Biblical Innerancy Fallacy

[wil]

I believe it has been known for centuries.

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible - Times Online

Hence the reason every Catholic I've personally met, whether they grew up being taught by nuns in Catholic school or just went through the aftershool teachings at church, never picked up a bible.

I think the church discovered years ago it couldn't teach out of the bible, that there would be to many questions with the discrepancies, so they created the catechism to move the focus to the scriptures which they preferred to teach from.

(all this while I am regularly accused of picking and choosing)

Loyola college a nearby Jesuit University, I've had two graduate students now who have relayed the teachings of their Catholic Priest Proffessors...the church figured out that people weren't ready for the truth. They preferred to be told what to think.

Bishop Spong, say what you will about him but he receives many accolades in the theological community, his numerous books continue to point out one thing. The bible as a historical text without error is a fallacy. But that does not diminish his Christian beliefs!!

On the other hand. Dr. Bart Ehrman became agnostic as his studies continued.

This is a guy who went to sunday school but at 15 had his religious experience and went on to get a degree Moody Bible College continued studying textual criticism and learned Greek and Hebrew at Wheaton and onto Princeton Seminary and a doctorate. He is currently chair of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, smack dab in the bible belt.

His book Misquoting Jesus, goes into detail of which texts are misleading or don't belong and why. (like the story of the adulteress and 'ye without sin cast the first stone' and the whole beginning end ending of John which we love so much) But don't take my word for it. Read the book and I'd love to use this forum to discuss why he is wrong in his thesis and I am wrong in mine, ie: the church has known for centuries the many issues with the bible and chose to teach without it.

Now while it is true that Bart became agnostic thru his study, Spong, I and many others have not. While I am not as learned as either I do believe you can shine a light on the issues and become more connected to spirit and know the bible is not inerrant and still use it as your number one spiritual reference book as I do. This is not about tearing ones faith down but expanding it by eliminating denial.

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Originally Posted by wil

Hence the reason every Catholic I've personally met, whether they grew up being taught by nuns in Catholic school or just went through the aftershool teachings at church, never picked up a bible.

And neither did I.

A more accurate representation, I think, is that from the Reformation on, the Protestant Church was arguing the Bible against Tradition (the Roman Catholic Church).

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Magisterium declared:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall — in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine — wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church — whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures — hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.

So the Church holds that She is the safeguard of truth and interpretation of the Scriptures. So the Catholic was, over time, led to inquire of the meaning of Scripture not of himself, but from the Church.

This probably horrifies the modern mind, so entrenched in the idea of its own autonomy, but these words were spoken in a different philosophical and cultural mileau. Nevertheless the simple truth holds ... just because you can read scripture does not mean you can understand it. No-one would assume that of poetry, or of literature, or art or music ... so why it is assumed of Revelation, escapes me.

Originally Posted by wil

I think the church discovered years ago it couldn't teach out of the bible, that there would be to many questions with the discrepancies, so they created the catechism to move the focus to the scriptures which they preferred to teach from.

Well, also remember the Church was Liturgical, that is Sacramental, before it was Scriptural, and the focus of the Church up until the Reformation was the Sacraments.

The Reformation began the devolution of the Sacraments from a Mystical Rite to a mere remembrance, refuting the deeper meaning of the term 'sacrament', 'mystery' and 'memra' — remember that Luther thought man was a creature made of **** (his own expression), and that his excremental nature could not be altered, so Sacraments, etc., were mere observances without any constituative reality.

So I would argue the Church maintained her focus, but under the ongoing assault of the Reformation, the picture became distorted.

Today, of course, it is utterly different. The Scriptures are at the heart of Catholic education ... and we draw on a range of Protestant exegetes as well as the home grown variety.

Originally Posted by wil

Loyola college a nearby Jesuit University, I've had two graduate students now who have relayed the teachings of their Catholic Priest Proffessors...the church figured out that people weren't ready for the truth. They preferred to be told what to think.

Tragically it's a matter of public record that post-Concilliar 60s liberalism has wrecked huge damage in the American seminary system, and one that will take more than a generation to put right. The sexual abuse scandals are a significant symptom of that.

