(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION:
I want to ask your thoughts on something quickly because I think it points out one of the concerns I have with what you write and say.
It seems that you have a willingness to take different positions (or maybe emphasize different positions is the right way to say it) depending on where you are and what you’re advocating. In your interview with the Infidel Guy and other places, you talk about how ancient writings were dictated all the time. On the Infidel Guy show, for example, you said the following: “Every person who wrote epistles in the ancient world dictated them to scribes”. But in your debate with Darrell Bock on the Unbelievable radio show (August 6, 2011) you try and argue the case that there is no evidence for dictation having happened in the ancient world (specifically in response to this claim about 1 and 2 Peter).
I have also been told that when you speak in scholarly circles, the sensationalistic claims you make about the unreliability of the Bible when speaking to laymen are much more toned down because your peers aren’t as susceptible to the shock factor as college students.
Like I said above, I like how you speak and write and I think you’ve done some real good by turning peoples’ attention to a greater awareness of Biblical criticism. But it disturbs me that you seem to be willing to take different positions based on what you’re trying to achieve at the time.
RESPONSE:
I hear this criticism from time to time, and so would like to respond to it here. I wish I could say that I will respond to it once and for all, but the reality is that there is no way to keep anyone from criticizing you, even if they make criticisms you’ve already answered (or tried to answer). Or so I’ve noticed…. But I don’t think this criticism is fair and so want to address it.
I should explain that this question came to me in an email, and I explained myself to the person who sent it, who wasn’t being mean-minded or bad-willed about it at all; afterwards he indicated that he was satisfied with my response and thanked me for it. Here I’m just using his question as an example of the kind of criticism I sometimes get.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, SO JOIN ALREADY!!!
I have a couple questions for you regarding the reliability or unreliability of an ancient document. What is the definition of a historically reliable and/or unreliable document? At what point does an ancient source become reliable or unreliable? Is there a rating system or scale at play? If 10% of the stories in an ancient source are fictional and 90% are historical does that make the text reliable or unreliable? I find that a lot of scholars throw these terms around (regardless of whether or not they are believers, skeptics, conservative, liberal etc.) and they never really explain what they mean by the term historically reliable or historically unreliable. Craig Evans agreed with you in your debates with him that there are discrepancies in the NT Gospels. Yet, he believes that the basic structure of the Gospel narratives about Jesus are historically reliable in what they tell us about Jesus historically. With you, you look at sources that have discrepancies and that makes the sources unreliable. At what point is a text reliable? 51% reliable? 60%? 80%? 95%? As an historian, at what point would you deem a source reliable. also…..”Can you name a single document from antiquity that IS historically reliable?” Thanks, Greg
I don’t think you can do history like that, coming up with mathmatical formula and statistical probabilities. Think about an analogy: suppose your spouse told you the truth 90% of the time (and, so, not the other 10% of the time). Would you consider him/her “reliable” and “trustworthy”? You could argue — well, yeah, but s/he tells the truth nine times as often as not!! But, well… And what if it were 91%. Or 93%. Or 86%. You simply don’t treat the issue that way. If you have a friend who gives you driving directions (well, you don’t, now that we have google maps; but suppose you do), and she is correct in the directions she gives 88% of the time. Will you *ever* trust her? Suppose it’s 90%. Or 92% or 76%? Do you really calculate it that way?
As to “other” documents from the ancient world: this sounds like you’re saying that if one is not as bad as the other, then it must be completely trustworthy. Even if the Gospel of Mark is more accurate than Plutarch’s Life of Alexander (I doubt if it is, but suppose it is), would that have any bearing on whether it was reliable?
I think you simply have to make judgments on a case-by-case basis using all the methodological rigor you can to decide what happened in the past. when you do it that way, the question of “are the Gospels reliable?” (or more reliable that Plutarch, or Suetonius, or Josephus, or whatever) ends up being more or less beside the point.
So would you say it’s not wise for historians to say the gospels are historically reliable or unreliable? Are you ok with just saying “we need to look at one pericope at a time.” I think I’ve come to the point personally that I’d rather say the gospels are more reliable than not. That doesn’t mean they are completely reliable or unreliable. I think it’s time we stop saying they are historically reliable and/or unreliable. Where I don’t think your analogy flies is that I’m not convinced that the Gospel authors were intentionally trying to mislead the readers. If I had a friend who got the directions accurate 75% of the time, that would mean they are mostly reliable…but not completely. I think percentages to matter. I wouldn’t say that a person who is wrong 20% of the time was unreliable. I would say they were generally trustworthy but not completely. I think many conservative and skeptical scholars go too far in either direction. May I ask you: do you think the gospels are more reliable than not, or more unreliable than reliable? I think percentages do matter. How can you say that a document or friend who messes up say 20% is unreliable? Why is one scholar who says the gospels are unreliable or one who says they are reliable right or wrong? By the way: I’m not asking about other ancient documents to show the gospels are more reliable. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if some ancient histories are more “reliable” than the gospels. I’m just asking a general question. Are there ANY historically reliable texts or documents from antiquity? If yes/no,
What is your criteria for deciding this. I’m trying to see what your gut/intellectual threshold is for deeming a source reliable or unreliable in general. This is not a trap, just an honest question.
So you’re saying that if your best friend says is wrong in what he says, say, 20% of the time, either because he lies or is mistaken, you would consider him basically trustworthy??? (Because he is “more reliable than not”) And if you have four friends who disagee with each other lots of the time, in both small things and large, you would consider them all reliable? OK, then — I don’t think we feel the same way about this!
