Christian Majority and Biblical Literalism

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos,

I don't want to get into a protracted debate with you on this. I fear it will give a skewed impression of my position on the issue. I call the type of argument I am using for Jesus' genealogy the "common practice" argument. Or sometimes I call it the "common man" argument. You will actually find me criticizing people who use "common practice" arguments because I think they are sometimes abused, so I need to explain myself.

IMO, "common practice" is justified when it supports the claim of a text. For example, suppose only one document claims that a certain victorious Roman general was given a garland of laurel to wear. I don't think any historian would dispute the claim, even though it is not corroborated. Why? Because the claim fits with "common practice". If, instead, the document claimed the general had worn a pink bow in his hair, the historian would ask for corroboration. But he would not say: it didn't happen. Nor would he say: there is no evidence. He would simply say: the evidence is not corroborated. The historian's skepticism is obvious by the choice of statements he uses, but he is also careful not to make too strong a denial (more on that later).

It is invalid to use "common practice" to deny that something happened. The historian should not say: the general didn't wear a pink ribbon because it wasn't common practice. Why? Well. Someone has to be first. Someone had to be the first to wear a garland, and it wasn't common practice when he did that. If that logic is acceptable, one could say: it is not common practice for poor, self-educated men from Illinois to become President, therefore Lincoln was not President.

And yet, what did we find the "Jesus Seminar" doing? One example I recall is a denial of a scriptural passage attributed to Jesus. Why? Because the passage indicated a highly educated man, and it was not "common practice" for tradesman from backwater Nazareth to be educated in that manner.

Second, I don't think "common practice" can support aggressive claims (and here we finally come to my first point). I openly acknowledge that my claim about Jesus' genealogy rests on a fragile argument. I don't want to give the impression that (in historical terms) it is more than it is. I can't give a good definition of what "agressive" is, but it would be agressive to claim the "common practice" argument historically proves Jesus' genealogy. In addition, I openly admit that my faith makes me optimistic in matters like this - optimistic beyond what the evidence supports. I only wish others would acknowledge that their beliefs make them skeptical beyond what the evidence (or lack thereof) is really saying. But, I do have good reason to be optimistic. I can cite examples from the record. The most famous example is that of the Hittites. Biblical criticism in the nineteenth century reached a frenzied height where people were making all kinds of claims about what didn't exist and where the Bible was false. The first egg-on-the-critic's-face incident was corroborating archaeological evidence that the Hittites did indeed exist as a people. After that, one item after another was discovered, and people's claims about what didn't exist became more and more muted. The list of items where once the Bible was the only source, but which have now been corroborated include: David, Belshazzar, Pilate, Caiphas (and this one is very recent). There are probably others, but those are the ones that came quickly to mind. There is also evidence that something happened in Egypt that fits nicely with Genesis/Exodus. Whether it is an inkling of Joseph's or Moses' encounter with Pharoh, the evidence is not strong enough to make claims ... but then I'm an opitmist in these matters. Even if that isn't the one that comes to light next, I fully expect that we will continue to find supporting evidence for the Bible.

So, even though I won't say I've proven anything, I will say the evidence is enticing enough to go looking for corroboration rather than to dismiss it as myth, inaccuracy, or whatever.

Given that, here is why I think you are too skeptical.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Take, for example, the supposed lineage of European nobility - I have been to the castles where statues were erected of supposed ancestors, these would include Roman Emperors and so forth, people who were most certainly not ancestors of the nobles.

You are right. It is likely many of these claims are false. But to assume that because most of them are false that it follows all of them are false would be a mistake. If we have the capacity and the desire, we should search for more evidence. In the meantime, we don't say: there is no evidence. All we can say is: the claim is not corroborated. But you did say there is no evidence:

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Believe what ever suits you, but without evidence ...

As a further example, while rejecting Jesus' genealogy as not historical, at the same time you are making claims about the Jews rejecting Jesus' kingship. From what sources do you draw to make that claim? The same source you are rejecting with regard to his genealogy. I find that contradiction revealing about your attitude toward the whole matter.

And I still say you are stretching your conclusions too far. Those same texts make it clear that the Jews were confused on this issue. Jesus was not claiming an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom. That was the point being made by the gospel writers. From there you might claim it was an attempt to cover up what was really happening, but again you would be undermining the very document you're trying to use to build your argument. Could it not be that it was the Jews who were lying? I still say they weren't denying his genealogy. But suppose they were. Why is their claim any more truthful than that of Jesus? Especially when, earlier, they were grumbling about Jesus, saying he wasn't a prophet, saying: isn't this the son of Joseph (the same Joseph who traveled to Bethlehem for the census because he was from David's lineage).

