Source Critiscism And Historical Text

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I recently used it talking to a theist and was told something to the effect of, "I don't want most likelys or what probably happened, I want facts." How does one respond to that? Or am I misunderstanding what text/source criticism or what.

[Vixentrox]

Errr...a theist wanting facts?

[dagnarus]

I think the rough translation would be something along the lines, that unless you can provide a notarized letter from the original biblical writers stating that this is what they wrote, the fact is that the bible is perfect as is without any tampering. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, I don't know.

[mwc]

I recently used it talking to a theist and was told something to the effect of, "I don't want most likelys or what probably happened, I want facts." How does one respond to that? Or am I misunderstanding what text/source criticism or what.

Facts? Facts are easy. Seems this person wants absolutes. History rarely provides those.

 

mwc

[Shyone]

The theist doesn't really want facts. He wants to keep believing what he already believes. If you present the facts - even an entire dissertation on the reasoning behind the JEPD authorship, they would likely dispute it. As dagnarus wrote, their criteria for accepting something other than divine authorship are rather strict; as opposed to their own criteria for divine authorship.

 

Even if you actually could convince them that there are interpolations by different authors for various theological reasons at different times, they would still insist that God guided the hand and/or mind of the author.

 

That has only happened once in tha past 1,000 years, and that was when Portnoy's Complaint was written. Clearly divinely inspired.