Remember Hermes? He’s the little guy you see from time to time on the logo at the florist shop, wearing a WWI trench helmet and always on the run. Actually, in Greek tradition he was the messenger of God, delivering the word of some deity to humans who badly needed to hear it. Hermes, and the concept of his role, is the basis for the Greek words hermeneutike (first found in Plato Epin. 975C) which refer to the art of interpreting. We find the word hermeneia for instance in 1 Cor. 12.10 where Paul refers to the interpretation of tongues.
In modern discourse the term hermeneutics normally refers to the art (not science) of interpreting important, often ancient or sacred, texts such as the Bible. But why would we need a guide to the perplexed in regard to the interpreting of the Bible? After all, don’t Christians have brains and the Holy Spirit to guide them? Well yes, but all modern brains are affected in the way they think by the modern cultural milieu in which they are immersed. They are affected as well by their whole educational progress (or regress) through school as well.
And frankly, ancient Biblical cultures, languages, and modes of conveying meaning are often so different from what modern ‘common sense’ may deduce that we do need some guidelines to help us interpret the Biblical texts which came out of very different cultures and circumstances from our own, ESPECIALLY if we are only trying to interpret the Bible on the basis of one or more English translations, none of which are perfect representations of the original language texts.
WORD UP--- Every translation is already an interpretation of an ancient Biblical text. Once you get this fact through your brain, you realize that all modern persons need some help in interpreting the Bible. We need to give the Holy Spirit more to work with in dealing with the modern thoughts that naturally go racing through our brains when we have a close encounter with the Word of God. What I offer below is just a few of the guidelines or signposts to help prevent misreading of Biblical texts. In this posting I am offering 3 guidelines. There are many more, and sometime later I will bring them up.
1) ‘What it meant is what it means’. Meaning comes contextually not from just having words in isolation but words in conjunction with one another in a specific sentence or larger context. For example, the English word ‘row’ can be a noun or a verb, depending on the context.
It is not true that ‘in the beginning was the dictionary’. Dictionaries are compilations of information based on close studies of how words are used in various contexts. Dictionaries do not define words, they reflect the denotations and connotations they have been discovered to have in texts, conversation and the like.
When I say ‘what it meant is what it means’ in reference to any text, but especially the Bible, I mean that the meaning is encoded in the complex of words and phrases we find in the text. Meaning is not something we get to read into the text on the basis of our own opinions or ideas. Meaning is not in the eye of the beholder. Meaning is something that resides in the text, having been placed there by the inspired author and requires of us that we discover what that meaning is by the proper contextual study of the text. ‘Significance’ however is a different matter altogether. A text can have a significance or even an application for you or me, that the original author could never have imagined. But the text cannot have a meaning that the original inspired author did not place there. Meaning is one thing, significance or application another. The job of hermeneutics is to help us rightly interpret the meaning of these important Biblical texts.
Let me give you an illustration. The Book of Revelation was written probably around A.D. 90 in the first instance for the seven churches in
None of Revelation was written in the first place for 21rst century Christians. Thus when the book talks about an evil empire, and a beastly ruler named 666, and about flying things with scorpion-like tails, it is not in the first instance referring to some modern world dominator, or the European Union, or to Blackhawk helicopters! Those first Christians in the first century could never have understood those texts to refer to such things, because of course such things did not exist in the first century A.D.
Let me insist once more—‘what the text meant for them, is still what it means today’. John was referring to the
Apocalyptic prophecy by its nature uses more generic universal symbols and metaphor to speak about certain historical realities. I am not at all suggesting that the text of Revelation is not referring to things happening in space and time—John IS speaking about such things. But he speaks about them in generic and highly graphic metaphorical ways. He uses phrase like ‘it will be like… it will be like’ indicating he is drawing analogies, not offering literal descriptions.
All too often modern interpreters of Revelation don’t understand this. They either assume if its figurative language it isn’t referential, or they assume you are denying the particularity of the text if you deny it refers to one particular person and set of circumstances. But that’s not how generic symbols work--- Mr. 666 could just as well be Hitler or Stahlin as Nero or Domitian. It refers to any evil world dominator of a pagan or godless sort. This is precisely why Christians in any and all generations in the last 2,000 years have felt John was speaking to their situation. He WAS--- but there are wars, and rumors of wars, and plagues and cosmic signs in the heavens in every generation of church history, not just the last one.
2) ‘Context is king’. One of the great, great dangers in modern interpretation of the Bible is proof-texting. What this amounts to is the strip-mining of certain key terms and ideas, linking them together with similar or the same words in other texts and contexts, and coming up with a meaning which none of the original texts had. This is why I often offer the aphorism-- a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean.
Let’s take a 'perfect' example—the word perfect in the NT. Jesus said “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’ in Mt. 5.48. In 1 Cor. 13.10 Paul says that “when the perfect comes, the partial disappears.” Are they talking about the same thing just because they use the same term? Well, no. The context of Mt. 5 indicates that Jesus is referring to that sort of whole-hearted loving of others that characterizes God. ‘Be perfect’ means be loving like the Father is loving.
Paul on the other hand is talking about when the eschaton (the final perfect condition) comes, and we see Jesus face to face and understand all things perfectly and clearly. Words only have meaning in contexts, and plucking words out of contexts and linking them to other uses of the same word is often a recipe for disaster and misinterpretation. Each verse of Scripture, indeed each key term in Scripture should be interpreted in its historical, literary, religious, theological, canonical contexts, to mention but a few. This of course means that the modern interpreter of the Bible must be a student of Biblical interpretation, must study to find themselves approved. Treating the Bible like a Ouija board, and just opening it up and thinking the meaning will leap out of the verse on the page into one’s brain, especially if we keep thumbing through and looking for other examples of the same word, is simply laziness and not careful contextual study of God’s word. Read Ps. 119 and how it talks about the diligent study and meditation on God’s Word that is required.
Let me give you an illustration. I had a phone call over twenty years ago from a parishioner from one of my four N.C. Methodist Churches in the middle of the state. He wanted to know if it was o.k. to breed dogs, 'cause his fellow carpenter had told him that it said somewhere in the KJV that God’s people shouldn’t do that. I told him I would look up all the references to dog in the Bible and get to the bottom of this. There was nothing of any relevance in the NT, but then I came across this peculiar translation of an OT verse—“thou shalt not breed with the dogs’. I called my church member up and told him “I’ve got good news and bad news for you.” He asked for the good news first. I said “well you can breed as many of those furry four footed creatures as you like, nothing in the Bible against it.” He then asked what the bad news was “well” I said, “there is this verse that calls foreign women ‘dogs’ and warns the Israelites not to breed with them.” There was a pregnant silence on the other end of the line, and finally Mr. Smith said “ Well, I am feeling much relieved, my wife Betty Sue is from just down the road in
3) Genre matters. Before we can interpret a particular type of literature we need to understand what literary type or kind of literature it is. Prose should be interpreted according to the kinds of information prose is meant to give, poetry should be interpreted as poetry, historical narrative as narrative, parables as the literary fictions that they are, and apocalyptic prophecy must be interpreted as the highly metaphorical literature it is, and so on. As C.S. Lewis once said, until you know the purpose and kind of a text, what it intends to say or convey, you don’t know how to read it, properly. And frankly no one should ever start reading the Bible with its last book. That’s not because its unfair to peek at the conclusions before you read all the rest. It’s because Revelation, as apocalyptic prophecy, is the most complex material in the canon, the literature most likely to be misinterpreted by modern persons. Let me give one more illustration
1967-68 was an interesting time. Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon and hit a golf ball a mile! If only my driver would do that. But seriously folks, I was riding with a friend on the
Almost immediately we were picked up by a really ancient couple dressed in black driving a black 48
Turns out we had been picked up by genuine Flat Landers from the N.C. mountains. Doug however persisted and asked “Why don’t you believe they went to the moon, and why don’t you believe the world is round?” The man retorted “It says in the book of Revelations that the angels will stand on the four corners of the earth. World couldn’t be round, could it, if its got four corners to stand on.” Now what was wrong with this man's comment, other than that Revelations (plural) is not the name of the last book of the Bible! The problem was he had mistaken the genre of that book. He had assumed it was teaching him cosmology and geography, when in fact it was teaching theology and eschatology. It was saying in a metaphorical way that God’s angels will come from all points on the compass to do his will and span the globe. If you don’t grasp the kind of literature you are reading, you aren’t going to know what kind of information it is trying to convey. Interestingly, the problem with that Flat-Lander’s interpretation is not either that he took the book of Revelation seriously, or that he thought it was referential. It is indeed referential. But the realities it is describing, it describes in metaphorical terms.
