G'day Lindsay and the Group
At 07:15 PM 19/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:
G'day All,
Andrew, thanks for your reply, it has helped me to understand your views much better - as often happens, I suppose, it becomes clear that our differences are not so great.
I will only reply to a few bits and briefly.
At 12:14 PM 19/01/04 +1100, Andrew Alder wrote:Chinese whispers ....
I'm sure that in communities which relied upon oral history, it was a long way from chinese whispers. And that is hard for us to understand today. But on the other hand, there would be influences which moulded the stories over time ... I don't think it is reasonable to assume that there was no change over time.
OK. But I don't think I've ever seen the Bible *defended* on the grounds of the alleged *accuracy* of oral transmission. I'm sure it has been *somewhere*, but it's not prevalent among my circles, and it's not the way I intend to argue here. But what *is* prevalent is to *attack* the accuracy of the Bible on the basis of the supposed parallel between chinese whispers and oral traditions.
It seems to me that *both* positions are unsafe. We can't assume that variations *would* occur any more than we can assume that they *wouldn't* occur. If we base our reasoning purely on what we know of human nature, then we don't know, either way.
And I think this comes as a surprise to many who favour a liberal theology, and who just assume as part of it that an oral tradition couldn't preserve accuracy over long periods of time. If what I say above is true, then this assumption is unsafe.
It seems to me that oral history relies on a story, possibly told in a camp-fire like setting.
Hmmm... I think you're again making cultural assumptions. The Hebrews *did* (and still do) have these campfire-like settings, most notably the celebration of Passover. But there's a big difference between a campfire story, that everyone knows is for amusement, and an event that is repeated, in the same words, year after year on the same date, and is believed by the participants to record actual events. Not just events, but the very climax of their history as a people.
It's easy to make these cultural assumptions. We relate all stories, those in the Bible, those that surround it (such as this one of the campfire setting), and those unrelated to it, to what we personally experience, know and understand. This is part of the normal process of interpretation of all language, at all levels.
So something like Noah's Ark could be a base unit of oral history - something which could be told in one session. Bits of oral history which don't form part of this sort of unit are more likely to be lost, unless they can be made part of a story. So there is a big chance that the smaller chunks and anecdotes would be tacked on to another story, and therefore become placed out of sequence, etc.
Hmmmm? IMO that's very speculative. Where's it leading?
It also seems to me that stories are told and passed on for a purpose. One purpose is preservation of the traditions themselves, but there are lots of other moral and educational purposes for telling stories to the youngsters. So stories become shaped to different purposes, which are not constant over time.
This is more speculation, and it still seems to ignore the possibility that the custodians believe that the stories are true, and that preserving their accuracy is extremely important. And, I would suggest that these were exactly the conditions we find in at least some periods of Biblical transmission, and do today for that matter.
It's *extremely* hard to get any sort of meaningful revision into our current English text, even when the evidence is overwhelming. Let me take one little example. The NIV translates Matt 5:28 as "anyone who looks on a woman lustfully", following exactly the RSV wording which in turn follows the AV reading "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her". I haven't checked the Geneva Bible. But the word translated "lust" is epethumae (my transliteration, real Greek scholars may wince at it), which occurs in several other places, for example Matt 13:17 where the AV renders it "desired" and the RSV and NIV go for "longed".
Now bear in mind that the NIV is often claimed to be a *literal* translation. One of the technical tests for being "literal" is *concordance*, that is, if a word appears twice in the source text it is always translated by the *same* word in the target language. This isn't always possible. But there seems *no* reason for compromising it here. Jesus is talking of "strong desire" in both places. In one of them he is talking of wrongful desire (lust), in another place wholesome desire, but that's from the context. The *text* just talks of strong desire. And if the NIV was really a literal translation, that's how they'd have translated Matt 5:28.
