Once you begin to consider the reasonability of self-authoritativeness as a method of validating the Bible, you must eventually backtrack to consider also the theologians’ methods of analyzing the texts. In other words, no one can reasonably designate a text as inspired until they have first sufficiently substantiated its more superficial claims, such as the time in which it was written and its authorship. We must never forget the inherent weight of the adjective, divinely inspired. A claim as heavy as this one invites a level of critique probably far more severe than we have yet had to accommodate, and yet we often treat such critiques as trifle annoyances. What a Christian experiences as a bothersome triviality might, for the non-believer, seem an insurmountable obstacle to belief. My question, then, is how these more superficial claims are being tested by researchers within the field. Are the methods employed sufficient? Are the conclusions drawn continuous with the evidence?
As a necessary preface to this discussion, let me cite Richard Dawkins’ argument for how faith can be positively examined by science:
“’The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven (quote by Stephen Jay Gould).’…The moment religion steps on science’s [turf, however,] and starts to meddle in the real world with miracles, it ceases to be religion in the sense Gould is defending, and his amicabilis concordia (lit., friendly agreement) is broken (The God Delusion, pg. 55, 60).”
To paraphrase Dawkins’ argument for our purposes: Although religion might claim certain attributes of itself ‘beyond the realm of science’, there are inarguably certain instances in which the two overlap (such as claims to the age of the earth, the feasibility of Noah’s ark, and - of special concern to our present argument - dates and events cited in biblical texts). Each of these things can be objectively examined within the realm of science, history, or whatever particular field the claims or events happen to infringe upon. However crystal clear this concept might be, and however simple it might sound to distinguish fact from fiction upon these guidelines, the pursuit of truth proves as difficult as ever, as I intend to demonstrate.
Historical researchers often employ science to support or lend credibility to a potential historical truth, but the application of science to the process is limited at best. Historians - or as far as it concerns the Bible, theologians - often adopt a set of criteria by which to analyze the scriptures in order to achieve the most balanced picture of what really happened. Such criteria differs between schools of thought (whether conservative or liberal) and might include such considerations as language used; cohesiveness of thought; literary structure; references to people, dates, or events; plausible influences; cultural conditions; authorship; extent of circulation and reproduction; and archaeological evidence. Historical truth, therefore, is achieved by determining the most likely scenario given the totality of evidence. The items which compose this list of criteria, as well as the priority that each item is given, is going to differ between different schools of thought. One example, and possibly that of greatest consequence to our discussion, deals with the treatment of prophecy. Among conservative theologians, the presence of prophecy within a text might suggest very little in regards to the date of the text; that is to say, prophecy within a text probably holds only little priority in the overall analysis of the text’s age. In contrast, liberal theologians might reasonably consider seemingly prophetic writing as evidence of actual foreknowledge (the writer either experienced or was familiar with the event). There is an underlying assumption, completely justifiable within the secular worldview, that true prophecy (that is, the foretelling of future events) is not possible. From that stance, it might be reasonable to assume that any prophetic passage within a text was either inserted at a later date by an author who possessed knowledge of the particular event - and possibly, whose agenda would benefit from the pretense of prophetic authority - or that the later accounts (i.e., accounts of Jesus’ lineage or nationality) were adapted in order to fulfill the existing prophecy. From the beginning, there is sown within the mind of the evaluator an underlying distrust (it might also be fairly called an objective skepticism) of biblical content. Among conservatives, there is an equally damning presumption of divine inspiration and the authenticity of prophecy. This is how the board is set…our job, then, becomes to find a common ground upon which to intelligently and objectively discuss the matter.
The products of these two methods of biblical analysis are so worlds apart that any comparison between the two would be about as useful as comparing apples to oranges. By the time we get to discussing the conclusions each school of thought has developed, we’ve already wandered too far away from the real important issue. While the products/conclusions are all that matter in science, with history, it’s the assumptions that bear all the scrutiny. While there are certainly reasons certain groups choose to consider particular items in higher priority than others, these reasons are not all equally valid. Justin, since you are more familiar (I’m assuming) with the actual lists employed by liberal theologians versus conservative theologians to analyze biblical texts, would you mind explaining the strengths and weakness of each criteria set? If you could also maybe reference how this whole process has come to exclude certain other texts from that same period (Gnostic gospels, apocryphal books, etc.), I would appreciate it. Also, maybe write something about the Dead Sea scrolls and how their discovery has effected each methodologies claims (i.e., The Isaiah scroll containing messianic prophecy, thus supporting conservative theologians’ assumptions that such prophecies were not edited in, etc.).