Well, I think I hear ole Hermes calling me to move on to other floral venues. So we will leave it at that for now.
259 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 259 of 259Steven,
Magnus writes: The old line that i always hear of go and make disciples probably does not apply to you.
I think it was written for someone else. :-)
I believe that you could use that answer for the whole Bible. Needless to say we are missing each others main points so I will leave it at that.
Best wishes to you and God/Mother Earth/The Force ....Bless
Magnus
Magnus writes: I believe that you could use that answer for the whole Bible.
Hmm ... let's see, Paul's epistle to the Galatians was written to whom?
(a) Me or (b) the Galatians?
How would you answer this question?
I would answer that question "Yes."
Steven,
I already said that you could use that answer for the whole Bible.
Who was Romans writen too? Who was Timothy too? Who was ______ insert book of Bible written too?
I wonder why read it then? Again it seems to me that you are able to pick and choose what to use and what not to use, I being the fallible and horrible creature that i am can not.
It seems that when you say that you were a conservative Christian that you were not happy and then you saw the light and repented and now you are an enlightened Christian that is able to see things that most Christians that I have talked too do not.
I am happy that what you found works for you and i do wish you the best, but to me it seems that you are walking down a very wide road that has plenty of company.
I will keep searching for the road less traveled, i hear that it makes all the difference.
magnus
Magnus writes: It seems that when you say that you were a conservative Christian that you were not happy and then you saw the light and repented and now you are an enlightened Christian that is able to see things that most Christians that I have talked too do not.
I don’t know that I’m happier today than I was before. What did happen was that I got a college education (a double major in philosophy and classical languages), I did a lot of reading in the area of biblical studies and theology, I learned to read ancient Greek, and I did a pericope by pericope comparison of the four Gospels in Greek with my pastor. At that point I was confronted with new evidence which I didn’t have before, and so it was only natural for me to modify some of my previous views.
From my point of view, while conservative Christians often imagine that they believe in biblical authority, and they claim that the Bible is inerrant, in reality they have tacitly abandoned scripture in favor of a conservative Protestant ideology shaped largely in the nineteenth century. They buttress this conservative Protestant ideology with strings of quotations to give it a biblical flavor, but in fact it predetermines their reading of scripture so thoroughly that one cannot speak of the Bible as having any real independent voice in their differing theologies. (It is interesting to note that while conservative Christians all claim that the bible is infallible, nonetheless, they often come away with differing theologies.) In my opinion, if one would do a detail comparison of the Gospels, pericope by pericope, without trying to harmonize them based on an ideology of infallibility, just accepting the facts as they fall, they too would have to modify some of their views.
Magnus writes: I will keep searching for the road less traveled, i hear that it makes all the difference.
I guess if you like the great outdoors, I prefer to stay at home. Now my wife drags me outside every now and then. This summer we took a trip to Iceland (a Lutheran country, by the way) and found a few roads less traveled with beautiful countryside viewings of mountains, glaciers, waterfalls, etc. And in the summer time, Iceland was a little bit cooler than it was here in Chicago.
Steven,
While reading your second to last post i remembered a book i had read by Dr. Craig A. Evans Fabricating Jesus. Not sure about this, but he seems to have similar training as you, maybe more or maybe less. I do not have two resume in front to compare in depth. I wonder if you have read or heard of him?
In the book he says things that I believe you are trying to say, but if not please let me know.
"The truth of of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels" This sounds like you, if i am not mistaken which has already been established that i am sometimes.
he goes on to say "but on the resurrection of Jesus." Now in earlier posts we established that some Christians do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. For your understanding of the Christian message is it important?
of course you will probably say something like what do you mean by resurrection, but lets just say we keep it as the early Church believed it as the physical resurrection.
In same book he writes "The evidence is compelling that the new Testament Gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John- are our best sources for understanding the historical Jesus. The New Testament Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony and truthfully and accurately relate the teaching, life, death and resurrection of Jesus."
Would you agree with that statement?
By the way i enjoyed how the road less traveled turned into the outdoors. Something tells me though that you understand the meaning of the statement.
magnus
To: Magnus,
I’ve read a number of works by Craig A. Evans, although it was sometime ago. My impression is that he is more conservative than I, but nonetheless we would have many things in common.
Craig writes: The New Testament Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony and truthfully and accurately relate the teaching, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
I don’t know what he means by “based on eyewitness testimony.” In my opinion (and the opinion of many scholars), the Gospels were composed by second generation disciples who were not themselves eyewitnesses, but who undoubtedly knew first generation disciples who preached and taught about Jesus. According to many scholars, the Gospel of Mark appears to have been written ca. 70 CE, roughly forty years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Mark himself was not an eyewitness, but according to tradition knew Peter and others. Then the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed from two primary sources, Mark and a now non-extant document scholars call “Q.” They were written in the 80s or early 90s. Last was the Gospel of John, which scholars date to the years 95-100 (give or take). All of this is speculation of course, there is no hard evidence, just scholarly conjecture. But if we compare this to other histories written in antiquity, the four canonical gospels are generally closer to the events which they portray than other works of antiquity. I firmly believe that there is no historical-critical reason for dismissing them completely out of hand.
Craig writes: The truth of the Christian message hinges ... on the resurrection of Jesus.
I would hate to criticize a scholars of Craig’s stature based on one sentence taken without context. So let me say that I don’t know for sure what Craig might mean here. But I don’t believe that one can “prove” the resurrection. And I personally don’t believe that my faith depends (“henges”) on any single interpretation of the resurrection.
Magnus writes: ... but lets just say we keep it as the early Church believed it as the physical resurrection.
It does appear that many 1st century Christians believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus. But it is interesting to note that in one of Luke’s account of the post-crucified Jesus appearing before Paul, Luke/Paul referred to it as a “heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). And Paul in 1 Corinthians refers to the resurrected body as a “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44), something different from a “physical body,” one without “flesh and blood” (1 Cor 15:50). By this I’m not meaning to suggest that Paul thought that Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t real, to him it was very real. Perhaps the problem is merely one of terminology, after all traditionally, Christians have always wanted to distinguish between a resuscitated body and a resurrected body. According to early Christian thinking Jesus’ resurrection was not simply a resuscitation. But perhaps Paul’s “spiritual body” open some doors to other interpretations.
Magnus writes: By the way i enjoyed how the road less traveled turned into the outdoors. Something tells me though that you understand the meaning of the statement.
What? Do you mean to tell me that you have roads inside your house? Cool! That must be one big house. :-)
more conservative? how can that be possible. LOL
He referenced a book titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham in his book and I have went and gotten a copy. i will read it and see if it sheds more light on the subject. Perhaps our paths in the forrest will cross again.
magnus
To: Magnus,
I liked Richard Bauckham's work on Revelation (he wrote a couple books on that topic). I haven't read "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses." If you read the book, I would be interested to know how he "solves" the Synoptic Problem. In my opinion, that is one difficulty in the way of claiming that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.
i will read it and see what he says. my email is magnus0428@yahoo.com, just send me an email and i will let you know what he came up with or if you do not want to wait you could get the book as well.
Hi Magnus,
In case you haven't already done so, you might also like to refer to books by Lee Strobel (http://www.leestrobel.com/) and Mark Roberts (http://www.markdroberts.com/). In particular Dr Roberts has done a blog series on the reliability of the gospels (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable.htm). They are geared to address the layman but you might find some useful references for further study. An older work would be by FF Bruce (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm).
