It’s good to be back in Triskelos. Hopefully, you guys will share that sentiment. I want my first post-hiatus article to be one that really touches a nerve in all of us. I have chosen a topic that we all have a personal stake in, and that we are all well-versed in. Also, I write it for selfish reasons, because this is a topic that I am ever fencing with. The impetus for this involves an encounter with a book, a particularly dangerous book. It took me almost three weeks to read it. Keep in mind that this is coming from a person that read the first six Harry Potter novels in under a week’s time. Not an incredible feat, but just an example to drive the point home that this particular book was only of average length. The time to read it was a result of needing time away from it to contemplate the ideas within it, and the time it took to muster the courage to delve back into it. I am going to go ahead and disappoint you, and tell you that I will not mention the name of this book or discuss its contents in great detail. My understanding is that Aiden has something prepared that will cover this book’s contents and purpose thoroughly.
My intention is to write an article to get everyone in the appropriate mind set with which to discuss it. Fortunately, as I have mentioned the topic I have chosen is one we all know well, but to your chagrin it is one that I think makes most of you uncomfortable. We will be discussing the “Infallibility of Scripture”. To do so I will be referencing a book, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, Phd. This is not the book that bothered me so much, but it is of the same ilk and by the same author. This little work (barely over 200 pages) has been on my shelf for a couple of years. It provided me with the first insight into how our scripture came to be. It’s not at all comprehensive on the topic, because the main purpose in writing it is to show that changes have been made in scripture over time. This idea was not very shocking to me. I suspected as much anyway given that we have as many versions of our own Holy Writ as we have Christian denominations that follow them. What amazed me was our best manuscripts are not as old as I would prefer them to be. What I mean is that we don’t have the originals or even copies of the originals. To be honest the originals may not even be the originals given that they were recorded much later than the actual events they describe.
WHICH CAME FIRST INFALLIBITY OR FAITH?
Dwelling on the idea of what truth is in light of my own faith (I call it Christianity, but I am sure that if many other self-professed Christians knew my heart on what being a Christian consists of they would surely disagree with that designation) and the particular brand of truth that Christianity has to offer led me to one inescapable question-what is the essence of Christianity’s truth?
At first I thought faith, but then not much later did I realize I was putting the cart before the horse as we are not born with faith. Our experience is post a priori rather than a priori-meaning that we were not born with the Kool-Aid in our veins but rather we drank it somewhere along the way. If not an innate sense of faith then when did it happen and why? Was it in Sunday school coloring in the Jesus coloring book? Was it bible drills at VBS? Not exactly, somewhere along the way the idea was introduced (maybe not explicitly) that the cornerstone of our faith was that our Holy Writ is infallible. For a child that is not that big of a deal. I once believed tooth fairy and Santa Claus-this really wasn’t a stretch. May be they didn’t use the word infallible, because the attention span of most children is best limited to two syllables words or less. It was most likely the song, “Jesus Loves Me”, and line, “…for the Bible tells me so.”
WHERE DOES OUR BIBLE COME FROM?
The truth is that prior to establishing the modern canon there were many letters like Paul’s and many gospels other than our four. There were so many books available that Athanius, in 367 CE, in his annual message to the Egyptian churches told them which books we wanted them to follow. Ehrman included excerpts from the writings of other early church leaders as well. Consider this from Origen:
Differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.
Another from Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth:
When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reversed. Small wonder then if some of them have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.
Now consider the writing of Celsus, an anti-Christian pagan. He likens the pandemic of altering scripture to a drunken escapade:
Some believer, as though from drinking about, go so far as to oppose themselves and to alter the original text of the gospel three or four times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism.
Consider this example that is found with Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest MSS available. This is actually the manuscript in the image:
“Christ bears [Greek: PHERŌN] all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)”
“Christ manifests[Greek: PHANERŌN] all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)”
And the reaction by the scribe’s superior:
“Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don’t change it!”
Basically an original text was copied so that another church could have a copy and then both were copied and so on and so forth. Today these surviving copies have either very fancy names like Codex Sinaiticus a fourth century manuscript for example, or they have a designation like P forty-six (actually the forty-six is superscripted). So we have manuscripts and we have scribes, and some of these scribes weren’t even literate. Some of them were just good at copying what was in front of them. Many of them were copied locally, and some scholars believe that differences in local traditions arise from differences between their texts. Consider P46, it is the oldest surviving copy of Galatians. It was written in 200 CE, 150 years after Paul wrote it. Let’s put that into perspective. That would be like trying to piece the Declaration of Independence in the 1920’s from oral tradition. What a cluster that would be. We could play the manuscript game all day. There are about 5700 in existence today, and according to Ehrman there are more variations between them than words in the New Testament.
Ehrman is what those in his field refer to as a textual critic. This is a field that analyzes vocabulary, writing style, and other elements of manuscripts to evaluate their authenticity. It’s not uncommon to use this approach it if you were a historian. My concern is that this approach has been used to examine biblical manuscripts for some time now and having gone to a conservative Christian liberal arts school I have never heard of this. When I learned more about it I was a little disappointed, because it seems so important for the formulation of our canon. The idea is that when an entire book is read in Greek there are certain aspects of the style that don’t mesh well that we don’t always see because they are lost in translation. I would liken it to reading poetry that was written in another language, but you are reading it English. It may not sound like poetry anymore. An example of this is seen in John. The beginning of John that is famous for the metaphor of the Word is considered by many textual critics to be a poor fit for the rest of the book. Other issues for scholars are the difference in style of discourse and the content when compared to the other gospels. One passage in particular, John 7:53-8:12, is considered to not have been in part of John or the other gospels at all, but added later by scribes. In fact this passage is not in some of the oldest and best manuscripts for the Gospel of John. Why do we have it? Another example of this sort of thing is the last twelve verses of Mark.
When Latin texts became prominent copying increased and so did the number of variations. Pope Damasus then commissioned Jerome to create an official Latin version of scripture-the Vulgate. Another break through for preventing further alterations was the Guttenburg Press, but that didn’t appear on the scene until the 1400’s. Also in the 1400’s was a massive undertaken, the Complutensian Polyglot, which was a multivolume edition of the Bible that laid out scripture to be able to compare the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Old Testament . Consider that there was a time when the Greek texts were only used by the Greek Orthodox Church, which were considered to be outsiders y the Western Church. How did the compilers of this multi-volume work know which Greek version to use when they were unfamiliar with the many versions available? This was not the first Greek New Testament in print however, the Dutch scholar Erasmus new about the Polyglot and wanted to steal that honor. Erasmus rushed to publish his version. He said it was praecipitum verius quam editun, meaning, “rushed out rather than edited (Ehrman 79). If you see a scholars notes you may notice TR, textus recepticus-or received by all. This indicates that a version based on the MSS that Erasmus used, which is not considered to have been the best available. I find it almost comical, because that is the Greek text that was used to create the King James Bible.
