Comments on Otagosh: IVP - Scholarship or Apologetics?

Gavin said... "When the Pastorals article is poste...

2008-05-01T06:56:00.000+12:00

Gavin said...

"When the Pastorals article is posted, I'd be delighted for your feedback on whether you think the authorship issue is still just a matter of standpoint."

Hi Gavin,

I’d be happy to give you feedback on your article.

As you probably realise, I am approaching things from the point of view of inerrancy of scripture.

But I am not trying to be closed minded. The problem as I see it is if scripture is actually something that has been updated, altered, and new events inserted over the years, then we are looking at something that is very much the ‘work of men’, as against ‘God breathed’, or at least ‘God supervised’, which is actually more the way I look at things at the moment.

The problem to me is that if scripture is basically the work of (hopefully well intentioned) men, then this is where you actually do start ‘cherry-picking’ in earnest, because you then have the situation of believing the bits you want, or like, and if you don’t like it, then reject it.

If that is the case then scripture is about as useful a good book – keep the bits you like, ignore the bits you don’t like.

In reality I have found that many times what is rejected as conflicting scriptures do have a reasonable explanation if you take the line that the events are real, and well intentioned men are recording the events, and they emphasised what they themselves felt were the import aspects.

I’ll leave it at that for the moment, and look forward to your article.

Deane:Qumran? I gotta be honest, there is a 3000 w...

2008-04-30T10:45:00.000+12:00

Deane:

Qumran? I gotta be honest, there is a 3000 word limit and I'm heading over as it is ;-) I was even considering cutting the section on "who were the opponents." So I hope you won't be too disappointed when you read the essay... it hews to the basics.

On other matters, your excellent blog seems to be missing in action, and I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms. It's a cruel and unusual thing to leave a bloke dependent on back issues of Stimulus for a whiff of Kiwi theologizing!

Questeruk wrote:If you are being open minded about...

2008-04-30T09:57:00.000+12:00

Questeruk wrote:
If you are being open minded about things, you cannot just blindly reject one whole spectrum of opinion.

Deane:
Ah, but it is one thing to "blindly" ignore certain opinions, and another thing altogether to assess that certain opinions aren't worth the paper they are written on.

But Northrop Frye said it best, when writing about the Bible:

"One should doubtless keep an open mind...though open at both ends, like the food pipe, and have a capacity for excretion as well as intake."
- Northrop Frye, 'The Great Code'

On more substantial issues, Gavin, I wonder how consideration of the mix of hierarchy and mysticism at Qumran might impact on some of the (Weberian) assumptions on which the pseudepigraphic nature of the Pastorals is sometimes based? That is, given you get both complex hierarchy and organisation (see the Rules) and a highly chararismatic practice (see the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) lumped in together in one group, can you now say that the hierarchical and organisational aspects of (two of) the Pastorals is evidence for late dating?

(I tend to think that the use of particular vocabulary flows directly from the topics covered, which makes the latter more decisive for considering authorship. Do you?)

I'll look forward to reading your essay.

Questeruk:We all have to start with a standpoint, ...

2008-04-30T09:55:00.000+12:00

Questeruk:

We all have to start with a standpoint, it's unavoidable. And you're right, once I would have stood with the apologists. But some standpoints are less honest than others.

The difference now? The apologists start with their conclusion (usually based on doctrine) then work their way back, cherry-picking the evidence.

The honest student sorts through the evidence and puts forward an explanation that makes best sense - and dogma is irrelevant to that process.

It's not Christians vs. Godless agnostics in the world of biblical studies. The issue I'm addressing is about real, convincing scholarship (invariably by real, convincing Christians!) which delivers disconcerting facts for those who are bogged down in false assumptions about either the Bible or the sacredness of their church's tradition.

There's nothing that the truth can do to harm the truth.

When the Pastorals article is posted, I'd be delighted for your feedback on whether you think the authorship issue is still just a matter of standpoint.

“and there was what I'd describe as the usual apol...

2008-04-30T00:38:00.000+12:00

“and there was what I'd describe as the usual apologetic drivel, couched in scholarly language.”

If you are being open minded about things, you cannot just blindly reject one whole spectrum of opinion.

At one time Gavin, you would have sided with the apologetics – now you do the opposite. Shutting your mind completely to one side, whichever side, means that all possibilities are not being considered.

Many times areas of the Bible are rejected as inconsistent and fabricated if you start at the standpoint that the Bible is inconsistent and fabricated. The standpoint justifies the conclusion.

For example – ‘How many Donkeys were involved with Christ entering Jerusalem?’ This was debated a while ago on AW. If you start with the ‘inconsistent and fabricated’ standpoint, this is yet another point to add to your quiver of ammunition. Yet for those that consider the gospels are actually consistent, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what at first sight may seem to be an inconsistency.

If you have already ruled out ‘apologetics’, any explanation offered from that area is either not known, or at best not considered.

Is that being open minded to the facts of the matter?

"I'd go say far as to say that they're often delib...

2008-04-26T12:45:00.000+12:00

"I'd go say far as to say that they're often deliberately misrepresented by hack scholars more interested in apologetics than integrity."

Gavin, what do you expect? Their reasons for studying the Bible are solely religious.

The Apostate Paul