Why has the NIV deviated in this fashion? IMO it's just that the traditional reading is entrenched in our culture. I also note that this reading is not only the traditional one, it is also a watering-down of the original. I can often (I confess) look at Matt 5:28 and say OK, that's not talking about me in this situation, I have absolutely no evil intentions, it's just natural to admire a good-looking girl and she is. It's not "lust". But if I read Matt 5:28 as "strong desire" not "lust", that sets a far higher standard for me. I mention this because it's the same with all the other NIV failures to translate literally that I've noticed. Each is a traditional reading that makes the text less demanding to follow in our culture. Food for thought?
(Sigh) But on this particular point even the NASB, often held to be a *very* literal translation, fails me too! The traditional reading as "lust", bad translation or no, seems unlikely to change.
And even if we still find the accuracy inadequate, we also have the question of what God is doing all this time. My belief is that he still takes an interest in keeping the Bible accurate, and I find this conviction shared by the many translators I have had the priviledge of meeting over the years.
Yes, but the same sort of dynamic applies. If we ask, why did the narrator tell this story, we can also ask, why did God tell this story? Maybe that will lead somewhere, maybe not. But I don't believe it will lead us to the point of regarding the Bible as historical or scientific fact, which is where some people end up because they propose a false choice between the Bible being accurate truth or a pack of lies. They sometimes use language like "authoritative" which is why I think I got the wrong scent from you - I'm not suggesting that you think this way.
I certainly don't think there's anything in the Bible that I can identify as science, which is a bit bizarre when I reflect that many of those who built the modern scientific method were committed to the idea that the Bible was unique and true. Another big topic.
History? There is some history, and certainly a lot of genealogy. But the focus is significantly different to what we expect of today's historians and genealogists. Both of these disciplines today rely heavily on our standard year numbering, even when dealing with periods before any such numbering existed. That puts a big gulf between the mindsets of modern experts in these fields and the writers of the Bible. We can't put 1 Kings alongside Toynbee and expect to interpret them similarly, any more than we can enter the genealogies from Matthew and Luke into Family Tree Maker or a similar genealogy database program and expect to get good charts out (hmmm... although they do surprisingly well actually).
But I agree there is some very shallow Bible interpretation going around. And I think that in this country at least, there is a time-bomb of popular education under all such interpretations. I still haven't really got over walking into my year six scripture class one day and seeing on the wall a table of literary genres, almost identical to the one I'd been given in a post-graduate semantics class.
The kids understand these things. They aren't going to confuse the book of Genesis with an instruction manual or an act of parliament. Instead they look for its theme, its focus, its intention, and its techniques for communicating these things, and then decide on the basis of this whether it's a genre they've seen before or whether it's a new one. Yes, I'm really talking about year six. If we don't speak this language, we will simply lose them, and IMO we probably deserve to.
I think there's a perception among the hard right of biblical scholars, the creation scientists and such, that after the schism they see between science and the Bible nothing could possibly get worse or more challenging. And I think they are dead wrong here. You ain't seen nothin' yet. How will they cope? Not very elegantly I suspect.
Granted that some other people use the word "authoritative" as a weasel-word. If you have any other word to describe my approach I'm all ears! But I think it's the right one, so I'm taking the same attitude to it I take as I take to the word "love". Some of my contemporaries used the phrase "free love" to mean "free sex". This abuse of the word "love" reached its height IMO when the Daily Mirror ran a headline "Killing after Love Problem". The "love" problem they then described involved a heavy petting session (all but penetration) between a middle-aged man and a twelve year old girl. The problem was that her father objected. Love? I'll let you decide.
So what has changed over a few thousand years? Certainly people have changed. And we could argue that the way God interacts with people has changed.
We could indeed. But there's also the little matter of the Incarnation. Words fail me.
Well, I suggest that you lay this on a bit thick ... for us, the incarnation happened at a point in history. But if we believe that God is eternal, then there is not an OT God and a NT God.
Hmmm. OK. Agree about God being eternal. But you seemed to be talking temporally, so I replied in the temporal frame of reference. And in this frame of reference, the Incarnation etc (Jesus Christ) is the pivot on which all history turns, as I understand it. How about you?