Then again, the Church makes all her Magisterial Documents readily available, but who reads them? And who can fathom them without commentary ...

Originally Posted by wil

Bishop Spong, say what you will about him but he receives many accolades in the theological community, his numerous books continue to point out one thing. The bible as a historical text without error is a fallacy. But that does not diminish his Christian beliefs!!

Two things:

1: The Bible is not considered an historical document. Nor were its authors interested in 'histry' as we consider it today.
2: Bishop Spong has a huge number of critics in the upper echelons of Biblical Criticism, so his thesis is, at best, tenuous.

The whole Quest for the Historical Jesus is a non-starter. It was founded on the insistence of Strauss and Reimarus that there is no supernatural, no revelation, and no reliable data in Scripture.

So the assumption is, if there is an historical Jesus, it's not in Scripture. But there's nowhere else to look ... so ...

... we'll decide what bits of Scripture are reliable, and what are not, according to our presupposition that anything that smacks of supernatural, the miraculous, etc., etc., we can discount as mythology ...

... as a methodology, it's so flawed its laughable.

Originally Posted by wil

On the other hand. Dr. Bart Ehrman became agnostic as his studies continued.

Intelligence is no guarantee of faith.

Originally Posted by wil

His book Misquoting Jesus, goes into detail ...

It's a thesis Wil, it's not fact, nor proven ... you can buy the thesis if you like, but I don't, and nor do many, many others with a better and broader pedigree than him.

Originally Posted by wil

Read the book and I'd love to use this forum to discuss why he is wrong in his thesis and I am wrong in mine, ie: the church has known for centuries the many issues with the bible and chose to teach without it.

I'd love to discuss it, but I'm not buying his book. Sorry, I have to be frugal with my pennies.

You can read a review of him here and another one here.

I recommend the last, as from what is evident, if the author and I were to speak, I would be far less charitable than his critics.

Read Fernseeds and Elephants by C.S. Lewis, a critique of the critics, and something which they should own up to.

I own up. I have seen people who's faith in themselves, let alone God, has been destroyed ... taken apart by clever philosophies, but not quite clever enough to put anything useful or viable in its place, so perhaps I bear an open wound, but I am aware that if I have any gift at all for philosophy, or insight, or any pretension to intellective capacity, then I also have a duty to protect those of my fellows who do not, and the fact remains, as that bowl of execrable bowel-gravy "The DaVinci Code" proves, that too many people are too ready to believe anything if its hyped up enough.

Thomas

[Thomas]

I should add — out of fairness — that the Magisterium took a very hard line against Biblical Criticism, so much so that a theologian wouldn't go near it with a proverbial long pole.

So preaching from the Bible was OK as long as you were in line with Church thinking, and then it's safer to preach on the thinking, and quote Scripture in line with that ... kinda turns the tables a bit ...

We got our fingers badly burned over Galileo, we're still apologising, it still ain't enough for some, and yet not only had we endorsed the idea of heliocentrism when Copernicus put it forward a century sooner, I just found out Aquinas even suggested it, long before that!

Ha! So we were first! But then we tripped over our skirts ... bugger!

On the Bible Inneracy bit, the Constitutional Document of the Catholic Church states:
'Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).'
and
'Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.' Dei Verbum, paragraphs 12 and 11.

What that means is all Scripture is inspired, but not every word of scripture is itself kerygmatic — that is, infallible and revealed, a dogma to be adhered to without question.

Biblical research will go on and on ... thesis ... anti-thesis ... I have read a review that suggests, from narrative analysis, that John's Gospel is older than the Synoptics, even though written down later, because the miracle accounts (called signs in John) that appear in the Synoptics also, appear to have undergone some development between the 'primitive' Johannine telling, and the more nuanced synoptic account ... whereas John has Jesus to-ing and fro-ing from Jerusalem (3 visits), Luke has synthesised a much more symphonic journey, from Judea to Jerusalem, which occupies most part of his gospel, according to Greco-Roman narrative structure — another 'proof' that John was an eye witness, full of incidental detail, whereas Luke was not, and was thus telling the story in its metaphysical minimum, as it were...

