jbernier

Huh? How is that relevant? So what if they told little white lies or had a mistress? How does that affect my ability to read the text today in any way whatsoever?

Except that there is evidence that many of the Biblical texts have been altered in major ways. For instance, the Septuagint and Masoretic versions of Jeremiah differ from each other by more than 20%! You know that wonderful story about Jesus saving the woman in adultery from John 8? Doesn't show up in the earliest manuscripts. You know the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark? Same deal - not in the earliest manuscripts. I can go on and on with such examples but I am already bored by the litany.

jbernier

Uhmmm...the Quran...the Urantia Book...etc.

You know, Robert, I am as Christian as you are. Indeed, I support myself from the scholarships and TAships I have been awarded to go and study theology and Biblical studies in graduate school. However, if one is going to defend the faith one should do so with honesty and integrity, using valid argumentation and accurate data. You do not seem to be doing so. It is a bit embarrassing, actually.

dado

without fallible human choices, there would be no bible because nowhere is there so much as a scrap of text saying "I, G-d, want *these* books in the bible". even protestantism couldn't decide on a bible - for the first 100 years of its existence, the KJV - the original KJV - included apocrypha. it is only the heavily revised later editions that dropped it.

in the end it all comes down to a choice of what and how to believe.

blt to go

jbernier - I have liked your posts both here and elsewhere.

So,are you an inerrantist? If so, why? If not, why not?

(and perhaps more particular - if not, what is error and what is not?)

dado

Torah, the OWoG (Original Word of G-d (tm)) - which in a moment of supreme irony the x'ian texts promptly dismissed as no longer relevant.

Chili

It's not and Jesus even spoke against reading the bible in Jn.5:39-40 "You search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life-- they testify on my behalf. Yest you are unwilling to come to me to possess that life."

This means that the bible must be second hand to the reader and prior to him by nature.

jbernier

I appreciate the compliment.

No, I am not an inerrantist. Long story short: I do not think that the Biblical texts ever claim to be free from error. If they not make such a claim for themselves why should we make this demand of them? Moreover, inerrancy is predicated upon the assumption that the texts should conform to the expectations of the German historicist tradition out of which Biblical criticism and contemporary historiography grew. This makes certain demands, such as: A single, coherent, narrative thread; the reduction and elimination of apparent inconsistencies in chronology, detail, etc.; chronological organization; the identification of a geist for the volk being studied; etc. Quite simply I do not think that ancient Jewish writers shared these 18th and 19th century historicist preoccupations.

I think that one needs to approach the texts with an understanding of what texts and textuality and history and historicity meant to those who produced the text. I do not think that either inerrancy or the traditional modes of Biblical criticism adequately do so. I see each as part of a largely failed Enlightenment project of Biblical exegesis. I think that a number of newer approaches, particularly those rooted in social history of knowledge and rhetorical analysis, are producing works that are much more faithful to the nature of the texts themselves.

Sven

I'm not even a layman in Biblical criticism - but this seems to be the most reasonable post in this thread so far. :notworthy

jbernier

Thank you for your kind words - although I can't take too much credit as, really, this is just an application of the approach I learned while doing my undergrad in anthropology.

jbernier

Perhaps I should be a bit more clear about what I consider the proper role of the Biblical text in contemporary Christianity. I would start with a definition of the Christian community: The Christian community is that community which interprets its contemporary experiences through a frame given by its memories of the life, work, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For contemporary Christians the scriptures are nothing more than memories and reflections upon memories about Jesus and Israel, the people of Jesus. The question of whether or not these memories accurate describe "what really happened" is important but more so for historians than for the average Christian's live experience. Indeed, like all memories the details are not exact - and we should not expect them to be.

What this also means is that the line between canonical and non-canonical literature is a bit more porous than people often assume. Non-canonical literature, too, is composed of memories and reflections upon memories - however, they are just not the "official" memories and reflections. Does that mean that such documents are meaningless to the Christian community? Not at all. It just means that they are not "official."

The important question for me, when I where my theologian hat, are "How should I understand this situation given the Christian tradition's memories of Jesus?" In light of those memories how should I understood, for instance, 9/11, or the invasion of Iraq, or 3rd world hunger, etc.?

Note that these ideas are ideas in progress - ask me next week and I might say something totally different. In short, this is more speculative than dogmatic.