Consider the difference between this well known passage, one from the Latin and the other from the Greek versions.
The Latin:
There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three who bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
The Greek:
There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
It looks a lot less like the Trinity now, doesn’t it? Ehrman doesn’t say it, but some scholars believe that parts of John exhibit a particular pagan influence that existed during the time in which this book was written-just food for thought.
Around the 1700s scholars of theology became aware of the problems with the texts and felt compelled to find a solution. Here is a list of the scholars mentioned in case anyone wants to look them up:
Brian Walton and John Fell
John Mill, Fellow of Queen’s College, Oxford-he actually believed that textual criticism was a Papist plot to undermine the notion of Sola Scriptura and promote the Papacy as the only needed authority.
Richard Simon
Anthony Collins and John Locke
Richard Bentley
Johann Albrecht Bengal
Johann J. Wettstein
Karl Lachman
Lobegott Friedrich Constantine Von Tischendorf
Brooks Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort- their work, the New Testament in Original Greek, 1881 is considered by many to be the classic text in the field.
Wescott and Hart were of scholars that believed that manuscripts could be grouped by families. They described four families:
Syrian texts, also called Byzantine texts, are those of the late medieval ages, and are considered to be not very close to the originals.
Western texts consist of large number texts described as being wildly copied prior to the establishment of the scribe profession.
Alexandrian texts were made trained scribed but believed to have been altered occasionally.
Neutral texts were those were believed to have not undergone serious changes-the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were in the opinion of Hart and Wescott to be neutral.
MODERN METHODS
External evidence is a way of making arguments about a reading that receives support from other manuscripts. In addition to external evidence there are two types of internal evidence. One is intrinsic probability, this is where probabilities are based on what an author most likely would have written. In other words, would John be more likely to use the phrase Son of God or Son of Man? The other kind of internal evidence is transcriptional probability. This isn’t concerned with which text an author has written but with which reading a scribe was likely to have created. Sometimes textual problems occur because texts are at odds with each other. Mark 1:41 is a good example of this. In this passage Christ reached out his hand in compassion and healed a leper. The word for passion is SPLANGNISTHES, however, in other texts the word ORGISTHEIS is used which means becoming angry (Ehrman 133). The latter is supported by Codex Bezae, which is one of the oldest manuscripts available and which is supported by three Latin texts. Using transcriptional probability one would conclude that it is more likely that a change was made from angry to compassion and not the other way around. This is based on the idea that compassion is consistent with other passages about Jesus, and it is highly unlikely that a Christian scribe would change the wording from compassion to anger.
Something else that bothered me that I bet most you already knew was that scholars believe that Mark was written first, and that it was used to write Luke and Matthew. I am not bothered by the idea of it, but I am bothered that I never heard it before. Why couldn’t a preacher or Sunday school teacher or New Testament survey professor mention it?
DIFFERENCES IN THE CANON
In Mark 2 Jesus is citing 1 Sam. 21:1-6 and is making a reference to David’s actions, “when Abiathar was the high priest”, but in actuality this was when Ahimelech was high priest. I know what you guys are thinking, why does it matter? Theologically it matters very little, however, historically it is a little important. It shows a discrepancy that was either an error of the original author or a scribe that followed the original author. (Ehrman 9)
Go to your bible and look in the gospels to answer the following questions:
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
Was he crucified before or after the Passover meal?
After Jesus’ birth did Mary and Joseph go to Nazareth or Egypt?
Why does Mark describe an angry Jesus while Luke describes a relaxed Jesus?
I find this quote from Ehrman to be of interest:
“In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that is precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself; in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John that is practically the only reason he does miracles.” (Ehrman 10)
Consider Hebrews 2:8-9:
For when [God] subjects to him all things, he leaves nothing that is not subjected to him. But we do see Jesus, who, having been made for a little while lower than the angels, was crowned with glory and honor on the account of his suffering death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Now consider that, “by the grace of God” is in many versions, “apart from God…” In fact this can be referenced in the writings of Origen. Why change it? This concerns scholars because the word grace (CHARIS) isn’t used in the epistle to refer to Jesus’ death or to salvation obtained through his death.
This one I didn’t get from Ehrman but from Wikipedia. I don’t recall the original source but it is in the article on the Great Commission:
“Textual critics note that the portion of Mark 16 which records the commission is not found in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and the Codex Sinaiticus.”-Wikipedia, “Great Commission”
Ehrman attributes some of the changes in manuscripts be reflective of theological differences among different Christian groups of the time and those who opposed them. He mentions the following: Adoptionists, Docetists, Separationists. He also believes that other changes were made based on different social perspectives regarding: women, Jews, and pagans. Lastly, given that Christians weren’t making a lot of friends with populations that were predominantly pagan, anti-Chrisitan writings appeared. In response to these writings Ehrman lists changes that were made to texts that reflect Apolagetics. Today many scholars have given up on finding the original meaning but are mostly concerned with finding the best source from what is available. Ehrman also points out another really important point. When we read scripture we put in our own words, and the scribes were no different except that their changes often stuck around.
HARLEQUIN’S HERESY
It is undeniable that the gospels, while very similar, are also very different. One might point out that the time of the crucifixion and Jesus’ last words are of little importance in the grand scheme, but I think the reason that Ehrman pointed them out is because those are details that should easily have been consistent. An apologist might say that this doesn’t render the texts “un-infallible”, because what makes them such is that they are different for a reason. This reason is that the Holy Spirit inspired all of scripture so that we have the Bible as G-d intended with similarities and discrepancies alike. I have never liked this argument. Why didn’t the Holy Spirit just inspire them to be consistent with each other? Why are there so many versions, and can we really argue that the word of G-d has been preserved for us with all of these variations? What I really have an issue with the idea that inspiration from the Holy Spirit guarantees the inerrancy of our text from a logical perspective not a theological perspective. Here is my personal maxim with regard to this issue:
INSPIRED IS NOT INERRANT, TO BELIEVE SO IS TO CONFUSE G-D’S PURPOSE FOR MAN WITH MAN’S PURPOSE FOR G-D.
My reasoning is as follows:
The notion of inerrancy rests upon a monumental assumption. That is, that the end result of the Holy Spirit guiding a believer is an inerrant action. If this were true then we should be able to find these same results in other instances where the Holy Spirit guides us into inerrancy. I think that it is logical to use results that have been reproducible time and time again. When is it that we as Christians have all witnessed and experienced others being inspired by the Holy Spirit? Some of us have been moved to accept Christ as our savior, that is to say that we have experienced and witnessed a baptism in the Holy Spirit. I tell you with absolute certainty that the millions who have been inspired in this way have not produced inerrant actions. It follows logically that this assumption does not withstand reason.
