Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2012, 07:03 PM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
(03-12-2012 07:01 PM)Noelani Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 01:16 PM)Denicio Wrote:  THANK YOU! No worries about buying it. The man should be compensated for his life long work into this subject.
Buying it now.
The book i am reading at the moment is his book called "Forged". Love me some Bart E!
D
I was too late. I see Bucky hooked you up.

I am reading Forged, too! Well... actually that's not entirely true. I was reading Forged until I had to give it back to the library. I said screw it and bought my own copy. But as fast as Amazon shipping is I couldn't help but pick up a new book. So I am now reading The Origin of Satan, and then I will have to start all over again on Forged.

Have you read Misquoting Jesus? That one is next on my list.
Read that; it's quite good with background info on textual analysis.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-12-2012, 07:11 PM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
(03-12-2012 09:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm watching the "Old" part first. She makes some good points, and I'm only partway through it, but I do disagree about some things she says. She says from the beginning she will be an academic, and objective. Then immediately starts talking about "God", (capital "G), and I'm sure she is a theist, and it shines through in a lot of the things she says. She says the Genesis accounts places the woman last, as the pinnacle of creation, when in fact the woman is an after-thought, when the god *discovers* "it was not good for the man to be alone". She also says the Hebrews had a unique value of human life, when in fact their god is as destructive of life as anyone could be. She also introduces "evil" with no introduction, when in fact it was still "choas" from the Babylonians. She finds the idea of "monotheism" as a unique development, when in fact it arose non-uniquely, late, from the culture as a result of the destruction of the meaning system of "family" systems, after the Exilic period, and polytheism had to be actively suppressed (for political purposes). So, it's good in a way, as an example of a non-fundie academic approach, but I would argue with her about many of the things she says, and the way she says them. She is obviously "walking on eggshells", trying not to upset the "believers" in the class. She does say Sarna "overstates" things, which he does, in attempting to say the god(s) of Israel were the first examples of "charity and compassion". That was clearly evident in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, before them, and in Athraisis and Gilgamesh, (from Babylon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Minimalism
I'm surprised she didn't say a word about the roots of "chaos" in the Sumerian roots of the garden myth, as Buber, explained. She has the "classic" view of "idolatry" which not everyone shares, and she constantly refers to the fact that the taking of human life is an absolute moral value in the Bible, which it obviously is not, and perfectly acceptable, in many instances.
She also doesn't mention the "ram in the thicket" theme in the Abraham sacrifice of his son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_in_a_Thicket
She does mention, quite correctly the "hospitality", (the "outcry" of the "abused stranger") theme in the Lot story, but fails to mention that it follows directly upon the "hospitality" of Abraham to strangers, as it's antithesis.
If we can't even trust a Yale professor to give it to us straight (eggshells be damned) then how is anyone supposed to actually get a clear picture of this already complicated and marinating-in-lies history?!
Thanks for the quick critique.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 07:28 PM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
(03-12-2012 07:11 PM)Noelani Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 09:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm watching the "Old" part first. She makes some good points, and I'm only partway through it, but I do disagree about some things she says. She says from the beginning she will be an academic, and objective. Then immediately starts talking about "God", (capital "G), and I'm sure she is a theist, and it shines through in a lot of the things she says. She says the Genesis accounts places the woman last, as the pinnacle of creation, when in fact the woman is an after-thought, when the god *discovers* "it was not good for the man to be alone". She also says the Hebrews had a unique value of human life, when in fact their god is as destructive of life as anyone could be. She also introduces "evil" with no introduction, when in fact it was still "choas" from the Babylonians. She finds the idea of "monotheism" as a unique development, when in fact it arose non-uniquely, late, from the culture as a result of the destruction of the meaning system of "family" systems, after the Exilic period, and polytheism had to be actively suppressed (for political purposes). So, it's good in a way, as an example of a non-fundie academic approach, but I would argue with her about many of the things she says, and the way she says them. She is obviously "walking on eggshells", trying not to upset the "believers" in the class. She does say Sarna "overstates" things, which he does, in attempting to say the god(s) of Israel were the first examples of "charity and compassion". That was clearly evident in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, before them, and in Athraisis and Gilgamesh, (from Babylon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Minimalism
I'm surprised she didn't say a word about the roots of "chaos" in the Sumerian roots of the garden myth, as Buber, explained. She has the "classic" view of "idolatry" which not everyone shares, and she constantly refers to the fact that the taking of human life is an absolute moral value in the Bible, which it obviously is not, and perfectly acceptable, in many instances.
She also doesn't mention the "ram in the thicket" theme in the Abraham sacrifice of his son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_in_a_Thicket
She does mention, quite correctly the "hospitality", (the "outcry" of the "abused stranger") theme in the Lot story, but fails to mention that it follows directly upon the "hospitality" of Abraham to strangers, as it's antithesis.
If we can't even trust a Yale professor to give it to us straight (eggshells be damned) then how is anyone supposed to actually get a clear picture of this already complicated and marinating-in-lies history?!
Thanks for the quick critique.
I'm being too picky. I have my own perspective. She is being very very objective, and does a great job of presenting the texts as literature, and emphasizes very correctly that they appropriated the traditions and stories for their own purposes. So, actually you CAN take what she says as very good, objective, mainstream, excellent scholarship. Just keep in mind that she obviously has a great "respect" for it (apparently), as "religious" literature, and I think it may come from belief ... I really don't know for sure. But either way, it is a very good intro to mainline, (non-fundie) scholarship, (as opposed to the nonsense of Biola, and the "Bible colleges).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 08:06 PM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
I'm just impatient. I want to pull back the curtain and have everything be revealed (that is revealable).
I would also hope that the personal views of a professor would not be obvious in their teachings. To me it didn't seem obvious but that's coming from someone who grew up in a fundie home, so that doesn't mean much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 03:26 AM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
(03-12-2012 07:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 07:11 PM)Noelani Wrote:  If we can't even trust a Yale professor to give it to us straight (eggshells be damned) then how is anyone supposed to actually get a clear picture of this already complicated and marinating-in-lies history?!
Thanks for the quick critique.
I'm being too picky. I have my own perspective. She is being very very objective, and does a great job of presenting the texts as literature, and emphasizes very correctly that they appropriated the traditions and stories for their own purposes. So, actually you CAN take what she says as very good, objective, mainstream, excellent scholarship. Just keep in mind that she obviously has a great "respect" for it (apparently), as "religious" literature, and I think it may come from belief ... I really don't know for sure. But either way, it is a very good intro to mainline, (non-fundie) scholarship, (as opposed to the nonsense of Biola, and the "Bible colleges).
I'm not so sure that she is a believer. She accepts that the Bible is full of myths and she knows and teaches where Yahweh comes from.

