Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Brother Michael Sky]

Alexandria was a major center of gnosticism, a religious/philosophical movement that corrupted early Christianity. When we look at the variants in the Alexandrian texts, we find that their gnostic leanings tend to portray Jesus Christ as neither divine nor having come in the flesh as a physical human being. This is why I trust the more reputable Byzantine scribes, evidence demonstrates more faithfulness in the copying process.

Neither accurate nor likely.... and flies in the face of historical truth.... but very funny!!!

[Coolhand]

Do you have a citation for that?

The citation for what Fawzo posted is page 112-116 which is an article about Johann J. Wettstein.

The second paragraph on page 113, in referring to this theos to hos discussion in the Codex Alexandrian abbreviation is explained as lines that had bled through from the other side of the page.

Page 114 and 115 tells about how Wettstein published his own Greek New Testment which was labeled dangerous.

Page 115 Dr Ehrman refers to Wettstien's text as valuable, though the "textual theory lying behind it is usually seen as complelely retrograde."

The last paragragh of the article (115-116) Dr Ehrman says that Wettstein's theory:

"[He] maintained that the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament could not be trusted because, in his view, they had all been altered in conformity with the Latin witnesses. There is no evidence of that having happened. . . ."

Dr Ehrman concludes the paragraph by saying (in regard to his evaluation criterion) that "no leading scholar of the text subscribes to this bizarre theory."

Edited November 11, 2010 by Coolhand

[Dan56]

Neither accurate nor likely.... and flies in the face of historical truth.... but very funny!!!

Do a little research on Irenaeus, he spend much of his life dealing with the gnostic heresy. Of his two writings that still exist, the best known is "Against Heresies", a work consisting of five books dealing with gnosticism. Until the discovery of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi in 1946, most information about gnosticism came to us through Irenaeus. This is accurate and grounded in historical truth.

[Bro. Hex]

I went to the Wikipedia Greek Alphabet page and cut and paste them the hard way.

Thanks Fawz,

Now that I know how hard it is,

there is no way I am gonna' try it!

[Bro. Hex]

Do a little research on Irenaeus, he spend much of his life dealing with the gnostic heresy. Of his two writings that still exist, the best known is "Against Heresies", a work consisting of five books dealing with gnosticism. Until the discovery of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi in 1946, most information about gnosticism came to us through Irenaeus.

This is accurate and grounded in historical truth.

Actually Dan, Irenaeus' work ("Against Heresies") is not historically accurate.

It is a polemic of one branch of Christianity against another branch of Christianity.

The Nag Hammadi scriptures have allowed us to see just how far off-base Irenaeus was vis-a-vis many of the "Gnostic" groups. (He saw Gnosticism everywhere... sometimes among "groups" that never even existed). It is difficult now to tell whether he made up some groups, just to have a new whipping-boy to rail against, or whether others were "pulling his leg" and filling him with tales that really put the wind up his sails...tales about things that never even happened.

The fact that his branch of Christianity "won the war", was able to successfully persecute the Gnostics, write the only books that were allowed to survive, and was able to define for many centuries, what "true" Christianity meant, doesn't make his work "historically accurate". It is nothing more that "the story according to the victor"...told by a church that was backed by (and beholden to) a Roman Emperor.

Why do you think that the canonical gospels "blame the Jews" for the crucifixion of Jesus? Do you really believe that the Catholic Church would have been dumb enough to approve of a gospel that "blamed the Romans"? (those who actually did the deed?)

Edited November 11, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Bro. Hex]

"[He] maintained that the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament could not be trusted because, in his view, they had all been altered in conformity with the Latin witnesses. There is no evidence of that having happened. . . ."

Which means precisely what?

It means that there was no evidence that they had all been altered in conformity with the Latin...

That would be the "bizarre part" of the theory.

That the Greek manuscripts "were actually altered" ...that much is not "theory"... that is well established fact,

(and one that Dr. Ehrman has often refered to in his work.

"Misquoting Jesus" and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" are two prime examples).

Edited November 11, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Pete]

A question you may also consider: "What percentage of 1 Tim 3:16 is exact and word for word?" Is it 25 out of 26? And would that be 96% agreement? Is that important when you come to a conclusion about reliability?

There are free Greek font downloads on line.

There is much debate about the Pastoral Epistles. Me, I think they are forgeries. As most liberals believe, I believe they are later writings, written after Paul's death.

http://en.wikipedia....storal_epistles

and

http://www.religious...rg/chr_ntb3.htm

either way if we are talking about Spong's book I believe he has given his thoughts on Paul:-

"Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul – a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)"

Edited November 12, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Which means precisely what?

