Biblical Criticism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Biblical Criticism - Essay Example Biblical criticism is the general term referring to the scholarly investigation and study of biblical scriptures seeking to base grounds for discerning judgment concerning the writings. The discipline studies compositional, historical, and textual questions concerning the Old and New Testaments. In the preceding century, biblical criticism was divided into higher and lower criticism. Higher criticism concerns the study of the history and composition of biblical passages, while lower criticism concerns with closer examination of biblical texts to determine their correct or original meaning (Frigge 15). This paper seeks to discuss the forms of criticism in five ways: source, form, narrative (textual), historical and redaction. Initially, the scholars of the bible tried to harmonize the scriptures and gospels, an argument evident from the harmonization of the two narratives. Instead of harmonizing the gospels, Griesbach established parallel synoptic. The result was an ensuing question r egarding the accountability of the difference and similarities of the two gospels. This led to source criticism, with scholars trying to pin down the relationship between the sources and the synoptic gospels. Griesbach put forth an argument that Matthew was written before Mark citing the Jewish contents as the basis of the argument, but many scholars opposed the argument arguing that the book of Mark abbreviates Matthew (Frigge 68). The theory of Griesbach follows that of St Augustine, a Matthean priority proponent. On the other hand, modern scholars uphold the Markan priority and the source or framework being Mark. According to Taylor, Mark is more probable to be the source, as Luke is a quarry of stone for expanding an already existing establishment. Nevertheless, the proposal did not accurately account for the similarities between Luke and Matthew, which eventfully do not appear in Mark. H. J. Holtzmann put another source criticism theory forth in 1863. The two-source theory, Mar k Source ‘Q’ Luke Matthew, suggested that Matthew and Luke used marks to denote sources, and another common source ‘Q’. B. H. Streeter based his four-source theory on Holtzmann’s theory, with the additional argument that Matthew and Luke had some original contents in them. The four source include Mark, source ‘Q’, special M (unique material by Matthew), and special L (material unique to Luke). These theories however do not solve the mystery in its entirety. Occasionally, Matthew and Luke tend to agree with each other but against Mark. The explanations to these may be theological, traditional, or probably a different interpretation of ‘Q’ differently by Mark. Another possible argument is that one (most likely Luke) was more dependent, unlike Mark. There are also scholarly questions regarding the omission of some parts of Mark in Matthew and Luke, like the account of Jesus walking on water. Some scholars in theology, like Russ ell, believe that the omissions are not surprising. According to them, there is a possibility that each evangelist did some omission to best suit their Christological and theological needs and perspectives (Frigge 93). Another major setback in source criticism is the lack of evidence for source ‘Q’. A majority of theology specialists agree that Luke was using Matthew, as there is more Luke in Matthew than the other way round. Nonetheless, there is still the question concerning the reasons why Luke left the additions made by Matthew to Mark. At this point, the only possible conclusion is that there were different interpretations of the same source. However, existence and contents of Paul’

Lord Burlington and William Kent - Chiswick House near London Research Paper

Lord Burlington and William Kent - Chiswick House near London - Research Paper Example This can be seen in Chiswick House, which is plainer and simpler in style than a Baroque building. The new belief in order and reason caused architects to draw up â€Å"rules† for good architecture and search for â€Å"good taste† in design (Curl 37). Buildings were designed using ideal geometric shapes such as the cube, rectangle and circle (Curl 40). This can be seen from the plan of the rooms at Chiswick House: there is a hexagonal (six-sided) hall in the centre, which is surrounded by square or rectangular rooms, and the whole building is shaped like a cube (the room plan is reproduced in Curl, 30). The eighteenth century saw important social changes. The monarchy and the church were declining in importance while the importance of the middle classes and the aristocracy was increasing (Black 269). A good example is the Earl of Burlington, the architect and owner of Chiswick House, who was an important patron of the arts and a private individual, not a royal. Aristocr ats were often landowners, and the eighteenth century was the great age of landscape gardening (Black 270). Chiswick House is surrounded by gardens, which were planned by Burlington’s assistant, William Kent. There was an increasing trend for aristocrats to go on a Grand Tour to Italy, to learn about ancient history and to collect works of art for their country houses (Black 293). Lord Burlington first visited Italy in 1714 and returned to Italy in 1719 to study buildings designed by Palladio, a great Renaissance architect. Chiswick House is modelled on Palladio’s Villa Rotonda, though it is not an exact copy. Chiswick House is smaller than the Villa Rotonda and it has a portico (with classical columns) on only one side of the building, while the Rotonda has porticos on all four sides (Steenbergen 131). Palladio and Burlington were both trying to recreate the villas of the ancient Romans. This may have had a political significance for Burlington, since he was a member of the British aristocracy, who modelled themselves on the â€Å"patricians† (aristocrats) of ancient Rome. Burlington did not actually live at Chiswick House: he used the building to display his art collection, hold concerts of music, and entertain his guests. The Enlightenment’s love of order and reason can be seen when we look at the front exterior of Chiswick House. The general effect is formal, symmetrical, and elegant. The stonework is quite plain. The only decoration is to be found in the elaborate (Corinthian) tops to the columns and the triangular tops to the two large windows. Two cleverly designed flights of steps lead up to the portico. The columns and the dome are important features of classical architecture. The interior of the house is much more colorful and elaborate, perhaps as a deliberate contrast to the rather plain exterior. Outside the house, at the bottom of the steps, there are statues of Palladio and Inigo Jones, who was the first English archi tect to design buildings in the Palladian style. This kind of symbolism continues inside the house. For example, the entrance to the central hall contains a bust of Augustus, who was the first Roman emperor. On the ceiling of the Blue Velvet Room there is a depiction of the goddess of architecture, and on the ceiling of the Green Velvet Room there is Mercury, god of commerce and the arts. The Chiswick House website suggests that Mercury could symbolise Burlington himself, a great patron of the arts. The use of symbolism extends into the gardens. There are statues of