Biblical Studies v Philosophical Studies

This post is a continuation of the DC Challenge. This will be brief...

Christians do NOT claim to affirm the grammatical-historical interpretation of the historic Christian creeds based upon reason. That is, they do not reason to their specific beliefs. Deists claim to reason to their beliefs, but Christians who affirm these historic creeds do not. The Christian affirms these creeds based upon accepting revelation from the Christian God, whether they find it in the Bible, or in church tradition. Christians will simply argue that it’s reasonable for them to accept God’s revelation, regardless of where they claim to find it.

However, if what I argue here at DC is true that the Bible is a collection of unwarranted superstitious beliefs, then it's likewise not reasonable for them to accept church tradition as authoritative. For if the Bible is shown to be a false revelation, then the historic church was wrong to proclaim it, and if that’s the case we have no assurance the church isn’t wrong in whatever it proclaims today. If church tradition isn't authoritative, then neither can we trust their selection of the books that go into the canon, since the church created the canonical Bible in the first place. [Protestants, especially evangelicals, claim the Bible created the church, but I cannot make any sense of this claim of theirs].

My point here is simple. In the area of the Philosophy of Religion religious beliefs are scrutinized according to reason to see if said beliefs are consistent and reasonable to believe. It is not a branch of Apologetics where the sum total case for Christianity is examined, nor is it a branch of Theology, where a believer isn't defending his faith so much as explicating it.

For the Christian, all of these areas are important and can be considered on some kind of continuum for defending and understanding their beliefs. But the source of their beliefs comes from the Bible, in one fashion or another. That's why I focus on Biblical studies and Biblical scholarship, because I think with Hector Avalos that Biblical studies should end. The Bible is irrelevant to the needs of modern people. The focus of Biblical studies should henceforth be on debunking them, according to Avalos. I agree.

Those Christians who focus on the Philosophy of Religion must first do the dirty work of investigating the results of Biblical scholarship, since that forms the basis of what they believe, and here is where their arguments cannot get off the ground. What these philosophers have succeeded in doing is to take certain beliefs, as if those beliefs can be defended in the Bible itself, and they try to work out why it's reasonable to believe them. But that gets the cart before the horse. Many smart people can defend stupid and ignorant beliefs that have little or no evidence to them. There are some pretty intelligent Holocaust deniers, Mormon scholars, and militant Muslim scholars, so we all know that people can defend beliefs which have little or no actual evidence for them.

What is the source of your beliefs and what's the evidence for them? That's where these philosophical scholars must start. But since they are in a highly specialized field of learning, they just assume (outside of their specialization) the results of Conservative Biblical scholars to begin with. But they themselves have not done the prerequisite Biblical study.

So my debate challenge is to get down and dirty inside the area of Biblical studies. I think the Bible itself debunks Christianity more than effectively.

Cheers.

28 comments:

Bill Gnade said...

Dear John W. Loftus,

I hope this comment finds you well.

Fair enough. Let's get down and dirty in the detritus which is Holy Writ. If I think I am in over my head, I will cry for help and head for shore. (Talk about mixing metaphors! Ouch!)

So, perhaps you could post what you think is the single most damning problem you find in Scripture. Imagine this to be a Monty Python sketch: to keep people from crossing the Bridge of Reason that spans the chasm between the Land of Truth and The Plains of Superstition, you must pose just one question, one riddle, that will stop folks from being seduced by the Sirens of Scripture.

What do you think? I may not be able to play this game at all, but surely others would like to know what that one riddle might be.

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

Unknown said...

I'll take the DC challenge, I've only read one of those books so far though (The Empty Tomb, courtesy of the excellent if somewhat arrogant Internet Infidels)

Give me a year or so though, students are permanently skint!

Eric Sherman said...

John,

Along the same lines, Thomas Paine wrote:

"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

The crux of the matter to me is: It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

Anonymous said...

In the DC Challenge I was upstaged by William Hawthorne who listed mostly scholarly books as if I hadn't thought of doing so.