Just as an aside, we are culturally more Christian than many realise. Going back yet again to Yes Prime Minister, there's an episode... I haven't been able to identify which... in which someone... I forget who... is described as "only the second person to ever have colleges named after him at both Oxford and Cambridge". Hacker asks innocently "Oh? Who was the first?" and Sir Humphrey replies matter-of-factly "Jesus Christ".
It's *funny*. The idea of even agnostics like Hacker and Appleby speaking of Jesus Christ as just another famous man is sufficiently dissonant to unnerve Hacker, and to make us laugh at his blunder. This demonstrates to me that there's a strong undercurrent of Christian presupposition in our culture still. And I believe that presupposition and faith are two names for the same concept, so that's encouraging IMO.
But there's another, relatively minor but still important, complication to what you say above. You seem to assume above that similar stories do *not* occur today. You may be right, and I hope so, but it's a big nasty world out there. How confident are you that human sacrifice is totally unknown today?
Whether or not human sacrifice happens today ... we have both said that if someone in our church believed God was asking them to sacrifice their child, we would have serious doubts.
Have I really said that? I'd have no doubts at all!
Perhaps you think I'm splitting hairs here. I agree with the general drift of what you say. I can't even be *completely* sure I didn't say it! But I don't think I did. Are you happy for me to assume that I might not have?
If so, I want to use it to demonstrate the effects of mindset. You obviously feel that your paraphrase is acceptable. I don't know whether you're aware of whether I really said it or not, and I'd like to guess you don't think it's relevant, so long as you accurately put what you imagine my thoughts were into your own words.
With this mindset, you'd be a very poor transmitter of oral history. Chinese whispers would have free reign. We all know how they work I think, small changes that don't matter in themselves cascade to very quickly be big changes.
But this is not the only mindset. My background in formal logic makes inaccurate paraphrases such as the "doubt" above just mildly objectionable to me. I need to be careful not to make this a barrier to communication in fact. But as a result, a roomful of Andrew Alders would be far less prone to falling for the Chinese Whisper trick than a roomful of Lindsay Brashs (not perfect I admit). On the other hand, I bet you tell a far better campfire yarn than I do.
I'm suggesting that a roomful of Levites from the time of Joshua would be far more reliable than either of us. But please note, I'm not claiming that there were no errors in transmission. I'm claiming, far more modestly, that we don't *know* either way... or at least, not on the grounds of what we know about human nature and abilities.
More than that I believe any reasonable person would feel duty-bound to intervene in any way they could to protect the child.
Yep. And you and I (and probably most of the list) are legally bound too. If we had reason to think they really believed this, that's notifiable as well as appalling. Yuck!
In that environment, could we still believe that God would ask such a thing? Not me. And if I can't believe it today, I can't see a good reason to believe that God asked it of Abraham. And in that case, I could not use the passage to teach others about faithfulness. If you are saying that maybe Abraham was mistaken, that puts quite a different spin on the whole story.
This is a rather fine distinction but I think it's important.
I think Abraham understood perfectly well what God was asking. I think God asked this because of Abraham's primitive, barbaric if you like, understanding of what God is like. I don't see how you can read the story and conclude that God didn't really ask for the sacrifice.
Can you?
But if it comes to that, I find sacrifices of bulls, lambs and even birds rather revolting too. We must of course keep them in context. When I actually started to read the Bible for myself, one of the big surprises was discovering that most of the temple sacrifices, like the tithe, were more connected with throwing a good party than with actually giving anything away. These animals, including the passover lamb for example, are being slaughtered to feed the givers and their friends and family. The "sacrifice" is in ritually dedicating them to God, acknowledging that the party was God's idea. There's also provision for the support of the priests, in giving part or all of some sacrifices to them. And sometimes parts, generally small and/or symbolic parts, are burned or poured out. Blood and fat especially. Some have suggested that this is because of the cholesterol, really they have. I think it's more to do with blood being easily poured, and fat being easily burned.
