Is the field of Biblical Studies Un-Godly?

[Mormons Talk]

Is the field of biblical studies inherently ungodly? I don't think so. While some lose faith through it, others emerge with their faith invigorated. If our minds are a gift from God - and I believe they are - then devoting ourselves over to Him should ideally involve our intellect as well as our heart. An unfortunate misconception exists in some circles that regards believers as simpletons, not smart enough to recognize it all as bunk. Sadly, however, we can contribute to this problem when we insist on teaching an infantilized faith that disregards science and secular learning. Too many reflective people come to recognize this infantilized faith as unreal, as untrue, and so they abandon it without ever knowing that more mature, substantive types of faith exist.

The response to this issue shouldn't be to double down and shun education. Rather, it should be embrace learning, to unite intellect with faith - or at least provide avenues to do so. Our secular world sorely needs more role models who have an informed, examined faith.

What prompted this discursion? Running across this book on amazon: Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" - a 700 page defense of the Gospels by a 1st class scholar. It reminded me that for every Robert Price and Bart Ehrman who are agnostic or atheist (and who I thank for the profound contributions and intellectual edification they provide!), there are Richard Bauckhams, NT Wrights, Luke Johnsons, and others who model an intellectually examined faith for those of us who desire it. Learning is its own reward, and it can go hand in hand with faith.

Thoughts?

[Calm]

Well said.

The Glory of God is Intlligence...there must be a reason that word was chosen for the description.  To refuse to participate in activities that push the boundaries of our learning seems to me to be both a form of arrogance and a refusal of the massive gift God has given us in our living in a time when learning can be so easy and so accessible.  We can honor the Spirit by being cautious and relying on it through our studies, not putting the arm of flesh before the arm of God, while still maximizing the output of that arm of flesh when and where we can while respecting God.

Truth wherever it can be found...that is a lot of exploration.

[Gray]

You'd think fundamentalists would be all about trying to understand the historical context and beliefs of the people who wrote the scriptures, but so often it's the case that those things aren't compatible with fundamentalism.

No one should be afraid of academic Biblical studies. In my experience dipping one's toes in (as a layperson) is a faith-enriching experience (and no, you don't need need to cherry pick the most conservative scholars to have that experience).

I'm not familiar with Baukham, but it's hard to imagine a credible scholar claiming that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Gray

[Mormons Talk]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

You'd think fundamentalists would be all about trying to understand the historical context and beliefs of the people who wrote the scriptures, but so often it's the case that those things aren't compatible with fundamentalism.

No one should be afraid of academic Biblical studies. In my experience dipping one's toes in (as a layperson) is a faith-enriching experience (and no, you don't need need to cherry pick the most conservative scholars to have that experience).

I'm not familiar with Baukham, but it's hard to imagine a credible scholar claiming that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

And yet, here is 700 pages doing that. Bauckham is not only credible, he's a star.  But the point of me linking to Bauckham isn't to say he's correct and Ehrman is wrong.  The intellectual discussion will never end, and I would be very sorry if it ever did.  The point is that there is *so much* of intellectual substance in the study of religion, such that no one should ever feel compelled to abandon religion due to a perceived intellectual paucity.  If we're losing bright people, its probably due to our own shortcomings in teaching.  Our teaching should be as good as our subject matter.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Mormons Talk said:

Is the field of biblical studies inherently ungodly? I don't think so. While some lose faith through it, others emerge with their faith invigorated. If our minds are a gift from God - and I believe they are - then devoting ourselves over to Him should ideally involve our intellect as well as our heart. An unfortunate misconception exists in some circles that regards believers as simpletons, not smart enough to recognize it all as bunk. Sadly, however, we can contribute to this problem when we insist on teaching an infantilized faith that disregards science and secular learning. Too many reflective people come to recognize this infantilized faith as unreal, as untrue, and so they abandon it without ever knowing that more mature, substantive types of faith exist.

The response to this issue shouldn't be to double down and shun education. Rather, it should be embrace learning, to unite intellect with faith - or at least provide avenues to do so. Our secular world sorely needs more role models who have an informed, examined faith.

What prompted this discursion? Running across this book on amazon: Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" - a 700 page defense of the Gospels by a 1st class scholar. It reminded me that for every Robert Price and Bart Ehrman who are agnostic or atheist (and who I thank for the profound contributions and intellectual edification they provide!), there are Richard Bauckhams, NT Wrights, Luke Johnsons, and others who model an intellectually examined faith for those of us who desire it. Learning is its own reward, and it can go hand in hand with faith.

Thoughts?

Have you read the book?

[Mormons Talk]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Have you read the book?

No I haven't. It came up in some of my searches, and as I read more about it, it prompted the subject of the post.  It looks pretty dense, actually - probably above my level.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Mormons Talk said:

No I haven't. It came up in some of my searches, and as I read more about it, it prompted the subject of the post.  It looks pretty dense, actually - probably above my level.