I can only imagine the various rejoinders to this argument. I welcome them, because this concerns me greatly.
So far I have only justified the first half of my maxim. The reasoning behind the latter half of the maxim involves the source of our gospels. Our texts have come from the best information we have available to us, and contrary to what most Christians want to believe these manuscripts are far from perfect sources. In many cases there are mistakes, and most of them are accidental or insignificant. However, in other instances changes have been made to reflect theological differences or social opinions.
WHY NOT PREPARE BELIEVERS?
How do we reconcile infallibility with our faith? I have heard the same answer many times before-faith. The problem is that faith begins somewhere. The seed must be planted. Most Christians believe that faith begins as a result of inspiration through the word of G-d. The issue is that there is never a process in which the acceptance of scripture as the foundation of our faith is ever scrutinized prior to making a decision, thus the circular argument of Christianity. Yes, I know that is why it is faith. Once a believer reaches an age where they can understand the theological arguments and see discrepancies for themselves, what do they do? I think it is fair to say that as a general rule most people are ill-equipped to formulate a response to these issues. This leads to one of two responses: 1) A believer is left with doubt or 2) they attribute this to heresy or some devil-inspired attack on their faith and they shut down to any form of dialogue. I THINK THAT THIS FAILURE TO HELP PREPARE PEOPLE IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST FAILURE OF ORGANIZED CHRISTIANITY. The problem is that seminary graduates rarely go into detail about viewing the Bible in a historical context worthy of academic scrutiny, and they do not ever explain how our modern Bible came into existence.
DEFINING CHRISTIANITY
Ehrman believes that the notion of Infallibility is an American idea that is only found abroad where Christian missionaries from America have gone. It is his opinion that it is not a prerequisite for being a Christian. For most American Christians, especially Protestants, that is the theological equivalent of calling your mother a whore to your face. Why does it have to be this way?
QUESTIONS
First, I want to know from our members who have been theologically trained if they are familiar with these ideas of textual criticism and the use of historical methods to analyze texts?
Second, is accepting infallibility a prerequisite for being a Christian?
CONCLUDING REMARKS
What I hope that everyone takes from this discussion in order to think about our next discussion is that if we scrutinize the evolution of our own scripture using the same historical academic methods that we would use to verify secular manuscripts that we may be left wanting. The other thing is that I wanted everyone to be thinking theologically with relevant arguments cocked and locked. Furthermore, I want to add that I appreciate the work of Bart Ehrman. It is the first work that I have seen to challenge Infallibility in a respectful and academic manner. To be more to the point, it made me think-I like that most of all, and the cost of his books was much less than the tuition of private, liberal arts schools.
AESKEPULUS ATROPOS
Posts
26 comments:
Harlequin,
I share your appreciation of getting involved again in Triskelos. I trust that this and future conversations will be fruitful in at least helping us refine our own viewpoints and perhaps see value beyond our own.
For me, you accomplished both with this article.
I can respond more in depth to some of the questions or comments that you pose, but I wanted to go ahead and throw out a few bones to pick around.
1. Perhaps a good future complementary piece would be, "Reconciling the Circular Argument that is [Human] Reasoning." I think a robust discussion on epistemology would be a great idea, especially from some of you who have a little more background in philosophy than myself. How do we know things? How do we know that we know? The salient thing here with this article is that to evaluate Scripture in any sense requires us to use rationality which, if we take the argument far enough, can be as flawed as any historical or contemporary document. Pure rationality or empirical data (which I would argue cannot exist outside the Godhead) is itself dependent on some higher set of rules which supersede the logic itself. In some sense, people will always choose to believe a certain way based on faith in an undergirding sense. Simply put, I believe logic itself is an exercise in faith. (In an aside, this is one of the few redeeming aspects of the whole postmodern movement against a rusty, smug post-Enlightenment worldview that something doesn't exist if we can't measure, dissect, or see it.)
My question to myself and anyone else willing to consider it is this: what provides the best source of faith for making rational decisions (like judging the purported revealed Word of God)? It stands to reason that it could only be something more intrinsically qualified to do so. As a Christian, I am forced--by creed, yes, but also by conscience--to allow Scripture to judge itself.
How can--and does--that happen? More on that later if necessary...
DC
2. I appreciate the humility that you extend in your treatment of this important subject, HH. Not having read either of the books you referenced, I don't know either author's full perspective. However, the usual temptation of most authors seems to be to reduce the Scriptures to the level of any other book, either to the level of other religions' holy writ, or to impose personal philosophy on the text. I believe that Christians are called to be submissive to the text because it is the Word of God. Three caveats, however, go with that statement.
a. We are submissive because of its nature and purpose, not because groups of dead guys--important and godly as they might have been--command us. Each of you might disagree at different levels with my following statements. (Perhaps this been discussed in the past in other articles?) I believe the Bible's nature to be the Revealed Word as opposed to the General Word (nature, creation, etc), both of which reveal specific atrributes of God and specific parts of His purpose to His people (generally and specifically). Simply put, the Bible's primary purpose is to tell the authoritative story of the God of the universe and his people.
b. Christians are to be submissive to ONLY the Word of God--that further complicates things, doesn't it. Do we count the Apocraphal books (interesting aside--they were originally included in the 1611 KJV)? Why aren't the historically non-canonical gospels and epistles included? Why weren't they viewed as substantive or inspired to the degree as other OT or NT texts? Furthermore, to pick up on HH's comments, how do we pick and choose among the actual canonical texts? If you have used modern multiple translations over your lifetime (KJV, NIV, NASV, ESV, for me), you would have clearly even the continuing outworking of this process in the story of the Stoning of the Adultress and other verses in the Gospels that some translations either leave out altogether, include with a note, or include wholeheartedly. All of this based on manuscript choice, of course. Does it affect my overall worldview and submission to the text? No. It reminds me that the Book is mediated in human language, in terms of human lives and eras, but is preserved by a God powerful enough to persevere his Revealed Word. If God wasn't able to do that, well, he'd be pretty impotent. This is where the logic and Biblical accuracy of God's sovreignty fits. If we are to believe that God does preserve his people, how much less could we doubt that he can't preserve his Word for the preservation of future generations. To deny the one denies the other (which may or not be a problem for each of you).