It means that there was no evidence that they had all been altered in conformity with the Latin...

That would be the "bizarre part" of the theory.

That the Greek manuscripts "were actually altered" ...that much is not "theory"... that is well established fact,

(and one that Dr. Ehrman has often refered to in his work.

"Misquoting Jesus" and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" are two prime examples).

I took it to mean that that he was saying that the bizarre theory was that they were altered to agree with the Latin texts.

When you say "altered," are you refering to textual variants? Or are you referring to 'intended' changes to the texts?

When referring to Dr Ehrman's work, it is crucial to not misunderstand what he is saying and what he is not saying. I find that most fundamentalists’ types view him and an enemy, and most liberal theologians view him as an ally. My thoughts are that when he is talking about the texts he is neither to either, rather, he is an authority that knows what he is talking about. However I will say I do not always agree with his conclusions; which after the research is done, the interpretation could vary.

There is much debate about the Pastoral Epistles. Me, I think they are forgeries. As most liberals believe, I believe they are later writings, written after Paul's death.

http://en.wikipedia....storal_epistles

and

http://www.religious...rg/chr_ntb3.htm

either way if we are talking about Spong's book I believe he has given his thoughts on Paul:-

"Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul – a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)"

What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with?

What do you think is Spong's strongest point regarding this?

[Fawzo]

When referring to Dr Ehrman's work, it is crucial to not misunderstand what he is saying and what he is not saying. I find that most fundamentalists' types view him and an enemy, and most liberal theologians view him as an ally. My thoughts are that when he is talking about the texts he is neither to either, rather, he is an authority that knows what he is talking about. However I will say I do not always agree with his conclusions; which after the research is done, the interpretation could vary.

So after reading Ehrman's book and all the examples given within do you fell he is correct in any of the instances where he cites changes that scribes have made to conform to their own world views.

You surely can't feel that he is dead wrong in every example that he brings up, do you?

After reading his book any doubt I had that scribes purposely made alterations to the text for theological reasons vanished for good.

[Pete]

I took it to mean that that he was saying that the bizarre theory was that they were altered to agree with the Latin texts.

When you say "altered," are you refering to textual variants? Or are you referring to 'intended' changes to the texts?

When referring to Dr Ehrman's work, it is crucial to not misunderstand what he is saying and what he is not saying. I find that most fundamentalists' types view him and an enemy, and most liberal theologians view him as an ally. My thoughts are that when he is talking about the texts he is neither to either, rather, he is an authority that knows what he is talking about. However I will say I do not always agree with his conclusions; which after the research is done, the interpretation could vary.

What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with?

What do you think is Spong's strongest point regarding this?

I think I have said many times that I believe the bible is written by people writing about God rather than writing words dictated to them from God. 

As Spong says on the back of the cover:- "How can the bible be used with integrity by men and women of faith? How can it be lifted out of prejudices and cultural biases of bygone eras? How can it be a source of life to the twentieth and twenty-first century generations? If it continues to be viewed literally, the bible in my opinion, is doomed to be cast aside as both dated and irrelevant" (Spong (1991), Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism, Harper SanFranscico.)

Ask yourself would you have so many people challenging the literal interpretation in the 1950-60 as we do today.  I suspect not. I believe Billy Graham got it easy but I do not believe it will be so for others who try the same tact. Also note that even Spong, despite his criticism of the literal view of the bible does not want the bible to become irrelevant.  

[Coolhand]

You surely can't feel that he is dead wrong in every example that he brings up, do you?

I do not always agree with his conclusions. As I had suggested, we should discuss a bunch of examples so we can check them out for ourselves amongst us here so we can discuss them.

I think I have said many times that I believe the bible is written by people writing about God rather than writing words dictated to them from God. 

As Spong says on the back of the cover:- "How can the bible be used with integrity by men and women of faith? How can it be lifted out of prejudices and cultural biases of bygone eras? How can it be a source of life to the twentieth and twenty-first century generations? If it continues to be viewed literally, the bible in my opinion, is doomed to be cast aside as both dated and irrelevant" (Spong (1991), Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism, Harper SanFranscico.)

Ask yourself would you have so many people challenging the literal interpretation in the 1950-60 as we do today.  I suspect not. I believe Billy Graham got it easy but I do not believe it will be so for others who try the same tact. Also note that even Spong, despite his criticism of the literal view of the bible does not want the bible to become irrelevant.  

What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with?

What do you think is Spong's strongest point regarding this?

[Pete]

I do not always agree with his conclusions. As I had suggested, we should discuss a bunch of examples so we can check them out for ourselves amongst us here so we can discuss them.