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Magisterium declared:...So the Church holds that She is the safeguard of truth and interpretation of the Scriptures. So the Catholic was, over time, led to inquire of the meaning of Scripture not of himself, but from the Church.

This probably horrifies the modern mind...

Today, of course, it is utterly different. The Scriptures are at the heart of Catholic education

So the reason they took the bible away was because we would interpret it differently than they. So why do they return it?

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Bible is not considered an historical document. Nor were its authors interested in 'histry' as we consider it today.

inerrant but not historical?

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's a thesis Wil, it's not fact, nor proven ... you can buy the thesis if you like, but I don't, and nor do many, many others with a better and broader pedigree than him.

"You can buy the thesis if you like, but I don't" Now Thomas, this being the theology board, what is the thesis of his that you don't buy? And for what reason? Beyond that, what doctrine of the church or biblical text is 'proven'? Varoius denominations may have consensus on this that or the other thing but proven? We know as we've been told repeatedly it is a matter of faith, but we also know that while the church is slow to respond it eventually does. Hence my thought that the church was well aware of what they cannonized and backed off.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'd love to discuss it, but I'm not buying his book. Sorry, I have to be frugal with my pennies.

PM me an address, I'll gladly mail you a copy so you can discuss.

Originally Posted by Thomas

You can read a review of him here and another one here.

Thomas

I don't think they really read the book. They praise the first four chapters and then slam him on some of his conclusions but then say things like:

s I remember Bruce Metzger saying once (who trained both Bart and myself in these matters) over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.

Just so we are clear, Father Bruce Metzger is who Bart dedicates the book to. But lets look into the 10%.

Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7-8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman’s book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts.

The question is why it was added, as the title of his book is Misquoting Jesus:The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. If everything was so well proven regarding the Trinity why would someone choose to add the text to prove their point?

The book’s very title is a bit too provocative and misleading though: Almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings by Jesus!

Almost none. I'll provide his top ten verses that were added and don't belong in the bible when I have the book at my side.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

So the reason they took the bible away was because we would interpret it differently than they.

Whoa! Flashback! For a dreadful moment there, I thought ... nah, forget it.

The reason they took some Bibles away (assuming you mean England, etc ...) is because of the suspect translation — ie a re-translation to fit a schemata, because the implicit schemata as it stood refuted theirs. The accompanying commentaries, that told the people what the text meant, btw, was a dead giveaway.

Originally Posted by wil

So why do they return it?

The Bible was translated into the vernacular, in England, since the 9th century.

Originally Posted by wil

inerrant but not historical?

No, the Word of God but not history as we regard it as authentic in the 20th century — the focus being on the forensic details, to the point where the body was no longer visible. I've argued this point at some length before...

Originally Posted by wil

"You can buy the thesis if you like, but I don't"

And neither do I buy yours. To me, my understanding of the state of play is far more reasonable and logical, accepting, as I do, revelation.

Originally Posted by wil

Now Thomas, this being the theology board, what is the thesis of his that you don't buy?

Well I haven't read the book, so I checked out the critiques, which I url'd, which seem, agreed somewhat in my dark, but assuming such people don't make up imaginary content or argument, to suggest that:

The book’s very title is a bit too provocative and misleading though: Almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings by Jesus! The book simply doesn’t deliver what the title promises.

and

In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.

and

These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. Yet, the conclusions that he put forth there are still stated here without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around. For a book geared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theological weight that he says is on the line. One almost gets the impression that he is encouraging the Chicken Littles in the Christian community to panic at data that they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.

Need I go on?

Originally Posted by wil

Beyond that, what doctrine of the church or biblical text is 'proven'?

None of it. Nobody's Sacred Scriptures are proven, if one disallows the premise, not Christianity's, not Buddhism, etc.

Originally Posted by wil

I don't think they really read the book.

Well it seems a scholarly, balanced and informed critique from someone who hasn't read the book.

Originally Posted by wil

They praise the first four chapters and then slam him on some of his conclusions but then say things like ...

Now who's using emotive language? If a criticism is a 'slam' its because it hits home with telling effect.