I think I have said I don't care for the modern critical textual analysis type of study - I feel it is somewhat ungodly. However, even it has something to be gained from. It is usually beneficial to understand the perspective of others. I believe I did get something out of the class, but it mostly was learning why I don't care for the modern critical, textual analysis.  That has armed me against their conclusions tho. Just recently I was debating with someone whom I felt was siding with "scholars" simply because they were scholars. I personally believe that can be a recipe for personal disaster. In the field of biblical scholarship there are many different perspectives and flavors. For the unaquainted I personally feel it would be best to study a Christian perspective which discusses the other major viewpoints of study so that the reader understands for instance why textual "scholars" conclude the NT was written after the destruction of the temple.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Mormons Talk said:

No I haven't. It came up in some of my searches, and as I read more about it, it prompted the subject of the post.  It looks pretty dense, actually - probably above my level.

Why criticize the faith of the "infantilized" while not reading the example you gave of something that contributes to a more mature faith? It seems analogous to praising the spiritual merits of the Book of Mormon without ever cracking open the book.

[Mormons Talk]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Why criticize the faith of the "infantilized" while not reading the example you gave of something that contributes to a more mature faith? It seems analogous to praising the spiritual merits of the Book of Mormon without ever cracking open the book.

You will note I didn't criticize the people. I criticized the grossly-overly-simplified, too-well-packaged faith that we sometimes teach, and that too many bright people come to reject as being untrue.  Mea culpa for lifting this discussion from its original context - a facebook group where we're delving into biblical studies, many of us for the first time. We had been discussing Bart Ehrman. Some people get threatened by his positions because he discusses how the Gospels were written decades after the fact, and because he argues there's unreliability in oral tradition (therefore undermining the authority of the Gospels). In the context of this discussion, I pointed to Richard Bauckham's book as being an example of scholarly disagreement, and of the fact that Biblical scholars can be quite believing.  

I agree with you that it's best to talk about books you've read.  I actually spend a fair amount of time reading stuff in this area, but the dilemma is that there are thousands of books in the field of biblical studies, and no one has read them all (particularly laymen like me who have day jobs to go to). For some people, it's useful getting a pointer as to where to look for a solution to this or that issue.  Richard Bauckham is a good place to go for people worried about the reliability of oral tradition and the Gospels. I'm basing this not on my own reading, but on the experiences of others that I've read - i.e. reviews.  I find great value in these types of pointers, and was passing along something I thought of value.  If someone were to ask about "Historical Jesus" studies, I wouldn't hesitate to let them know about works by NT Wright, EP Sanders, Crossan, Marcus Borg, JP Meier, and the rest - who I haven't come close to reading the entirety of, but who I know from other reading to be major landmarks for the area.

[Gray]

On 4/29/2017 at 4:14 PM, Mormons Talk said:

And yet, here is 700 pages doing that. Bauckham is not only credible, he's a star.  But the point of me linking to Bauckham isn't to say he's correct and Ehrman is wrong.  The intellectual discussion will never end, and I would be very sorry if it ever did.  The point is that there is *so much* of intellectual substance in the study of religion, such that no one should ever feel compelled to abandon religion due to a perceived intellectual paucity.  If we're losing bright people, its probably due to our own shortcomings in teaching.  Our teaching should be as good as our subject matter.

Did some looking into him. Apparently he's thought of as a generally good conservative scholar but perhaps letting his theological commitments influence his conclusions. In any case I'd be interested in reading his arguments. 

[Nevo]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

Did some looking into him. Apparently he's thought of as a generally good conservative scholar but perhaps letting his theological commitments influence his conclusions. In any case I'd be interested in reading his arguments. 

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is definitely worth a look. Bauckham's arguments have been heavily criticized, of course. But it is a mark of Bauckham's stature in the field that the book has received so much attention. There was an entire issue of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus devoted to it, for example. 

[clarkgoble]

On 4/29/2017 at 3:06 PM, Gray said:

You'd think fundamentalists would be all about trying to understand the historical context and beliefs of the people who wrote the scriptures, but so often it's the case that those things aren't compatible with fundamentalism.

While sometimes that's the case - preferring that tradition trump history - I don't think it's always the case. Rather sometimes there are pretty profound disagreements over context. To give an obvious  example if one accepts prophesy and miracles that radically changes the context in which arguments are made. Now I think often those tending toward "fundamentalist interpretations" overstate how much this affects arguments. (That's especially true in places like Isaiah) Still I think often there's a lot more ambiguity over context than some suggest.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While sometimes that's the case - preferring that tradition trump history - I don't think it's always the case. Rather sometimes there are pretty profound disagreements over context. To give an obvious  example if one accepts prophesy and miracles that radically changes the context in which arguments are made. Now I think often those tending toward "fundamentalist interpretations" overstate how much this affects arguments. (That's especially true in places like Isaiah) Still I think often there's a lot more ambiguity over context than some suggest.

