Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Historical Elaboration or Elaborate Embellishment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Historical Elaboration or Elaborate Embellishment?

    Compare the reign of Manasseh in 2Kings 21:1-18 to the account in 2Chr. 33:1-20. The disparity between the two accounts has led some critical scholars to conclude that there was deliberate theological reshaping or embellishment of Israel's earlier history by late postexilic theologians. This pattern of theological reshaping/embellishment is seen in the NT with GJohn in relation to the synoptics, for example.

    Couldn't we however view both accounts of Manasseh as one and the same? 2Kings 21:17 and 2Chr. 33:18-19 states: "The rest of the acts of Manasseh..are in the Annals of the Kings of Israel..". Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in the 2Chr. account per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Manasseh? Couldn't we likewise view John and the synoptics in similar light? John 21:25 states: "There are also many other things that Jesus did..the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in GJohn per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Jesus?
    Last edited by Scrawly; 11-11-2018, 11:31 PM.

  • #2
    Depends entirely on your presuppositions. I would agree that the accounts are the same, only that 2 Chronicles details a period of repentance. 2 Kings had a different objective leaving it out. But many are set on discrediting scripture at every turn so criticisms like theological embellishing are expected. If the author(s) of Kings & Chronicles was interested in reshaping history, the sins of David and Solomon would have been wiped clean and the missteps and failures of prophets removed. It's senseless to report these things while falsely adding the repentance of a wicked king.

    To your last point, it's not inconceivable and is perfectly rational. I seriously doubt that the same scholars drawing critical conclusions between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles wouldn't likewise do the same with the Gospel of John, or any other parallel work. It would be wholly inconsistent if they didn't. They operate on the presupposition that the Bible is the work of man or at best a human testament to works of God, but certainly not divine revelation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Compare the reign of Manasseh in 2Kings 21:1-18 to the account in 2Chr. 33:1-20. The disparity between the two accounts has led some critical scholars to conclude that there was deliberate theological reshaping or embellishment of Israel's earlier history by late postexilic theologians. This pattern of theological reshaping/embellishment is seen in the NT with GJohn in relation to the synoptics, for example.

      Couldn't we however view both accounts of Manasseh as one and the same? 2Kings 21:17 and 2Chr. 33:18-19 states: "The rest of the acts of Manasseh..are in the Annals of the Kings of Israel..". Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in the 2Chr. account per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Manasseh? Couldn't we likewise view John and the synoptics in similar light? John 21:25 states: "There are also many other things that Jesus did..the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in GJohn per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Jesus?
      As far as I can see, *the whole* of the Bible is shaped by theological elaboration: Chronicles, Philemon, Revelation, Ecclesiastes, Job, Genesis, the Fourth Gospel, everything. I think the theological significance of the events narrated - whether they happened or not - is far more important & revelatory than whether the Bible is, or can be shown to be, historically accurate. History is not unimportant, but I don’t think the Bible is, or needs to be, as history-full as some schools of thought make it. ISTM that we should make full allowance, within the Bible, for reconstructions, theological interpretation, schematisation, legend, re-interpretation, disagreements, contradictions, different points of view, and other ways of presenting material as literature, so as to come as close as possible to understanding the Bible.

      Mere events, purely as such, however historical - the battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC, the landing on the Moon in 1969, the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC, the posting of the 95 Theses on October 31 1517, the Death of Christ - are in themselves of no theological importance whatsoever: they are theologically important to the degree that God by His grace makes them theologically important. Historical factuality is no more and no less fit to be the vehicle of Divine inspiration than works of the imaginatiion - if God had seen fit to inspire Herodotus, Plato, Virgil or Livy, rather than the Gospels & the Epistles, those Greek & Latin works would be God-breathed Scripture, while the works of the Apostles and Evangelists would not be. Historicality is not in itself theologically superior to fictionality - God has used both these, as well as other sorts of composition. The foundation-myths of the city of Rome in Livy & Virgil might, had they become inspired Scripture, have been made, by the Spirit of God, as endlessly profound and powerful and full of lessons as Genesis 1-11 has been made.

