Summary Bruce Waltke

D. History that is orally transmitted is not reliable since it depends on people being able to speak and listen for it to go on. If there’s no one to reiterate, then the history is abolished. An example of this would be the Beothuk people who went extinct after facing many hardships, such as diseases and European contact. If not for the documents and illustration recorded by Shawnadithit, there would be no information on the Beothuk people. Simply put, they would cease to exist.

In Indigena as scribe: The (W)rite to remember. A Xicana Codex of Changing Consciousness Writings, Cherrie Moraga emphasizes the importance of writing, as people of color. Moraga makes us aware of how much we deny our culture, practices, and myths because we are so afraid to be like our ancestors. Although we fear this close proximity to our ancestors, to Moraga, that same proximity is what makes our narratives valuable. The fear carried within us silences us and makes us forget about the powerful voices we hold. Moraga also writes about the importance of recognizing that institutionally, we have become colonized beings and to understand this concept, can help us break away from the shackles that keep us from being who we truly are. For Moraga, it is important that we acknowledge the power that writing has. She wants us to realize that our narratives are important and we have the right to remember who we are.

This text analyses the complexities in writing and interpreting history. Mark Damon claims that historians encompass at least three different ways of accessing the past; remembering, recovering, or inventing. The texts states that no history is the full unvarnished truth and that memory is usually what many must result to, making the facts potentially flawed. It also discusses how evidence and artifacts aren’t complete without context and some historians result to fabricating the story behind it. Throughout the text it glances at two very different historians, the Roman Tacitus and the Byzantine Procopius, and shows the range and difficulty inherent in the study of the past.

There is much debate over the historical accuracy of the Hebrew Bible and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Some claim that to understand a work of literature requires extensive knowledge of the background of this work. The contrary position is that a work of literature can be interpreted solely on it’s content. The meaning of the term classical literature is that it can be applied during any period of time, it is eternal. Yet the conditions surrounding the author might still be of interest to the reader, and of importance to the work. As with many cases, the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. Both sides have valid arguments about the importance of historicity.

In that sense, we might understand why Mamadou Kouyaté, the griot and narrator of Niane's version of Sundiata's story, states that “writing lacks the warmth of the human voice. ”1 Besides, oral history has also evolved with the presence of Western ideas. There is for instance a strong justification of oral history and a reminder of the legitimacy of the narrator, as if the griot knew that Western readers might not believe what he is saying. Mamadou Kouyaté reminds his audience that “the Kouyatés have been in the service of the

What is History? How does it differ from the past? These questions are asked by almost every Historian at some point in time. This essay will use the Code of Hammurabi to show that the actual past that historian attempt to obtain is not as important as the way it effects daily life, which creates history as we know it. It will look at the discrepancy between who created the document and who actually wrote it, the difference between why a document is important and why it survives, how the intent of the author based on their world view does not directly correlate to the fulfilment of the document either originally or after time, and try to understand this civilization and the impact it has had on lives throughout the years including today. These ideas are based on the notion that if it mattered we would know. This essay will prove these points by looking at the laws within the Code of Hammurabi and where they have turned up throughout history.

Begin examination by reviewing the author, as certain types of sources, such as scientific or medical journals, will require an author to hold credentials not necessary to other source types. A thorough vetting ensures an author stands up to scrutiny. Two key factors to evaluating content are date of material and potential biased. Medical, scientific and legal fields require up to date information with no biased whereas literature or historical sources need not always be the most current. Sourcing for literature or historical research must account for potential biased attitudes of the period. The intended audience of a source can also assist or diminish overall credibility. Sources reviewed and accepted by peer groups add authoritative weight to the source. Author, audience and content each represent a vital component to ensuring your source credibility.

Through the study of past evidence, historians become capable of creating educated interpretations of the past based on such evidence and previous knowledge. Difficulty in interpretation does not come from insufficient evidence, with an abundance of preserved historical works from writers, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus for example, but the unreliable nature of literary tradition (Cornell, 1986) resulting in differentiated opinions of the usefulness of ancient evidence particularly with the incompatible stories of Roman foundation. The usefulness of stories from Romans can become increasingly valuable though there are some historians of the opinion the

The Sumerians made earth tablets and a slice reed stylus to record the cuneiform content (Matthews, Noble & Platt, 2014). Just a little gathering of educated, profoundly prepared copyists could record data utilizing the content, because of its trouble. However, for over five thousand years back the Sumerians, utilizing their cuneiform arrangement of composing, recorded business exchanges and additionally epic verse on mud tablets (Molholm, K. N. (2004). For the thousands of years that have tailed we have enhanced our techniques for correspondence with

In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Bart D. Ehrman, a well-known New Testament scholar and critic, seeks to show that the New Testament is a corrupt document that has been changed through the evolutionary process of scribal alteration, Early Christian theological apologetics and poor scholarship’s. Ehrman begins by speaking of his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual Criticism. He concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament in which we have no idea of knowing if what we’re reading is even the word of God or just what the scribes wanted to write.

This paper will unpack the oral tradition that heralded the synoptic gospels to reveal that what appears static in written word was actually a mutable story that shifted over decades. Furthermore, understanding the flexibility of the early oral gospel will invite current Bible readers to break from the rigidity of the text and create performances of the Gospel that reflect the cultural setting of today. In order to accomplish this task this paper will begin with a historical perspective in Palestine during the time of Jesus to show how information was passed along from one person to the next. Next, an examination of form criticism offers insight into the oral tradition between Jesus death and the synoptic gospels. Following, the scholarship of James D.G. Dunn will further the conversation regarding oral tradition. In the end, this examination of historical oral tradition will bring life back into the living Word by disconnecting the verses from the page and restoring them into the mouth of

confronting historians is knowing which of these accounts, if any of them, can be trusted as

When exploring the word of God in the Old Testament (OT), it is important to locate the texts into a social and historical context. It is in this context that the word of God is mediated by human expression. To deny the human expression is effectively to place a barrier between the word of God and it’s invitation to revelation. The OT can be seen as a “record of people’s experience of God’s self-revelation” (Rohr & Martos, 2011, p. 22). Thus the theology underpinning the OT meaning and understanding of the “word” is deep and rooted in “a Semitic conviction of the power of the spoken word” (Gimpel, 2011, p. 21). The OT is based upon oral tradition. In oral traditions, the reliability of a story, message or tale rested solely upon the

A Survey of the New Testament by Robert H. Gundry and Dr. Edward W. Watson’s lectures and his lecture book provide more information to complement Daniel Harrington’s Interpreting the New Testament. The Gundry’s writings and Dr. Watson’s lectures fill in more details for the core information of the Harington’s book and even simplifies it. Some of these examples are Source Criticism, Form Criticism, and Redaction Criticism.

Source, form, and redaction criticism are scientific methods used in interpreting the texts of the Bible. They are methodological steps on a path to seeking the origin and provenance of the Biblical texts from about 1900 to 1975 ().