But a few sacrifices do seem to be blood for blood's sake. That's as the people understood it, and the OT speaks this language, and the early Church saw it in this light, as have many theologians since. This blood symbolism is basic to the traditional NT-based doctrines of atonement. Another big topic.
I'm guessing that you'd like to throw all the blood symbolism out of our current worship. Is that a fair guess? If so, can we really do this? Where does it leave our understanding of Communion, for example, if we do?
Yes, terrible things happen today. Ten or 15 years ago in Victoria, a woman died when her husband and another man (some sort of pastor IIRC) were performing an exorcism on her which included physically removing a demon from her uterus - the injuries would have been appalling (even the tabloids didn't go for the details). I raise that because I think that primitive beliefs thrust into certain brains can have dangerous results.
Agreed. Yuck.
I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a very limited understanding of God. Is that the point you wish to make?
I guess that is part of it. And if our understanding of God has out-grown this story (in some respects) then we should allow ourselves to move on, and not feel that we have to drag it all with us into the 21st century when it doesn't want to go. I think I'm in common with Allan on that.
Hmmm. So, how will you draw the line as to what goes and what stays? I guess the story of Dinah will also go (a pity, the bikers love it - "hey, those brothers of hers were all right"). Joseph might stay, but we'll censor the details of just why he was in prison. Surely God wouldn't put a man in such an unfair position? (;->
And before we know it, we'll have cut out the atonement as well. Which if course is exactly what Allan has done. But that then leaves a big hole in our theology, to the point that most of the theologians of history, going right back to St Paul I think, wouldn't even recognise it as Christianity. This is not something to be done at all lightly, as I'm sure Allan realises.
If so, let me go further. Take *any* proper subset of the Bible, big or small, and IMO it represents a more limited understanding of God than the whole Bible does.
That seems to be a generalisation of the point you are making here. Have a good look at it. Would you agree with it?
Yes I agree but that is not my main point - I think it comes through best just above.
Hmmm. I don't think that's agreed at all. I'm saying here we shouldn't cut out any of the Bible, but I think you're saying we should.
Of course I can't make rules for God. But if I was forced to accept a barbaric God then I certainly would not worship him/her. It would only be fear that might make me give up time and money for that God. And as the consequences of unbelief (as observed in a large part of the population) seem to be minimal, that would be a natural course.
I don't think these consequences are "observed" to be so minimal. Claimed yes. I think these claims are documented throughout history, and particularly in the Bible, many times over.
The impression I gained both in Primary School and in Sunday-school (1950s-1960s) was that at most times and places in history people were pretty good, life was pretty good, and most people were God-fearing. This IMO was an unfortunate and inaccurate world-view. What the Bible and history both seem to actually say is that throughout history, people have been barbaric, life has been unpleasant for most of them, and God has struggled to be heard. I think this is the picture you describe below, so perhaps we agree on this.
So was this period unusual? Well, yes and no. We are still suffering IMO from the misplaced optimism and faith in science, industrialism, and the (secular) American way that marked this period in Australian society at least. But IMO this misplaced faith in substitutes for God is not unusual in history either. I've previously spoken of the self-assured physics of the second half of the 19th century. I think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably much the same story, from the little evidence we have.
Ok, well maybe I wrote off the consequences of unbelief a little lightly. But Paul (I think) wrote that if Christ did not rise (I substitute for example, 'if God is not love') then we are the most pitiful people.
I also think Paul wrote this. Allan and I had an interesting discussion on exactly what Paul might have meant. It turns out that he doesn't find the issue Paul is addressing here nearly as simple as I had always thought it was.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the substitution.
I've been involved in past years in Kairos Prison Ministry (and may be again one day I hope). Just BTW there are opportunities for people to participate in this program, both to see it in action and to help it significantly, and all it takes is a few hours on a Friday afternoon and evening and a bit of paperwork some weeks beforehand (and this paperwork is *not* negotiable). If you haven't already, I recommend you take one of these opportunities to see God really rock your socks off with the relevance of Christ today. Email me, privately if you like, if you are interested. Or talk to almost any other current or past Kairos team member.
