Fernando Peregrin Gutierrez said

Damian King said
Biblical inerrancy is a doctrine in Christianity that the Bible is in some sense inerrant. . 
So my question is, how would a secular historian, who is trying to be neutral, approach a theological doctrine like the inerrancy of the Bible? How can someone neutral take sides on this issue?

The hypothesis, rather than the doctrine for is not such a thing, of the inerrancy of the Bible enters fully into Popper’s logic of falsification. That is, it is a falsifiable assertion. What in practice means that it is enough to find a mistake in the Bible, of whatever kind, so that the belief that the Bible is inerrant is false.
The problem is that there is not only one mistake, but hundreds and thousands of them, and it is difficult to choose the most fun and crazy of them all.
On the other hand, I believe that this claim of a group of fundamentalists, very pressured by the Young Earth Creationists (YEC), is one of the mistakes that have done the most damage to evangelical Christianity. The nonsense and idolatry of the Bible that is behind this madness is so obvious that it ridicules large numbers of evangelical Christians that believe it. (Let us not forget that more than 50% of US pastors are firm believers in the YEC, that of the 6,000-10,000 years of age of the earth and the universe)  

I have never heard a scholar describe Shakespeare as containing “Thousands of mistakes”. I simply have not. I am sure scholars do not think that Shakespeare’s Richard II is an accurate historical record, but they simply do not refer to such works as “full of mistakes.” Such language only seems to apply to the Bible. Which is what brought my question on

I

godspell said
Shakespeare wrote fiction.  How can fiction be inerrant?  Are you saying the Bible is fiction too?  Some of it–Job, for example–undoubtedly is.  Most is a mixture of real events and myth, not written as fiction or as history in the modern sense. And of course some is poetry–the Song of Solomon–poetry has a certain license–perhaps you’ve heard of it?

Bart’s wife is a noted Shakespearean scholar, and I’m sure she would tell you, that in spite of the relatively small span of years between the writing of the plays and the publication of the First Folio (and remembering Mr. Gutenberg’s invention, that greatly diminished the role of the copyist), there are many textual variants among the surviving copies.  Shakespeare wrote his plays out by hand, and very often ad libs by actors ended up being included in later versions.  There are also the infamous ‘Bowlderized’ versions, where his plays were rewritten to remove material considered objectionable.  

So I don’t know you’d call them ‘mistakes’ , but of course Bart isn’t saying all the changes to the text of the Old and New Testament were mistakes.  Some were intentional.  Most were just unavoidable copying errors, that in some cases changed the meaning of a given text.  

Bart does his job–and you accuse him of bias.

And refuse to admit your own.

But worse than your bias is your invincible ignorance.  You didn’t even bother to Google.  “I haven’t heard of mistakes in Shakespeare, so no one has ever mentioned them.”  The things you haven’t heard of, written on sheets of flyleaf, and piled one on top the other, would reach to the moon and back, you blatherskite.  😀  

 I will ask you not to reply to my threads anymore. I am not interested in anything you have to say anymore. And I cannot bare your responses anymore. Please, do not bother me and stay as far away as possible from all my threads. I don’t want to see or hear anything from people as deranged as you again. Hope you understand. Thanks

Robert said

Damian King said
Biblical inerrancy is a doctrine in Christianity that the Bible is in some sense inerrant. Now, there may be various ways different Christians explain it. Some might hold to absolute inerrancy to the point of being young earth creationists. Others may hold to the idea that Biblical theology is inerrant, while admitting that the Bible does not set itself up as a textbook. Whatever the case may be, it is undeniably a theological doctrine. Now, opponents of Christianity may challenge this theological doctrine. 

My thread today is about when secular Biblical scholars get involved in this doctrine, and whether it is neutral. Critical scholars like Dr Ehrman, have made their careers explaining that the way they study the Bible and Christianity is analogous to how people study Homer or Shakespeare. But then I hear these same Biblical scholars say something like: “The Bible is not inerrant.” or the “Gospels are full of discrepancies and errors.” I simply have not seen Shakespeare described that way. And I have not seen someone question the “inerrancy” of Homer. 

So my question is, how would a secular historian, who is trying to be neutral, approach a theological doctrine like the inerrancy of the Bible? How can someone neutral take sides on this issue?

I hope that makes sense  

The problem is that, unlike the fields of secular history or Shakespearean literary scholarship, so-called biblical ‘scholarship’, especially in the United States, is dominated by conservative, evangelical, and even fundamentalist ‘scholars’ whose work is warped by such theological and confessional nonsense. I studied among European scholars for several years and we simply ignored all of this idiocy and did our scholarly work in peace and blissful etymological ignorance of non-scholarship. Bart, in part because of his fundamentalist past, his graduate seminary training, and his setting in the US, even in the bible belt, and his admirable desire to write for laypeople, and many other US scholars, genuine scholars like Bart without scare quotes, nonetheless work in confessional seminaries or with scholars and publishers in such settings and they sometimes end up doing battle in this arena, or at least try to distance themselves from or at least make themselves understood among the crazies.   

I never asked your opinion about Christians. Or how we are crazy. What I asked was about how a neutral Biblical scholar can interact with a subject like “Biblical inerrancy” and still claim to be neutral. Biblical inerrancy is a theological doctrine of Christianity and has nothing to do with secular Biblical studies 

Robert said

Sorry if you didn’t like my answer, but I don’t think you can separate a ‘neutral biblical scholar’ from the context in which he or she lives and works. I never said you personally or all Christians are crazy–I was speaking of some conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist scholars working in confessional and seminary environments that are indeed practically forced to deal with such issues.  

I am a committed Roman Catholic believer, and I am tired of all my questions ending in my faith being ridiculed, either by that lunatic or by you. I am aware that ex-Catholic atheists are by far the most deranged group that exists on this planet, but try to at least have some tact. I am new here and I feel completely unwelcomed by this rude behavior. I certainly never said anything to cause this hate. 

Robert said

When did I ridicule your faith? I have absolutely no hate for you whatsoever.  

Stop gaslighting me. I do not want your deranged answers here. I finally got rid of the one lunatic, and the last thing I need is another. Just leave me alone. Please, do not comment on my threads anymore. That’s it. Engage with others. Not with me. I ask you. Thanks