Quote of the Day, by Biblical Scholar Michael Coogan
The point I’m trying to make is...that everyone, whether they are aware of it or not, uses the Bible selectively. Link.This was said in an interview about his new book God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says.
14 comments:
John, This idea that we selectively use the Bible to proof-text is not new, but some people (the most conservative Christians) will deny that they do it.
I know some of these folks, and I would like to point them to their peers -- Christian scholars that have written eloquently on the problem. Do you know of any such material?
I've always hated selective bible use, never understood how Christians got away with interpreting jesus
~Rhaco
Like Robert says, this selective method is not new. As a matter of fact, it is the very method used to put the Bible as we know it together in the first place.
The selective process guaranteed that their version of Christianity became the correct version. . .
@d_r_melbie
Yep, I just finished reading Ehrman's book and it describes how proto-orthodox groups won the 400 year battle for canonization and subsequently declared other groups as heretics. This stuff is common knowledge to Biblical scholars, but it would be quite a shock to lay people in the pews who think that early Christians knew what was inspired.
I grew up in a church that would "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." ... at least that was the claim. They also wanted to emulate the early church under the assumption that the early church was directly guided by the apostles of Jesus.
Wow! What ignorance we had! The early church was an mess. If only I had known that sooner.
It is written, "The point I’m trying to make is...that everyone, whether they are aware of it or not, uses the Bible selectively"
Yes, we are supposed to use discernment to differentiate between the divine and the corrupt - if scripture is used to justify an abuse of power, it is used wrongly.
@Robert wrote
"...but it would be quite a shock to lay people in the pews who think that early Christians knew what was inspired."
Hi, Robert, well, the early Christians had the Old Testament, and the teachings of the first apostles of Jesus Himself who very often would reference from that O.T.
I'd think that would qualify to affirm their faith as being true. As for the "canonization" of the books; Is there something you can point out that would "shock me" ?
Re "...under the assumption that the early church was directly guided by the apostles of Jesus."
Well, they DID use the letters they wrote to them, and even shared them. Not good enough??
Hi Jorge,
Have you studied the history of the cannon? I'm not sure what would shock you, but I was shocked to learn the following:
1) Seven of the letters of Paul are widely recognized as authentic. The other 6 have disputed authenticity among New Testament scholars.
2) Pseudepigraphy (forgeries) were common among early Christian writings, (2 TH 2:2 recognizes this and is ironically thought to be a forgery). The early churches were undecided on many of the New Testament books for about 400 years because of wide spread forgery and other problems.
3) You mentioned Old Testament references. Well, sometimes they are wrong, e.g. MT 2:23, MT 27:9, MK 1:2. We also find misquotes in the N.T. (MT 2:14-15) as well as references to books that were not accepted as cannon (Jude 1:14-15).
4) The vast majority of early Christians did not know what was and was not written by the apostles. The authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was unknown to the early Christians and is still unknown today.
None of this may surprise you and you might disagree with some of it or with the relevance it has on faith, but these things were a surprise to me when I believed that the Bible is inerrant.
@Robert
Hi, Robert. No, I haven't studied the history of the canons per se. I have studied to "debunk" what people call bible inconsistencies. Not academically, but merely to be able to defend Scripture, and I find the Bible to be in coherent agreement (so far).
When I read statements like yours: "..You mentioned Old Testament references. Well, sometimes they are wrong", I find them to be not necessarily "wrong", but rather "unclear", and in need of clarification.
I have yet to find something that would shock me. I have not even yet found something so absolutely outrageous that it could no doubt be construed as "stretching" the truth to fit a mold. What I find in what people call "holes, and contradictions" in the Bible are merely misunderstandings. In my experience, 80% of so called contradictions where one verse seems to say something, and another something contrary, is merely not understanding the context. i.e one verse may refer to how God relates to believers, and the other how God relates to unbelievers, as in God rewards vs. God punishes; God is love vs. God is a jealous God.
Re "The authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was unknown to the early Christians and is still unknown today."
Maybe so,(it shouldn't be an impediment to using Scripture), but I think the writers were more concerned with Christians paying attention and remaining true to the message, and not so much to who delivered it, insomuch as to anathemize anyone delivering a false message.
Jorge, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think you are right that 80% of so called contradictions are not. If the God of the universe were to communicate to us in written words, one might expect a careful reading of the text and some serious study to prevent misunderstandings. 80% of the time, some critic will throw out 2 verses as an example contradiction before engaging in that serious study.
That being said, I think there are plenty of real contradictions, especially theological contradictions, in the Bible because the authors did not agree with one another on many important issues.
I was an active, faithful, prayerful Christian for more than 20 years. This lifestyle has put me in thousands of public and private Bible studies, so I am pretty familiar with what the scriptures say and how evangelical Christians interpret them. When I started to tackle the so called contradictions people bring up, 80% did not bother me, but some of them really did, and still do.
The problem I now see is that even with serious study, devout Christians are unable to decipher what the Bible teaches on all kinds of important subjects such as how to treat one another, how to be saved, what to expect on judgement day or the afterlife, what is God's nature, how to organize (or not organize) the Church on earth, how to worship God in such a way that pleases him, etc.
John makes a strong case for this in "The Christian Delusion". I recommend you read his chapter called "What We've Got Here is a Failure to Communicate". Then if you have rebuttals to John's thesis, please share them. I know he will respond if your rebuttal is strong enough to warrant attention.