Over the years several of the guys in green have said to me words to the effect of "I'm glad I went to prison, I would not have met Christ otherwise", in a situation that makes me think they are quite genuine (which is, bluntly, a contrast to many other prison programs). It brings a lump to my throat every time. These guys are not for one moment belittling the cost to them of going to gaol. Rather they are awed by how important God is to them.
Or to put it another way (and the point is), how great the price has been of their unbelief.
This is a tough one, though. I could say that an accident which landed me in hospital changed my life. Or I could say that I am blessed to have known someone with cerebral palsy and walk a mile with them. I would say that God is (especially) with us in our sufferings, indeed (related to the cross) shares all our sufferings. But I don't understand why people are disabled, or are injured, or land in prison.
Likewise. And this has always been a problem. Jesus deals with one set of primitive beliefs about it, a set which does have some Biblical support, before one healing. Of course not everyone believes that Jesus actually healed anyone, but I do.
Children dying of hunger or disease is a completely different matter to God asking for a child to be sacrificed.
My point was just that I don't understand why God can't miraculously get rid of malaria, any more than I understand why he puts Abraham and Isaac through the torture he does.
I agree they are different matters, but I don't see what your objection is here. Is that any clearer?
I guess it seemed qualitatively different to me, for God to ask a person to inflict pain - to murder in cold blood, to act unethically.
Hmmmm. But, judged by *Abraham's* understanding, it seems to me that the request was quite ethical.
Several writers tell the story of a man in the rural part of an Islamic country, who reads to some of the villagers the first few verses of the Parable of the Lost (or Prodigal) Son. Their response is "that son will die".
This is a credible story. In some parts of the world, currently, the father (assuming he has the religious qualifications) would have the right and duty to carry out this punishment in that situation, just as he would execute his daughter for unchastity.
And, this society, and mindset, are both a lot closer to Abraham's than ours is.
Food for thought?
Is it unethical that God does not eliminate malaria if it is within his/her power? Terry Lane thinks so and so he came to believe that God did not have such power.
Big, big subject. This is an understandable conclusion. But I think it's also heretical.
It depends a bit what he means by God not having the power. Big, big subject.
If we would lock them up today, then I think it is a consistent standard to say that Abraham *should* have been locked up back then. When we decide that slavery is not acceptable, we don't decide that its acceptability has changed from one day to the next, even though changes to the law might mean that it is legal one day and not the next.
I don't agree that Abraham "should" have been locked up. Christopher Columbus would be court-martialled in any of today's navies for errors of navigation. We can't always apply today's rules to yesterday's events.
Well obviously there was no one there who was going to lock him up - and it would have spoiled the later bits of the story. We don't tell people to go and follow Columbus' example of navigation.
And nor do we tell people to follow Abraham's example of human sacrifice.
But there are those who seriously tell others to go and follow Abraham's example of faithfulness.
I do that. I do it in complete confidence that God will *not* give them the instructions he gave Abraham.
But I think I begin to understand the problem. Hmmm. Do you really think there is a danger that people will interpret the story of Abraham as supporting sacrifice (human or otherwise)?
To me, this has serious dangers, as well as the huge difficulty in transplanting the story to Australia 2004.
I'm skeptical as to the dangers. Anybody in our society who is going to sacrifice their son has problems that go way beyond a poor interpretation of this passage. As for "transplanting" the story to Australia 2004, that's exactly what I'm *not* suggesting. Rather we need to locate it firmly in its historical setting.
Yes, there are huge cultural difficulties to address, with this and with the rest of the Bible too. That's one reason we send Ministers of the Word and others to theological college, and have them preach regularly. Understanding the Bible is not trivial, and it is important.
In recent years there has been far less emphasis on theology and preaching, and far more on counselling skills, social justice and the like. These have their place, but we need to strike a balance.
