Tuesday 2 April 2013

An Expected Reaction from Dallas

I confess to gross intolerance of anything pretending to be scholarly opinion that comes out of Dallas Theological Seminary. Granted that idealistic young men and women enter places like these with the best of intentions, but they usually come out twice the spawn of hell, narrow, intolerant and only marginally Christian at best - in any meaningful sense of that word.

Fall afoul of the Dallas-style thought police and expect to be excoriated. In the Middle Ages the heretics were subject to the not-so-gentle ministrations of the Holy Office. These days there's an assembly of clowns at the ready to bray, shriek and gibber at any suggestion that their myopic understanding of the Christian faith - an understanding often completely at odds with established church tradition - is anything other than perfect.

Take Daniel B. Wallace's rant about Hal Taussig's A New New Testament. Wallace is a Dallasite, keen to unleash the hounds on any unfortunate person holding a contrary view that forces him to think disturbing thoughts. And make no mistake, questions about the canon, the Achilles Heel of any form of biblicism, is enough to set the Dallas crowd into a hissy fit of impressive proportions.

I want to offer a few thoughts both pro and con on A New New Testament in a later posting. But for the moment I'm still breathless after reading Wallace's diatribe. Did the man actually read the introduction to the book? Did he even bother to read the supplementary material at the end? It's hard to find much evidence that he did. More likely, after a quick skim, he flew immediately into a red-eared, full-blown apoplectic apologetic outrage.

A New New Testament is a far from perfect work, as I'm sure Taussig would agree, and I concur with Wallace that it would have been nice to include the Didache, for example. But he has to be joking when he also throws out the Shepherd of Hermas as a further red herring. I mean, does he know how long that thing is? Mark Twain called The Book of Mormon chloroform in print, but the Shepherd exceeds that description by a country mile.

But no, of course Wallace doesn't want to see either the Didache or the Shepherd included any New Testament, oh mercy no! He views the canon as inviolate just as it is, so he's just being contrary pretending to suggest a different selection. Trouble is that it's no easy thing to demonstrate just how the current canon could conceivably have a heavenly imprimatur.  In fact, it's a pretty-much impossible task. Which is why, I suspect, he adopts the old preacher's strategy of shouting extra loud when he gets to the weak points in his argument.

At the very minimum A New New Testament contributes to a long overdue public conversation about scripture, what it is and what it means today. Hal Taussig and his colleagues are to be congratulated for putting their perspective, and their expanded canonical selection, out in the public arena for consideration. Critiques are to be expected, but let them at least be fair minded.

But then fair mindedness is probably not considered much of a virtue at DTS.


31 comments:

  1. Wallace on NT:
    "Further, any book that was known to be a forgery was rejected by the ancient church. Not one of the thirteen [extra] books proposed by the [modern] council of nineteen was written by the person it is ascribed to"

    Then how did the Gospels make the cut?

    and "..the Bible..is a book that presents itself as historical"

    And falls short

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I trust that this is not the tripping over truth!, then picking up and moving on,

      Delete
  2. Looking forward to Westar Institute workshops with Taussig and Art Dewey in a couple weeks. Should be interesting. Also looking forward to your take on the New New T.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The whole of the New Testament IS a forgery - even the 7 "authentic" letters of Paul have been tampered with so much as to make them forgeries too. After Jesus didn't return when he said he would, the whole religion should have been scrapped but, you know how it is, preachers still have to make a living...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Originally concocted by pious Jewish frauds, and still believed in 2013 by the the 'simple, the lower classes, foolish old women, slaves..' (to quote Celsus)

      Delete
    2. Celsus reflects the cruelty of Rome by not showing the respect for all classes of society we are familiar with today. Then why didn't early Christianity quickly abolish slavery? Jesus advocates liberal whippings for the underclasses (Luke 12:47) Just like in old times (Deuteronomy 25:2)

      Delete
    3. probably for the same reason that Christianity has not "quickly abolished" abortion.

      Delete
    4. There is only one reason that Christianity has not "quickly abolished" abortion and I think we all know it. It is because Christianity lacks the power to force its moral code upon the rest of us.

      Delete
    5. Yep. And Christianity has NEVER had such power. But, fortunately for the world, one day it will...

      Delete
    6. Sorry, Larry, Christianity will never rule the world. That's a Myth.

      But you miss the main point. Christianity DID have the power to "quickly abolish slavery" at least within their own ranks - by Christian slave-owners! Did it? NO! Why? The bible clearly is in favor of the institution of slavery. That's the point - if it were up to Christianity, we would still have slavery to this day. And whipping. And stoning to death. And subjugation of women. And on and on ad nauseum. Social progress in all of these areas was achieved by non-Christians only by overcoming the staunch resistance of Christianity.

      Delete
    7. Hmmmm......

      Well, since you don't understand what has happened in the past, I really don't expect you to understand what will happen in the future.

      Delete
    8. Yep, that's it exactly Larry. You figured it out. I don't understand what has happened in the past nor what will happen in the future. And you do.

      Delete
    9. Wow. You sure are arrogant and condescending.

      I, too, can read. And I have probably read a great deal more than you have about the history of slavery, and in particular the fight to end slavery in the UK, Europe, South America and the U.S. So please spare me your insults and get educated on the subject before you make assertions about who understands the past and who doesn't.

      Delete
    10. Whatever. You seem to be the one here slinging insults.

      Delete
    11. Larry, it's always hardest to see "the mote in your own eye", as they say. I apologize for the statements I made that you found insulting.