When it comes to Biblical studies per se, besides Hector Avalos' book, let me suggest some scholarly introductory material off the top of my head:

You should get The Anchor Bible Dictionary to read up on the latest Biblical scholarship on some important Biblical topics.

Bernard Anderson's Introduction to the Old Testament is important to see the development of the faith of Israel and the books in it.

You'll need a good New Testament Introduction. Get either Raymond Brown's book, or Helmut Koester’s book.

When it comes to the Gospels see Helmut Koester’s Ancient Christian Gospels.

On Jesus Studies begin with Gerd Theissen & Annette Mertz's book, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide.

Now that I've shown I know what the scholars write on the topics we deal with, maybe later I'll provide some college level texts that are more accessible.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Eric Sherman,

What Paine says sounds good, but even the first person need not accept what is revealed. Or are you saying that revelation must be irresistible? But let me forget that for now.

Imagine that I am a vintner; I own a vineyard named Revelation and I bottle but one sublime Cabernet. It is so good it brings tears of joy to one's eyes. Now, suppose you have never had this delicacy before you arrive at my estate on Christmas Eve: you tell me you are looking for the best wine the world offers. I give you a taste of my wine, and you end up weeping with joy. I sell you a bottle, you bring it home for the holidays.

Now, as you share this bottle, even allowing others to travel with it to dispense healing doses throughout San Francisco, how am I not the source of the wine? Why would it not still be called Revelation? How is it diminished if only I am the source of it; why does it lose its uniqueness because it is being dispensed by someone who does not even know my name, where my vineyard is, or how they came to possess it? And why is not Revelation, or good, or even wine, if some people refuse it?

Just wondering, honestly. I think Paine has something wrong here. That's all.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

Bill Gnade said...

Dear John W. Loftus,

I think -- maybe -- your comment is on the wrong thread.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

GordonBlood said...

That the bible contains myth and legend is quite clear. Ancient societies, of course, depended on such and it would be strikingly on if the bible did not contain such legends and over-exaggeration. However,just because the bible contains such things does not warrant that it is not historically useful or whatnot. The question is what things are myth and what things genuinely happened.

Anonymous said...

Bill said...So, perhaps you could post what you think is the single most damning problem you find in Scripture.

What if I actually had many damning problems all equal in weight? I do, but since you asked me to name one, let me just chose.

Okay...here's one:

The God of the Bible is barbaric reflecting an ancient barbaric and superstitious culture's beliefs. This God is a dictator who seeks to punish us for our thoughts and beliefs when we cannot believe differently, and who seeks a blood sacrifice for our purported sins. This is not a God I could ever worship even if he existed. I’m just glad he doesn’t. I would go to my grave rebelling against him since I cannot help but to despise him. Like the ancient thought police he demands that we believe he’s a good God worthy of worship and yet blaming us for all of the suffering we experience here on earth and for many forever in an agonizing existence in hell.

He commanded genocide, witch, honor and heretic killings which have reverberated down through the centuries in the witch trials and Inquisitions. Do you know what it must be like to be burned alive? He did not condemn slavery like any civilized and decent person would today, thus sanctioning Southern slavery. Do you know what it would have been like to be beaten within an inch of your life for not bowing to your master?

All the Biblical God would’ve had to do was to condemn such things from the outset by saying something like this, “Thou shalt not kill people who disagree with you,” with a clear and unambiguous voice often enough for people who believe the Bible wouldn’t have misunderstood it.

That’s one problem, okay?

Bill Gnade said...

Dear John W. Loftus,

I thank you for posting one tough pitch to hit! And here I thought you'd throw me a stinkin' softball. Nope, instead I get a freaking smoking fastball that also manifests some knuckleball characteristics, and you blast it on the inside of the plate. Thanks. My reflexes tell me to step back or take a dive.

But this does not appear to me to be a Bible problem. The problem you posited still seems steeped in philosophical and moral implications. I could be wrong. Yes, there is a very wrathful God depicted in Holy Writ, but that is not a problem with Holy Writ. It's a problem of another kind. But if you want me to try and reconcile this idea of God with what the Bible says later about that purportedly same God, then I will make that attempt. But not right now. I just want to make sure that you want me to tackle a topic that is more philosophical than it is Biblical. Do you?