God bless you.
Keith
To Bethel,
You present a number of resources so, if one wanted to indoctrinate oneself to a particular point of view, they could do so. I could present a number of mainstream scholarly resources so that one could indoctrinate oneself to the other side of the position. But what, if for example, one just wanted to know the truth? In my opinion, one of the best ways to get to the heart of this problem is to do a synoptic study of the Gospels, where each Gospel is laid out in parallel columns side by side and pericope by pericope so one can see the freedom each Gospel writer took to change and adapt the same stories. The problem is not that they did this once or twice, but that they did this repeatedly to the point of changing the very details of the story. Of course, it is better if one can do this study in Greek. There one will see how the Gospel writers even try to improve on the others grammatical style. At least this is the process I went through. I read both conservative and mainstream scholarly studies on the Gospels while reading through a Greek synopsis of the Gospels. By the time I carefully worked my way through the synopsis the conservative argument no longer made sense and the mainstream arguments appeared to be consistent with the facts I saw by reading the Gospels synoptically. No matter how ultimately one decides the issue, at least if one does such a study, one has at least been exposed to the facts of the case.
Keith,
thanks for the info and yes I have read some of their work.
Stven,
"I could present a number of mainstream scholarly resources so that one could indoctrinate oneself to the other side of the position"
So i guess one side is conservative and the other is "mainstream"? I like the subtle implication in that.
You talk of changing the very details of the story, sould you give an example? Just one for now since there are so many, but make it a really good one.
magnus
Some Changes in the Gospel Accounts
The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) contain a high degree of verbal similarity. In addition to verbal agreements, the synoptic gospels also often tell the very same stories. And not only do they tell the same stories, often they do so in the same order (although they also rearrange some of the stories). Because of the high degree of similarity between the synoptic gospels, most biblical scholars hold that the two of the three synoptic gospels had to copy from the remaining synoptic gospel. Most mainstream scholars (around 90%) hold that Matthew and Luke copied from the gospel of Mark and a non-extant written source called ‘Q.’
(a) Mt 19:13-15 // Mk 10:13-16 // Lk 18:15-17
Mark states that Jesus was “indignant” (Mk 10:14), Matthew and Luke tell the same story and omit that Jesus as “indignant.”
(b) Mt 12:3-4 // Mk 2:25-26 // Lk 6:3-4
Mark states that David entered into the house of God “when Abiathar was high priest” (Mk 2:26), but according to 1 Samuel 21, it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, who was high priest at that time. Matthew and Luke tell the same story, but they omit Mark’s error.
(c) Mt 20:20-21 // Mk 10:35-37
According to Mark, the sons of Zebedee ask that one of them sit on his right hand and the other sit on his left hand. According to Matthew, it was the mother of the sons of Zebedee who makes this request.
(d) Mt 12:12b-13 // Mk 3:4-5 // Lk 6:9-10
Mark states that Jesus looked around with “anger” (Mk 3:5), Matthew and Luke tell the same story and omit that Jesus was angry.
(e) Mt 9:1-2 // Mk 2:1-5 // Lk 5:17-20
The Greek text of Mark’s gospels implies that the men, who brought the paralytic, dug through the roof, presumably removing a mud and thatch roof, such a removal would have created a big mess below where Jesus was teaching. Luke alters the passage to imply that they removed “tiles” from the roof, presumably a much cleaner operation. Matthew moves the whole scene away from a house into the open air.
(f) Mk 1:23-28 // Lk 4:33-37
In Mark’s account Jesus rebukes the man with an unclear spirit telling him to “Be silent,” nonetheless the unclean spirit cries out “with a loud voice.” In Luke’s account these details are reversed, first the man with an unclean demon cries out “with a loud voice,” and only then does Jesus rebuke him and tell him to “Be silent.”
(g) Mt 21:1-9 // Mk 11:1-10 // Lk 19:28-40
According to Matthew, Jesus asks his disciples to go get a donkey and colt and Jesus rides both of them into Jerusalem, whereas the same story in Mark and Luke only have one animal for Jesus to ride.
(h) Mt 14:1-2 // Mk 6:14-16 // Lk 9:7-9
According to Mark and Luke “some” here saying that “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead.” But according to Matthew it was Herod who made this statement.
(i) Mt 19:16-22 // Mk 10:17-22 // Lk 18:18-23
According to Mark Jesus tells a man “You lack one thing” (Mk 10:21), similarly Luke (18::22). But according to Matthew, the man asks: “What do I still lack?” (Mt 19:20).
(j) Mt 27:45-54 // Mk 15:33-39 // Lk 23:44-48
According to Mark, the person who filled the sponge with sour wine and gives it to Jesus to drink says: “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down” (Mk 15:36). Matthew tell the same story, except this time the person who makes this statement is not the one who filled the sponge but “the others” (Mt 27:49). Luke omits these details.
(k) Mt 4:1-11 // Mk 1:12-13 // Lk 4:1-13
Matthew and Luke have transposed the second and third temptations. This one example should make it painfully clear that inspiration of scripture does not guarantee infallible historical accuracy. For if God had inspired both Matthew and Luke to relate things as they actually happened then the two accounts should be the same. According to Matthew the order of the temptations are: (1) bread, (2) test, and (3) worship; but according to Luke the order of the temptations are: (1) bread, (2) worship, and (3) test. Both accounts cannot be historically accurate.
(l) Mt 5:40 // Lk 6:29
Matthew writes that Jesus said: if anyone wants to sue you and take your “chiton,” give your “himation” as well (Mt 5:40). Whereas Luke writes that Jesus said: and from anyone who takes away your “himation” do not withhold even your “chiton” (Lk 6:29). While this is not an earth shattering alteration of the text, it illustrates a case where it might be hard to pick up the difference without knowledge of Greek.
(m) Mt 3:13-17 // Mk 1:9-11 // Lk 3:21-22
Marks tells us that John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the Jordon. It is possible that this could give some the wrong impression about the relationship between John and Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke solve this problem in two different ways. Matthew inserts verses 14 & 15 into his story, these verses have John the Baptist deferring to Jesus. Luke takes the pericope about John the Baptist being led off to prison and places it before Jesus’ baptism. In Luke’s account, in verse 20 John the Baptist is placed in prison, and in verses 21-22, Jesus is baptized without John’s name being mentioned. Thus, without being explicit, Luke’s gospel gives the impression that Jesus was not baptized by John.
Many more examples could be given.
Steven,
That sure is a treasure chest of problems. I guess the just taking one and making it good was too much:)
Oh well, people can write books on all that stuff. Let me just try k) I read somewhere that matthew uses time-ordering language like "then" and "again" where Luke simply uses "and" I thought that most people were under the impression that Luke's account is not chronological. How though is this a big theological problem? It seems that they both agree to the 3 temptations. If they were exactly the same could one then not scream more boldly that they copied each other.
I am sure that you looked at possible explanations when you found these differences, did you just not like them? Did not suite your fancy as they say?
magnus
Magnus writes: Let me just try k) ... I thought that most people were under the impression that Luke's account is not chronological. How though is this a big theological problem? It seems that they both agree to the 3 temptations.
As far as the chronology of the stories in the synoptic gospels, none of them match up completely. So it is absolutely clear that two of the three chronologies are not historical. And while it is clear that Luke deviates from Mark’s chronology more than Matthew, that point is only cogent if one accepts that both Matthew and Luke re-wrote Mark (which of course, I believe that they did).
As far as it being a “big theological problem,” I would only suggest it is a problem for those who claim that both Matthew and Luke were inspired to write infallible history. For those who do not make that claim, it isn’t a “big theological problem.” As to the notion that both Matthew and Luke were inspired to write infallible history, only Matthew kept the historical order of the temptations, and Luke merely switched the chronology and didn’t mean to imply a historical order of the temptations. All I can say is that looks more like a rationalization, an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too.