      What matters is not what man makes of a narrative or text, but what God does with it. We may desire texts to be certifiably historical - it does not follow that that is what God gives us in Scripture. If the whole OT were (humanly speaking) nothing but Jewish fairy-tales and mythology, that would leave its character as God-breathed Holy Scripture totally unaffected. This position, ISTM, safeguards the utterly gracious character of Scripture - Scripture does not have to be what we might want it to be; whatever it may in reality be, is what God wills that it should be.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
        Scripture does not have to be what we might want it to be; whatever it may in reality be, is what God wills that it should be.
        This sounds nice in a way but it's really not sensible. It basically says that scripture doesn't have meaning and we can't know God's will. If you're familiar with the Bible, it pains itself to be meaningful and accurate. It's filled with historical narrative and repeatedly draws on historical events to justify God's actions and reveal his character.

        Ps. 106:7
        Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea.

        Ex. 13:14-15
        And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’

        Deut. 4:9-11
        “Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children's children— 10 how on the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, the Lord said to me, ‘Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so.’ 11 And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom.


        Historical remembrance of the events narrated in scripture are important not only to us, but to God who draws upon his own acts in history.

        As far as I can see, *the whole* of the Bible is shaped by theological elaboration: Chronicles, Philemon, Revelation, Ecclesiastes, Job, Genesis, the Fourth Gospel, everything. I think the theological significance of the events narrated - whether they happened or not - is far more important & revelatory than whether the Bible is, or can be shown to be, historically accurate. History is not unimportant, but I don’t think the Bible is, or needs to be, as history-full as some schools of thought make it. ISTM that we should make full allowance, within the Bible, for reconstructions, theological interpretation, schematisation, legend, re-interpretation, disagreements, contradictions, different points of view, and other ways of presenting material as literature, so as to come as close as possible to understanding the Bible.
        This is not right. You will not extrapolate ideas like this from scripture.

        Mere events, purely as such, however historical - the battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC, the landing on the Moon in 1969, the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC, the posting of the 95 Theses on October 31 1517, the Death of Christ - are in themselves of no theological importance whatsoever: they are theologically important to the degree that God by His grace makes them theologically important.
        This is your opinion which, again, is in contradiction to what the Bible actually teaches. Furthermore, actual history is critically important to everything. Literally, everything. Law is based on history (e.g.,civil rights), science is based on history (the last ice age, anthropological migration, etc.), even art is a consequence of history. But you're saying that anything theological, basically anything pertaining to God, has nothing to do with history. Do you read the Bible?

        Historical factuality is no more and no less fit to be the vehicle of Divine inspiration than works of the imaginatiion - if God had seen fit to inspire Herodotus, Plato, Virgil or Livy, rather than the Gospels & the Epistles, those Greek & Latin works would be God-breathed Scripture, while the works of the Apostles and Evangelists would not be. Historicality is not in itself theologically superior to fictionality - God has used both these, as well as other sorts of composition. The foundation-myths of the city of Rome in Livy & Virgil might, had they become inspired Scripture, have been made, by the Spirit of God, as endlessly profound and powerful and full of lessons as Genesis 1-11 has been made.
        I think your idea of God is fundamentally un-Christian. The God of the Bible is very distinct, very specific, and most certainly not a god who doesn't care about history.