Originally Posted by wil

Father Bruce Metzger is who Bart dedicates the book to.

Then presumably he respects Metzger's opinions.

Originally Posted by wil

The question is why it was added ... If everything was so well proven regarding the Trinity why would someone choose to add the text to prove their point?

Well as his critics see it, no-one has. No text alteration effects Doctrine or Credo.

Originally Posted by wil

I'll provide his top ten verses that were added and don't belong in the bible when I have the book at my side.

OK.

I have to say, I do find it telling that a scholar produces as scholarly work that receives much critical question, then goes on to produce a 'populist-lite' and blatantly sensationalising version aimed, with great success, at the best-seller market, without addressing any of the issues raised on reception of the first draft, seems an attempt to rally the mob and carry the day by storm.

I'm no Scripture exegete, but I'll give it a go.

Thomas

[nativeastral]

Originally Posted by Thomas

We got our fingers badly burned over Galileo, we're still apologising, it still ain't enough for some, and yet not only had we endorsed the idea of heliocentrism when Copernicus put it forward a century sooner, I just found out Aquinas even suggested it, long before that!

Ha! So we were first! But then we tripped over our skirts ... bugger!
Thomas

sorry, couldnt resist! Was Aristarchus of Samos 310-230 BC who first presented an explicit argument for a heliocentric model [influenced by his teacher Pythagorean Philolaus]. They were rejected in favour of Aristotles and Ptolemy's geocentric version. Again the tension between conservatism [prevailing religion/philosopy] and revolution and anomalies until the paradigm shift cannot be denied

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by nativeastral

sorry, couldnt resist!

Rats! Foiled again!

Cannot blame you for that! Seems no exegete, and no historian, either!

Thomas

[Dream]

I also thumbed through Misquoting Jesus while I was in Chapel Hill a couple of years ago. I keep in mind that tenured professors never run out of material in Divinity departments, but I saw this book and it was written by a local Professor so I gave it a short sit down. Probably the most important claim in the book had to do with female friends of Paul that were leaders in the church. This same issue came up in this forum almost a year ago.... Any helpful insights are appreciated. Maybe it seems unrelated to the thread, however its from the same book. (These parts of the book are on google books in the preview.)

pg 178 "Modern scholars have come to recognize that disputes over the role of women in the early church occurred precisely because women had a role--often a significant and publicly high profile role....." Also pg 181 Ehrman talks about various quotations where women served in speaking and professy or worship. Then Ehrman makes the contrast that Paul elsewhere says women shouldn't speak at all in meetings. He also makes much of whether Rom 6:7 is about Andronicus and Junias, Paul's relatives or Andronicus and Junia, fellow apostles. There is an undertone that the role of women in the church has been somehow forgotten, and that is something that stands out from his other claims as directly affecting worship practice. It seems like a good argument.

[nativeastral]

hi, concerning women; early christianity went always first to the synagogues to proselytise, and the women, who were perhaps gentiles but who had married a jew, were more enamoured by the idea of non-circumcision for their children; this cannot be over emphasised as in judaism progeny is through the woman. One of the earliest was Priscilla and her husband, from Rome.

Though its been said that the earliest Christians were the poor etc,in actual fact a lot of the spreading of Christianity was through women of the patrician class in Rome, wives of the emperors some of them- looking for a mean between the ethics of Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy which was mainly stoical at that time [which Christianity had absorbed e.g. the concept of Logos and which 'disappeared' after Marcus Aurelius c.180AD implying the rising popularity of Christianity that did not have the excesses of the mystery cults though the elite were members of those as well just like some of us here are members of other forums!]. There can be no doubt that women then [and now!] were attracted to the 'love' aspect in a society surrounded by continual wars/Roman expansion/deaths of sons and fathers.

Carrying on Jewish tradition widows were looked after and given roles; in Roman society the women were under the thumb of the patriarch, usually the grandfather, though the poorer ones had freedom to work etc. Infanticide [especially of the female] was de rigour, which Christianity abhorred and so looked after any found ones.

[Dream]

Nativeastral, thanks for the contrib.