DC
(Caveats continue)
c. This submission is a commitment, a choice that should be continually verified and seen in living out all areas of life according to specific or implied Biblical principles. It is not the rigid application of Islamic law that says that only Arabic copies of the Q'ran are legitimate. Neither is it the logic that the LDS sect uses in ordering that its members only use the KJV version (because apparently that was what Prophet Smith used, after dowsing for gold tablets in New York). Finally, it is also not ignoring or dodging honest questions raised by Christians or non-Christians alike about the veracity and inerrancy of the Scriptures. There is yet an aspect of submission that must be there.
d. Well, someone had to come up with that Scripture, right? Not only did a human have to sit down to write it, but the canonical books had to be chosen, right? Mistakes could have been made from the perspective of somehow distorting what God might have actually given to Moses, Isaiah, or Peter to fit a certain philosophy. Some of these are mentioned in the books themselves, especially the OT, as much as would have been known by the writers in their lifetime. Again, it goes back to whether or not a person has faith that God is who He says He is, and, of course, that is only going to be found in the Text. Seemingly circular? Yes. Necessarily so? Only if you aspire to intelligence higher than human...
3. I think that you would agree that there is more a general ignorance or lack of foresight among American Christians than a conspiracy to hide some of the purported textual problems behind the received Text (in whatever pre-modern or modern version you want to choose). I think that this habit of not talking about it is a small tip of all of the other wisdom that the Church could be discussing and discipling its flock in. Let's not stop with textual criticism. Let's talk about all of the old 'heresies,' nearly all of which find comfortable and cozy homes in alternate forms of the Faith. Let's talk about the patristic fathers, medieval Catholic saints and leaders, Magisterial Reformers, and non-Western leaders--not in a hagiographical sense, but looking at how God's grace was outworked in their lives for they were humans just like us. Let's talk about how the doctrines of grace, sovreignty of God, responsibility of man, and justification of sins have been wrestled with (and continue to be so). The problem is the refusal of multiple generations of Christians to be thinking Christians, either because they are only concerned about their personal salvation (revivalist/pietist influence here?) and little else. This is not the historic faith. Our churches in this country and probably all others will have to deal with this in the future. Some are. You just have to find them.
DC
4. As we continue this conversation, I will try to be consistent as possible with presenting my own views and hearing and learning from yours. One thing that I will resist, however, is using inappropriate tools to evaluate things for which they are not intended. Using empirical evidence and rationality are not wrong in judging the Scriptures; they are just insufficient. In the end, we are forced to either confess or deny that the Text is profitable for knowing God's story and our part in it on the basis of faith.
And what is faith? I believe that part of it is realizing that God is God and we are not. It is also believing in things unseen and not yet fully known. I believe that if we are honest, that faith is not as intellectually dishonest, inconsistent, or irrational as it might initially seem to our modern or postmodern hearts, minds, and souls.
5. My final point is this--what is the ultimate point in reconciling our doubts about the Bible that sit on our shelves? Is it a firmer conviction in the providence of a loving God who preserves His salfivic Word for His people? Is it a desire to understand it better so as to share its unique truth with others? Is it done in order to better understand it so as to better view one's and all existence through its stories, principles, and truths?
Contrarily, could we count it a success if we rendered it less circumspect regarding our lives, making it less authoritative, more relative, less absolute? With what alternative or alternatives could we supply in its place that would point us to God? Possibly we would discover as more than two millenia of disbelieving generations have that (a) we really don't need God (deism), (b) God really doesn't exist in the traditional Christian sense (unitarianism, Arianism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Manicheanism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism, etc), (c) God really can't be known at all (agnosticism), (d) God only reveals himself through the secrets of the universe reachable only through great insight or struggle (gnosticism), (e) we are the measure of God in the sense that he is a construct of our own imaginations and evolutionary outworking (humanism), (f) God is a useful construct to controlling others (statism, fascism), or (g) God really doesn't exist at all (atheism).
I'm sure that I've left out some worldview/philosophical approaches and overly generalized the ones I have mentioned. My point is this--without inerrancy, without believing that God talks authoritatively to people through written words on pages and that those words will be unreservedly preserved, the Bible is a mere bauble at its best and pernicious at its worst.
As for me, I will keep teaching my four year and two year old the chords of the old hymn, "Jesus Loves Me/ This I Know/ For the Bible Tells Me So..." There is nothing else under the sun besides God's Revealed Word that can take its place.
This is a personal issue. It is also absolute. I anticipate your comments and verbal jousts. I trust that God be glorified in whatever is said.
DC
In response to DC’s comments I will first say that as usual Damocles’ thoughtful responses and sound logic always resonate with me. I can agree that that epistemology is at the core of this issue. If we didn’t have scripture then we would only have our conscience, and then what would we know? Furthermore, I agree that human rationality is flawed and empirical arguments have their limits. My concern is that the same human rationality that defies inerrancy also supports it. This notion of the Revealed Word versus the General Word may be rooted I scripture but is itself a product of human rationality. This same rationality was used in deciding how our canon should be assembled in the first place. Some of this rationale is horrible. Consider Irenaeus’ logic for just having the four gospels:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel…it is fitting that she should have four pillars…(Against Heresies)
I say all of that to ask, how do we know when someone’s conscience is channeling the Holy Spirit as opposed to when an early church father was blowing smoking out of his pious arse?
Where did that leave me? Damocles, makes a good point in that you have to make a choice. I accept the existence of a divine Creator. According to my algorithm I am not an atheist. I will go further to admit that this G-d cannot be fully understood but certain attributes can (I guess I am not an agnostic, but I do have agnostic tendencies). My flawed rationale tells me that G-d must reveal His/Hers/Its presence by interacting in human history. That’s not really saying a great deal. It’s almost archetypal-every monotheistic religion believes as much. This is where my faith tends wane. We have a G-d that has taken a personal interest in our existence, and He has invested us with His sacred Word. It doesn’t take an intellectual giant to rationalize what happens when Man has anything sacred- if it’s an object we tarnish it; if it’s a charge we fall short of it. I fail to see how the collation of our canon is any different. I do see the upcoming counter to statement however. This idea that we cannot view the bible as a book like any other or that we cannot compare it to the scriptures of over religions is the usual rejoinder, and G-d has a vested interest in preserving it for future generations. The anti-reductionist claim is a little arrogant, but I won’t argue statement or its reasoning.
All I can say is that I will not agree to an infallible scripture. I will say that an infallible scripture is not without value, and that certain aspects of G-d’s purpose can be revealed within it either way. If by the Word, we don’t mean the literal Word of God, then I can accept this. If by Word, we are just referring our best understanding of His purpose (as revealed to Man by the Holy Spirit so that we have a written account of something that happened one hundred years prior. Although that begs the question about why G-d would allow so much time pass. What about those generations of Man? Did G-d care enough about them to work on this sooner?) then I will play ball. It’s kind of like the Platonic argument of forms versus matter. We can’t know the thing in itself, but we can have an idea. Even that for me is a difficult proposition, because it depicts G-d as angry, jealous, homophobic, etc. I don’t want to sound like Marcion incarnate but that is in stark contrast to the, “forgive them for they know not what they do.” I was hesitant to bring these points to the table to keep the scope of the discussion narrow. However, I have reached a point where I think it’s unavoidable. These issues, at least for me, are inextricably linked.