Didymos Thomas wrote:

It's easy to find information on this. Check up on the Synoptic Problem. Theories differ, but the most prominent theories have something to do with Gospel writers using earlier Gospels as base texts for writing new Gospels.

So, finally, we come to this. I assume you made such a brief statement because you know I've already studied this issue. I expect neither of us will convince the other to change their opinion. But even then I find this a weak statement. I asked for evidence, and you replied by noting theories - and theories that don't even agree with each other. I think the claim that one gospel is derived from another is born from overwrought skepticism.

But, I know this reply has become overlong, and I started off by saying I didn't want this to be a protracted debate. Even if you don't agree, I hope my point has come through. From there I hope we can start to wind this down.

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

So, even though I won't say I've proven anything, I will say the evidence is enticing enough to go looking for corroboration rather than to dismiss it as myth, inaccuracy, or whatever.

And I agree that we should look for corroboration, that the matter should be investigated as much as possible. However, we also have to recognize that, given the dearth of evidence available, we cannot make the historic claim that the genealogy recorded in the Bible is accurate. To the best of our knowledge it is myth, inaccuracy, or whatever, but our knowledge is also limited.

Resha Caner wrote:

You are right. It is likely many of these claims are false. But to assume that because most of them are false that it follows all of them are false would be a mistake. If we have the capacity and the desire, we should search for more evidence. In the meantime, we don't say: there is no evidence. All we can say is: the claim is not corroborated. But you did say there is no evidence:

And I would not argue that because most are false that all are false. However, just because a claim is made does not mean the claim is true. I say there is no evidence because the Biblical record is not evidence. The claims in Gilgamesh are not evidence, but we do know the gate was built because we found archaeological evidence of the gate. A claim is not evidence.

Resha Caner wrote:

As a further example, while rejecting Jesus' genealogy as not historical, at the same time you are making claims about the Jews rejecting Jesus' kingship. From what sources do you draw to make that claim? The same source you are rejecting with regard to his genealogy. I find that contradiction revealing about your attitude toward the whole matter.

Notice that when making that claim I included the phrase "if we are to believe that Jesus was crucified" - if we are to believe the Biblical account - then we have to recognize that Jesus' claim was challenged. There is no contradiction here.

Resha Caner wrote:

And I still say you are stretching your conclusions too far. Those same texts make it clear that the Jews were confused on this issue. Jesus was not claiming an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom. That was the point being made by the gospel writers. From there you might claim it was an attempt to cover up what was really happening, but again you would be undermining the very document you're trying to use to build your argument. Could it not be that it was the Jews who were lying? I still say they weren't denying his genealogy. But suppose they were. Why is their claim any more truthful than that of Jesus? Especially when, earlier, they were grumbling about Jesus, saying he wasn't a prophet, saying: isn't this the son of Joseph (the same Joseph who traveled to Bethlehem for the census because he was from David's lineage).

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the Jews were liars, confused, or anything else - the point is that, according to the Biblical account, the Jews did not accept his supposed lineage, the vast majority of Jews rejected the notion that Jesus was heir to that line.

Resha Caner wrote:

So, finally, we come to this. I assume you made such a brief statement because you know I've already studied this issue. I expect neither of us will convince the other to change their opinion. But even then I find this a weak statement. I asked for evidence, and you replied by noting theories - and theories that don't even agree with each other. I think the claim that one gospel is derived from another is born from overwrought skepticism.

Yes, I noted the most prominent theories on Biblical authorship. These theories do not need to agree with one another in every respect because they all agree on the relevant point: that, other than the very first Gospel, the Gospels were written by using earlier texts as sources.

Resha Caner wrote:

But, I know this reply has become overlong, and I started off by saying I didn't want this to be a protracted debate. Even if you don't agree, I hope my point has come through. From there I hope we can start to wind this down.

I think I understand you. I would only caution this: do not let spiritual beliefs cloud history. For one thing, the history is spiritually irrelevant. History has to be cautious and skeptical, while our spiritual path can take for granted accounts in scripture because the point in scripture is not "these things happened exactly this way" but instead the point is the moral of the story.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I would only caution this: do not let spiritual beliefs cloud history. For one thing, the history is spiritually irrelevant. History has to be cautious and skeptical, while our spiritual path can take for granted accounts in scripture because the point in scripture is not "these things happened exactly this way" but instead the point is the moral of the story.

Likewise, I am trying to caution those who close their eyes because of unwarranted skepticism.

The history is very spiritually relevant to me. I do not understand those who insist on hard fact in matters of science, and are then willing to base their spirituality on fiction. To me it seems to tell of the relative adhesion to the underlying principles.