You said "..this cannot be over emphasised as in judaism progeny is through the woman." There is an aspect of this you didn't mention that strengthens your suggestion: In Judaism, one reason that progeny goes through the women is for the purpose of giving women status in society.

You said "women, who were perhaps gentiles but who had married a jew" Are you talking about Christian men who married gentiles or mostly non-Christian or only-Christian? I do not know the history here sorry.

You said "Carrying on Jewish tradition widows were looked after and given roles; in Roman society the women were under the thumb of the patriarch, usually the grandfather, though the poorer ones had freedom to work etc." I believe it, however women also have roles in today's church. The claims made are that things have changed and that it isn't good.

Okey-dokey,
Dream

[Joedjr]

Speaking of professors from NC. James D. Tabor -> The Jesus Dynasty. interesting read.
Thomas, you really should give the Bible a read cover to cover some time. Let it speak to your heart!

[17th Angel]

catholics decide the bible is no longer truth? So... They're going to disband? Like wtf is the point in still being here if you don't believe the book lol... That is what christianity is based on... Or are they going to swing more to their pagan roots now?

[Dream]

I definitely think that all Catholics, including the top canaries, take the Protestant NT for true. If the Catholics don't believe in the Protestant NT, then that jeopardizes mainly the Protestant denominations, not the Mass, since the NT is a Roman Catholic collection. Losing the Protestant NT might actually be good for the RC in terms of consolidation of flocks. The Protestants would have little to protest and would be forced to either drop the NT or absorb a lot more of the RC's traditional views. Instead of taking that easy route, the RC has embarked on a long-term 'Ecumenical' strategy (with varying degrees of success) to convince Protestants to accept official interpretations of the Bible. This suggests that the RC internally considers the Protestant New Testament books to be important records. Above all, it most certainly does believe in the importance of tradition.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dream

I definitely think that all Catholics, including the top canaries, take the Protestant NT for true.

What is a 'Protestant NT'?

Thomas

[nativeastral]

Originally Posted by Dream

Nativeastral, thanks for the contrib.

You said "..this cannot be over emphasised as in judaism progeny is through the woman." There is an aspect of this you didn't mention that strengthens your suggestion: In Judaism, one reason that progeny goes through the women is for the purpose of giving women status in society.

You said "women, who were perhaps gentiles but who had married a jew" Are you talking about Christian men who married gentiles or mostly non-Christian or only-Christian? I do not know the history here sorry.

You said "Carrying on Jewish tradition widows were looked after and given roles; in Roman society the women were under the thumb of the patriarch, usually the grandfather, though the poorer ones had freedom to work etc." I believe it, however women also have roles in today's church. The claims made are that things have changed and that it isn't good.

Okey-dokey,
Dream

hi dream, l presume lineage through women comes from matriarchal systems from wayway back but one would have to ask an informed jew; l know that widows were married to brothers of the deceased therefore keeping land/goods within married family [as elsewhere]; man was the seed women the soil for an embryo and family is a holy santification; its women who preside/light candles on friday eve of shabbot [and of course shekinah the divine feminine presence].

Another reason on a more sinister note was that wealthy widows were 'taken care of' because of their wealth; the brides of christ...

Sorry, I meant jewish women marrying gentiles post diaspora [jewish expansion was enormously fast, they were the only legitimate 'religion' exempt from Roman worship etc], so were those that weren't particularly orthodox otherwise they wouldn't have married outwith judaism. Either way circumcision was a big issue and contributed to the 'universality' aspect of christianity.

Concerning the roles of women in pagan Rome for eg, in contrast to Judaism
[and later christianity, which initially allowed charismatics/prophetesses but then disallowed , see corinthian church, a sea port!] more freedom was allowed to pagans as many of the mystery cults were goddess ones [Isis,cybele,bacchus etc] yet they were still under tutelage paternalistically [but we all know the women wears the trousers in the home!].

Due to the patriarchal language of the scripture women in both christianity and judaism are reclaiming role models out of the bibles as many feel disenfranchised; there is a lot of 'feminist' literature on the subject- it is still generally only men who have religious authority to carry out sacraments/rituals etc ie androcentrism. Women have always done the 'menial' work though are the backbone of many religious institutions .