What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with?

What do you think is Spong's strongest point regarding this?

I thought I had answered you when I said that I believe the bible is written by people about their personal (rightly or wrongly) perceptions of God, rather than it being a book dictated by God.  I therefore do not believe it is the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 is nothing but a forgery for me and it is debatable (IMO) as to what scripture the author was referring to, being as both the Jews and the Christians did not assert that anything was scripture until afterwards and  in the case of Christians we are talking about much later.

Not sure what else your after.

I personally do not see any evidence that any of the NT writers ever met Jesus. I know that some assert this but where is the tangible evidence. There is only the statement of belief by some that it was written by actual people who met Jesus but little else and as I do not trust the church to tell the truth I guess that debate goes no where for me.

I also believe Paul differed from Jesus. Jesus talked about the kingdom of God within and that which is to come. Paul talked about dying to sin and flesh, and being washed by the blood of Jesus. 

There are other differences too. See:- http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/salvation-1.html

I am often met by conservatives that say they do not see any such issues, but that only leaves me trusting conservatives explanations even less.

For me, I believe Paul was gay and being Jewish loathed himself for being so. Hence, his message dwelling so much on death to the flesh. He was aware that according to Jewish law he would be stoned for being gay and he therefore felt very awkward being a person professing Jewish ideologies, all be it, in a differing viewpoint.  So sure he looked for every way he could be seen as acceptable to his audience. 

[Dan56]

As Spong says on the back of the cover:- "How can the bible be used with integrity by men and women of faith? How can it be lifted out of prejudices and cultural biases of bygone eras? How can it be a source of life to the twentieth and twenty-first century generations? If it continues to be viewed literally, the bible in my opinion, is doomed to be cast aside as both dated and irrelevant" (Spong (1991), Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism, Harper SanFranscico.) "Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul – a vast difference."

Also note that even Spong, despite his criticism of the literal view of the bible does not want the bible to become irrelevant.

If Spong asserts that the bible can not be taken literally, if Spong prescribes that the integrity of the bible is not relevant to 21st century readers, and if Spong insist that the apostle Paul was not representative of God's word, then it certainly sounds like Spong is promoting the irrelevance of the bible? How can he consistently attack every aspect of a book while simultaneously espousing its credibility?

[Pete]

If Spong asserts that the bible can not be taken literally, if Spong prescribes that the integrity of the bible is not relevant to 21st century readers, and if Spong insist that the apostle Paul was not representative of God's word, then it certainly sounds like Spong is promoting the irrelevance of the bible? How can he consistently attack every aspect of a book while simultaneously espousing its credibility?

Dan I have mentioned time and time again that I do not see the bible in the same light as you. Your take on the faith believes that the bible being without error is crucial but that is not how most liberals see it. The issue for me is can I learn from things that are said even though I do not believe they are necessarily God's word's then I would say yes. Sure anyone from your perspective would have big problems with what you are accusing Spong of but that is your problem and not mine. I am not the one demanding the bible is with out error in the first place. The church has been known to destroy libraries of books throughout Europe and Asia minor in the past and many believe St. Cyril destroy most of the early originals in the fire of Alexandria. There has also been much repression of books by the church and lets not forget that they tried to destroy all of Tyndale's bibles at the same time as burning and garrotting him. Do you think that body was without any motive to corrupt the bible. The same body that tried to repress science too.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Pete

[Atwater Vitki]

"lyHo TanMra Manbat!" This has to be among the top ten longest threads on any topic! Good job folks!

After paying attention to this topic for several weeks, and of course by our dutiful Scribe Murph tediously hand typing each and every letter of every word to notify me*, personally by e-mail, (can he EVER sleep?), I think a few points are extremely valid.

1. There are the many people among us who acknowledge the man-made, Divinely Inspired "source" and possible/probable

changing of wordage through centuries of translations, having effect on content or message, of the Scriptures

2. There are those few people among us who adamantly believe in the God-sent, Divine "source" and in no way changed wordage, content or message of the Scriptures

3. There are a few who could care less about which is true and read many "Divinely Inspired" texts for personal Inspiration

The Awesome wonder of ULC!

I have about 10 books that sit upon my desk shelves and I noticed the other day how dog-eared three of them are; my 1973 NIV Bible w/ concordance and study notes, the Eddas (compiled Nordic texts of 13th century) and The Book of Troth (The "Scriptures" of the LHP). The latter having been severely damaged by fire and water, yet still readable. A couple others certainly show wear and tear of many, many years of use.

I have found insurmountable inspiration and read lovingly devotional passages from all of these books.