I have grown to appreciate Bonhoeffer's work on ethics, which would explain my position on "the moral of the story". It's a tough read, but worth it.

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

Likewise, I am trying to caution those who close their eyes because of unwarranted skepticism.

Which is a worthy goal. Cynicism is a shame. But skepticism and unwarranted skepticism (cynicism) are quite different. When a historical claim is advanced warranted skepticism includes the request for evidence. If the only shred of "evidence" is an uncorroborated account in an ancient text, the warranted skeptic must conclude that the historical claim is unfounded.

Resha Caner wrote:

The history is very spiritually relevant to me. I do not understand those who insist on hard fact in matters of science, and are then willing to base their spirituality on fiction. To me it seems to tell of the relative adhesion to the underlying principles.

Science and spirituality are entirely different manners of seeking truth. Moby Dick, a brilliant allegory, does not lose credibility or significance because the events are fictional - that the events are fictional are irrelevant. Why would scripture be any different? What does it matter if Adam and Eve really were the first two people so long as the story is meaningful and spiritually edifying?

Resha Caner wrote:

I have grown to appreciate Bonhoeffer's work on ethics, which would explain my position on "the moral of the story". It's a tough read, but worth it.

I've not read his Ethiks but I have read a little summarizing his views. In doing so I have not come across anything that would explain what seems to be your position, ie, that the 'moral of the story' is somehow insufficient for learning, that the Gospel accounts must be historically accurate as well. I would be very interested in an explanation of his, your, view on the matter.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Resha Caner wrote:

The history is very spiritually relevant to me. I do not understand those who insist on hard fact in matters of science, and are then willing to base their spirituality on fiction. To me it seems to tell of the relative adhesion to the underlying principles.

If one doesn't base their spirituality on history (I'm assuming you're referring to some sort of archeological evidence, at least of the people in question), they are fictional spiritualists? You feel you're in a stronger spiritual position if you can prove (I presume through some sort of scientific method) your beliefs have historicity? Have I misinterpreted you?

I hope you know you can be a spiritualist and a skeptic, and that a spiritual path must not be judged solely on historicity. I'm not quite sure why one would limit themselves, especially considering mysticism has evolved and continues to evolve -- is it not possible one could come to a 'spiritual understanding' in a 'new' way? Of course one can: That's what's been happening for thousands of years. Don't limit yourself to the historicity, my friend; break the chains and start exploring! Create new historicity, create new meaning!

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I've not read his Ethiks but I have read a little summarizing his views. In doing so I have not come across anything that would explain what seems to be your position, ie, that the 'moral of the story' is somehow insufficient for learning, that the Gospel accounts must be historically accurate as well. I would be very interested in an explanation of his, your, view on the matter.

Ugh. For me Spring is a convergence of all kinds of stuff that needs to be done, and I get a bit battle weary. I was hoping for a summary conclusion rather than a question.

It seems people in these forums try to enforce an extreme criteria that professionals within the discipline do not themselves enforce. I realize it allows the extreme skeptic to dismiss any idea they don't like, but it's not very productive.

Archaeology is not evidence without a rosetta stone of some kind. In other words, archaeology is heavily based on interpretation. As such, it's no better than a document (as you seem to imply). If anything, its worse. An example would be the Harrapan peoples where we have a lot of archaeological evidence, and not a clue what most of it means because we can't interpret it. History in general struggles with commensurability problems, and there is no idealistic silver bullet. Yes, corrobration strengthens an argument. But any document, no matter how weak a case it presents, is evidence to some degree.

I thought we had covered this, but if I need to drag out my list of examples again we can do that. Just be patient, because I'm short on time at the moment. Ancient history has a healthy list of claims made from single sources (some of them not even contemporary sources) that don't seem to be contested.

Zetherin wrote:

I'm not quite sure why one would limit themselves, especially considering mysticism has evolved and continues to evolve -- is it not possible one could come to a 'spiritual understanding' in a 'new' way? Of course one can: That's what's been happening for thousands of years. Don't limit yourself to the historicity, my friend; break the chains and start exploring! Create new historicity, create new meaning!

I'm not quite sure why people give any credence to something that's not real. If it's just creativity you're interested in, fiction is a great expression of creativity. And, stories are very good at conveying subtle and difficult points. But if the story is an acknowledged fiction, then any conclusion I draw from it is based on my experience or what my reason can do to connect the story to my set of assumptions. God is left completely out of the loop.