Maybe she used to believe, or perhaps she just feels a responsibility to be politically correct when teaching such a touchy subject, especially in America.

Educators aren't supposed to take sides in any issue, they are supposed to teach only the facts of the issue and leave their personal opinions out of it unless they are specifically asked about them by a student. Even then they should be very neutral as to what they say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 04:30 AM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
(04-12-2012 03:26 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 07:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm being too picky. I have my own perspective. She is being very very objective, and does a great job of presenting the texts as literature, and emphasizes very correctly that they appropriated the traditions and stories for their own purposes. So, actually you CAN take what she says as very good, objective, mainstream, excellent scholarship. Just keep in mind that she obviously has a great "respect" for it (apparently), as "religious" literature, and I think it may come from belief ... I really don't know for sure. But either way, it is a very good intro to mainline, (non-fundie) scholarship, (as opposed to the nonsense of Biola, and the "Bible colleges).
I'm not so sure that she is a believer. She accepts that the Bible is full of myths and she knows and teaches where Yahweh comes from.

Maybe she used to believe, or perhaps she just feels a responsibility to be politically correct when teaching such a touchy subject, especially in America.

Educators aren't supposed to take sides in any issue, they are supposed to teach only the facts of the issue and leave their personal opinions out of it unless they are specifically asked about them by a student. Even then they should be very neutral as to what they say.
If you look her up, she's a very well respected Jewish scholar, and accepted by that community, on many committees, and Jewish institutions. On some level, it seems she's a theist. She does have a great respect for the "uniqueness" of the differences of the Hebrews, (and stresses it), vs their Canaanite neighbors. There were a few, but she ignores many of the things which would refute her position, even with respect to the history of Yahweh, (as one of the 40 sons of El Elyon), and many other details. There are other ways to look at the whole picture, which she avoids, (ie the completely "political" view ... which I have). But even so, she presents a fairly objective view of the literature for beginners. But she is squarely in mainstream (non-fundie) scholarship, in my opinion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
I am already into lecture 4 of the Bart Ehrman series and MAN oh MAN is this stuff awesome!
I cant thank you guys enough for directing me to this lecture series. He's revealing things that should be obvious but due to a lifetime of god goggles they were hidden from view.
AND when he puts things in perspective of Jewish timeline.....whoa daddy....does he make a damning case!
D
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2012 03:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
One of the most frustrating things about the Martin series, is that he missed the opportunity to point out, in talking about "divine" beings, that for 21st Century people when they say someone (Jeebus usually) is a "divine being", it does not mean the same thing as it did when someone of the First Century said that, and certainly not when a Hebrew said that. There were thought to be all sorts of "divine" beings. They had different hierarchical levels, and it certainly did NOT mean they had any equivalence to Yahweh, or even had any special relationship to him. All it meant was that they were "other than" human, (beings). 21st Century believers still maintain a hierarchy of "supernatural beings", (angels and demons), which are no longer called "divine", but they are "other than" *natural* beings. It doesn't make a lot of difference, except that when a 1st Century Christian would have claimed Jeebus to be "divine", it in no way means they thought of him as having a nature "equivalent" to Yahweh. It is more like a Roman claiming the emperor was a divine being, and that level of divinity was one of the lowest levels of "divinity".
(It matters a lot when tracing back the idea of "divine beings" when looking at the "resurrection" business.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 06:11 AM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
All kinds of great stuff on sale for the holidays at the Teaching Co.
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cours...spx?ps=910

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:58 AM
RE: Yale's Introduction to the New and Old Testaments.
(17-12-2012 06:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All kinds of great stuff on sale for the holidays at the Teaching Co.
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cours...spx?ps=910
There's another good course,, (on sale today, for the holidays), by Bart Ehrman, about all the many Christianities that developed, but ended up "lost".
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/searc...t%20Ehrman

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: