User:SmokeyJoe77/Biblical studies
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Article Draft
[edit]Biblical Studies
Lead
[edit]Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Bible (the Old Testament and New Testament). For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from ancient history, historical criticism, philology, theology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion.
-added "theology"
Article body
[edit]new section: the Bible as history
sources to use:
N. Wyatt (2008) The Mythic Mind Revisited. Myth and History, or Myth versus History, a Continuing Problem in Biblical Studies, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 22:2, 161-175, DOI: 10.1080/09018320802661168
There is much controversy around using the Bible as a historical source. The Old Testament is supposed to serve as a continuous account of the establishment of ancient Israel. While many historians agree that figures like King David and King Solomon are real historical figures, there comes trouble when seeking to affirm or deny events like the creation of the world and the flood of Noah. [1] The use of terms like "myth" vs "history" also creates controversy due to some connotations that each word has. Oftentimes "myth" or "mythical" texts are seen as not true stories, where as "history" or "historical" texts are seen as fact. Mythical stories can also sometimes be seen as stories which serve some sort of religious or moral lesson, but are not necessarily true, however this does not mean that true historical stories do not have religious and moral lessons that accompany them. [2]These views on myth and history are examples of a few difficulties when it comes to analyzing the Old Testament as a historical text.
New Testament historical analysis is also difficult due to the nature of the original texts that we can analyze, specifically their translatability as well as how oral tradition had effects on written tradition during the formation and canonization of gospel texts and the teachings of Jesus.[3]
new section: Biblical theology
Theology is literally the study (...logy-from the Greek word logos meaning words) of God (theo...-from the Greek word theos meaning God). Therefore biblical theology is studying God or creating an idea of God using the Bible.
Traditional Christianity views the Bible as written by God, and thus the perfect resource for forming an idea of God.
While literature is a powerful tool, when the implications are forming ones view of God, one must carefully consider the text. Some theologians struggle with the idea of using the Bible- which uses human language- to describe God, which Christians believe is infinite and cannot be fully contained within human ideas and words. The Bible also uses some "concrete" language and descriptions, as well as things than may be left up to interpretation or may be alluding to more which is not written. Other problems include various groups reception of the text as sacred, as well as difficulty in discerning when to read the text as literal, poetic, etc.[4]
Add to section: Original Languages (complete)
sources to use:
Eric J. Tully (2020) A Model for Distinguishing between Textual Variants and Translation Shifts in Old Testament Textual Criticism, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 34:2, 245-266, DOI: 10.1080/09018328.2020.1805207
There are few original Old Testament/Hebrew Bible manuscripts, and while the ancient translations (such as the Septuagint) are available, there comes a problem with comparing the translation to the original Hebrew (because we have it). This may lead to problems of establishing the reliability of translations like the Septuagint. In order to overcome this, researches have come up with methods to use the very few manuscripts we have and continually draw conclusions and compare to original texts using those conclusions to provide more reliability to available texts.[5]
Add to section: Biblical criticism (complete)
sources to use:
New Testament and Old Testament rhetorical analysis differ in ways due to the context of which they were written in. The New Testament was written during a time with many new Greek and Roman ideas on literature on rhetoric, providing an avenue of which we know about and have additional resources on to study New Testament texts in those contexts.
Old Testament texts were not written in the same context, and due to their ancient nature have few additional resources to refer to alongside to look at common themes in rhetoric and literature. There is abundant abstract text styles in the Old Testament, including historical accounts, proverbs, poetic texts, praise texts (such as psalms), prophetic texts, among others. The New Testament is different in there are primarily two styles present, the gospels which are mostly historical accounts, and letters/epistles.[6]
When it comes to textually analyzing and criticizing the New Testament, there are a couple eclectic approaches to understanding the text on a deeper level. External criticism in the context of biblical studies involves understanding the who, what and when of New Testament texts. What it is not doing is analyzing within the text itself, which is referred to as internal criticism. External criticism focuses on the source and dates of text, as well as what type of text it is (in the New Testament, this is mostly a gospel account or a letter to a church or person). Internal criticism focuses specifically on the content and nature of the texts. Things like the literary style and theology of the author may affect how one reads the text. This may require some external criticism knowledge, because who the author is will shine light on what they may be saying what they are saying.[3]
Biblical Exegesis (complete)
Biblical exegesis is the explanation or interpretation of the scriptures traditionally known as The Bible. Much biblical exegesis is founded upon historical-literary dynamics, either using scripture to interpret history and science, or using science and history to interpret scripture.
This is particularly important when applied to the person of Jesus Christ and the Gospels in the New Testament. Many people agree that Jesus was a real historical person, but whether he was truly the Son of God is debatable among many people, and this distinction proves to be important for ones interpretation of texts and whether the Gospels should be read literally or symbolically.[7]
The book of Revelation is very different than the other books of the Bible, drawing need for additional analysis to determine whether it should be read literally or symbolically. The goals of the author of the book (John) also have implications toward how one reads the book. If one reads Revelation as a literal unfolding of the end times vs reading Revelation as a highly symbolic book, there will be different outcomes in the interpretation of particular sections. [8]
Additionally, ones view of the scriptures as sacred and written by God or as a historical text has implications on ones interpretation of text.[4]
References
[edit]- ^ Conrad, Edgar W. (2000-11). "THE PRESENT STATE OF BIBLICAL STUDIES". Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association. 94 (1): 109–118. doi:10.1179/aulla.2000.94.1.007. ISSN 0001-2793.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Wyatt, N. (2008-11). "The Mythic Mind Revisited. Myth and History, or Myth versus History, a Continuing Problem in Biblical Studies". Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament. 22 (2): 161–175. doi:10.1080/09018320802661168. ISSN 0901-8328.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b DELOBEL, JOËL (2002-01-01). "The Achilles' Heel of New Testament Textual Criticism". Bijdragen. 63 (1): 3–21. doi:10.2143/BIJ.63.1.794. ISSN 0006-2278.
- ^ a b Jódar, Carlos (2022-07-03). "The Bible, literature and communication: A theologian's view". Church, Communication and Culture. 7 (2): 370–390. doi:10.1080/23753234.2022.2098788. ISSN 2375-3234.
- ^ Tully, Eric J. (2020-07-02). "A Model for Distinguishing between Textual Variants and Translation Shifts in Old Testament Textual Criticism". Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament. 34 (2): 245–266. doi:10.1080/09018328.2020.1805207. ISSN 0901-8328.
- ^ Schlimm, Matthew R. (2007-07). "Biblical Studies and Rhetorical Criticism: Bridging the Divide Between the Hebrew Bible and Communication". Review of Communication. 7 (3): 244–275. doi:10.1080/15358590701480515. ISSN 1535-8593.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Williams, Duane (2015-07-03). "Meister Eckhart's Christ and Medieval Biblical Exegesis". Medieval Mystical Theology. 24 (2): 161–179. doi:10.1179/2046572615Z.2015.1117806. ISSN 2046-5726.
- ^ Snyder, Lee (2000-11). "Invitation to transcendence: The book of revelation". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 86 (4): 402–416. doi:10.1080/00335630009384307. ISSN 0033-5630.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)