Well, if you're assuming that miracles and prophecies are a reality, you really can't do history and not bracket that assumption. You can do theology and apologetics and devotional materials, and there is of course room for that.

That doesn't mean history rules out miracles and prophesies, but it perhaps defines some limits in which they can operate. A belief in miracles doesn't give us historical evidence for the virgin birth for instance. That doesn't mean you have to reject the virgin birth, but it does mean you take it on faith rather than as a historical conclusion. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, if you're assuming that miracles and prophecies are a reality, you really can't do history and not bracket that assumption. You can do theology and apologetics and devotional materials, and there is of course room for that.

That doesn't mean history rules out miracles and prophesies, but it perhaps defines some limits in which they can operate. A belief in miracles doesn't give us historical evidence for the virgin birth for instance. That doesn't mean you have to reject the virgin birth, but it does mean you take it on faith rather than as a historical conclusion. 

Right. But the point is that is a context. The question often is what contexts one ought consider. But it's not just that. Consider the NT and Morton Smith. To what degree should we read Jesus not through the lens of say the Essens or the Pharissees but through Egyptian magic traditions? These sorts of questions matter a great deal.

Where questions of miracles matter is in how one considers the influence of purportedly miraculous events on believers. So take say the events at the Kirtland Temple. A naturalistic historian will reject the appearance of angels and so forth. So you'll see for instance in Mysteries of Godliness far more emphasis on naturalistic interpretations of events. Yet the believers truly believed it happened. Many of Jesus followers appear to believe he was resurrected. Yet to a naturalistic critic if the events didn't happen one can significantly downplay that. So you have some who push the idea that the very idea of the resurrection comes much later.

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

If it's credible to argue that the gospels are eyewitness testimony of Jesus's mortal life, I'm all ears.  But I admit I'd have to see something to whet my appetite before I jump into the book. 

I can't imagine scriptural study without some knowledge and study of fields like biblical criticism these days. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by stemelbow

[Nevo]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it's credible to argue that the gospels are eyewitness testimony of Jesus's mortal life, I'm all ears.  But I admit I'd have to see something to whet my appetite before I jump into the book. 

I can't imagine scriptural study without some knowledge and study of fields like biblical criticism these days. 

From a post I wrote on another board back in 2008:

Quote

Byrskog characterizes the Gospels as "syntheses of history and story, of the oral history of an eyewitness and the interpretive and narrativizing procedures of an author." Bauckham picks up where Byrskog leaves off and suggests likely examples of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels.

Commenting on Byrskog's work, Bauckham notes that—contra the form-critical assumptions of most twentieth-century critical scholarship—"the eyewitnesses do not disappear behind a long process of anonymous transmission and formation of traditions by communities, but remain an influential presence in the communities, people who should be consulted, who told their stories and whose oral accounts lay at no great distance from the textualized form the Gospels gave them." He suggests that in those Christian communities where eyewitnesses were not present, there were probably "recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries."

Analyzing the fragmentary writings of Papias preserved by Eusebius, probably written around the turn of the second century, Bauckham observes that

Quote:

Papias was clearly not interested in tapping the collective memory as such. He did not think, apparently, of recording the Gospel traditions as they were recited regularly in his own church community. Even in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants. It is natural to suppose that those who were writing the Gospels (our canonical Gospels) at the time of which Papias speaks would have gone about their task similarly, as indeed the preface to Luke's Gospel confirms. For the purpose of recording Gospel traditions in writing, Evangelists would have gone either to eyewitnesses or to the most reliable sources that had direct personal links with the eyewitnesses.

Although geographically widespread, the earliest Christian communities were in close contact with each other so first or secondhand contact with eyewitnesses would not have been unusual (cf. Heb. 2:3-4). Also, "individual eyewitnesses of importance, such as Peter or Thomas, would have had their own disciples, who (like Mark in Peter's case) were familiar enough with their teacher's rehearsal of Jesus traditions to be able to check, as well as to pass on, the traditions transmitted in that eyewitness's name as they themselves traveled around."

Regarding the reliability of eyewitness memory, Bauckham remarks: 

Quote:

In the first place, we can be sure that the eyewitnesses of the events in the history of Jesus would have first told their stories very soon after the event. . . . an eyewitness's story would have acquired a fairly fixed form quite soon. Some key words of Jesus might be remembered precisely, and the story line or structure would be stabilized. . . . As a general rule, frequent rehearsal would have had the effect of preserving an eyewitness's story very much as he or she first remembered and reported it. Of course, we cannot exclude the universal human tendency to "improve" or embellish a good story, but we can exclude the frailties and distortions of memory to a large extent.

