Month: April 2016

Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 3/3.

Part 3: Biblical History & Textual Interpretation Related Posts: Part 1/3: Contested Foundations of Archaeology Part 2/3: Archaeological Evidence – A Reality Check God’s verbal revelation to Israel is inscribed in written texts. The inspired authors of scripture crafted the revealed words into whole texts and into differing literary forms, such as narrative, wisdom literature, … Continue reading “Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 3/3.”

Part 3: Biblical History & Textual Interpretation

Part 1/3: Contested Foundations of Archaeology

Part 2/3: Archaeological Evidence – A Reality Check

God’s verbal revelation to Israel is inscribed in written texts. The inspired authors of scripture crafted the revealed words into whole texts and into differing literary forms, such as narrative, wisdom literature, poetry and prophetic proclamation. Narratives comprise a significant portion of the inspired texts. These narratives depict a literary constructed world (textual world) which is meaningfully related to the real world. That is to say, the literary constructed world necessarily conforms to the requirements of the real world in order to present a world that bears semblance to empirical reality or life as we experience. This may be represented diagrammatically in figure 1

Sailhamer Interpretation Fig1

As a reader reads a historical narrative he is ‘drawn’ into the world of the text, but the text also makes an “ostensive reference” to the real world behind the text which may also be accessed by the reader by other means, e.g. archaeology, relevant historical texts etc. But the two worlds (the world of the text and the background real world) must not be confused or identified. Continue reading “Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 3/3.”

Is Zakir Naik is too Stubborn to Understand Jesus’ Claim to be God?

Zakir Naik has just challenged Christians to produce a verse in the bible where Jesus unequivocally claims to be God, and as such people should worship him. This would require a direct statement like “I am God” or “worship me” from the lips of Jesus. The challenge is either misguided or insincere. Zakir Naik displays … Continue reading “Is Zakir Naik is too Stubborn to Understand Jesus’ Claim to be God?”

Zakir Naik displays a simplistic mindset in failing to understanding Jesus’ teaching. His demand that Jesus gives a direct proclamation shows no appreciation of Jesus’ wisdom that is needed to address an audience that is hostile and threatening violence towards him. Continue reading “Is Zakir Naik is too Stubborn to Understand Jesus’ Claim to be God?”

Zakir Naik Exposed

Dr. Zakir Naik Makes 25 mistakes in 5 min Zakir Naik gives the impression that he is a very learned man as he effortlessly quotes [selected] verses from the Bible. However, there is much less than meets the eye. Often times he quotes Scripture out of context in order to impose an alien teaching on … Continue reading “Zakir Naik Exposed”

Dr. Zakir Naik Makes 25 mistakes in 5 min

Zakir Naik gives the impression that he is a very learned man as he effortlessly quotes [selected] verses from the Bible. However, there is much less than meets the eye. Often times he quotes Scripture out of context in order to impose an alien teaching on the Bible, like claiming that the Bible teaches about the coming of Muhammad. I shall leave the easy task of refuting his ludicrous claims to other writers.

For the moment I invite readers to view the following YouTube episode which exposes Zakir Naik’s habit of making flippant and misleading claims (some people would call them lies). LINK – Zakir Naik Makes 25 Mistakes in 5 Minutes – Continue reading “Zakir Naik Exposed”

Zakir Naik and the Inerrant Bible

The controversy arising from Zakir Naik’s visit to Malaysia reminds Christians that it is crucial to uphold the inerrancy of the Bible. First, it is well known that Zakir Naik and other Islamic dakwa-gandists unceasingly attack the Bible as a corrupt text. They further assert that the Bible cannot be the Word of God in … Continue reading “Zakir Naik and the Inerrant Bible”

The controversy arising from Zakir Naik’s visit to Malaysia reminds Christians that it is crucial to uphold the inerrancy of the Bible. First, it is well known that Zakir Naik and other Islamic dakwa-gandists unceasingly attack the Bible as a corrupt text. They further assert that the Bible cannot be the Word of God in the light of the alleged errors and contradictions found in it. It is self-defeating and futile for a Christian to try to witness to Muslim critics like Zakir Naik if he agrees that the Bible is corrupt.