If I assume that the writer’s of our scripture each felt compelled by their conscience to write what was within them to be transmitted. I can say that these writings in a sense are sacred but I do not know that I can go as far as to declare them infallible (actually I won’t). The consciences of men are also inspired by foolishness. We don’t have to think hard to recall that atrocities have been committed in the name of G-d or His son. I say that to ask you to consider again the Stoning of Adulteress. On its face it seems strange to worry about this passage, but I fear its intent. If this passage ended John 7:52 it would appear as though Christ didn’t win over the Pharisees. It would show that because of prophecy the Jews were divided over Christ. The additional verses do two things. First, they show a victory for Christ over the Pharisees. Second, it depicts the Pharisees as deceitful or unfair for attempting to draw Christ into a situation that they thought he could not win. It also suggests evilness in that they would gamble a women’s life to prove a point, which is in stark contrast from the mercy of the Messiah. My concern is that this passage may be a latent attempt at anti-Semitism, which is why I use the phrase, confusing G-d’s purpose for man with man’s purpose for G-d.
Aside from that I want to mention some other points of DC. I do think the general ignorance of American is probably a factor. I couldn’t agree more that churches need to go beyond textual criticism and delve into the history and old heresies. That sort of thing might counter-balance that post-Enlightenment smugness (which I too am guilty of on occasion in addition to Gnosticism, Humanism, and at times Deism.)
And there were two very important questions that necessitated a response:
My question to myself and anyone else willing to consider it is this: what provides the best source of faith for making rational decisions (like judging the purported revealed Word of God)? It stands to reason that it could only be something more intrinsically qualified to do so. As a Christian, I am forced--by creed, yes, but also by conscience--to allow Scripture to judge itself.
How can--and does--that happen? More on that later if necessary...
What can be intrinsically qualified to do so? If we assume G-d is revealed in scripture then yes, as you say, let scripture judge itself. However if the Body of Christ were capable of making such a judgment on scripture using scripture then may be Christianity would have less faces than the Lernaean Hydra.
And this one:
My final point is this--what is the ultimate point in reconciling our doubts about the Bible that sit on our shelves? Is it a firmer conviction in the providence of a loving God who preserves His salfivic Word for His people? Is it a desire to understand it better so as to share its unique truth with others? Is it done in order to better understand it so as to better view one's and all existence through its stories, principles, and truths?
As I alluded to, I do this for selfish reasons. This is and always has been the albatross of my faith, and I know that I am not alone in this.
DC, what I appreciate most in your dialogue was this statement:
Well, someone had to come up with that Scripture, right? Not only did a human have to sit down to write it, but the canonical books had to be chosen, right? Mistakes could have been made from the perspective of somehow distorting what God might have actually given to Moses, Isaiah, or Peter to fit a certain philosophy
I can already see that this character limit and i will not be getting along
I apologize for the character limit issue...it will end up being my bane as well. Since we have so long been away from Triskelos I did not know this was a problem, and I'm not sure when it began. I have done some quick research in Blogger's help forum and it appears that this is a change Blogger made to stop spammers from exploiting a flaw in Blogger's design. Their statement is:
"There is a flaw in Blogger comment code that makes the deletion process abort with large comments. Spammers were exploiting this flaw in order to create undeletable comments. Blogger is protecting us from undeletable spam comments by preventing long comments."
At present it doesn't look like I can fix this.
HH,
You hit the nail on the head with Platonic analogy of forms and matter. I, too, have wrestled with that as it could seem that the received text (The Bible) is simply a best-possible-but-yet-flawed temporal example of a perfect form which (a) either did exist in first century A.D. or (b) has never existed outside the mind of God. I am not schooled well enough in any discipline to know the history of this discussion, but I would imagine that this is not a novel assumption.
However, I believe that with the Bible we have something very unique, very special, in fact the ONLY unique, special thing that exists in our world as untarnished by man but existing in the world. Do we have an equivalent? Yes, if you believe the words of the canon--the person of Christ. But, the formulation of the personhood of Christ is also dependent on the Bible, right? Exactly. That is the obvious danger from this end of time (2010) when we try to go back and reconfigure or reexplain what was arrived at over time. Can it be or should it be done at times? As a Protestant, I obviously agree with that or I would be saving up every month to buy some indulgences for my deceased grandfather or for a pilgramage to Lourdes.
You raise some extremely salient points here, HH, and I appreciate your honesty and probity. My response to the whole question is the opposite but for perhaps the same reason? I accept the 66 books of the OT/NT as canonical--inspired and inerrant--for the sake that if I begin to pick and choose what we want to believe and count authoritative to any degree, I set myself above the text.
DC
Does this mean that we simply read it and do exactly what it says? For starters, I am not a Evangelical Fundamentalist. Many of them would probably brand me a heretic for my next two sentences, and that is ok. They are using a Bible that uses substandard manuscripts (you and I agree on that one, HH) and was commissioned by--if my sources are correct--by an agnostic-leaning bi-sexual tyrant. My even more shocking belief is that the entire Bible is not to be taking literal in the sense that we would read a cookbook, science textbook, or history monograph. So, while I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, I would say that parts of it either don't apply to Christians today or perhaps mean something other than the literal meaning. Now, I think that we're probably in the same camp on this, so let's watch each other's backs, ok? Two examples. We don't use capital punishment to punish family members who somehow disrespect their father. It's also not a sin to mix two kinds of fabrics in the same piece of cloth. God doesn't also routinely order us to go out and slaughter all our opponents in a certain geographical location. Were those things commanded then. If I believe in inerrancy, I must submit to the text and say yes. What I don't have to do is to slavishly or ignorantly try to recreate those things in my own life. Why not? Well, we have the entire counsel of the Bible, more history occuring, more of God's story recorded for the next approximate fifteen centuries. If we have a perspective of the whole thing, we can see that there was a literal value in these actions (God's holiness, preserving his people from sin, etc) but are expressed differently in the New Covenant (e.g. Church Age, 2010, etc).
I think that makes a big difference and distinguishes between literalism and inerrancy.
The problem I see in rejecting inerrancy is that it renders the one objective (no, I haven't forgotten textual criticism's claims) way of knowing EXACTLY what God expects of man and what we can expect of God. We can't find that in nature as the Eastern philosophies claim. Neither can we find it merely in "the burning of the bosom" as LDSers and perhaps some Pentecostal groups might suggest. You are exactly right about the questions of subjectivity that could be raised about the canon's origins. Here, I would point to three things--the purported work of the Holy Spirit on the hearts and minds of His people, (again) the sovreignty of God to accomplish His will in the world, and the possibility of wiser saints than thou and I dealing effectively with this decision.