 

The eyewitnesses who remembered the events of the history of Jesus were remembering inherently very memorable events, unusual events that would have impressed themselves on the memory, events of key significance for those who remembered them, landmark or life-changing events for them in many cases, and their memories would have been reinforced and stabilized by frequent rehearsal, beginning soon after the event. They did not need to remember--and the Gospels rarely record--merely peripheral aspects of the scene or the event, the aspects of recollective memory that are least reliable. Such details may have been subject to performative variation in the eyewitnesses' tellings of their stories, but the central features of the memory, those that constituted its meaning for those who witnessed and attested it, are likely to have been preserved reliably.

Bauckham concludes the book with these reflections:

Quote:

Trusting testimony is indispensible to historiography. This trust need not be blind faith. In the "critical realist" historian's reception and use of testimony there is a dialectic of trust and critical assessment. But the assessment is precisely an assessment of the testimony as trustworthy or not. What is not possible is independent verification or falsification of everything the testimony relates such that the testimony would no longer be needed. Testimony shares the fragility of memory, which is testimony's sole access to the past . . . . But, for most purposes, testimony is all we have. There are, indeed, other traces of the past in the present (such as archaeological finds), which can to a degree corroborate or discredit testimony, but they cannot, in most cases, suffice for the study and writing of history. . . .

Participant eyewitness testimony has a special role when it comes to events that transcend the common experience of historians and their readers. The more exceptional the event, the more historical imagination alone is liable to lead us seriously astray. Without the participant witness that confronts us with the sheer otherness of the event, we will reduce it to the measure of our own experience. In such cases, insider testimony may puzzle us or provoke disbelief, but, for the sake of maintaining the quest for the truth of history, we must allow the testimony to resist the limiting pressure of our own experiences and expectations.

So what Bauckham and Byrskog are saying, in effect, is that the Gospels (for the most part) reliably preserve first-hand testimony of Jesus. Of course, we are free to trust or distrust that testimony.

 

http://www.mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=135499#p135499

That should give you some sense of Bauckham's book. You can read more about his approach here: http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/Denver.pdf.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Right. But the point is that is a context. The question often is what contexts one ought consider. But it's not just that. Consider the NT and Morton Smith. To what degree should we read Jesus not through the lens of say the Essens or the Pharissees but through Egyptian magic traditions? These sorts of questions matter a great deal.

Where questions of miracles matter is in how one considers the influence of purportedly miraculous events on believers. So take say the events at the Kirtland Temple. A naturalistic historian will reject the appearance of angels and so forth. So you'll see for instance in Mysteries of Godliness far more emphasis on naturalistic interpretations of events. Yet the believers truly believed it happened. Many of Jesus followers appear to believe he was resurrected. Yet to a naturalistic critic if the events didn't happen one can significantly downplay that. So you have some who push the idea that the very idea of the resurrection comes much later.

I don't know, I think you can acknowledge the effect that visionary experiences have on people, even if you ascribe a naturalistic explanation for them. And I think there are many who personally reject the supernatural who will acknowledge that the belief that God "awakened" Yeshua and vindicated him by putting him at his right hand started quite early. 

Not to say that biases don't affect people on either side (believing/non-believing) because of course they do. And we know so little about the historical Jesus that there are several equally plausible narratives that one can reasonably hold to.    

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't know, I think you can acknowledge the effect that visionary experiences have on people, even if you ascribe a naturalistic explanation for them. And I think there are many who personally reject the supernatural who will acknowledge that the belief that God "awakened" Yeshua and vindicated him by putting him at his right hand started quite early. 

Not to say that biases don't affect people on either side (believing/non-believing) because of course they do. And we know so little about the historical Jesus that there are several equally plausible narratives that one can reasonably hold to.    

One can definitely accept the objective fact of how people respond to visionary experiences. But I think if you look at biographies like Brodie or Vogel of Joseph Smith that how they deal with it is quite different for them than say Bushman even though Bushman's trying to be objective. Of course that appears not merely because of naturalistic commitments but, as Bushman notes in the introduction, a different style of history. So I'm definitely not saying a non-believer can't treat "supernatural" experiences the way Bushman does. That's a distinct style of history where you bracket certain truth claims. I'm just saying that within Biblical criticism that's not always done. That is while Biblical criticism clearly is affected by overarching academic history trends - particularly the loose category of postmodernism that arose in the 70's and 80's - in some ways how they do it tends to be different. Again though there are definitely different schools within Biblical studies. 

An other way of putting this is the question of to what degree contemporary contexts are imposed upon the past. Say how Lutheran theology affects how particular schools of Biblical scholars read Paul versus (to pick an example) how N. T. Wright reads Paul.

So perhaps a different way of putting my point isn't that I'm claiming all Biblical scholars are affected by these assumptions just that many are.

Edited May 3, 2017 by clarkgoble