      Delete
    12. Apology graciously accepted.

      Christianity has indisputably been a great blessing to mankind, and as Gavin's blog here suggests, its influence is waning. Some here seem to celebrate that. But, sadly, because of this we will witness civilization's default to the lowest common denominators: poverty, oppression, tyranny, conflict, and yes, slavery.

      This would be easy to predict even if it were not Biblically prophesied.

      Delete
    13. Larry, without being insulting, I have to tell you that I couldn't disagree with you more. We can agreeably disagree, no?

      You say "Christianity has indisputably been a great blessing to mankind", and I know you sincerely believe that. However there is nothing indisputable about it. You have to look beyond your own perspective and ask how others see things. Many, probably the majority of the world's population, would indeed dispute that claim. The vast majority of non-Christians (Moslems, Hindus, other religions, atheists, etc.) do not see Christianity as having been a blessing. If you read their literature or watch or read interviews with non-Christians, you will realize that most see Christianity as having been (and still is) an evil in this world.

      Your list (poverty, oppression, tyranny, conflict, and yes, slavery) is a list of evils that Christianity has often inflicted upon us, and indeed in many cases still does. Why do you think they hate us?

      Ayn Rand's advice: "examine your premises".

      Delete
    14. Gosh Skeptic, we cannot agreeably disagree. Did you even read your post? And see how ridiculous it is? The "evils" we both listed, are ENDEMIC in the parts of the world where Christianity does not hold sway! Atheists (read: Communist countries), Moslem countries (generally) and even Hindus, have institutionalized these evils!!

      And you wonder why they hate us?

      Why do you reject Jesus' clear statement that unrighteous people will always hate God's people? You just cannot bring yourself to consider a spiritual component. You are correct that the hatred is irrational, but spiritual evil always is, and always has been.

      Delete
    15. These "evils" are NOT currently endemic in Western Europe, which is largely atheist. They WERE endemic in Western Europe back in the years when Christianity held sway. 'Nuff said.

      These "evils" are also not endemic in Japan, Australia and New Zealand, which are non-Christian.

      Why not? These countries, to one extent or another, are democracies that adhere to enlightenment values.

      Delete
    16. There was a period in history when Christianity was in charge. It was called the dark ages. Since that time, Christianity's power and influence has declined sharply and mankind's living conditions have improved dramatically. 'Nuff said.

      Delete
    17. Whatever you've been smokin', I want some of it...

      Delete
    18. What are you, a "last word" freak?

      Delete
  4. The idea that the Bible is inspired by a god is an absurdity. An honest reading shows any reader just how human the authors really were.

    I suppose we could learn about ancient man's beliefs and mindsets from it - or at least some examples of what I'm sure were a wide variety of beliefs and mindsets across cultures and across the millenia.

    As far as the claim that we can learn about a god by reading the Bible? As they say in New York, gimmeabreakaroundhereawready. The Bible? As Tom T Hall once said (in a different context), buffalo chips is all it means to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, if you read any other book with far out, supernatural and magical stories in it you would automatically know that it is all fiction and nobody would believe it. But, because authority of religion and a promise of eternal live has been claimed for the book called "the holy bible" people choose to believe the nonsense in it is true. IF the bible had not been taught to people as true from the cradle to the grave and people had not been forced to accept it on pain of death and/or held up to public ridicule for not believing in it - NOBODY would believe in it. That's just how ridiculous it is. That's also why people (those who haven't been indoctrinated by continuous bible study all their lives) can read it and throw the thing in the trash. Getting people who haven't ever studied the bible to read it for themselves is the quickest way to making atheists out of them as there is.

      Delete
  5. Peter Enns incarnational model for understanding the Bible I believe is informative here. We may draw a parallel with the development of mankind. Evangelicals who do not believe in evolution tend to find the idea of progressive development untidy and non-Divine. Special and instantaneous creation of Adam is the only plausible methodology that is compatible with their notion of God. Non-believers commit this same error. The Bible, to them, could never be a product of progressive development. This is incompatible with the assumptions they wish to adopt. They want to see a collection of books each with an incontrovertible provenance. But, of course, that ideal could never be anyway. There are many people today who do not believe that Shakespeare wrote his plays and sonnets. The Bible is not intended to be an engineering manual that serves as a replacement for interaction with the Holy Spirit. Evangelicals do not want to believe that our remote ancestors were small apes running around on the savannahs of Africa and non-believers do not want to believe that God could use circuitous approaches to bring about the Bible. In the last analysis, the Bible in general is recognized by Christianity and in general conveys a consistent message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      I was with you until the last half-sentence. I think most of what you say represents a balanced perspective and is generally true. However, I do not agree that the Bible "in general conveys a consistent message". Indeed, the message changes quite a bit as one moves from the ancient books to the more recent books and indeed varies from author to author.

      Delete
    2. Skeptic is correct about the changing message. Christians who acknowledge this are said to be "dispensationalists", or to believe in "progressive revelation". The message remains consistently to the benefit of humans, but works hand in hand with the gradual increase in knowledge experienced by the human race as time progresses. Evolution is one of the observable dynamics of the universe. Nothing physical remains totally static. There is either growth, or there is stagnation.

      BB

      Delete
    3. well said BB, but, contrary to Skeptic's assertion, the Bible DOES convey a consistent message.

      Delete
    4. Byker Bob, although you and I have very different beliefs, we find ourselves more often than not in agreement on factual matters. I find that refreshing!

      Delete
    5. Gavin has left the building!

      Delete