Blissings!

Gnade

Eric Sherman said...

Bill,

I'm glad you directed me here. For whatever reason I wasn't notified by email like all the rest and I would have missed it.

"What Paine says sounds good, but even the first person need not accept what is revealed. Or are you saying that revelation must be irresistible?"

Thomas Hobbes make an interesting point regarding this epistemic challenge. He says, (I'm paraphrasing), "What is the difference between a dream FROM God and a dream ABOUT God?" Formidable challenge, I think.

"And why is not Revelation, or good, or even wine, if some people refuse it?"

Well, I think your ananlogy is false in that those who had a so-called first person revelation from God came with a particular "authentic" accompanying vision/experience that can never be duplicated for hearsayers. To say that reading about Paul's experience is a revelation in and of itself is to kind of miss the nature of Revelation, IMO.

Paul's letters about his first hand experience/revelation are unfortuantely hearsay to you and I. Unless in reading his letter about his revelation, I have a revelation/vision of my own where I'm "caught up in the third heaven" so to speak, which has never been the case for me (and I aussume you) we are stuck in the camp of hearsayer, not first hand experiencers.

Add to this, again, that if I do have a first hand revelation from Jesus while reading Paul's account. How would I differentitate this from a dream or hallucination? Do you or I have a set of supernatural senses to detect that which is outside of nature and beyond our senses?

Eric

Eric Sherman said...

More form Thomas Hobbes,

"When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately or by mediation of another man, to whom He had formerly spoken by Himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately may be understood by those well enough to whom He hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another is hard, if not impossible, to know. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. It is true that if he be my sovereign, he may oblige me to obedience, so as not by act or word to declare I believe him not; but not to think any otherwise than my reason persuades me. But if one that hath not such authority over me shall pretend the same, there is nothing that exacteth either belief or obedience.

For to say that God hath spoken to him in the Holy Scripture is not to say God hath spoken to him immediately, but by mediation of the prophets, or of the Apostles, or of the Church, in such manner as He speaks to all other Christian men. To say He hath spoken to him in a dream is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man that knows dreams are for the most part natural, and may proceed from former thoughts; and such dreams as that, from self-conceit, and foolish arrogance, and false opinion of a man's own goodliness, or virtue, by which he thinks he hath merited the favour of extraordinary revelation. To say he hath seen a vision, or heard a voice, is to say that he dreamed between sleeping and waking: for in such manner a man doth many times naturally take his dream for a vision, as not having well observed his own slumbering. To say he speaks by supernatural inspiration is to say he finds an ardent desire to speak, or some strong opinion of himself, for which he can allege no natural and sufficient reason. So that though God Almighty can speak to a man by dreams, visions, voice, and inspiration, yet He obliges no man to believe He hath so done to him that pretends it; who, being a man, may err and, which is more, may lie."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/chapter32.html

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Eric,

A VERY fair reply. Thank you.

I think we are using terms differently. I am not suggesting that St. Paul's revelation is mine; when I read of St. Paul's dramatic conversion, my reading of it is not in the same sense revelatory. But it is nonetheless revelation in that even my reading of the story finds its source in God. If God first touched St. Paul, and I read of that 2,000 years later, it is indeed hearsay, but it is hearsay that finds its source in something other than myself or in this world. It is revelation, it is just not my revelation (at least of the same kind or degree).

I also think you are using revelation in a very strict sense: God speaking to people directly. I don't hold to this definition; I should have noticed this sooner and acted accordingly. Sorry. I am much more inclined to think along similar lines as those presented by Mr. Hobbes.

I am not going to defend myself here with much vigor. I merely wanted to explore whether what Paine said is true. I think it only partly true. My suspicion is that there is a problem with it that I cannot discern right now. Perhaps if I put it on the back burner something will bubble up.

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

Eric Sherman said...

