of Alpha & Omega Ministries examines the dangers of "Redaction and Form Criticism" in Christian scholarship (sic) and the refusal by Muslim scholars to apply it to Islam while using it to attack Christians beliefs based on our Bible. gfp (2012-03-27)
-
-
the vast majority of those who embrace form and redaction criticism in all of its flavors and kinds do so out of tradition, not out of having examined the case set forth in defense of these methods.
-
I truly wondered why the Lord had closed all other doors and put me in that context, but, now I know) forced me to consider deeply why I could not in good conscience embrace the "status quo" of modern NT scholarship
- ...18 more annotations...
-
I found, over and over again, the same kind of bald anti-supernaturalism at work, even amongst those who did not openly espouse such a view in their "religious life."
-
This kind of double-mindedness was epidemic in Christian theology then. It is still quite prevalent, but in the past decade more and more have shed the religious trappings and are seeking to be consistent, not even bothering with the religious garb any longer.
-
I would challenge (respectfully
-
saying the gospels were quite late, post AD 70, for example, I would ask why they would date them so late (and, as a result, deny the eyewitness authorship of, say, Matthew)
-
we would date them late because…of theories. Theories about how documents develop (in the natural world). Theories about how the early church developed (based upon, again, how such things happen in the natural world). And of course the big reason was…they had to have been written after AD 70 because, well, they couldn't have been written before otherwise they would contain…prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem! And we all know prophecy doesn't really exist, so there!
-
I only learned later in seminary and after graduation how confident scholarship had been in the past in giving even later dates, German scholarship, for example, having dated John as late as AD 175, only to have those dates thrown to the wind by manuscript discoveries.
-
the "consensus of scholarship," especially in a day when humanism and naturalistic materialism has become the religious dogma of the society, and of higher education, is not an option for the faithful follower of the teachings of Jesus the Messiah.
-
For years Shabir Ally had been making a presentation wherein he presents the "snowball" argument. It is a basic anti-gospel argument based upon a rather simplistic viewpoint of the origination of the gospels.
-
Shabir thinks there is an over-riding impetus on the part of both Matthew and Luke to "grow" Jesus, assuming, of course, an evolution in the development of Christology (another assumption that is just accepted, never proven). So, Matthew and Luke are looking for ways to "improve" on Jesus---which puts them in the category of deceivers, really, at the very least from an Islamic viewpoint
-
Muslims who, like Imam Ally have a minimal knowldge of the New Covenat and wish to feign politness, can use this "improvement" approach. It prevents them from having to use the blunt English word change when attacking Scriptures validity. During the debate, I heard a Muslim and a Christian in the seats immediately behind me discussing the semantical difference between these words. The Christian suspected, as do I, that Imam Ally was accusing the Apostles Mathew and Luke of being "liars".
-
-
examples of where Matthew was "growing" Jesus
-
"Growing" is Dr. White's word. Imam Ally never used it. Instead, he stated candidly that Mathew and Luke intentionally "deified" a human Prophet which Muslims say Yeshua only was because "Allah doesn't begat" (Qur'an 23:88-91).
-
-
Shabir did not know that Mark used the Greek term κύριος (kurios) when he was making his presentations before 2006, but he does now. But still, in our debate in Toronto, he argued that in fact this is still an example supportive of his thesis, no matter what his understanding had been before, for "lord of the house" is still different from "Lord." He likewise cited a scholar who, writing on the "synoptic problem," likewise mentions this "change."
-
In other words, Imam Ally has found an obfuscating, so-called, Christian author to justify what he now knows is a 'lie" that he wishes to still feed to his ignorant Muslim audience, knowing that they will believe him over Dr. White.
-
-
let's talk about how this text could be seen in a very different fashion.
-
Let's admit something: We do not know when any of the gospels were written. They have no date stamps on them. If we examine the internal material of the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) without naturalistic biases, we would have to conclude they were written between 35 and about 65 AD (i.e., after the crucifixion but prior to the opening of hostilities leading to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70)
-
As Richard Bauckham has pointed out (and his role in our debate was most interesting, and again illustrated that I really do not believe Dr. Ally understands my point on this matter), the eyewitnesses to the events of the gospel continued in the church for many decades, forming a very important core element of the continuation of the gospel message.
-
The gospel story began to be proclaimed by the eyewitnesses and the first generation of believers immediately after Pentecost. It spread like wildfire, turning the world upside down. It spread both by zeal as well as by persecution. The oral tradition of the church was the context out of which the gospels themselves were written. The gospel writers were fully aware of that tradition. They were not seeking to supplant it, but to organize it and preserve it in yet another form.
-
During the debate, I could not understand why Dr. White kept referring to the "oral tradition" as he does here without once making the powerful point that the Gospel writers were the originators of the tradition as the disciples of Jesus. They were writing about their eye witness accounts ...not recounting an oral tradion circulated first by others.
-
-
This oral tradition, something shared by the entire community, is the source out of which they drew their narrative.
-
It is the source only to the extend that they, themselves, were the creaters of the so-called "oral tradition" as members of Jesus "inside group of disciples".
-
-
If we assume that Matthew and Mark are not liars, that they are not dishonest men, and that they are seeking to communicate a message faithfully, drawing from the tradition known to them, we conclude, upon examination of numerous texts such as the above, that
-
Here Dr. White writes again like the Gospel accounts were repeated by the Apostles from what others said rather than them writing down the stories in which they, themselves, particiapted with Jesus. Dr. White's approach confuses me because, to me, it doesn't make the point regarding eye-witness testimony!
-
-
we can see that both are giving us perfectly proper renditions of the same incident and the same words, one in fuller form than the other, both seeking to communicate the same concept, though to two different audiences.
-
Police and lawyer studies confirm this type of variiance is common between eye witness accounts when an event is seem from different perspectives through the experiences and mindset of unique people. I'm unclear why Dr. white doesn't state this fact which reinforces his hypothesis about Scripture's timeline and seeming contradictions.
-