        What matters is not what man makes of a narrative or text, but what God does with it. We may desire texts to be certifiably historical - it does not follow that that is what God gives us in Scripture. If the whole OT were (humanly speaking) nothing but Jewish fairy-tales and mythology, that would leave its character as God-breathed Holy Scripture totally unaffected.
        Does your life matter? Does your story have meaning? Do you accurately detail your narrative or do you make up fake stories about yourself and call it truth? Do the things you've accomplished, the people you've affected, and your pattern of behavior say something about your character and what you believe? Because in the Bible, these things matter.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by nico View Post
          Depends entirely on your presuppositions. I would agree that the accounts are the same, only that 2 Chronicles details a period of repentance. 2 Kings had a different objective leaving it out. But many are set on discrediting scripture at every turn so criticisms like theological embellishing are expected. If the author(s) of Kings & Chronicles was interested in reshaping history, the sins of David and Solomon would have been wiped clean and the missteps and failures of prophets removed. It's senseless to report these things while falsely adding the repentance of a wicked king.
          Yea! Perspective and purpose of the author are more than adequate to explain such differences in a multitude of scriptural references.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nico View Post
            This sounds nice in a way but it's really not sensible. It basically says that scripture doesn't have meaning and we can't know God's will. If you're familiar with the Bible, it pains itself to be meaningful and accurate. It's filled with historical narrative and repeatedly draws on historical events to justify God's actions and reveal his character.
            I think RJ is simply saying "We do not always rightly understand every verse of scripture." I did not take this brief snippet suggest that the Bible is not accurate or generally understandable with a bit if study. If you simply look at two different uses of historical information and say "Look the Bible is not reliable" your critique would apply. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or RJ. Perhaps a bit of clarification from RJ would clear this up. RJ?
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              I think RJ is simply saying "We do not always rightly understand every verse of scripture." I did not take this brief snippet suggest that the Bible is not accurate or generally understandable with a bit if study. If you simply look at two different uses of historical information and say "Look the Bible is not reliable" your critique would apply. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or RJ. Perhaps a bit of clarification from RJ would clear this up. RJ?
              I would hope you are correct, but RJ expounded on and affirmed in three full paragraphs that the biblical narrative, which is overwhelmingly historical in nature, is simply not important, which is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches. I think he really is saying that the Bible is not accurate, because to him, "it doesn't need to be". For clarity purposes I'll state unequivocally that it must necessarily be historically accurate. If it isn't then the Bible is nonsense and the God portrayed in it is false. I know I sound very stern here. I feel though that this is a point that calls for it.

              A few quick examples: God commanded the Israelites to lay waste to entire populations; men, women, children, and even the livestock on occasion. This command was based on their very real, historical idolatry and abominable practices that took place. God wants us to know this. He slayed mercilessly on account of sin. His patience is not eternal, but his mercy is everlasting to those who repent. God led Israel to the land of Canaan as a possession based on the historical covenant He made with Abraham to inherit the land. The kingdom of Judah was initially spared the fate of their northern brothers at the hands of the Assyrians because of God's historical promise to David and the faith of the righteous king, Hezekiah. Jesus could only be the Messiah if he was of the lineage of that same David, born in Bethlehem, raised in Egypt, etc., according to historical prophecy. This is the God of scripture. Anything less than that is another god entirely.

              We cannot exchange biblical history for convoluted philosophy and inappropriately applied literary devices. The whole character of God is lost in it. If the book is historical, treat it as historical; hyperbole has no place in either Genesis or Exodus, for example. They are clearly written as historical works. Beliefs about what the Bible is and whether or not it's trustworthy on all accounts deeply impacts theological convictions and practice.

              Comment


              • #8
                RJ?
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                  RJ?
                  You okay, Jed? You used the same abbreviation yourself above.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    You okay, Jed? You used the same abbreviation yourself above.
                    I think he's asking "RJ" to respond, not who "RJ" is.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      I think he's asking "RJ" to respond, not who "RJ" is.
                      Oh, ok.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        You okay, Jed? You used the same abbreviation yourself above.
                        This time I am just calling on RJ to clear uo what he meant.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                        35 responses
                        166 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                        4 responses
                        49 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                        Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                        10 responses
                        119 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post mikewhitney  
                        Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                        14 responses
                        71 views
                        3 likes
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                        13 responses
                        58 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Working...
                        X