DC
I know a little about the different councils that wrestled, argued out, and decided those 66 books. I know Dan Brown's version as well as the more hagiographical accounts of the golden-haloed, gray-beared wise ones. I assume that it was somewhere in the middle, resembling real life. No great patriarchal cover-up of the Divine Mother Goddess (if so, she would even more impotent than the God of the Bible has excused of being). Real flesh-and-blood people acting sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes sincerely for the good of the Church, to discover which letters and Gospels to stamp as approved. (They were doing the same with musical liturgies, by the way. I have some great recordings of banned music from Milan and Spain--beautiful but not approved.)
This process was obviously revisited in the sixteenth centuries when other perspectives than offical Roman Catholicism (I'm not sure what the Orthodox and non-Western churches in Africa and Asia were doing...) were somewhat tolerated. They obviously deemed the Apocrypha as non-canonical (for good reasons, I believe) and most of our current versions attest to that.
Now, this begs the question. Could any of these groups have gone wrong along the way? Of course--most things are possible. Assuming that it is possible to actually possess a Revealed Word of God, could there be more work to do. I would say that it is not impossible but highly improbable. Even recent discoveries of new manuscripts, revisiting the old ones, and raising the issues that I suppose the non-canonical books raise due to their mere existence would not shake the canon much. I would think that it might add nuances to certain words in certain words, but would probably not change core or even secondary text and, as a result, beliefs.
HH, you had brought up the issue of copying manuscripts in the ancient and medieval times and how complicated and fraught with potential errors that that was. I would add two things there. One, in pre-literate societies, it seems to have been common for most people, especially men, to have memorized huge chunks of material and have them retain it for their entire lives. We know that was the bulk of at least Greco-Roman education, the memorization of the epics--poems, prose, and drama--of the greats before them. Even 'barbarian' people groups from Germania, Central Asia, and Africa had epic tales that were passed down verbatim. For the literate--probably at their greatest extent around the time of Christ--writing and reading reinforced that ability to record and preserve texts even more. As you have studied Jewish history and culture more than me, HH, you are probably much more versed in the details and intricacies of Jewish manuscript copying, the attention to detail that each scribe was forced to use and how mistakes were treated. I would assume that this was the norm in the Christian tradition and if not as accurate as contemporary machines, nevertheless preserving the content through sheer repetition and geographic dispersal. Again, I stand to be corrected.
DC
I do enjoy your phrasing, “best-possible-but-yet-flawed temporal example,” especially when I follow it with, “I think that makes a big difference and distinguishes between literalism and inerrancy.” It would seem that we seem to meet on the level as it pertains to this aspect of inerrancy. I think maybe that we just have different definitions of the term. For the above quotes I would describe them as infallible, because I see them as less than perfect. Whereas, I assume you, while not having a differing opinion on these points, would label them differently. I am not obsessed with semantics that I think we should have to agree on the terminology so long as we have an understanding of where we both stand.
Your mentioning of literalism is definitely on point. I think that so much of the more metaphorically inclined scripture loses depth when it is taken literally (I think Christians could learn a thing or two from the using exegetical methods of the Kabbalist midrash-another discussion perhaps). I also find it interesting that both of the examples you cite are from the Law. My first thought was of how this might be applied to the New Testament.
I too have heard as much about pre-literate societies memorizing massive quantities of information. I don’t have any arguments there. I also like the reference to the sale plenary indulgences. I can only imagine the frenzy that caused among wealthy Catholics of the day.
You brought up three points: the Holy Spirit; the Sovereignty of G-d, and that the church fathers were possibly wiser than us. I won’t argue the first point so long as we agree that even though the Holy Spirit inspired them that the possibility of error was still present. The second point I won’t deny either. If it is G-d’s will then it is done, however, I am not entirely sure that is a factor. There is also room for the free will that He so graciously allows us to hang ourselves with in so many instances. I often wonder to what extent that Christianity is what He intended it to be. As for the wisdom of our early church fathers, I probably lack the proper humility with which to approach this issue so as not to, as you so rightly put it, set myself above the text, I would caution any who call them saint. I will take a moment to digress and elaborate on that last statement. Actually I will just borrow some quotes that speak for themselves.
Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.
Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.)
We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.
John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.)
The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.
St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!
Peter the Venerable – known as "the meekest of men, a model of Christian charity"
Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.
John Calvin
A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew
Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.
Martin Luther’s were entirely too long to just copy, but I encourage everyone to read them. Here is a link: http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm
Now let us talk about the personhood of Christ now that we have a worthy juxtaposition that we may know what is not at all Christ-like. Actually forget it, I am not all in the mood, nor am I feeling Christ-like. Who can know Christ that doesn’t see the Divine Spark in every soul? How can they decide what is Christian when they failed to see that we all fall from the same tree in that we are all sons of Adam? Curse these men, our beloved Church Fathers.
It has occurred that my final points within my previous comment are possibly misconstrued as an attempt to advance my position in the discussion by way of a Red Herring fallacy. It was not my intention to subvert the dialogue so as to avert any substantial consideration of the personhood of Christ. The origin of anti-Semitism within the early church is an issue of which I have great conviction. I recognize wholeheartedly that this hinders ( to borrow from a favorite character) my ability to “to judge a situation dispassionately.” It probably also doesn’t help that do much of my typing as I think with minimal editing or reconsideration of my words. I am as guilty as Erasmus of praecipitum verius quam editun. That is not to say that I regret or renege my comments with regard to the church fathers but that I will properly consider the personhood of Christ as it relates to our discussion as a separate issue altogether.
I am inclined to think that without scripture we would only have the Holy Spirit to guide us. Where would that leave us? It is reasonable to think that we would be left with the imprinting of a higher power. However, without further clarity our understanding of this celestial being is nebulous at best. Scripture, even if flawed, is the only indicator that the Man in the Sky has an active role in the history of creation. For Christians this is established with that all too controversial prologue in John. This brings me to ask, what understanding would we have of Christ if we didn’t have scripture? The answer is probably none whatsoever. Beyond scripture, we are left wanting to find a historical Jesus.
I may address at a later time and in a separate post the issues of the church fathers and beginning of anti-Semitism. The truth is that rabbinical experts unanimously agree that Christ is not the Messiah promised to them. Upon reading their arguments it is not difficult to see why. They believe that Christians have always had a poor understanding of prophecy. For now I will let this issue rest, and maybe in the near future I can put a worthwhile post together.