Magnus writes: I am sure that you looked at possible explanations when you found these differences, did you just not like them?
Actually, when I started working through a Greek synopsis of the four gospels, I held a conservative view of the inspiration of scripture. But I was also willing to listen to the evidence and let the facts speak for themselves. I was eventually forced to admit that scripture was not infallible history.
Steven,
you wrote:
As to the notion that both Matthew and Luke were inspired to write infallible history, only Matthew kept the historical order of the temptations, and Luke merely switched the chronology and didn’t mean to imply a historical order of the temptations. All I can say is that looks more like a rationalization, an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too.
Maybe you can help me by showing me where this is fallible? Does infallible mean that the Gsopels have to write it down the exact same way and never change the order of anything? I thought fallible meant that one is liable to be erroneous?
If that then is what fallible means how is one of the two accounts erroneous? Because they both did not put it in the exact same order? As for the cake and eating it too, I always thouught that is the argument that one should base it on... the taking it in context and what the writer means to convey. If that is the case then by pointing out that it appears Matthew was more in the chronological order and Luke was not focused on that, why is that not valid? I can not see how that is having your cake and eating it too.
It seems to me that if the case were not able to be made that Matthew uses "then" and "again" and Luke uses "and" that your argument would be stronger.
Steven,
It is taking more time than I anticipated to the census account in Luke 2. I wanted to read some of the scholarly literature on it first, though I got distracted by one of Ben's other posts. That and family was visiting over the long weekend, so didn't get much time.
However, I want to respond to your allegations concerning alleged errors in the synoptic gospels.
Steven wrote... (a) Mt 19:13-15 // Mk 10:13-16 // Lk 18:15-17: Mark states that Jesus was “indignant” (Mk 10:14), Matthew and Luke tell the same story and omit that Jesus as “indignant.”
Steven, I don't see how this is a problem at all. In fact, it would seem that if these are truly separate accounts of the same events (and not mere copies of one another), we would expect different details of the same event to be reported. What we see here is no discrepency whatsoever, as Matthew and Luke do not say that Jesus was not indignant, they just don't focus on this fact of the event. Just one witness of a crime scene might report that the the suspect had brown hair and was tall, while another says that he was tall, male and wore bell bottom blue jeans, while another witness says he had blue jeans, had long hair and ran really fast, looked nervous and got into a green getaway car. All three accounts are different, yet it seems reasonable to conclude that all are clearly pieces of the same puzzle when in reference to the same event.
Steven wrote... (b) Mt 12:3-4 // Mk 2:25-26 // Lk 6:3-4: Mark states that David entered into the house of God “when Abiathar was high priest” (Mk 2:26), but according to 1 Samuel 21, it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, who was high priest at that time. Matthew and Luke tell the same story, but they omit Mark’s error.
First, I want to point out that there are lots of details in these three accounts that should lead you to believe that these are three separate accounts. Mark is the only one who mentions Abiathar the high priest and also is the only one that says Jesus said "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Luke's account is the shortest, but is the only one that mentions that they rubbed the heads of grain between their hands. In Mark, the Pharisees speak to Jesus and accuse His disciples. In Luke, he says that some of the Pharisees said, "why do you do..." (apparently speaking to the disciples). In Matthew's account, the Pharisees speaking to Jesus say "your disciples". Matthew's account is the longest and he adds details not contained in the other accounts, such as "on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent," "someone greater than the temple is here," and "I desire compassion and not a sacrifice." It seems to me that these are quite plausibly three unique accounts of the same events, all from eyewitness testimony. And, just as you wouldn't claim that a witness of a crime scene was copying another witness because some of the reported details overlap, why would you think it necessary to do so here? The name of the high priest evidently wasn't important to Luke and Matthew. Wouldn't it be that if they were correcting Mark, then they would have mentioned Ahimelech instead of Abiathar? Silence does not imply correction.
First, we should note that the phrase translated "when Abiathar was high priest" uses a particularly rare grammatical construction in the Greek. The Greek word epi preceeds Abiathar, and epi might be translated 'upon,' perhaps as "upon the time of Abiathar" (though that sounds a bit difficult. It is possible that if more examples of this construction can be found in extra-biblical literature, it may be that this evidence could substantiate a more general time-frame, ie. "in the days when Abiathar was high priest." Suffice to say that it seems to be a strange construction.
However, I think there is a more compelling explanation. Looking at the scripture, we know in 1 Sam 21 that David ate the consecrated bread from the priest named Ahimelech, and we know from elsewhere that Abiathar is stated as the son of Ahimelech who was also a priest at the same time as Ahimelech. However, strangely we have two scriptures which refer to Ahimelech as the son of Abiathar (2 Sam 8:17 and 1 Chron 18:16). How would you explain this? Perhaps both father and son shared the same two names. With your low view of scripture, I imagine that you would conclude that Mathew and the author of Samuel and the Chronicler all made the same error (at least Matthew's in good company). But I suggest that we don't have to draw such hasty, liberal conclusions because we are inclined to see the text as errant.
Unfortunately, I only had enough time to address these two for now. However, I fully expect that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what seems to be differences in the testimonies.
Ryan writes: However, I want to respond to your allegations concerning alleged errors in the synoptic gospels.
I wrote a message entitled: "Some Changes in the Gospel Accounts" and from that you conclude that I was presenting a list of "errors"? Please, don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of putting them their myself. What I presented was merely a (short) list of changes. They are not all "errors," but if one assumes, as I do, that Matthew and Luke used Mark and 'Q' as a source, then these changes tells us how they freely used their sources.
Ryan writes: I fully expect that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what seems to be differences in the testimonies.
Yes, yes, of course, that is perhaps the truest statement made on the topic of the infallibility of the Bible. One doesn’t first carefully read the Bible and then it dawns on one, “Wow, it has never occurred to me before, but it seems that the Bible is infallible in everything it says.” No one does it that way, rather it is the other way around, first one holds that the Bible must be infallible in everything it says, and only after one firmly believes that it is so does one invent rationalizations for every time the Bible appears to be historically inaccurate. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to invent an rationalization, almost anyone can do it if one tries hard enough, one only needs to be absolutely convinced that the Bible is infallible, and the rationalizations will almost automatically flow from that premise alone.
But if one is willing to suspend one’s presuppositions, and to examine the gospel accounts for what they are. After a careful and meticulous reading of the gospels synoptically, it is my opinion that most people will come to the conclusion that the gospels writers were not infallible in everything they wrote.
Ryan writes: First, we should note that the phrase translated "when Abiathar was high priest" uses a particularly rare grammatical construction in the Greek. The Greek word epi preceeds Abiathar, and epi might be translated 'upon,' perhaps as "upon the time of Abiathar" (though that sounds a bit difficult. It is possible that if more examples of this construction can be found in extra-biblical literature, it may be that this evidence could substantiate a more general time-frame, ie. "in the days when Abiathar was high priest." Suffice to say that it seems to be a strange construction.
Just out of curiosity, when did you learn to read Greek and how many years of formal training do you have?
Steven said... Just out of curiosity, when did you learn to read Greek and how many years of formal training do you have?
I was primarily referring here to the New English Translator notes for this passage on Mark, and my NASB word study, and Strong's. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I am a Greek expert. Given that you are a Greek expert, would you like to correct what I said?
To: Ryan,
I don't claim to be an "expert" either. I have had five years of college Greek, reading Homer, Plato, Xenophon, Sophocles, Euripides, the gospel of John, early Greek fathers (I studied at a Catholic university), etc. In addition, I met with my former pastor almost weekly for twenty years in order to translate the Greek New Testament. And I own and have studied every major Greek grammar published in English in the last hundred years. So, I'm not new to the subject of Greek grammar, but I would not consider myself an "expert." I have not done post-grad work on the topic.
From my limited point of view, I find your argument suspect. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me. And I have consulted at least one conservative commentary who denied the validity of the argument you presented. But if you would cite one major Greek grammarian who supports your opinion (even someone very conservative like Daniel Wallace), I would concede that your argument had merit. But as it stands, I find it suspect.
