#fakenews which is, well, fake!?
Very expensive mistake!
My question here is whether a misconception of the part of evangelicals about the relationship between theological truth and historical evidence drives some of us to invest money in what is, effectively, a category mistake.
Thoughts?
The expensive misconception is the Reformed idea that the personal and corporate testimony of the Body cannot warrant saving *pistis*.
ReplyDeleteBW
Not too different, Peter, from the Evangelical search for the original Noah's Ark. Nor, for that matter, from the Catholic fervour for relics of the 'True Cross'.
ReplyDeleteAll overwhelming evidence of a longing for certitude about the origins of our Faith.
True faith does not depend on physical evidence of its accoutrements, thank God!
And what is the actual "misconception" that you are presuming to find fault with? The Dead Sea Scrolls are very important as the most ancient extant textual witness to the Hebrew Bible, as the testimony of a (second century BC?) Jewish apocalyptic sect, and as a source on Temple practice just before the time of Jesus that predates Josephus. But they don't really offer historical evidence one way or the other about Christianity. If you were talking about radically different NT manuscripts, that would be a different matter. And we all know what ex-Christians like Maurice Casey and Dominic Crossan and bizarre Episcopalians like Elaine Pagels have tried to make out of theories about the Gospel of Thomas. As more evangelicals leave the Anglican Church of NZ (not just in Christchurch but in West Hamilton and Auckland, and other places as well), we can expect these crazy ideas to become mainstream in NZ - as they have for many in TEC.
ReplyDeleteAs for museum frauds, these are commonplace, usually in the field of art. Stories of counterfeit art are legion. Museum visitors want to see something ancient and genuine, even if they have no idea how to read ancient Hebrew or Aramaic. The fact that there is a museum of the Bible in Washington is wonderful, doubly so because the sponsors understand the Bible as the living word of God.
William
I in part at least side with William on this one... to err is indeed human; there is nothing new under the sun con artists included. This aside, although not a foundation of faith as a field of interest I find biblical archaeology facinating whenever I perchance to come across an article on it - e.g. the archeologist who used biblical measurements to excavate what was believed to be one of Solomon’s Temples...
ReplyDeleteJean, some texts are most helpful in delimiting what ancient Israel and by implication the apostles believed about the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Whether these stories could have passed fact-checks back in the day seems irrelevant to their present use by believers. The representation in the story is what matters.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a relatively few texts assert that this past raising can power our present and future healing from the effects of bondage to death and sin. For both confidence and guidance in that healing, we need, and of course have, texts showing the actuality of Jesus's rising. Which is beyond reasonable dispute today, even among informed non-believers.
The Bible is most urgently authoritative for individual believers where it guides the regeneration of their hearts in the Power of the resurrection of Jesus.
BW
Walton's Razor. Presumptively IF a doctrine entails baroque elaborations of authority (biblical, papal, synodical) unknown to the undivided Church, THEN keep the tradition, repair or discard the doctrine, and reject the elaborations.
ReplyDeleteBW
Walton's Corollary. Presumptively, if an otherwise plausible theological argument reduces a system's dependence on baroque authority unknown in the undivided Church, test it.
ReplyDeleteBW
So no, Peter, interest in the historical reliability of the scriptures is not a *category mistake*. But under the pressure of the Reformed system, this concern has become cancerous.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a Protestant problem; Lutherans do not have it. It is not an evangelical problem; Anabaptists, Arminians and Pietists do not have it. The Reformed do have it for several reasons.
Our unhelpful battles between Reformed biblicists and post-Reformed gnosticists are cognate with Rome's clashes between conservative papalists and liberal conciliarists. Both communions are destabilized by the West's weak reception of the Holy Spirit's special work in *paradosis*.
BW
Walton's Retiral. Goodnight, John Bow.
ReplyDeleteWilliam
Indeed Bowman! Such things to me are an adjunct; an ‘oh that is interesting’ ... as much as any historial dig or relics. I approach it as the Bible is truth therefore things archeological findings will be found that match up with content in the Scriptures.Through your extrapolation though I can see the issue when the rationale is reversed, such findings or otherwise are the basis on which to prove or not prove the truth of the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteJean, some of the best Christians I know socially are trying to prove that the Bible was good journalism, and most hereabouts laugh at them. For my part, I am perplexed that the biblical scholarship that speaks to their concerns (eg Francis Walton, no relation) does not interest them.
ReplyDeleteThe believing scholars are trying to sort the claims of science and religion. The believing layfolk-- some of them anyway-- are resisting the thought that a rugged individualist needs any human help to understand the Bible.
BW
HT William for mentioning the Museum of the Bible, Washington.
ReplyDeleteNot only six floors of fascinating exhibits, but reportedly also the fulfillment of a cherished dream of the *deep state*-- a good lunch on the southern fringe of the Mall.
BW
Hey Bowman
ReplyDeleteCertainly I see the curiousity/desire of those who ‘believe’ of wrestling with or investigating the evidence of biblical accounts marrying with human history records and fascinating it is. And I am certain, as God appears to work in a myriad of ways, that such intrigue may indeed have led some to faith - as in the movie the case for Christ or even C.S.Lewis’s study of Christianity as a part of Classical Mythology. On the other hand - and I am not advocating an individualist I will refuse to look at anything outside my sphere approach - I am guessing, and only guessing, for many Christian believers historical human records other than the Bible have not played a role in their initial coming to Christ. So in my convoluted way I am saying I believe such evidence forms part of the bigger picture but I wouldn’t go as far as to say their existence are the foundation of faith itself.
All the best for your upcoming weekend.
Jean, my upcoming weekend is downgoing with an injured shoulder that has postponed some expected drawing and painting.
ReplyDeleteBW