I routinely embed new article posts on my Facebook page...as I expected this one prompted some comments from my Facebook friends. I thought them worth sharing:
From Daniel Randle:
Dex, you might want to check out Darrell Bock's work against Erhman. One article can be found here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/03/Misinformation-About-Misquotingthe-Bible.aspx?p=1
Also check out James R. White's debate with Erhman here:
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/white-ehrman-transcript.pdf
As someone who studied textual criticism in Seminary and can fully understand his argumentation, let me tell you that Erhman often manipulates his data to make false conclusions. He ignores the ideas of perspective and applies anachronistic criteria to ancient writings, particularly in the area of how history was recorded and how manuscripts were copied. He's certainly an interesting guy, but he's also a guy with a clear agenda, which often causes him to be much more biased than he is willing to admit. Just like all of us, his presuppositions often dictate how he views the data and what he does with it.
And from me to Daniel:
Daniel, I will look into this. I just read Jesus, Interrupted a few weeks ago and have been looking for something that answers from the other side of this debate. I'm not sure about what you mean in terms of his agenda. Erhman was a highly conservative thelogy student until was introduced to the historical-critical model of examining the Greek New Testament and its variety of manuscripts. Do you mean his agenda after he changed his mind and became an agnostic? If so, he claims he didn't become an agnostic because of issues of inerrancy. In any case, his book is troubling, even if only a small percentage of it is accurate. I've been commiting serious thought to the matter. You might consider commenting on Triskelos...this is the subject (well, Misquoting Jesus actually) of Greg's recent post and is currently being debated.
And Daniel's response:
I had the opposite response from Erhman when I came into contact with historical-critical methods. I recognized that often whatever one's presuppositions were, they were led in that direction. For agnostics, atheists, and liberal interpreters of the Bible, they often ignore easy explanations in favor of complex mechanisms that, for them, indicate flaws and errancy.
One example of this is something I am dealing with in a sermon this week. In Mark 15, a "purple" robe is placed on Jesus, whereas in John's Gospel, a "scarlet" robe is said to be used. For liberal interpreters, this is a sign of errancy. However, in the ancient world, colors were not defined the way they are today - they were described, not defined. Perception of two different 1st person accounts reveals two different colors in our Western world. For 1st century readers, however, the colors were virtually synonymous. Yet, I found several websites that took note of this difference and used it as an example of the errors in the Bible.
So when I say "agenda" it's not so much that I am meaning it in a malicious way, but in that Erhman examines evidence that supports his views, yet does not allow for evidence that could easily explain his examples away. Also, he forges a definition of inerrancy that isn't quite squared with conservative Biblical scholarship. His "agenda" thus is that which adheres with and supports his presuppositions.
As for contributing on the blog - I would love to, but unfortunately, I don't have much time these days with a newborn who takes up much of my spare time. I do highly recommend Bock though, as well as a two-part critique of Erhman by Ben Witherington III, the first of which can be found here:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html
Additionally, one of Erhman's most vocal critics has been his own mentor, Bruce Metzger, who is a foremost authority in the areas in which Erhman writes.
I hope all that helps. If you need any other resources or some help with an particular text or two, let me know. As I said, I studied textual criticism in Seminary and I am very familiar with the situations Erhman writes about and I can show you where to find opposing views. My last advice to you is to approach this with a very open mind. Ehrman is a gifted writer and lecturer, but so were many misguided and incorrect individuals. In the end, it comes down to the correctness (or lack thereof) of the arguments, not how well or passionately they are presented.
And Brian Mooney commented:
Might want to check out the Jerusalem Perspective as an alternative to Erhman who I find to be a bit polemic. I know David Bivin's brother quite well. David has lived and studied in Israel for 40 years with some of the brightest scholars at the Hebrew University in order to understand the Hebraic nature of the synoptic gospels, the understanding, of which, they think has been influenced by translators over-reliance on their understanding of greek and overall ignorance of Hebrew. They are also highly opposed to the Aramaic theory. I'm not sure I agree with everything they say but they do make you think about a lot of things.
Actually I wouldn't really call the Jerusalem Perspective an "alternative" to Ehrman, more of a completely different way of looking at the issues that makes a lot more sense to me.
HH,
I have been very busy over the past few days since you posted the very thought provoking article on Triskelos. I am a proponent of the inerrancy of scripture (haven't always been, but am now). Inerrancy by definition is that where the Bible speaks, it speaks without error. I do not have the time to defend this idea in one comment, but did want to write something to let you know I read the article and wanted to get into the conversation. The fact that there are thousands of variations of the New Testament and many, many manuscripts (copies of copies) is a strength to the validity of scripture, not a negative. In my Greek New Testament (UBS text) the introduction of the text includes a mammoth discussion of the textual apparatus used in the development of the Greek New Testament text. Every manuscript is listed with the dates of the copy. The earliest manuscripts we have from history come from the third century. The problem with preserving the original manuscripts, or copies from the first or second century is the fact that it is very difficult to preserve papyri (which was the main mode of transcription in the first century). The Dead Sea Scrolls were quite the anomaly, because of the setting where they were stored and discovered (in a dry desert climate in a cave). In every single Greek New Testament that is issued, every textual variant is listed within the text and the options that are available are listed. In the Hebrew 1:3 passage, the Greek does have the pheron as the participle (there is no mention of a textual variant here). The variant is later in the verse - tes dunameos autou, katharismon (then it lists all the manuscripts that have this rendering and then all the other manuscripts that two other variations). This phrase - (tes dunameos autou, katharismon literally is translated his power, purification (it is a phrase in the sentence - upholding (bearing) all things by the word of his power, making purification of sins.
Therefore, it seems to me that pheron is not an issue here - this is the word that the writer of Hebrew used.
I want to make the point that most inerrantists (including myself) claim that the scriptures are inerrant in the original manuscripts. The translations are not inerrant, the versions are not inerrant, the Greek NT is not inerrant. The original manuscript is inerrant. The job of textual criticism is to use all the variations that are there and to put together as much of a consensus as to what the original manuscript said so that we may with confidence preach and read the Gospel of Christ......
As with these questions:
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross? Matthew says that he cried out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit; Mark says that he uttered a loud cry and breathed his last; Luke says that the loud cry is "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!"; and John says that Christ said, "It is finished." I see no contradiction in this. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in basic agreement with Luke (who as you see in the first pericope of the gospel took pains to gather all the information possible on his Savior's life). John was actually there at the crucifixion and thus had the authority to say more about it. Plus, John is writing his gospel last (as tradition holds) and most likely has the other gospels in order for him to amplify lacking information.
Was he crucified before or after the Passover meal? I read a good discussion on this from Robert Stein and I will have to refer to that to answer this question.