Steven wrote... I wrote a message entitled: "Some Changes in the Gospel Accounts" and from that you conclude that I was presenting a list of "errors"? Please, don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of putting them their myself. What I presented was merely a (short) list of changes. They are not all "errors," but if one assumes, as I do, that Matthew and Luke used Mark and 'Q' as a source, then these changes tells us how they freely used their sources.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. What you listed as "differences" between the gospel accounts do not, in your view, constitute historically inaccurate descriptions? What does it matter what their source was? If I wrote down that President Bush has pink hair, wouldn't that be an "error" regardless of my source? If I said my source was his wife, you might look closer next time, and I might have blindly trusted his wife, but this doesn't change whether or not what I wrote was fact or fiction, right?
I think that we all agree that there are differences between the gospel accounts. The question is whether or not they are incompatible accounts or not. Is this not the question we are asking here?
Steven,
You wrote: “Wow, it has never occurred to me before, but it seems that the Bible is infallible in everything it says.” No one does it that way, rather it is the other way around, first one holds that the Bible must be infallible in everything it says, and only after one firmly believes that it is so does one invent rationalizations for every time the Bible appears to be historically inaccurate.
I have to call that bluff, there are plenty of examples of former atheists who held the view that the Bible was fallible.
It seems that you want the whole Bible to be word for word exactly alike and have no diferrences in style. It seems that you are predisposed to find fault, i know that is not how you started out as you say but now you are so entrenched in your view that it will be almost impossible to show you any thing that is counter to your view. The great thing is that we all know that a mere man can not do that, show you the error of your ways, but the Holy Spirit can.
magnus
Ryan writes: I think that we all agree that there are differences between the gospel accounts. The question is whether or not they are incompatible accounts or not. Is this not the question we are asking here?
All I am saying is that not all the changes I listed would be considered to be errors. When I have time later, I will go into more detail.
Magnus writes: I have to call that bluff, there are plenty of examples of former atheists who held the view that the Bible was fallible.
Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I write before you respond. Obviously what you say is true, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Steven,
You wrote:
first one holds that the Bible must be infallible in everything it says, and only after one firmly believes that it is so does one invent rationalizations for every time the Bible appears to be historically inaccurate. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to invent an rationalization, almost anyone can do it if one tries hard enough, one only needs to be absolutely convinced that the Bible is infallible, and the rationalizations will almost automatically flow from that premise alone.
What I am pointing out to you is that there are examples of former atheists who STARTED out thinking that the Bible is fallible only to come to the opposite conclusion.
How is that not relevant to what you said? You said "first one holds that the Bible must be infallible" and I am saying that that is not always the case. Again, if anyone is not reading the other its you my friend. Perhaps if you actually read what people wrote without trying to attack it then you would understand. I know that you have taken 20 or more years of carefully reading the synoptic Gospels in Greek, but maybe you should spend the same amount of time and vigor in praying to God and talking to him. I am sure that if you ask him the Holy Spirit will show you what you need to know.
God Bless You!
magnus
Magnus insults: I know that you have taken 20 or more years of carefully reading the synoptic Gospels in Greek, but maybe you should spend the same amount of time and vigor in praying to God and talking to him. I am sure that if you ask him the Holy Spirit will show you what you need to know.
Actually, I have spent that time in prayer, before my wife and I had children, I would often go off for days in order to spend time in prayer. I found that visiting monasteries was a nice place to pray (I visited Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Lutheran monasteries). And the Holy Spirit did show me what I needed to know. And what I’ve learned is that the issues which we are talking about are of little importance to God. One can live one’s whole life devoted to God and helping others and not know anything about the details which we’ve been discussing. As I worked to raise my children, it seemed to me that the more important lessons of the Bible have almost nothing to do with biblical scholarship. For me, this discussion & biblical scholarship are like watching TV, it is something I do to relax and for entertainment. The really important things in life, my religious faith, my relationship with my wife, children, & friends, my way of living my life, it is not dependent on biblical theology or whether or not the Bible has any errors. They are fun things to discuss, but in the larger scheme of things totally unimportant. While I don’t believe that God created the world merely some six or seven thousand years ago in a 144 hour period, I do believe that God created the universe. The fact that the book of Genesis is not a historical factual account of scientific evolution just isn’t important.
Steven,
Yo just have a way of taking thing out of context and not addressing the issues. So with that I say keep doing what you are doing and God Bless!
magnus
To: Ryan,
In my opinion, if one does a careful and detailed study of the gospels synoptically, most will come to two important conclusions. (1) Two of the synoptic gospels used the other as a source. (2) The gospel writers freely changed details in their source. Now perhaps I should have made myself more clear, I don’t believe that all changes can be considered to be “errors.” Nor do I think that every change which I listed in one of my previous posts can be considered “errors.” So on that score, I will admit to being at fault. I should have made this more clear. If they are not errors, why did I bring them up? I’ll get to that shortly.
First, I want to elaborate on verbal similarities. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) contain a high degree of verbal similarity. For example both Matthew and Luke have:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume/begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 NRSV).
The Greek text of Matthew 3:7b-10 and Luke 3:7b-9 are almost word for word identical (roughly 96% the same), except for two exceptions. (1) Matthew has “presume” and Luke has “begin” in the phrase “Do not ... to say to yourselves.” Also, (2) Luke has an extra “and” which NRSV didn’t translate, they could have translated it as: “And even now the ax ...” In addition, another change is how Matthew and Luke introduce this passage. According to Matthew this passage is introduced with: “But when he [John the Baptist] saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them” (Mt 3:7a). But according to Luke: “John said to the crowds that came out to him” (Lk 3:7a).
Furthermore, the chances are that John the Baptist (as well as Jesus) did not preach in Greek, rather most scholars believe that both John and Jesus preached in Aramaic, so the Greek text which we have is a translation. Now if you compared a handful of English translations of the Greek text of Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9, how many of them would be word for word exactly the same? Probably none! Similarly, what is the chances of Matthew’s account and Luke’s account of this passage to be two independent translations of the Aramaic and yet have such a similar word order in Greek? Probably none! Thus there is a high probability that Matthew’s and Luke’s account are dependent on a Greek source (Matthew could have copied from Luke, Luke could have copied from Matthew, or they both copied from some other source).
Now, if they both copied from the same source, who made the change. Was “presume” changed to “begin” or the other way around?
Let us look at example ‘a’ and ‘d’.
(a) Mt 19:13-15 // Mk 10:13-16 // Lk 18:15-17
(d) Mt 12:12b-13 // Mk 3:4-5 // Lk 6:9-10
Mark states that Jesus was “indignant” (Mk 10:14), and Mark states that Jesus looked around with “anger” (Mk 3:5). In both stories as Matthew and Luke tell it, they omit the detail that Jesus was with “anger” or was “indignant.” Why? It appears that they omitted those details out of religious piety. It appears that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and omitted those details in their re-telling of the stories. That was the point of me including them in my list.
On the other hand, I do believe that some of the other examples which I gave do constitute historical “error.”
Steven wrote... For me, this discussion & biblical scholarship are like watching TV, it is something I do to relax and for entertainment.
It is hard for me to understand how you don't seem to realize that what we believe has a direct effect on how we respond to God and how we act and live. While you seem to be able to ignore the clear implications that an errant text has on whether or not I can trust what it says about spiritual matters, it is no laughing matter for many people. For example, how can you with confidence trust the scriptures that speak about salvation from sin and Hell, and how to obtain that salvation? How do you know what is being said in those passages is not wishful thinking? I am amazed that you treat such discussion as mere sport. TV for the Romans at the time of Christ was watching people get attacked and killed. No disrespect, but I honestly don't see how seeing this discussion as entertainment is any different...
Steven wrote... In my opinion, if one does a careful and detailed study of the gospels synoptically, most will come to two important conclusions. (1) Two of the synoptic gospels used the other as a source. (2) The gospel writers freely changed details in their source.