Second, critics like Zakir Naik do not respect Christians who simply appeal to authority. They expect Christians to give a rational defence of the truth claims of the Bible. Naturally, they hold Christianity in derision when Christians concede that the Bible contains errors. Furthermore, it comes across that Christians are irreverent when they suggest that God does not always speak the truth. Such irreverence will not impress Muslims who are well known for their reverence for God. The only authority that Christians may rely on is the authority of the truth of the Bible. J.I. Packer explains, “Biblical veracity and biblical authority are bound up together. Only truth can have final authority to determine belief and behavior, and Scripture cannot have such authority further than it is true.” [J.I. Packer, Truth and Power (Eagle 1996), p119.] Continue reading “Zakir Naik and the Inerrant Bible”

Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 2/3

Part 2: Archaeological Evidence – A Reality Check Related Post Part 1: Contested Foundations of Archaeology Part 3: Biblical History and Textual Interpretation Why do controversies rage among archaeologists whose expertise is of the highest order? Perhaps a reality check on the nature of archaeological evidence is in order. Edwin Yamauchi points out in his … Continue reading “Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 2/3”

Part 2: Archaeological Evidence – A Reality Check

Part 1: Contested Foundations of Archaeology

Part 3: Biblical History and Textual Interpretation

Why do controversies rage among archaeologists whose expertise is of the highest order? Perhaps a reality check on the nature of archaeological evidence is in order. Edwin Yamauchi points out in his book The Stones and the Scriptures that archaeological evidence is inherently fragmentary because of the following contingencies of history:

1) The fraction that has survived (this is self-evident).
2) The fraction that has been surveyed. All told, close to 2,000 sites were examined by the Israeli teams, of which about 800 were previously unknown.
3) The fraction that has been excavated. Way back in 1963, only 150 of 5000 sites were excavated and only 26 were major excavations. More than 1000 new sites have been identified since then.
4) The fraction that has been examined. With limited sampling from excavation, negative conclusions can be premature and dangerous. Continue reading “Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 2/3”

Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 1/3.

Part 1: Contested Foundations of Archaeology Related Posts: Part 2: Archaeological Evidence – A Reality Check Part 3: Biblical History and Textual Interpretation One of my readers suggests I have been too simplistic when I dismissed the Documentary Hypothesis and questioned the validity of historical criticism. After all, rational discourse demands interrogation of texts. He … Continue reading “Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 1/3.”

Part 1: Contested Foundations of Archaeology

Part 2: Archaeological Evidence – A Reality Check

Part 3: Biblical History and Textual Interpretation

One of my readers suggests I have been too simplistic when I dismissed the Documentary Hypothesis and questioned the validity of historical criticism. After all, rational discourse demands interrogation of texts. He submits that my rejection of historical criticism is erroneous as Christianity is a faith grounded in the “God Who Acts in history”. Worse still, insulating the Bible from rational historical criticism amounts to adopting a dogmatic mindset that is no different from that of the Islamists.

It is true that I reject the Documentary Hypothesis for literary and historical reasons. However, my assessment of historical criticism is more nuanced. Unlike the Islamists and other extreme fundamentalists, I make careful use of the historical method. To be sure, there is historical method and there is historical method. The historical method that I reject is that based on the Enlightenment rationality championed by Ernst Troeltsch who taught that history is a closed continuum that precludes reference to divine revelation. Human reason becomes sovereign in historical judgment with pretensions of neutrality in interpretation. Not surprisingly, critical scholars who elevate human reason above divine revelation display skepticism towards the reliability of biblical history and its truth claims. However, their claim of neutrality has been debunked by the hermeneutical critique of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur.

My presuppositions for relating history and the biblical texts is one of believing criticism and post-critical hermeneutics. I seek to apply a historical method that is consistent with belief in God’s manifestation of himself through mighty acts, prophetic interpretation of the vicissitudes of the history of biblical Israel, and the final inscription of God’s Word in the Bible. Such a belief is rejected by critical scholars who then deploy a critical historical method that takes liberty with the biblical text which they do not regarded as inspired or authoritative. Continue reading “Historical Criticism and Textual Interpretation – Part 1/3.”

Nerve-wracking and Dangerous Theological Disputes

Theological disputes must have been nerve-wracking…and dangerous! The standard texts of OT introduction often begin with the rise of historical criticism in the 17the century with Spinoza. This is followed by a parade of critics who questioned and substituted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch with the ‘Fragmentary Theory’ or ‘Documentary Hypothesis’: beginning with Jean … Continue reading “Nerve-wracking and Dangerous Theological Disputes”

Theological disputes must have been nerve-wracking…and dangerous!

The standard texts of OT introduction often begin with the rise of historical criticism in the 17the century with Spinoza. This is followed by a parade of critics who questioned and substituted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch with the ‘Fragmentary Theory’ or ‘Documentary Hypothesis’: beginning with Jean Astruc (1753), Johann Eichhorn (1780-1783), De Wette (1805) and climaxing with Julius Wellhausen’s JEPD, “Documentary Hypothesis” (1876-1878). I am probably dated in terms of OT expertise, but it is arguable that this standard theory is most strongly advocated by Otto Eissfeldt, The OT: an Introduction (1934); translated by Harper & Row (1965).

I was amused/alarmed when I came across John Calvin’s reference to doubts cast upon the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch way back in 1559: Continue reading “Nerve-wracking and Dangerous Theological Disputes”