Nice summary of some basic problems with Fundamentalist thinking as well as with anti-Fundamentalist critics of Fundamentalism Either way, some kind of critique is useful and welcome. The superficiality of the anti-fundies should not need elaboration; many (probably most by a wide margin). are simply tone deaf to matters of faith and, in the bargain, often are poorly informed on the subject, sometimes strikingly uninformed at that. The problem with fundies can be encapsulated by citing the most famous Fundamentalist bromide of all, something one still hears despite, years ago, sufficient criticism of it to have discredited such thinking decades in the past. Yet the bromide never dies: "Either Jesus was the Son of God or he was a liar." The essay presented below calls this the fallacy of an excluded middle. That is, not all the options are considered. They simply are not. After all- (1) maybe some of what is attributed to Jesus in the NT were not his actual words but were paraphrases based on sometimes faulty memories when the Gospels were written decades after his death, (2) maybe some of what Jesus did say was mistaken in some way, not because he was lying but simply because he didn't have all the facts he needed to arrive at a better conclusion at the time, or (3) maybe Jesus did say verbatim what the Gospels also say but we are unable to understand the intended meaning because we are conditioned to read his words doctrinally as if the only possible way to interpret something is exactly how it is taught in the church we are familiar with and no other way is even thinkable- no matter how objectively wrong it may be. Clearly Jesus had brothers, for instance, even if Catholics simply cannot read this fact for what it is, and clearly there are all kinds of Persian and Assyrian allusions in the NT even if conventional Protestants cannot read these allusions for what they are -as an example the Book of Revelation is loaded with many of them. The problem is insistence in ONLY interpreting the Bible as an exercise in interior logic, that is, using the Bible to interpret the Bible. But that approach has decided limits even if, yes, it is necessary to sometimes do exactly that. But always, in all cases ? That is an excellent way to make one mistake after another , a plethora of mistakes over the course of time, and never become aware of any mistakes at all. There is a better way than that. Billy --------------------------------------------- On Faith April 16, 2014 Fundamentalist Arguments Against Fundamentalism The all-or-nothing approach to the Bible used by skeptics and fundamentalists alike is flawed. by Craig A. Evans
Biblical fundamentalists often interpret the scripture’s more poetic moments in a literal fashion — understanding, for instance, the Bible’s “ historical” stories in the same way they think proper, modern history should be written. This is especially so in the case of the Gospels, those writings that narrate the activities and teachings of Jesus. Jesus spoke every word, performed every deed — and he did these things in the locations and sequences stated in the Gospels. Or at least this is what is assumed. When the Gospels are placed side by side and carefully compared, differences emerge. One will notice variations in the wording of Jesus’ utterances, variations in the details of some of the stories, and sometimes variations in chronology and sequence. These differences can shake one’s confidence in the reliability and truthfulness of the Bible. The solution, fundamentalists believe, is to find ways of harmonizing the discrepancies. But what if harmonization doesn't work? This is where New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman and several of his popular books of the last decade come in. From Misquoting Jesus to his new How Jesus Became God, he hammers away at the pat answers and simplistic harmonizations. Biblical fundamentalism, Ehrman contends, is simply wrong. Therefore, he reasons, the Bible really can’t be trusted. There is just one problem with this conclusion — it is flawed at its very core. In _Misquoting Jesus_ (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512) , Ehrman argues that today’s text of the Bible (and he mostly speaks in reference to the Greek New Testament) does not exactly match that of the original writings and that some of the changes in the text were deliberate, at times motivated by theological dogmas. Therefore, we really don’t know what the evangelists originally wrote. In _Jesus, Interrupted_ (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397157821&sr=1-1&keywords=j esus+interrupted) , Ehrman shows why the Gospel narratives cannot be harmonized, nor their histories trusted. In _Forged: Writing in the Name of God_ (http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012622/ ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397157911&sr=1-1&keywords=Forged:+Writing+in +the+Name+of+God) , he argues that several books of the Bible were not written by their ascribed authors. Most recently, in _How Jesus Became God_ (http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184/ref=sr_1_1 ?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397158152&sr=1-1&keywords=How+Jesus+Became+God) , Ehrman argues that the early church’s belief that Jesus was divine was not what Jesus claimed, nor what his original disciples believed. Some of what Ehrman claims is not controversial in mainstream scholarship. All scholars of the Bible, including conservative evangelicals, know that there are some textual uncertainties. All, including most conservative scholars, know that oftentimes we cannot harmonize discrepant details. And all know that there was development in theological thinking about Jesus, especially after the resurrection. The problem is that, in his popular books, Ehrman is frequently guilty of the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, the idea that there are only two options — either we have every word of the original text or we do not; either we have harmonious accounts of the teaching and activities of Jesus or we don’t. Bart Ehrman is arguing like a fundamentalist. It is an all-or-nothing approach. If the Bible is truly inspired (and therefore trustworthy), it must be free from discrepancies. But this is not how most seasoned scholars think, including evangelicals. Nor was it the way early Christians thought. One of the first to comment on the Gospels was Papias of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Writing near the beginning of the second century, Papias says the author of the Gospel of Mark compiled chreiai (“useful, instructive anecdotes”) and wasn’t concerned with exact sequence and chronological order. The scholars and lecturers of this period of time instructed their pupils in the chreiai of the great thinkers, teaching them how to edit, contract, or expand the chreiai, and to give them new application, in order to make clear to new audiences the true meaning and significance of the wisdom of the great thinkers. Creative adaptation was expected. Remaining true to the original idea was essential. This is what the writers of the New Testament Gospels did. Indeed, this is how Jesus taught his disciples when he said, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old” (Matt. 13:52). That is, the disciples of Jesus are to pull out new lessons and applications, as well as the old, from the treasure of teaching Jesus has given them. Why should anyone be surprised that the disciples and the evangelists who followed them did what Jesus instructed them to do? Each evangelist presented the life and teaching of Jesus in his own fashion, using creative ways that made it understandable and relevant to different cultures and settings. The numerous differences and discrepancies we see in the Gospels are the result of the writers doing what Jesus taught — and in many ways reflect the standards of history writing current in late antiquity. At work in Ehrman’s books is an unrelenting attack directed against the fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. Ehrman is not attacking a straw man, for the object of his attacks does indeed exist. But his books address fundamentalist readings, not mainstream understandings of the Bible and the stories it tells. Christian scholars of every stripe believe that the biblical text, especially the Greek text of the New Testament, is well preserved, that the Gospels are accurate and tell us what Jesus really taught and did, and that the conviction that Jesus was in some sense divine is rooted in Jesus himself, in what he taught, and in the extraordinary things he did. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