If there were multiple witnesses to the events that took place (and indeed there were), then I don't have a problem with the fact that what we have did not result from people participating in these events and then sitting in a sound chamber until they were finished writing their gospel so that they would not be influenced in how they wrote their accounts by anyone else. Much of the account was likely passed on verbally and certain descriptions lived and so we see them described very similarly between the different gospels. However, since what we have is based on eye-witness accounts, the places where one witness recalls additional details of the event are added, or when the witness has a unique Spirit-inspired perspective, it is written. I have no problems with this; but we should be able to harmonize the accounts (they should not be saying opposite things).
For example, in the passages from Matthew 3:7b-10 and Luke 3:7b-9 that you commented on, the fact that Matthew has "presume" and Luke has "begin" do not conflict with one another. Luke reports that John spoke to the crowds, and Matthew says that seeing the many Pharisees and Sadducees, John said what he said to them. But when we look at the accounts, we nowhere see Matthew suggesting that John pulled the Pharisees and Sadducees aside to speak to them privately; he spoke towards the mixed crowd, but Matthew informs us of more details than Luke -- he tells us who the words were directed to when John spoke to the crowds. Some were coming to be baptized for the right reasons, and some were clearly not...
Steven wrote... Mark states that Jesus was “indignant” (Mk 10:14), and Mark states that Jesus looked around with “anger” (Mk 3:5). In both stories as Matthew and Luke tell it, they omit the detail that Jesus was with “anger” or was “indignant.” Why? It appears that they omitted those details out of religious piety.
I don't think you can conclude "religious piety" as a motivation for the difference in these accounts. Mark or his source, Peter, recalls that Jesus was indignant and looked around with anger. This is additional details that neither Matthew nor Luke report because their witness is different. To say that they were correcting Mark or suggesting that perhaps he was wrong is unsubstantiated. If we want the most details of the events reported in the gospels, then we harmonize all the accounts and, in this way, get the fullest picture.
Steven wrote... On the other hand, I do believe that some of the other examples which I gave do constitute historical “error.”
Let's look at these ones then, because what you have written concerning the above types of differences in the witnesses does not, it seems to me, prove your case for textual errors.
Ryan writes: For example, how can you with confidence trust the scriptures that speak about salvation from sin and Hell, and how to obtain that salvation?
For two thousand years, the vast majority of Christians have been illiterate. You live in a different world, with a different education standard, and a different attitude towards scripture. From my point of view, I don’t need to “trust the scriptures,” rather my trust is in God and my Lord and savor, Jesus Christ.
Ryan writes: I am amazed that you treat such discussion as mere sport. TV for the Romans at the time of Christ was watching people get attacked and killed. No disrespect, but I honestly don't see how seeing this discussion as entertainment is any different...
Gesh ... conservatives can get so melodramatic at times! Get real! No one has threatened your life. At worst case scenario, one of us might go away with a bruised ego (but I try to avoid that). Our discussion is not about life and death. Neither of us are suggesting to the other that they go out and commit any sinful acts. No one of us is suggesting that one stop believing in God, or in Jesus. No one is suggesting that one stop reading scripture. Wednesday morning is when I meet with my church's bible study, then this afternoon I re-read the passage we studied. So what is your problem here? Do you really feel like this discussion is life and death? If so, walk away, do something more meaningful with your life.
Ryan writes: we should be able to harmonize the accounts (they should not be saying opposite things).
Why would you assume that? When the police, newspaper reporters, or historians, investigate events are they always able to harmonize the accounts, or do some accounts contradict other accounts? Even eyewitness accounts often contradict the facts, being that memory is often not perfect. Ask any trial lawyer.
Ryan writes: For example, in the passages from Matthew 3:7b-10 and Luke 3:7b-9 that you commented on, the fact that Matthew has "presume" and Luke has "begin" do not conflict with one another.
As long as one assume that scripture is not verbally inspired to be infallibly accurate, then they don’t conflict. But if one makes that assumption that the very words of scripture are infallible, then which was it, did John say “presume” or “begin”?
j) Mt 27:45-54 // Mk 15:33-39 // Lk 23:44-48
According to Mark, the person who filled the sponge with sour wine and gives it to Jesus to drink says: “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down” (Mk 15:36). Matthew tell the same story, except this time the person who makes this statement is not the one who filled the sponge but “the others” (Mt 27:49). So which was it?
Steven wrote... Our discussion is not about life and death. Neither of us are suggesting to the other that they go out and commit any sinful acts. No one of us is suggesting that one stop believing in God, or in Jesus.
Steven, I meant spiritual life and death. Case and point follow (quoting from wikipedia):
"[Bart] Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. He attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College (B.A., 1978). His desire to know the original words of the Bible led him to textual criticism, which in turn undermined his faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Ehrman now considers himself an agnostic. He appeared on The Colbert Report, as well as The Daily Show, in 2006 to promote his book Misquoting Jesus and was jokingly called an "atheist without balls" (alluding to his agnosticism) on national television by Stephen Colbert."
I will respond to the other stuff later when I get a chance.
Ryan writes: Steven, I meant spiritual life and death.
Actually, I like Bart Ehrman’s scholarship. I’ve followed his work for sometime. I especially liked his “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” published in 1993. And I’ve read many of this later words. Back in the days when I used to attend the local and national Society of Biblical Literature meetings, I heard Ehrman speak and enjoyed his presentation.
But I don’t pretend to know his heart, nor what caused his agnosticism. One interpretation might be that it was the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College which poisoned his heart, perhaps if he would have stayed with the Episcopalian tradition, which he was raised in, he might never of rejected Christianity. Just speculation, of course.
But if you feel so insecure in your faith so that our discussion might lead you to deny your faith, I would most happily terminate our discussion. It is really not my intent to shaken your faith in God. If you feel that our discussion is doing you harm, let’s stop!
Typo: I’ve read many of this later words should have read works.
Steven wrote... But if you feel so insecure in your faith so that our discussion might lead you to deny your faith, I would most happily terminate our discussion. It is really not my intent to shaken your faith in God. If you feel that our discussion is doing you harm, let's stop!
It is not my faith I am so worried about; I am concerned about those reading this blog, though I know that it is just a tiny tip of the iceberg of similar talk out there. Concerning Bart Ehrman, as far as I was told it was precisely because of his conclusions about the errancy of the text that he lost faith. It is the logical conclusion that I have asked you about and you have yet to respond to. In fact, there are surprisingly few answers you had for Magnus to his questions about faith and how we can know the truth. The Bible says that we are to give reasons for what we believe, but from what you have shared (correct me if I am wrong), you haven't differentiated yourself from someone who is a decent, family-oriented, "cultural Christian." Who is to say that if you weren't raised in a Buddhist nation that you wouldn't be a decent, family-oriented buddhist meditating yourself to godhood right now? If this were the case and someone came to you and told you that you had to repent and trust the God of the Jews, why should you listen to them? How would you know that what they are telling you was true when their text might be only slightly more reliable than what you have? If you feel as a buddhist that you are hearing from the god within, what would convince you that you need to reject that experience, repent and put your faith on Christ?
I think that if one has the truth, it can withstand testing, so I think every Christian should think carefully through these things and study (if possible, of course) to show themselves approved. I'm not saying that we can know everything or that we have to have the answer to every single objection that someone might make, but one can learn a lot from the investigation, and if we have seek by faith, we will find. I have heard of most of your objections before and have done enough study to be reasonably convinced that these problems are reconcilable. But I am willing to step through them one by one to show that there are alternate explanations that are both reasonable and plausible to show that one can trust the text, and therefore have confidence that what we have is God's words, and, when understood in context, that we can place our trust that what He has said is true and will come to pass.
Ryan writes: Concerning Bart Ehrman, as far as I was told it was precisely because of his conclusions about the errancy of the text that he lost faith.
But it could only be that those conclusions conflicted with the unrealistic expectations of scripture which conservative theology gave him. If he had stayed with his Episcopal upbringing, he might never have had those unrealistic expectations of scripture, and then the conclusions about the errancy of the text wouldn’t have been a problem.