Do I believe 100%, without any doubt what-so-ever in the absolute and keen accuracy of every word in any or all of these books? NO.

I do believe that any time man has a hand in translating, transcribing and reprinting any book there is personal beliefs and possible agendas involved that may or may not influence the editor to change things. Snorri Sturlesson, when translating the Edda and Poetic Edda into Icelandic, a very complicated language, certainly had to apply his academic knowledge and "best guess" to many words and translational meanings. As well, simply dabbling in these sort of pagan works, he risked expulsion from his academic status, which did almost happen, due to the religious frenzy of his era.

As far as the Scriptures go, being translated from old Hebrew, to Greek, to Arabic to English, over 12-15 centuries, simple language barriers would lead any scholar and non scholar alike to know there had to be words and phrases that were changed or modified.

Does this in any way reduce the value of the work overall? Does making diminutive changes so it is readable in other languages completely void the content? No and No!

What I feel the crux of the issue is here is that some view Spong as being a heretic and others simply agree with his assertions that what we read today, compared to the original, having questionable changes applied. A reasonable assessment. I'm beginning to think this has less to do with acknowledging the facts and historical accuracy than it does with the faithful harboring a preconceived idealism concerning the author of a book.

I profess to be Pagan, yet I receive inspiration from a religious text called The Bible. Do I feel I betrayed my Nordic heritage and viking roots by doing so? No! What I find fascinating is that there several similar examples expressing things of the Goals and Virtues every Nordic Warrior holds true. (Just One example: Idun and her apples of Youth, Helen of Troy and her Apples, Eve and the apple...a whole book could be written just on that one topic, yet all three versions are meant as a virtuous example of avoiding 'bad behavior').

The Bible, for all its glory and wondrous text is indeed an inspirational and devotional work meant to instill a sense of correctness within our Spirit. If it fails to do so in the individual, that doesn't mean it has no value to millions of others. To kill the messenger as it were in Spong doesn't change the fact that mere language is insufficient at times of relaying in whole a given message by the author of a text in an ancient language.

I do believe that Inspiration and a sense of Direction for the Spirit is what the Bible is all about. Not whether Paul Petered the world or John ate certain mushrooms, the Message is what matters. The same goes for Snurri and Sprong.

Blessings of Peace, Prayers for open minded and constructive exchange.

*just kidding, I know this is done by a whole herd of scribes, with ink smeared faces, sharpened quills on velum made of goat bladders, working under him!

Edited November 13, 2010 by RevAl

[Pete]

 

Just a point to Dan.

When one reads Spong you should note that he does not declare that the bible is without worth. He just asks how can the literal perception of the bible be seen as relevant to the twenty first century mind. People (IMO) question things at a greater depth nowadays and do not take the attitude that the church always knows best about everything. It is not that the bible is not relevant but the inerrancy of the bible is being questioned. I am sure God will speak to the hearts of people, bible or no bible as God did for many years before it, and the question for me is, does the bible inspire me with a sense of God being present and have meaning for me or does its whole meaning die with my belief that its literal interpretation is questionable. I would say it is still relevant despite its questionable portrayal of events and interpretation. Please note that I am not turning around and saying I do not believe that God is relevant or that I am no longer a Christian. The reason for this is I still see much relevancy in the faith and I am sure Spong does. However that view of relevancy may differ from your view. 

[Coolhand]

I thought I had answered you when I said that I believe the bible is written by people about their personal (rightly or wrongly) perceptions of God, rather than it being a book dictated by God.  I therefore do not believe it is the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 is nothing but a forgery for me and it is debatable (IMO) as to what scripture the author was referring to, being as both the Jews and the Christians did not assert that anything was scripture until afterwards and  in the case of Christians we are talking about much later.

Not sure what else your after.

I was trying to see where the division is between Pete's thoughts and Spong's thoughts. I was trying to get you to articulate the strengths of Spong's argument apart from what you think, but you keep repeating what you think; which I suppose answers my question.

[Pete]

I was trying to see where the division is between Pete's thoughts and Spong's thoughts. I was trying to get you to articulate the strengths of Spong's argument apart from what you think, but you keep repeating what you think; which I suppose answers my question.

John Shelby Spong.

http://www.johnshelb...site/index.aspx

http://en.wikipedia....hn_Shelby_Spong

http://www.liberator...Mark/Spong.html

http://www.brainyquo...elby_spong.html

Although Spong is a liberal he did not invent the term "Liberal Christian" and he is not a lone voice in the field. Much that he says has been said before by other Liberal theologians. I would say that Spong's contribution has been in the highlighting of those views, building on them and living them.