After Jesus’ birth did Mary and Joseph go to Nazareth or Egypt? My reading of the gospel birth narratives does not preclude the occurrence of both instances. Matthew, of course, includes the protracted narrative of massacre of the innocents, the visit to the Magi, and the flight to Egypt. Luke includes the presentation of Jesus at the temple and then states that "when they had performed everything according to the Law of the lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him." There is nothing in this text that says that they had to be in Galilee immediately. You must remember that Matthew also places Christ in Nazareth after coming back from Egypt. I would say that both accounts are factual.
Why does Mark describe an angry Jesus while Luke describes a relaxed Jesus? I don't understand what this question is gathering, but I am assuming that we are talking about the arrest of Christ. Yes, there are different moods. Each account seems to be emphasizing different aspects. I would say that Jesus was both relaxed at the fact of submitting to the will of God - and relaxed to the multitude coming to arrest him. However, he was angry at the disciples (who were trying to fight against the mob (Peter) or were going to flee). I do not see a contradiction here.
In conclusion (for now), I do not think that you have to believe in infallibility in order to be a Christian. I believe that faith comes through hearing the word of God proclaimed and believing the gospel and submitting under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. "Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and beleive in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:9-13)
Blessings,
Gaius Tertullian
I would agree with the comments made by Daniel Randle and commend his thoughts. Presuppositions pay a large part in the formulation of ideas and positions. Liberals many times deny this, while conservatives many times champion this. I know that is an oversimplification, but I have seen it at work. We all have presuppositions whether we like to admit them or not. I will say that I have a presupposition to the truth and infallibility of the Word of God.
I would also interject that Immanuel Kant basically destroyed the idea that one can logically or rationally prove the truth of the existence of God or the reliance on Scripture. Also, Lessing (forerunner to the Historical-Critical Method) basically destroyed the idea that one could logically or rationally prove the truth of the Bible from a historical perspective. However, this does not rock my foundations, for my belief in the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture is not found on rationality or history - but on faith and my belief. Therefore, I believe in what the Bible says. I use it as the rule for faith and practice. I hold it to be inerrant in its original manuscripts. Thus, Christianity is not solely a work of reason or the mind, but a work of the spirit. And it is a faith that has serious implications - monumental implications based off of the revealed word of God. If there are half-truths, best-guesses, maybe sos, who knows, and deceit intermixed with Gospel truth, what do we have?
Thus I also agree with Damocles Chrysostom that we must trust in the Sovereignty of God.
Yes, I guess that in the eyes of many secular-humanists I have committed intellectual suicide, but I always come back to this passage:
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart. Where is the one who is wise Where is the scribe? Where is the debator of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (I Corinthians 1:18-25)
Gaius, I’m glad you’re back in Triskelos. I appreciate the official definition of inerrancy. I think it may come as a surprise to individuals on both sides of the discussion. Your initial point regarding variations as a strength for establishing the validity of scripture is particularly interesting. This is mentioned in the debate that DR has given us a link to. Dr. James White refers to this as the notion of the tenacity of scriptures which he borrows from Kurt and Barbara Aland. It was an interesting debate, and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
As for the example from Hebrews, I cannot claim it. I borrowed from Ehrman’s work. I know next to nothing about Greek, however, I would probably lean with Ehrman on this. He is, after all, considered to be among top experts in the field (Dr. White actually acknowledged that Ehrman is probably in the top three but Ehrman admitted there were a few other s he would include). I won’t argue that any further as I am indescribably ill-equipped to do so.
Your rebuttals to discrepancies within the Gospels are compelling. I would be willing to concede them all except for the discrepancy of Christ’s final words. How can that be reconciled? How can the last utterance of Christ have so much variability? It would seem that you could claim he said them all, but when you compare Luke and John it seems less likely. He speaks, he bows his head, he dies. It leaves little room for making claims that different aspects of the same event are portrayed. Why would you need different aspects of this? If Christ said both, then why not have both of them in a stream of dialogue? Here are the verses just to be thorough:
In Luke it says:
“Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”When he had said this, he breathed his last
In John:
“It is finished.” With that he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
To your point on presuppositions, I can agree to an extent. I am, however, a firm believer that a great deal objectivity is still possible in matters such as these even though it’s definitely not the norm. I also respect the view speculative philosophy by its very nature is a reductionist philosophy especially where sanctity is concerned. I have argued as much in my articles on the Holocaust. I don’t see why you have to choose between faith and reason, and as long as I can resist I will.
Furthermore, I believe that theology is in debt to reason. Theologians use it as much as anyone. Not every theological idea is directly given in scripture. Some are implied within it and others are inspired from it, but I think in either case the application of reason is present. I think that the issue that theologians have with humanist ideas is that they while they use reason they don’t have those aforementioned presuppositions, which inherently assume a reverence for scripture or the Sovereignty of G-d. Reverence is important, but I don’t believe it always necessitates an abandon of reason under the guise of humility, which I think that the average believer is often guilty of.
HH,
With regards to the comment about the last words of Jesus - I don't see it as a stretch to see both of the statements uttered at the same time. If you see in John's account, you see the mention that he gave up his spirit. If I was chronologically looking at this, I think that Jesus said It is finished first and then gave up his spirit in a cry and bowed his head in death. The words, "It is finished" are words of somewhat satisfaction in that the propitiatory work of atonement has been completed and he can enter rest, resurrection, and glory. He had finished the task the Father sent him to do. I see them both as having validity.
With regards to reason and presuppositions, I too agree that reason has a HUGE part to the faith. I am not saying that in the least. What I am saying is that if you depend solely on reason to try to "make it all work out" you will be disappointed. For, the Bible and Christian doctrine are fraught with contradictions that cannot easily be rationalized and understood. Cases in point would include the Trinity, Christ as the God-man, the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the Free Will of man (especially in salvation), the already-not yet aspect of realized eschatology of the Kingdom of God, etc.
No, I love using reason in thinking on Systematic Theology, but the Enlightenment and the subsequent 300 years has shown that pure reliance on reason to figure out the existence and truths of God along with trying to find the "historical Jesus" have proved to be futile exercises.
Reason definitely has its proper place and it is crucial, but it is aided by the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.
Remember, Paul the Apostle himself had an extremely high view of reason in Romans 12:1, but it is in the context of worship, and conformity to Christ:
I urge you brothers to present yourselves to God as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. This is your spiritual / logical (the Greek word here is logikon, where we get the word logic) act of worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your MIND, that you may know the will of God, his good, pleasing, and perfect will.
Gaius
I somewhat misspoke in the previous comment. When I say that difficult theological truths like the Trinity and the like are contradictions, I meant to say that they were "seeming" contradictions or paradoxes. For, in the end, I do not see these truths as contradictory, but complementary. Ultimately, the variable that pushes my mind over to the complementary view of things here is - reason tempered by a large dose of faith.
Post a Comment