My 2 cents.
@Robert
Hi,Robert. Yes, I admit sometimes to be baffled by the "understanding" applied by some people to Bible teachings. The "charismatic" movement comes to mind. And yet, a parallel could be drawn about how atheists go about "interpreting" facts.
Disagreements arising from as yet unknown or unexplained issues (i.e creation) are always explained away, as in "more research needs to be done". In other words, the scientific method can only go so far, and then has to rely on some sort of "magical" explanation, like quantum mechanics.
Some people have no problem believing or waiting for that to provide answers, but have a hard time with: "God created the Heavens and the Earth", which is obviously a Supernatural act.
I still need to go back to my original thought. Even if we found it difficult to agree on the issues you mention (which I believe are not as tough as they seem), I don't see them as problems with the Bible per se, but with churches (influenced by the culture) needing to accommodate the Bible to modern day living.
Re Mr. Loftus' comment:
Just a reference I found at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Loftus.htm
"Loftus examines the poor communication skills of the biblical god. If, indeed, an all loving god exists, then he could have avoided the problems of war, inquisitions, and cruelty of humans against humans by simply making his messages clearer."
I don't think war, inquisitions and cruelty reflect on something wrong with God's message.
Can an instance be shown when God's judgments were NOT appropriate or just?. I think, and I've mentioned this before, the problem lies with people wanting God to behave as one of us. To NOT do things that seem bad from our perspective. That is the wrong way to go about it. We have to believe in Him on His terms.
I don't think war, inquisitions and cruelty reflect on something wrong with God's message.
Hi again,
I think you owe it to yourself to read the full argument that John gives in his chapter. The short summary you found cannot capture his thoughts and is easy to dismiss for that reason.
Can an instance be shown when God's judgments were NOT appropriate or just?
Absolutely. This is the single biggest reason I left my former faith: I started to study in depth what the Bible has to say about Yahweh. His actions and reasons for action according to the text are sometimes morally questionable and other times morally abhorrant. I tried to explain away the Biblical passages on genocide, slavery and child sacrifice, (to name a few) but the apologetic answers were lacking. In the end, I could find no good reason to excuse the ancient near eastern authors of the Old Testament for what they said and then suppose that a super-intelligent and supremely-loving deity inspired them to say it.
I spent more than a hundred hours on this subject, so I won't point you to all the lame and not-worth-your-time arguments I found. If you want to read the very best of what Christians and non-Christians have said about Biblical genocide, start at this link. The paper by Wes Morriston is especially good and easy to follow. Wes is a Christian, but I think most other Christians would be concerned by what he has to say.
I am still trying to understand why Christians such as Wes Morriston, Randal Rauser and Thom Stark (see link) have not left the faith like me. If I can understand that, I might come to call myself a Christian again, but for now, that is not possible.
In a weird twist of irony, I studied the Bible and it turned me into an unbeliever.
@Robert
Re "...are sometimes morally questionable and other times morally abhorrant."
Hi,Robert. No doubt you approached your study with a "reasonable and logical" approach in mind. I'm not saying that's wrong in and of itself, but I think it is of the utmost importance to understand that it is one thing trying to figure out how a tree can make oxygen and how God works. The same approach will not work in coming to understand both subjects, mainly because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God that's acceptable for testing.
A lot of people here have the mindset: "Give us evidence, let's examine the evidence for what you believe". And yet, it is very clear we (surely I, for one) cannot. If God seeks those who will worship Him in spirit, if the just shall live by faith, and faith is having conviction of things not seen what kinds of evidence CAN be provided?.
I think, obviously, things observable can be tested scientifically. Things pertaining to faith must be tested by applying "logic" as it pertains to such faith. If we're testing Christianity, then the only document claiming authority is the Bible. Therefore, Bible study is where we find if the faith is consistent and true. If the Bible said somewhere: God is not the only true God, or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, then unbelievers would have a case. As it stands now, and as we have agreed, contradictions "found" in the Bible do not warrant the unbelievers' claims that it is not to be trusted.
(1 of 2)
(2 of 2)
Hi, Robert. Regarding difficult or problematic issues in the Bible, there is an entirely different way to approach them (from what unbelievers use), again keeping in mind that, if one believes, one knows the judgments of God are just and good.
In our humanness, of course it seems terrible and horrible that God would "murder" children. One example: The flood. When God said: "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth." The earth being "filled with violence" is the focus. I believe God is showing us that destruction is what the wicked deserve and will get. If the question is "what about the children?", I would have to say, since God will show mercy on whom He will, it's safe to say those chosen went to a better place.
Ouch, too cold? Another example: It is no different than what happened to Job.I find the story of Job fascinating. God took everything Job had, yet, because of his faith, Job could say: "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." He didn't call God's doings "unfair, or wrong" (he came close. He merely wanted to debate God); Yet what we can get from his story is that he truly came to understand who God is better. We can too.
Jorge,
You remind me of the old me. :-)
I used to give some of the same defenses for the Bible, but I was never completely satisfied with them.
I won't suppose that you are uncomfortable with the defenses you just gave, maybe you are fully confident and you feel no cognitive dissonance at all, but if there is some doubt in your mind, try reading the articles I linked to and let us know what you think of them. Here they are again.
If your reasons are completely adequate, this exercise will only bolster your faith and help you defend it. If your reasons are poor, it will at least make you aware of that.
Post a Comment