"Contributions to biblical hermeneutics

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."

http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity

Liberal Christian theologians and authors

Anglican and Protestant

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834), often called the "father of liberal theology," he claimed that religious experience was introspective, and that the truest understanding of God consisted of "a sense of absolute dependence".

William Ellery Channing (1780–1842), pioneering liberal theologian in the USA, who criticized the doctrine of the Trinity and the strength of scriptural authority, in favor of more rationalistic and historical-critical beliefs. Unitarian.

Charles Augustus Briggs (1841–1913) early advocate of modern Biblical criticism

Henry Ward Beecher (1813–1887), US preacher who left behind the Calvinist orthodoxy of his famous father, the Reverend Lyman Beecher, to popularize liberal Christianity.

Adolf von Harnack, (1851–1930), German theologian and church historian, promoted the Social Gospel.

Charles Fillmore (1854–1948). Emerson-influenced Christian mystic and co-founder (with his wife, Myrtle Fillmore) of the Unity Church.

Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878–1969), Baptist founding pastor of New York's Riverside Church in 1922.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), German biblical scholar.

Paul Tillich (1886–1965), synthesized Protestant Christian theology with existential philosophy

Leslie Weatherhead (1893–1976), English preacher, and author of The Will of God and The Christian Agnostic

Lloyd Geering (1918–), prominent New Zealand theologian.

Paul Moore, Jr. (1919 - 2003), 13th Episcopal Bishop, New York Diocese

John A.T. Robinson (1919–1983), Bishop of Woolwich, author of Honest to God.

John Hick (b. 1922) British philosopher of religion and theologian.

William Sloane Coffin (1924–2006), Senior Minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, and President of SANE/Freeze (now Peace Action).

John Shelby Spong (1931–), Episcopal bishop and author.

Richard Holloway (1933-), Bishop of Edinburgh 1986-2000.

Keith Ward (b. 1938) British Anglican cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar.

Matthew Fox (priest) (b. 1940) American Episcopalian priest and theologian.

Marcus Borg (b. 1942) American biblical scholar and author.

Scotty McLennan (b. 1948) Unitarian Universalist Christian Minister, Stanford University professor and author.

Michael Dowd (b. 1958) Religious Naturalist theologian and Epic of Evolution evangelist.

Douglas Ottati, Presbyterian theologian and author, former professor at Union-PSCE, current professor at Davidson College.

Roman Catholic

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), a French Jesuit, also trained as a paleontologist; works condemned by the Holy Office in 1962. The condemnation was formally reaffirmed in 1981 but many theologians still refer to his writings, including Pope Benedict XVI.

Yves Congar (1904–1995), French Dominican ecumenical theologian.

Edward Schillebeeckx, (1914–2009) Belgian Dominican theologian.

Hans Küng, (b. 1928) Swiss theologian. Had his licence to teach Catholic theology revoked in 1979 because of his rejection of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, but retained his faculties to say the Mass.

John Dominic Crossan, (b. 1934) ex-priest, New Testament scholar, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar.

Joan Chittister, (b. 1936) OSB, a lecturer and social psychologist.

Leonardo Boff, (b. 1938) Brazilian, ex-Franciscan, ex-priest, co founder of Liberation theology.

Others

Thomas Jefferson, as author of the Jefferson Bible, which excised all the supernatural elements from the gospels.

also from :- http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity

I believe there is a coming Anglican/Episcopalian rift between liberal and conservative that I do not see that there is any way of avoiding. I know writers like Robert Van de Weyer has made some sensible suggestions (IMO) in his book the Anglican Quilt but as long as the church continues to shelve the problem or tries to continue to bury it then I believe the debate will deepen.

See also:- http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7470297.stm

Edited November 13, 2010 by Pete

[Fawzo]

All this talk about Spong and the Youtube Video Pete posted awhile back which I enjoyed had me going to the Library today to get some of his works. I picked up 'Jesus for the Non Religious" and I must say I am titillated and enthusiastic after just reading the introduction.

This portion of the intro really resonates with me:

All of my professional life I have kept before me the motto of my theological seminary: "Seek the truth; come whence it may, cost what it will."

[Pete]

All this talk about Spong and the Youtube Video Pete posted awhile back which I enjoyed had me going to the Library today to get some of his works. I picked up 'Jesus for the Non Religious" and I must say I am titillated and enthusiastic after just reading the introduction.

This portion of the intro really resonates with me:

All of my professional life I have kept before me the motto of my theological seminary: "Seek the truth; come whence it may, cost what it will."

Amen