If it's all about being new, I'm quite satisfied with entertaining myself with my own creative abilities. But I want evidence for spiritual matters just as much as I want evidence for scientific matters. Therefore, though the nature of the methods and the evidence differs, they share in that regard (at least for me). If all I had was the historical evidence for the Bible, yeah, that would be pretty weak. I don't expect I can always use it to convince other people. But for myself, I have more than that.

It all comes down to this: if God is real, I want to hear what he has to say. The conclusion I drew from Bonhoeffer is that the first mistake people make is trying to discern for themselves what is good and what is evil. Rather than ask that question, one should ask what is and is not God's will.

So, if the story is connected to someone's real experience, I can appeal to something outside myself. That is where true growth comes from - the willingness to accept what we don't like, what may be painful, or what may not immediately make sense to us because it is based on something real. Of course it needs to be tested. Even the Bible says that. But it must have a foundation or it goes nowhere.

My starting point is: God is good.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Resha Caner wrote:

But I want evidence for spiritual matters just as much as I want evidence for scientific matters. Therefore, though the nature of the methods and the evidence differs, they share in that regard (at least for me). If all I had was the historical evidence for the Bible, yeah, that would be pretty weak. I don't expect I can always use it to convince other people. But for myself, I have more than that.

I'd hope you do have more than that: Your own personal experience. This is what I'm referring, Resha. And it need not be *proven* through any method to anyone -- spirituality is a personal experience. What "evidence" for spiritual matters do you seek? This honestly confuses me. If I say right now I've had an intervention with "God" and wrote some stuff down in a book, would you feel validated in your beliefs (assuming you had the same sentiments) if you read it? I feel you're putting too much weight on "evidence", "proof", and what other people have felt and experienced.

Quote:

It all comes down to this: if God is real, I want to hear what he has to say. The conclusion I drew from Bonhoeffer is that the first mistake people make is trying to discern for themselves what is good and what is evil. Rather than ask that question, one should ask what is and is not God's will.

In this sense we're all alone, my friend. You do have to discern for yourself what is "good" and "evil". You can appeal to whatever religion you want, whatever scripture you want, but in the end, it's your call. And that, to me, is the beauty of it all. You decide what "he" says. If you want to believe "he" is in the Bible, the Kuran, a variety of other scriptures, people, ideas, events, then "he" can be. But to come to this conclusion, I would hope you have put the thought into it. You should be the one critically thinking, coming to your own spirituality.

Sorry to steal from you, Buddha:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. "

Quote:

And, stories are very good at conveying subtle and difficult points. But if the story is an acknowledged fiction, then any conclusion I draw from it is based on my experience or what my reason can do to connect the story to my set of assumptions. God is left completely out of the loop.

It's always based on your reason, your interpretation, regardless if the work is fiction or nonfiction. Moreover, one could learn more from an acknowledged fiction more than one could learn from a true story.

Quote:

So, if the story is connected to someone's real experience, I can appeal to something outside myself. That is where true growth comes from - the willingness to accept what we don't like, what may be painful, or what may not immediately make sense to us because it is based on something real. Of course it needs to be tested. Even the Bible says that. But it must have a foundation or it goes nowhere.

Each of us can have real experience, and you have the ability to appeal to any of us. True growth comes from having your own real experience, instead of immediately appealing, in my opinion; one should consistently question. There's no stopping point, this is a journey, my friend.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

I'm sorry if my answer was confusing. I just don't have the time to do this justice. I'll try to clarify a few things.

First, when I said, "If all I had was the historical evidence for the Bible, yeah, that would be pretty weak," I didn't mean weak in comparison to other ancient historical claims. In some cases Biblical claims are stronger. I meant it from a spiritual perspective. Any attempt to hang belief on a single human endeavor is a tenuous excercise.

On the flip side, I didn't mean that reason is never admissible. But, by the same token, when taken by itself, it leaves out the most important element - God.

I do not agree that spiritual experience is solely a personal experience. It can be, but it need not be. Corporate worship offers many opportunities for a collective spiritual experience. I think one reason people insist that spirituality be personal is to insulate themselves. They are either afraid of, or tired of dealing with proseltyzing. But another reason is that it is very difficult to explain spiritual experiences to those who did not share the experience. Again, that is because God is usually left out. IMO, he is the only one who can communicate a spiritual experience in which one did not participate.

So, I don't take the burden on myself to "prove" anything spiritual. I'll leave that to God. At the same time, don't conclude (as you seem to have done) that I haven't thought about this. I was once aggressively neo-Platonist in my approach - everything I did was through reason. That has since changed. Further, I have had my own experiences. They are quite convincing, but difficult to explain in a forum. I meant that navel gazing will only uncover the weakness of your own humanity. That is an important step, but not the last. God does not live in your mind. The willingness to appeal to something outside yourself - to trust in something other than yourself - is a crucial spiritual step.