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your response.

"It is revelation, it is just not my revelation (at least of the same kind or degree)."

Fine, let's extend the term revelation for a moment and see what it nets us. Any kind of revelation seems intended to reveal to us that which was previously a mystery to us.

In all sincerity, I have found the Christian revelation to be the complete opposite, in that it compounds mystery upon mystery.

Regards
Eric

Will Hawthorne said...

Mr. Loftus,

It seems that initially the DC Challenge was aimed at Christianity broadly construed. This is why I've provided books that defend the existence of a divine agent that is compatible with, or entailed by, the Christian conception of God. Several of the books offer explicit defenses of the Christian God and/or other aspects of Christian theology.

But now it appears that you've modified your challenge. It's now more narrowly concerned with the historical reliability of the bible. But I'm not so sure this will help much, John. Here's why. The following conjunction is logically possible: there is at least one proposition in the Bible that is false, and Christianity is true. Suppose David had neither 700 nor 7000 horsemen, but really 658 horsemen. Strictly speaking, then, part of the Bible would be false. What follows? Not that Christianity is false, but rather that there is an error in the Bible. This is because the basis of Christianity is the resurrection. Christianity stands or falls depending on whether the resurrection ocurred. You can attack the resurrection claim head on, or you can attack it indirectly (e.g. by arguing for naturalism).

The books I presented provide a philosophical case against naturalism. So I think it's safe to say my books have "upstaged" your books in that respect. And I'd imagine that if you decide to list more books arguing directly against the resurrection, I can find twice as many arguing for it. And on we go.

Anonymous said...

Hawthorne, I really don’t like it when someone moves the goal posts and then claims I did. My challenge was for evangelical Christians to read the best books that Christian thinkers have to offer and then to read the best books that skeptics have to offer to see if they can maintain their original faith. I don't think I initially predicted what would happen for any individual so much as I argued it would be a good thing for them to do, just to judge the case for themselves. That’s the challenge, and I have not changed it one bit. But I do think the skeptical arguments will win the day, not for everyone, but for most people.

Then I was asked to list the top ten skeptical books, so I chose ten books on a college level covering what I considered the range of issues as best I could, given the 10 book limit. I could list a more than a hundred books ranging in educational levels over the various issues. Again, my challenge is to read the best of both sides, okay? And it does no good to say there are more Christian books than skeptical books, since the majority of people who write on these issues are Christian writers. So what if there are? That says nothing about whether the arguments of a hundred Christian books are better than the arguments of five skeptical books. Someone like you who claims to be well read on these issues should know better than that.

In this Blog entry I’m making the claim that Biblical studies undermine your faith more than philosophical studies. This does not change my challenge in any way. The challenege is still to read the best of both sides. I’m actually surprised that you can link to some in-depth books and yet fail to understand this simple challenge of mine, and that I have NOT modified it from its inception.

Will said…Christianity stands or falls depending on whether the resurrection ocurred. You can attack the resurrection claim head on, or you can attack it indirectly (e.g. by arguing for naturalism).

Arguing against naturalism does very little to support the resurrection, since Muslims and Jews are also supernaturalists.

Anonymous said...

Bill, why is the problem I pointed out NOT a Biblical problem? Really now, you wouldn't have to deal with it if these things were not said in the Bible.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear John W. Loftus,

In part it's not a biblical problem because it is something that can be addressed apart from the Bible: How do we deal with a wrathful God?

Here's the rub: When I think of Bible Studies, I am thinking form criticism, structural criticism, textual criticism, redaction, JEPD, Q, the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, you know the stuff I am talking about.

But I see I've misunderstood what YOU meant by "Biblical Studies." Forgive me. You mean those characteristics of God as presented in the Bible (at least in the example you provided). OK. Fair enough.

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

Anonymous said...

Bill said...In part it's not a biblical problem because it is something that can be addressed apart from the Bible: How do we deal with a wrathful God?