One possible conclusion from the most recent Assembly is that the UCA is already paying too high a price for diverting attention away from theology and preaching. Rejoicing as I do in our agendas for justice, advocacy, and professionalism in these areas, I don't think it's quite that simple.
But let me see if I am understanding you ... in the same way that you have agreed that saying "this is the word of God" does not mean "these are the words of God", is it that by saying "the Bible is all authoritative" you do not mean "all the statements in the Bible are authoritative (at face value)".
Because it seems to me that your statement that the Bible is all authoritative (and that we cannot pick and choose which bits are authoritative) is not bourne out by your discourse.
Hmmm. OK. Is there anything in particular that I have said that contradicts the idea that the Bible is *all* authoritative?
Perhaps that's because you fail to grasp what I mean by "authoritative". What I mean is simply that if *I* honestly know what it means, then I'm bound by it. But I don't acknowledge the right of you, or the Pope, or *anyone* else to tell me what it means.
This is not a cop-out. It's a very important principle.
Fair enough. This is quite different from what I first thought you meant - progress.
I think we often underestimate the barbarism both of the past and of the present. Children were executed for being uncontrollable only a few hundred years ago in England. Women are executed on suspicion of unchastity in some parts of the world today.
Barbarism from humans is a norm in most of history. But we are talking about barbarism from God.
Hmmm. If Isaac had been sacrificed, then this would be true. But he wasn't, and God never intended that he would be. I can't think of any scenario in which it would have happened. Had Abraham refused, then Isaac was safe. Abraham obeyed, and again Isaac was safe. So what's the problem?
But what is going through Abraham's mind as he prepares for the sacrifice ... "it is OK to sacrifice my son, because God has asked me." I can't accept a person thinking that.
I think that's because you are still thinking of Abraham as a modern, western figure. He isn't.
But I think we can easily find examples of barbarism from God. Does that make God barbaric? Not IMO. We need to also understand the constraints he was under, which we can't do completely but it helps to try.
I don't think God is barbaric either, so that is why I discount the authority of the barbaric bits attributed to God, like slaughtering the Caananites.
Another big subject. I've found all the explanations I have seen for *why* God thought this was a good idea quite unconvincing. It is a mystery to me.
But the Bible seems to be clear that God *did* give these instructions to Israel. So, your approach seems to be to say that the Bible is wrong here. Is that a fair statement? That's an honest question. I'd like to explore this.
I'm curious that you find barbarism from humans the norm only in "most" of history. When was the non-barbarous period?
In my house, last evening. Mind you, I did have some barbaric thoughts when the local ABC kept interrupting the cricket broadcast with flood 'updates' that were old news - so maybe that doesn't count either :-)
Cool. I'll count that. (:->
Hmmmm. Are you sure you *can* set up two harmonious groups like this?
Well, make believe, imagine. I'm not saying that everyone has to fit into one group or the other, many people might not.
IMO these fights would break out long before the two groups met. Food for thought?
OK, so that just adds another layer - instead of consensus in each group, the conclusion represents the wishes of the strong debaters, with a few concessions for the others. That could also have been a dynamic in authorship of the bible.
Hmmm? I rather think the whole scenario collapses. It sounded so convincing, but you've now abandoned one of its key assumptions.
It was a global-thinking exercise, anecdotal reasoning if you like. Patching up such an exercise is risky. If you try instead to recreate the scenario from the ground up without making this assumption, I think you'll find the exercise so full of complications as to be completely unconvincing.
That's one of the risks of such reasoning: It's quite possible to construct a two-step argument in which both steps seem reasonable, but the result is not. This contrasts with linear reasoning, where steps can be cascaded without affecting the validity of the result (the ability to do this reliably is even one possible definition of linear reasoning).
Have a go if you like.
I think that both linear and global reasoning have a place, and that reinstating global reasoning is one of the triumphs of the second half of the 20th century. But we've only done half the job. We now need to explore its limits. Another big topic.
YiCaa
**** email: andrewa @ alder . ws http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa Phone 9441 4476 Mobile 04 2525 4476 ****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/04
