John Edward Cooper’s Notes
Notes, written ca. March 1975
|
1975 [Glosses in the text, and recently written notes, are indicated by brackets […].]  Most people claim that Daniel wasn’t written by Daniel. Most scholars nowadays believe that Daniel was written around BC168 when Antiochus Epiphanes was attacking the Jewish nation, as a piece of apocalyptic to help the people retain their national hope and faith that God’s righteousness would triumph. [I expanded this note on 10th May 1975. Although, e.g., chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel internally claims to be a prophecy dictated to Daniel by Gabriel during the Babylonian captivity, some modern scholars believe that the Book was pseudepigraphically written in the mid-2nd century BC, and that rather than being a genuine prophecy the passage was a postdiction, written as a polemic against Antiochus IV Epiphanes.]  I get the impression sometimes that maybe some of my religious beliefs are scientifically suspect — i.e. that some of its premises are not true e.g. historically. This comes to me as a vague anxiety, a continual nagging inside.  Examples:
just clinging to an outmoded and false system of thought and belief? Are these suspicions founded in truth? Or are my original beliefs? I’ve got to know, but maybe it can’t be known. Or at least, I’ve got to find the most credible position compatible with my conscience. ∴ Formula: If A is more credible than B: assume A true provided A [greater than] B does not discredit Jesus Christ.  I’m sick of suspicions and anxious doubts arising in my mind and suppressing them by the main force of blind faith, — guilty conscience for fear of betraying God, — bigotry and tradition. On the other hand, is it not true that you come to conclusions which depend solely on your starting bias, without coming nearer to any ultimate truth? bias A [pointing in a leftward direction, leading, with the application of several steps of] logic [to] answer A [further in the leftward direction; and] bias B [pointing in a rightward direction, leading, with the application of several steps of] logic [to] answer B [further in the rightward direction] Conclusions A and B are widely divergent. You have to be biased at the start, you call it your working hypothesis if you like. Could this happen? bias A [pointing in a leftward direction, leading, with the application of several steps of] logic [to] answer A [further in the leftward direction.] → this lacks credibility ∴ abandon (this could happen an indefinite no. of times) → bias B [pointing in a rightward direction, leading, with the application of several steps of] logic [to] answer [further in the rightward direction.]  Or is faith so strong as to preclude this possibility? Example of suspicion: Premise 1: Premise 2: Mosaic authorship ————– divine inspiration could ⇒ no contradiction ⇒ no contradiction no discontinuities could ⇒ conflation of written and/or oral source material by Moses → contradiction discontinuity Suspicion:
[The two premises that I started with, were:
In all fairness: DON’T KNOW Because of belief in Jesus Christ and placing credit on His words: MOSES.  QUESTIONS: • Do Jesus’ words necessarily imply MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP? (1) • What are the implications of believing the assertions about non-Mosaic authorship? (2) • Why have the assertors of non-Mosaic authorship done so? (3) YES ↗ YES ↗ ↘ (1) Can this be made NO by “explaining ↘ away” yet be true to Jesus Christ? NO to the people who make them? ↗ (2) ↘ to me. Can I hold such beliefs and be true to Jesus Christ? { don’t like certain things revealed by God? { don’t like miracles? ↗ (3) ↘ other things take away its credibility as historical truth — which Moses would have known to be untrue.  “Each piece of evidence isn’t much in itself but taken as a whole…” — used by Christians in respect of e.g. the Resurrection and credibility of gospel accounts. Using the same argument over authorship and inspiration (⇒ ? ) “The Bible contains no proven errors…” — yes, but doesn’t its credibility wear thin in places? |
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]