Tithing and the Christian Churches

don · 11-10-09 11:20 pm

I don't agree with everything Dr. Hayes says, but I find her very careful in what she asserts. This is a different level of scholarship than what Karen Armstrong offers. Armstrong digests the writings of people like Dr. Hayes, develops her own sense of history and then writes compelling books on her ideas. She is not a carefully spoken peer-reviewed historian. Christine Hayes is. .

elaine · 11-10-09 11:56 pm

No specific differences were noted. As to "digesting other writings" that is only a superficial evaluation. Everything written about events occurring so long ago are a compendium of writings that are accessible to all. Her sense of history I found in no way disagrees with the opinions I have developed from writers. To contend that a "different level of scholarship" is in Karen Armstrong is only a general observation. What is your definition of "scholarship"? It would have more meaning if you could a little more specific. Otherwise, it is only a general observation: observations are always dependent on one's previous perceptions. If you have objections, can you be more specific? Everthing I have read by Alter, Bloom, Durant, and Karen and others all agree with Hayes, so it is confusing for someone to state that hers is not good scholarship. She has been acknowledged as world-class expert on world religions.

don · 11-11-09 1:42 am

The "Ever Tendentious" Karen Armstrong I must defer to others to provide examples of criticism of Armstrong's approach. I view the mission of Karen Armstrong in a far more positive light than these critics. She seems to be on a quest to teach peaceful coexistence between the three great monotheistic religions of the world. Just the same, I present these criticisms to show how important proper credentials and methodology are in the world of peer-reviewers:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:...A list of superlatives is saved for the man himself. Muhammad, according to Armstrong was good-looking, with a whole-hearted character and luminous expression (p.78); he was gentle to women (p.79), and wise (p.82); he was a spiritual genius (p.98) with "enhanced knowledge" (p.159); he loved children, was pious (p.230), was lenient, kind, loved animals (p.231), helped with the household chores (p.239), and had a mission much more difficult than that of Jesus, which succeeded (pp.250-251). All of these examples she gleaned from source material compiled hundreds of years after the fact, yet she repeats them as if she knew the man himself. It was obvious to me that Armstrong used the many classical Muslim sources without questioning their veracity. Very little was ever said concerning the authenticity of the sources. When she broached the subject she contended that they were not a "whitewash," but gave a "compelling and realistic portrait...telling their story as honestly and truthfully as they could" (Armstrong 1992:47). What bad Hadiths there were, she maintains, the later compilers "ruthlessly discarded," so that the editing was objective (Armstrong 1992:48). I am certain that there are few orientalist scholars who would agree with such assertions. It was this uncritical acceptance of the traditional sources which set her off from the other biographies I read. While the other three authors each took pains to mention the problem of primary sources, Armstrong hardly ever mentioned this difficulty, rehashing the traditional accounts without ever warning the reader of the possibility of elaboration. It was only when faced with accounts which were apparently erroneous that she suddenly fell back to alluding to the possibility that there was room for embellishment; for instance stating that the invasion of Mecca by Abraha on an elephant was probably "embellished by legend" (Armstrong 1992:67). Why she suddenly chose to find an embellishment in this account and not in any others I am not sure. It would have been helpful had she remained critically consistent throughout... Reference Cited: Armstrong, Karen, Muhammad, A Western Attempt to Understand Islam, London, Victor Gollanca Ltd., 1992 <a href="http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/muhbiog.htm" target=_top>http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/muhbiog.htm</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Daniel Pipes writes of Karen Armstrong. According to <a href="http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/december/danielpipes.htm" target="_blank">Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy</a>, <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Pipes is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He received both his AB and PhD in history from Harvard University and has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He served in various capacities in the U.S. government, including two presidential appointments as vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and as a member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Here is what he says of Karen Armstrong:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong New York: Modern Library, 2000. 222 pp. $19.95. Reviewed by Daniel Pipes Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2001 <a href="http://www.meforum.org/1439/islam-a-short-history" target=_top>http://www.meforum.org/1439/islam-a-short-history</a> The Modern Library has attempted to stage a comeback by launching a large and ambitious series of handsomely produced volumes, most of which are indeed by leading authorities. Not so this slim work on Islamic history, a scandalously apologetic and misleading account written by a former nun with an ax to grind. The apologetics start with the Prophet Muhammad and conclude with the present day. Armstrong goes out of her way to soften every hard edge, explain away every unpleasantness, and hide what she cannot otherwise account for. The massacre of the Jewish tribe of Qurayza she acknowledges a "horrible incident" but urges the reader not to judge it by the standards of our time; has moral relativism sunk so low? As for hiding what she cannot account for, the author has the temerity to characterize Muslims living in the West as "beleaguered and endangered" without making the slightest reference to the likes of such fanatics as the blind sheikh of New York or Cemaleddin Kaplan, known as the "caliph" of Cologne. And if Muslims are oppressed in the West, why do they wish to immigrate there in record numbers? Inaccuracies also permeate this foully dishonest text. Armstrong's account of the breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiya ("the Quraysh violated the treaty by attacking one of the Prophet's tribal allies") gets the facts wrong (it was not Quraysh itself that attacked but one of its tribal allies, the Bani Bakr) and so mangles the whole import of this incident. Nor can she keep track of time: "On the eve of the second Christian millennium," she pronounces with her wonted pomposity, "the Crusaders massacred some thirty thousand Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem." But the eve of that millennium was 999 and the Crusader massacre took place in 1099. Turning to the present day, she states that Malcolm X "became disillusioned with the Nation of Islam … when he discovered the moral laxity of Elijah Muhammad." Well, "became disillusioned with" is one way of putting it, but a more accurate verb might be "expelled from." Likewise, she ascribes to Malcolm X the founding of the American Muslim Mission, an institution that in fact did not come into existence until 1981, or sixteen years after his death. These represent but the smallest fraction of faults early and late, large and small, of omission and commission, that mar Armstrong's dreadful book. Avoid it at all costs. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I repeat, I present these quotes, not because I concur with the harsh sentiments, but to illustrate the problem. Dr. Pipes obviously is at the opposite end of the spectrum regarding attitude to Islam than Karen Armstrong. .

elaine · 11-11-09 11:23 am

Both comments relate only to her analysis of Islam. Much of her work is on Judeo-Christian beliefs. What is the opinion of others when she writes on these? BTW, weren't both comments directed only to her views of Islam? She has written much more on Judeo-Christian and other beliefs. What are some of the opinions on these? Controversy is the name of the game when writing on such topics where there is a wide diversity of opinions. Such is seen even in SDA books. When you referred to Christine Hayes it was solely on the subject of early Judaism, which is what was initially addressed. Do you find that Christine and Karen differ on this? If so, where? Both of them discount themselves as theologians. They both are academic historians.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 11-10-09 11:20 pm

Re: Tithing and the Christian Churches

#27 11-10-09 11:56 pm

Re: Tithing and the Christian Churches

#28 11-11-09 1:42 am

Re: Tithing and the Christian Churches

#29 11-11-09 11:23 am

Re: Tithing and the Christian Churches

Board footer