I wish we *could* do history statistically. It would make things so much easier. But alas, it can’t be done. No one’s fault. It just can’t be done.
It’s a good question about other ancient sources. Off hand, no, I can’t think of any that are reliable, in the sense that you can simply take their word for what they say as being historically accurate without critical inquiry (certainly not Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Tacitus, and — on and on) (and these are the authors who were actually *trying* to do history; they weren’t writing “good news” but “bioi” and “histories”!)
“What differs is the approach – depending completely on who the audience is and what it is able to hear.”
It has been my experience, while working in churches, that only a small number of any given church has a solid background in scripture, and what they do know is a often mixture of prooftexting, what friends have told them, bits and pieces of sermons, cultural traditions within the churches and so on.
Since it would seem the overall objective of being a church worker (pastor, minister, priest, church education director, youth leader, and such) is to communicate the essential truths of the Christian faith.
However, I have found that trying to break through years and years of firmly entrenched notions about what is true and false in the Scriptures and the traditional teachings of the churches is very difficult.
For, example, I once tried to explore the idea in a class that Jesus may not have been raised a physical body (that is…a corpse) (wanting to explore this idea in discussion), and the reaction was one of shock and awe that I would dare even raise the subject. It was untouchable to suggest such an idea. I was unable to speak any further about this. What I was saying was heresy even though such critical analysis was one of total acceptance in the seminary I attended many years ago.
When you, as a scholar, speak with other scholars, they expect such discussions. When I, as a non-scholar, read one of your trade books on these subjects, I do so with the intent of learning more about the subject of the book in order to pass such information along to those with whom I work. The problem is with the audience. My audience has no interest in hearing that Holy Scripture may be flawed.
If our job, in the church trenches, is to communicate to our church people what the scholars have to say about all sorts of religious issues, and it falls onto an unwilling-to-listen audience, what are we to do? Perpetuate the fairy tales? It seems the line of communication breaks down on the local church level…those we want to teach do not want to learn. Very frustrating. I do not know how to encourage them to learn new ideas.
.
Great question. I’m not a church person any more, so am probably not the best person to ask. But I do have to say that when I *was* a church person — and even now, when I speak in churches — I found that the greatest challenge was showing people WHY this kind of information is both intersting and important. That’s a real skill — in fact, it’s the most important skill you can acquire as a communicator. Some people can do it naturally, others have to work at it. But if something matters to you, you need to figure out why it should matter to someone else, and then figure out, next, how to get them to see that and to be interested in seeing it. Hope you can figure it out!!
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question. I was deeply involved in local church work throughout the 1960s including 3 years of seminary. In 1969 I decided that I did not have the “authority” to tell other people what to believe and how to live, since I did not know how I should live or what I should believe, so I went into public school teaching (5th grade !!!) with the intent of helping young people develop the tools that will help them learn about life for themselves.
I attend a variety of religious groups, interact with many internet blogs and resources, and many are inter-faith (especially Jewish and Buddhist) and I practice “Mindful Meditation” as time allows (I would love to teach those skills in a local church environment ;>)).
The bottom line is this for me….I am a life long learner (and I encouraged my students to be the same). I often get notes on Facebook from previous students thanking me for helping them with these academic skills and helping them to find their talents (one previous 5th grade student told me that he believe that he was math stupid and that I gave him the confidence to believe in his skills. He is now involved in a major industry that involves advanced math skills !!).
In that regard, I am always learning something new, and this is where you and others help me….but, I will never reach, in my life, the point that such learning comes to an end.
When I discuss anything with anyone I tell them this: “All that I know is that I don’t know; I am still seeking understanding.”
I am not a scholar. My left brain fails me, especially in learning languages. I’m more of a doer….with regard to Christianity, I am a “social justice” person and work with many groups to help those who are gravely in need of such help. One I work with is with a group in Cascabel Nicaragua with about 20+ “garbage picker” orphans. It’s called “Flutemaker Ministries.” It was founded by a bamboo Flute Maker in Florida named Erik Sampson. Please check out his web site if you have time. Erik is a very funny man with a great spirit and is doing wonderful work.
flutemakerministries.org
So…whether there is or is not a god, I am doing good work (not “good works”) in my very small way, and that is satisfaction enough.
I am reading your book, “God’s Problem.” and what you are saying is very helpful to me personally.
I want to thank you for taking so much of your time to reach out to us with your knowledge and insights, and for the good you are doing with your charitable projects.
Blessings, Todd
Very nicely said. So infuriating when people “quote you” as saying something entirely different! There’s usually no way to reach the people they’ve said it to so you’re wondering how many people are going to believe this person or check it out for themselves.
After years of my not being able to discuss textual and historical Biblical questions openly without being attacked for having a lack of faith, your books, your debates on the Internet, your Teaching Company courses, and now this blog have meant so much to me. Keep plugging along. Sometimes, those who profess to be so Christian are just not very courteous, tolerant, or respectful and don’t critically examine crucial questions for a variety of reasons. It is not my role to judge why, but it is disappointing. It would be more helpful if they tried to work out a faith that includes textual and historical criticism rather than defending Biblical literalism no matter what.
yes William lane Craig has said this about you as im sure you know. Ive read many people say that you make the variants of the NT manuscripts out to be a big problem when you know full well that there are only lots of variants because there are so many manuscripts and this actually helps us reconstruct the originals with confidence. People don’t seem to hear that you acknowledge this but also state that but state there some places where we cant know be confident what early copies said and that the earliest copies differ the most.