Bart writes: even if God had inspired the original words, we don’t have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them (2005:211).
Ryan writes: It is the logical conclusion that I have asked you about and you have yet to respond to.
What “it”? For it seems to me that I have responded to it over and over again.
Ryan writes: but from what you have shared (correct me if I am wrong), you haven't differentiated yourself from someone who is a decent, family-oriented, "cultural Christian."
Actually, you haven’t done even that much, have you? And now, in this message, you appear to revert back to your more Fundamentalistic mindset, which is when you can’t seem to argue with the facts, you attack the person presenting the opposing point of view. Now, I don’t measure up to your conservative Christians standard and I’m merely a “cultural Christian.” Of course, this couldn’t be your religious bigotry rearing its ugly head since I articulate a theological point of view different from your own, could it?
If you were really concerned about other people’s salvation, it would seem to me that you should be supporting what I’m doing. For unlike Bart Ehrman, I’m an example of someone who has taken historical-critical biblical scholarship seriously and yet has not lost his faith.
Ryan writes: But I am willing to step through them one by one to show that there are alternate explanations that are both reasonable and plausible to show that one can trust the text, and therefore have confidence that what we have is God's words ...
Earlier you were claiming that scripture had perfect grammar. You wrote: we know that the grammar is inspired because the Holy Spirit doesn't need help with His grammar; He doesn't need someone to teach Him how to speak accurately. But the fact is the Greek New Testament, especially in Revelation, contains a number of solecism which refutes your point. The facts contradict your theology.
You appear to be a fairly intelligent guy. And I don’t doubt that you can create some rationalizations for obvious contradictions which might seem reasonable and plausible to you.
And what about other problems in scripture, such as Joshua 10:12–13 where the Bible claims that for a 24 hour period, the sun stayed in mid-heaven. Or what about the fact that modern archaeology has proven that many of the details in Hebrew scripture are incorrect, for example, before Joshua and his choir could destroy the city of Jericho, archeologists tell us that the city had already been destroyed and the city abandoned before the time Joshua and the people of Israel were supposed to have arrived. The book of Joshua tells of many cites being destroyed, but archeological evidence doesn’t supports its claims. The Bible tells us that “Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days’ walk across” (Jonah 3:3), but in actual fact, the ancient city of Nineveh was less than 8 miles (12.5 km) in circumference, it wouldn’t have taken any healthy person even a day to walk across it. I could go on and on, but why should I?
Where does the Bible claim that it is infallible? Nowhere. Frankly, you are using a non-biblical theology to argue that the Bible is infallible. Nowhere does the Bible make the type of claims you make about it.
And where shall our discussion go from here? Are you going to resort to attacking my Christian faith simply because I can articulate a position different from your own? Or do you want to go back and discuss the issues?
The issue is how does one know that his belief in the Christian God is correct as taught in the Scripture? You are saying that it is not important because you know that the Bible is wrong and that it does not affect you in the slightest.
The question then is how is one saved with your theological take on the Bible? As for name calling, it seems that you do a great bit of that yourself. I guess since you KNOW that you are right that that makes it ok.
There you have it in a nutshell, if we use your views of Scripture than how is one saved? Don't try the people were illiterate for hundreds of years stuff because that is not the issue. What they were taught in most cases was what was in that Book. You are saying that it is filled with errors and inconsistencies. So how are they saved.
magnus
Magnus writes: As for name calling, it seems that you do a great bit of that yourself.
You are mistaken. I’ve never called anyone any names. That is a figment of your imagination. I have (unfortunately) asked some harsh questions when someone attacks my faith, and made harsh statements criticizing things which have been written about me. But I have never attacked anyone’s faith, never insinuated than anyone wasn’t a good Christian, whereas such inflammatory remarks have been repeatedly made to me over and over again. I would prefer that our conversations be more civil, but I will not tolerate bigoted attacks on my faith. I do harbor the belief that liars and bigots will not make it into heaven without repenting from their sins, but I have not called anyone a liar, nor a bigot.
Magnus asks: if we use your views of Scripture than how is one saved?
The only way anyone can be saved, through the grace of God, because Jesus died for our sins on the cross, and through the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. Anyone who imagines that there is a Bible test which one must take, and that one must score 90% or higher on it, before one can be saved, has simply not believed in the good news which Jesus, his disciples, and all true believers proclaim today.
Steven wrote:
The only way anyone can be saved, through the grace of God, because Jesus died for our sins on the cross, and through the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. Anyone who imagines that there is a Bible test which one must take, and that one must score 90% or higher on it, before one can be saved, has simply not believed in the good news which Jesus, his disciples, and all true believers proclaim today.
But what if what Jesus and his disciples did not say that which is what your position leads too. then where is the person to turn? By the grace of God, how do we know of the grace of God? what if that was just the writers saying that to make it easy for them? Hey i know that God gave us a laundry list of what we need to do, but lets just say we are saved by grace.
How can you not see the point? You are a bright and intelligent man. You claim that youare saved by grace of God and because Jesus died on the cross for our sins, why? Why should one believe that? You say that the Bible is wrong on many things and historically inacurate, then why should a non believer believe in that part of the Bible?
You accused me once of wanting to have my cake and eating it too, but it sounds like that fits you more than anyone. And no that is not name calling.
As for you not name calling, I guess the inferrences to fundamentalism and statements like this couldn't be your religous bigotry rearing its head. Amazing how you can not see this.
magnus
Since this has turned into personal attacks. I'm withdrawing my participation.
As for you not name calling, I guess the inferrences to fundamentalism and statements like this couldn't be your religous bigotry rearing its head. Amazing how you can not see this.
This paragraph was to point out how you acuse people of name calling when it is you who use words like fundementalism and "religious bigotry rearing its head", but I guess that is not name calling? Can you point to any post where I have called you a name or personally attacked you?
Again, you do not answer the core issue. Instead you divert and throw out statements like one is name calling you or attacking you.
Steven wrote... Earlier you were claiming that scripture had perfect grammar. You wrote: we know that the grammar is inspired because the Holy Spirit doesn't need help with His grammar; He doesn't need someone to teach Him how to speak accurately. But the fact is the Greek New Testament, especially in Revelation, contains a number of solecism which refutes your point. The facts contradict your theology.
I never said that scripture has "perfect" grammar, what I meant was that it was inspired. There is a difference between the two.
Why are there solecisms in the book of Revelation? I'm not sure I know the answer yet... I haven't even had the time to look at each of these in detail. However, there may are other proposals besides the assumption that John's writing contains grammatical errors (solicism seems to me to just be a nice way of saying 'error'). For instance, G. K. Beale in his book entitled The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text argues that many of the grammatical solecisms in Revelation are introduced in order to jar the reader into attending more closely to an OT allusion (ref). Daniel B. Wallace makes the following proposal here: "as the apostle aged, the language of the OT scriptures became part of the warp and woof of his vocabulary. We believe he wrote the Gospel in the 60s. Thirty years later, after shepherding the flocks in Asia Minor, John’s very language could easily have been strongly impacted by the scriptures he proclaimed. This would be akin to an old preacher using the King James Version all his life. By the time he is old he hardly knows the modern idioms! In the Revelation there are as many as 460 allusions to the OT, though not one direct, formal quotation. It is, in fact, our conviction that these very allusions often, if not normally, picked up the original syntax of the OT passage he was employing, even though such syntax would now be discordant with the context of his own writing (cf. 1:4-5, etc.). Much of this was intentional; much of it was not. But as John aged, biblical language became part of the very fabric of his own linguistic structure."
So, the Greek "solicisms" in the book of Revelation don't refute my point that the grammar is inspired; they just present some difficulty in trying to understand what God was intending.
Steven wrote... If you were really concerned about other people’s salvation, it would seem to me that you should be supporting what I’m doing. For unlike Bart Ehrman, I’m an example of someone who has taken historical-critical biblical scholarship seriously and yet has not lost his faith.