Like I’ve previously pointed out, an error in the conservative theologians’ analysis undermines the claim of divine inspiration; conversely, an error in the liberal theologians’ (or secularists’) analysis of scripture potentially opens the door to the reality of prophecy, thus substantiating the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration. Either way, I think within Dawkin’s frame of mind there is room to test the bible to see whose viewpoint withstands the scrutiny (is based on sound reason) and whose doesn’t. If I need to, I’ll cite particular claims made my Dawkin’s refuting the bible’s accuracy and we can deal with those one by one to see what comes up.
As a necessary preface to this discussion, let me cite Richard Dawkins’ argument for how faith can be positively examined by science:
“’The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven (quote by Stephen Jay Gould).’…The moment religion steps on science’s [turf, however,] and starts to meddle in the real world with miracles, it ceases to be religion in the sense Gould is defending, and his amicabilis concordia (lit., friendly agreement) is broken (The God Delusion, pg. 55, 60).”
To paraphrase Dawkins’ argument for our purposes: Although religion might claim certain attributes of itself ‘beyond the realm of science’, there are inarguably certain instances in which the two overlap (such as claims to the age of the earth, the feasibility of Noah’s ark, and - of special concern to our present argument - dates and events cited in biblical texts). Each of these things can be objectively examined within the realm of science, history, or whatever particular field the claims or events happen to infringe upon. However crystal clear this concept might be, and however simple it might sound to distinguish fact from fiction upon these guidelines, the pursuit of truth proves as difficult as ever, as I intend to demonstrate.
Historical researchers often employ science to support or lend credibility to a potential historical truth, but the application of science to the process is limited at best. Historians - or as far as it concerns the Bible, theologians - often adopt a set of criteria by which to analyze the scriptures in order to achieve the most balanced picture of what really happened. Such criteria differs between schools of thought (whether conservative or liberal) and might include such considerations as language used; cohesiveness of thought; literary structure; references to people, dates, or events; plausible influences; cultural conditions; authorship; extent of circulation and reproduction; and archaeological evidence. Historical truth, therefore, is achieved by determining the most likely scenario given the totality of evidence. The items which compose this list of criteria, as well as the priority that each item is given, is going to differ between different schools of thought. One example, and possibly that of greatest consequence to our discussion, deals with the treatment of prophecy. Among conservative theologians, the presence of prophecy within a text might suggest very little in regards to the date of the text; that is to say, prophecy within a text probably holds only little priority in the overall analysis of the text’s age. In contrast, liberal theologians might reasonably consider seemingly prophetic writing as evidence of actual foreknowledge (the writer either experienced or was familiar with the event). There is an underlying assumption, completely justifiable within the secular worldview, that true prophecy (that is, the foretelling of future events) is not possible. From that stance, it might be reasonable to assume that any prophetic passage within a text was either inserted at a later date by an author who possessed knowledge of the particular event - and possibly, whose agenda would benefit from the pretense of prophetic authority - or that the later accounts (i.e., accounts of Jesus’ lineage or nationality) were adapted in order to fulfill the existing prophecy. From the beginning, there is sown within the mind of the evaluator an underlying distrust (it might also be fairly called an objective skepticism) of biblical content. Among conservatives, there is an equally damning presumption of divine inspiration and the authenticity of prophecy. This is how the board is set…our job, then, becomes to find a common ground upon which to intelligently and objectively discuss the matter.
The products of these two methods of biblical analysis are so worlds apart that any comparison between the two would be about as useful as comparing apples to oranges. By the time we get to discussing the conclusions each school of thought has developed, we’ve already wandered too far away from the real important issue. While the products/conclusions are all that matter in science, with history, it’s the assumptions that bear all the scrutiny. While there are certainly reasons certain groups choose to consider particular items in higher priority than others, these reasons are not all equally valid. Justin, since you are more familiar (I’m assuming) with the actual lists employed by liberal theologians versus conservative theologians to analyze biblical texts, would you mind explaining the strengths and weakness of each criteria set? If you could also maybe reference how this whole process has come to exclude certain other texts from that same period (Gnostic gospels, apocryphal books, etc.), I would appreciate it. Also, maybe write something about the Dead Sea scrolls and how their discovery has effected each methodologies claims (i.e., The Isaiah scroll containing messianic prophecy, thus supporting conservative theologians’ assumptions that such prophecies were not edited in, etc.).
Like I’ve previously pointed out, an error in the conservative theologians’ analysis undermines the claim of divine inspiration; conversely, an error in the liberal theologians’ (or secularists’) analysis of scripture potentially opens the door to the reality of prophecy, thus substantiating the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration. Either way, I think within Dawkin’s frame of mind there is room to test the bible to see whose viewpoint withstands the scrutiny (is based on sound reason) and whose doesn’t. If I need to, I’ll cite particular claims made my Dawkin’s refuting the bible’s accuracy and we can deal with those one by one to see what comes up.
No comments:
Post a Comment