Some have a direct personal experience of God. Some experience God in a corporate way. Some learn to either discern from or trust in others. It is because of this variety of experiences that the Bible warns those who would mislead the trusting. I think it is arrogant that many in this forum disparage those who are trusting. I recall an excellent reply in one thread about how Americans have made a cult of individualism, and how it is not suited to everyone. "One size fits all" doesn't work. At the same time, don't take that to mean "do whatever you want". Underneath it all, the truths remain the same, and God remains the same.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Resha Caner wrote:

At the same time, don't conclude (as you seem to have done) that I haven't thought about this

I'm sorry if my post seemed to imply that -- I didn't mean it so. You clarified a few things and I now understand you further.

Quote:

Corporate worship offers many opportunities for a collective spiritual experience

This is very interesting, and I don't quite understand it. What is collective spiritual experience? If I have a spiritual experience, and another beside me has a spiritual experience, how am I to be convinced we are having the same experience? I guess it requires the same faith being in love does; one hopes the other person "feels the same way", so when each participant says "I love you", it's mutually understood.

Quote:

God does not live in your mind

Essentially, I feel this is where we differ. Debating this either way is silly, as we've simply had different experiences. However, I am very curious as to your conception of collective spirituality.

Thanks for the responses,

Zeth

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm sorry if my post seemed to imply that -- I didn't mean it so.

Don't worry, Zetherin. You have always been very polite to me (I could learn from your example), and I took no offense. I simply thought you might have drawn a wrong conclusion about me.

Zetherin wrote:

I am very curious as to your conception of collective spirituality.

No one has ever expressed their curiousity about this to me before, so I'm not really prepared to discuss it. It seems it could be a big topic. At the same time, I don't want to make more of it than it is.

Maybe the best thing to do is give you a few quotes that you can investigate further if you choose. The first would be from Bonhoeffer. He wrote a small book called "Life Together", that discusses both the individual and corporate experience. In that book, he says, "Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is more or less than this ... Christ became the Mediator ... [and] opened up the way to God and to our brother."

Another book would be "The Holy Longing" by Ronald Rolheiser. He says, "more and more people are simply divorcing their search for God from involvement within a church", and sets out to explain the "spirituality of ecclesiology ... [why we] want and need a church."

With respect to what you said, I think you are close to one aspect of the idea with your comments on love.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

It seems whatever this "spirituality" thing is, it's inescapable. I've spent many sleepless nights pondering just what *it* is. Throughout homo sapian existence, mysticism, of course in varying forms, has existed. And, largely, there has always been a communal aspect to this -- a coming together with our "brothers". There is an aspect of this in nearly every mysticism I have found (admittedly, I'm no theological scholar: this is just from my personal research).

This, to me, is tremendously interesting. So, we have this abstract concept, spirituality. Language often muddies the description, and culture to culture, the interpretation seems to vary (or so it appears; this may just be a language, expression barrier). Those who perform their spiritual rituals with other members (usually of the same faith, religion) believe they are having the same spiritual experience. Like love, spirituality is something you *feel*, you *know* when it's there. Those who haven't experienced love won't know how it *feels*, regardless how you try to explain it with language; it's not their fault, they quite literally just haven't had the experience. It appears the same is true with spirituality.

It seems to me both being in love and being spiritual, require a certain mindset. If one doesn't want to love, they will always find an excuse to never get close to another. Similarly, if one chooses not to open their mind to a spiritual experience, they simply won't have one. However, how humans *know* the individual beside them is having the same experience is where I see faith coming in. See, I don't need faith to know I'm loving or having a spiritual experience -- it's *real*, whatever that means, I know it exists. But, I do have to have faith in knowing the individual beside me is having the same exact experience. I find that almost improbable.

I know as we age, our conception of various notions mature. My conception of love, for instance, has changed dramatically since I was a teenager. Ten years from now I may find a passion even stronger, after having been in more relationships. Could it not be my spirituality could change, and perhaps even get stronger? And, if it has the potential to, it seems silly me to assume anyone is having the same experience as I. Everyone has had different experiences in their lives, are in different age-brackets, etc. which could alter their perception and interpretation.

Sorry, this was just a pouring of thoughts. I'll have to take a look at the material you suggested. Thanks again for the conversation.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas

I waded through all this , but could you in a few precise word tell me what you believe about all these stats etc?

What is your unedited view about Christianity Jesus, the Gospel ?

Alan

0 Replies

Christian Majority and Biblical Literalism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know