While it is remarkable to me that you are able to still have faith in God as described by the words of a text you cannot trust as accurate, what you are doing by pointing out these supposed contradictions is no different than what unbelievers all over the world do. Some of these unbelievers, like my university OT professor, like the text of scripture or some things that it says, but don't like all of it and particularly some of its implications and cannot believe in supernatural intervention by God in textual inspiration (God-breathed), prophecy and its fulfillment.
I think the following rhetoric from Greg Koukl is helpful on the topic of inspiration (ref):
"First, it doesn't follow that because the Bible's written by men, that it therefore must be in error. Human error is possible, not necessary. If human error were always necessary in anything man said, this challenge would be self-refuting ("suicide tactic"). If all human claims were necessarily in error, then the claim that the Bible was written by men and men make mistakes would also be in error because it's a claim made by men who err, defeating itself. It is possible for human beings to produce something without errors. It's done all the time. What is 2+2? What is the formula for nuclear fission?
Second, this is circular reasoning. If there's good evidence the Bible can be trusted, then the issue of man's involvement is moot. A simple question illustrates this: "Are you suggesting with this objection that if God does exist, He's not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?" This is [not] hard to affirm. If the answer is "No," then the objection vanishes. If the answer is yes, then ask, "Did you ever own a dog? Could you get your dog to sit? If you can get a dumb dog to sit, what makes you think an all-powerful God can't get a man to write just what He wants him to?" If you first establish that the Biblical record can be trusted, then the second problem—human involvement is irrelevant. If God inspires it then it doesn't matter if men or monkeys did the writing; they'll still write exactly what God intends."
I couldn't possibly have read all of these comments, but in case it wasn't mentioned before...
Almah is actually a woman who has not yet produced a child. She can be married or unmarried, a virgin or not. That is why concubines can be called an almah, and also why Matthew can interpret almah as a virgin, since it can refer to any of these.
The NT writers do not have an historical-grammatical view as we do. I do think that we should have an historical grammatical, but understand that this is not necessarily God's intended hermeneutic for all ages. I believe he preserves theology that the Bible teaches, but not each individual interpretation.
The NT writers have a 2d Temple mentality, which interprets the text with midrashic elements as well as seeing the text as having two meanings: one common, which anyone can see, and one cryptic, which only the elect can see.
Betulah does not mean young woman either. That is naharah. I think people settle on such designations because they are just too unfamiliar with ancient Israelite class systems. Betulah rather refers to a a class of women, who are not yet married (whether they have been raped or not), but neither are they prostitutes either. This could be a virgin or someone who isn't. With the case of Dinah, however, it may be the case that the author is seeking to convey the idea that anyone who is raped should not be considered ineligble for marriage as though they willingly had sex, but instead still classified as a virgin.
"answer when we see him face to face, quite literally at the resurrection after his return. Only then are we fully conformed to Christ's image in the flesh as well as in the spirit."
I do think this is a great example of what you are talking about, and that we all fall prey to doing this.
Where is the resurrection in Chapt 13? Where is the struggle of spirit and flesh? The eschaton maybe. But the whole context is about love. The perfect is love, not the Bible or the eschaton. The Corinthian problem is that they think maturity is about gifts and being a part of different groups with better teachers. They think maturity is practicing "grace" above obedience. Paul is trying to convey to them that love, not shoving their freedom in the weaker brother's face, nor having spiritual gifts, is maturity.
The Matt 5 and 1 Cor idea of the "perfect" may vary in that the perfect in Matt 5 seems to be wholistic love, including one's enemies, whereas the 1 Cor 13 idea is talking about maturity, but it is interesting that they both are talking about love.
I understand where the eschaton comes from (we see in a mirror darkly, it talks about the perfect coming, etc.), but that is to take a few phrases out of the immediate context and pit it against the overall concern of Paul and statements of the larger context. I would also argue that when Paul says he has become a man, he is talking about maturity, not the future eschaton.
Stephen, fulfilled has the connations of "filling something up." In other words, giving a fuller meaning to something. That is very much different than a mechanical view of prophecy, which they ancients just don't have. And the Messiah by himself is often seen as Israel collective.
Secondly, "house of david" refers to the Royal line past, present and future in the Bible. In fact, the evidence even from non-Biblical sources like the Mesha Inscription tell us this as well.
The idea that the Jews only believed the Messiah would be a human being is actually not true. The Qumran community saw him as a supernatural being. I would also like someone, who thinks that every prophecy spoken must be fulfilled within that generation, to explain to me who the person in Zech 12:10 is? The "fulfilled in a generation" view is heavily influenced by Jewish exegesis since Rashi, and does not necessarily reflect all earlier forms of exegesis.
Hebrew's verbal system is aspectual in nature, not time based. So time is determined by deictic markers in the context.
Stephen,
"The problem as I see it is that the commandments in Hebrew scripture never claimed that they were temporary. You claim they were temporary, but they don't! If you read, for example Leviticus 26, the author does not say: "You must follow all these commandments, until Jesus is crucified, and then after that you may pick and choose which of these commandments you would like to follow." Rather, the author makes it clear that one was expected to follow all of these commandments. No exceptions were given."
Actually, the OT does indicated this. Deuteronomy shows that law changes and evolves according the Israel's historical situation. Morals do not evolve or change, but laws do. And the Levitical code is most assuredly in the main for the wilderness.
"God's commandments do not appear to be consistent. For example, look at Numbers 15:32ff. God commands that a man is put to death. What was his crime? He did yard work on a Saturday! Have you ever done yard work on a Saturday? Do you really believe that a person should be put to death merely for picking up some sticks?"
This of course is a moral judgement concerning God or the OT or both. This stems from personal experience of what one believes is acceptable and what one believes is morally inacceptable. Really, it has nothing to do with the text, and everything to do with the interpreter.
Stephen,
I think the problem is that you are refusing the hermeneutical grid given you by the Christian worldview, which sees all of the text as supernatural and coming from God (therefore harmonious in some sense), and instead adopting a naturalistic worldview to interpret it (man wrote some of this and therefore it conflicts and Jesus--God's ultimate purpose in the world--has nothing to do with these texts). It smacks of modernisms idea that you can approach the text without bias and then accuse others of eisegesis when they do not take upon themselves your particular worldview bias.
"Our “hermeneutical circles” makes it hard for anyone to jump from one circle into another, but I believe that the evidence is on my side of the argument. If one would be willingly to look at the Gospels synoptically, they will find that the New Testament authors were willing to re-write history from their sources."
This is THE fundamental problem of modernists (whether liberal or fundamentalist). They do not understand that Scripture is a theologically driven historical document. Therefore, historical evidence is "packaged" to convey a theological message using a real historical frame with details changed to fit the theological message. Who in the world would care if God was just communicating to us proper history and science? Not to mention that ALL history is interpreted and the ancients viewed it as such.
"We Lutherans see things differently. For us, salvation is by the grace of God, through the work of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in our lives. I have an advocate with Jesus, and when I stand before God, my advocate is not going to talk about my good works, nor my answers, but rather his own good works done on the cross. While I have lived a pretty good life, I've only been married once (now for 26 years), have two children, always go to church and bible study, donate time to the community, study the bible at home, pray, worship, etc. I don't trust on my own works for salvation, but rather my trust is in Jesus and his works for my salvation."
Where did Jesus ever say this was true? All we have are a bunch of men writing Scripture. So ultimately it is just your personal opinion, in so far as Scripture agrees with you, that determines what is inspired and what is not. If we are so sinful, as Lutheranism teaches, then how can you trust your own experience to be an accurate guage?
hfpvfboIlliterate Christians trusted the Scripture for 2000 years through the Cburch's preaching it. What does it matter if it is read? This has no bearing on whether one trusts Scripture or not.
Bryan, you are on fire, brother!
I came across a book dealing with Bart Ehrman's work. It is by Timothy Paul James and is entitled: "Misquoting Truth : A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'" I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting and may address many of the issues that Steven raised.
Post a Comment