And that, my friend, is indeed a Biblical problem, for the source of your beliefs come from the Bible as I argued in this blog entry. So you must try to harmonize the Biblical depiction of God in the Bible with the one you sing about on Sunday morning while lifting your hands to heaven. The challenege here is to reconcile that God with the other God in the Bible, whom you love and adore so much.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear John W. Loftus,

I am not here to quibble, only to remind you of something I said in one of my first comments ever posted at DC. My faith does not begin in the Bible. It begins elsewhere. But I will respond to your challenge formally in the next few hours.

Peace.

WHG

Bill Gnade said...

JWL,

P.S.

I am your friend, indeed.

WHG

Anonymous said...

Bill, I appreciate you being here and want to think of you as a friend of sorts, but here at DC we are taking aim at evangelical Christianity. You represent a moving goal post to me. You want me to engage in your beliefs when I do not know what you believe or where you get your beliefs. I cannot do that with every single person who comes here. I cannot take the time to learn about their specific version of Christianity. That's why we take aim at a real target, one that has a great many followers. They believe the Bible is the word of God, and that's the source of their beliefs.

So let me say this. If the shoe fits, wear it; if it doesn't, then don't blame us for not dealing with your specific beliefs. Just read it and pass over it. How's that? That's the best I can offer you.

Will Hawthorne said...

John, you first said, “…let me offer one to all Christians everywhere, no matter what their brand of Christianity is. … Do what Andrew Atkinson did. He had read up on all of the top Christian apologetics books and then decided in fairness to read all of the top skeptical books.” Seems like a pretty broad challenge so far.

But then you said in the next entry that your challenge is “to get down and dirty inside the area of Biblical studies.”

Will Hawthorne said...

I said, "Christianity stands or falls depending on whether the resurrection ocurred. You can attack the resurrection claim head on, or you can attack it indirectly (e.g. by arguing for naturalism)."

Mr. Loftus responds, "Arguing against naturalism does very little to support the resurrection, since Muslims and Jews are also supernaturalists."

Can Loftus or any readers here explain to me how to make sense of Loftus's response in relation to what I actually said? John, you seem to have misunderstood my claim.

Anonymous said...

Hawthorne said...But then you said in the next entry that your challenge is “to get down and dirty inside the area of Biblical studies.”

Did you read my argument in this post where I argued that Christians must claim to get their beliefs from the Bible. You may not agree with my argument, but it's there. Two main alternatives are either deism or mysticism, neither of which can claim to be specifically christian, otherwise a christian can embrace Buddhism, and if that's the case then no, I'm not arguing against Buddhism. So in this respect you may be right, but first you'd have to reject the argument in this post of mine. But I claim my argument is a good one nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Hawthorne, I merely quoted the wrong part of what you said to comment on, the correct part was this...This is because the basis of Christianity is the resurrection. Christianity stands or falls depending on whether the resurrection ocurred. You can attack the resurrection claim head on, or you can attack it indirectly (e.g. by arguing for naturalism). The books I presented provide a philosophical case against naturalism.

Then my comment is more appropriate when I said...Arguing against naturalism does very little to support the resurrection, since Muslims and Jews are also supernaturalists.

Minor cut and paste mistake. Surely you knew what I was commenting on, and if you didn't, why would you ask others to come to your aid rather than show me which part I meant to quote from?

Will Hawthorne said...

Mr. Loftus,

After reading this entry again, it's not clear to me what your argument is. Would you mind formulating it for me?

Thanks for clearing up the cut and paste mistake. It happens. (And no, I did not notice it until you pointed it out. I asked other readers to help because I felt as though I might be missing something.)

Even so, you say:

Then my comment is more appropriate when I said...Arguing against naturalism does very little to support the resurrection, since Muslims and Jews are also supernaturalists.

Of course, I nowhere suggested that arguing against naturalism directly supports the resurrection. (?)

Anonymous said...

Hawthorne, you are not an honest dialogue partner. You bacstep, sidestep and do flips to avoid being caught in your ignorance. I have better things to do...

Will Hawthorne said...

"You bacstep, sidestep and do flips to avoid being caught in your ignorance."

For example?