(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION:
Would you please explain more on the differences between Biblical history and theology? Is it difficult as an historian to keep these separate in your personal beliefs?
RESPONSE:
I was all set to write up an answer to this question, but then as I was plotting it out, it occurred to me that I was just going to say what I had already said in the Excursus to the first chapter of my Bible Intro. And so I’ve decided just to give that. I hope you don’t mind! If there are further questions from anyone, or need for clarification, do let me know.
Here’s what I tell my student-readers at the beginning of the book, to explain the difference between a theological (or confessional) approach to the Bible and a historical approach.
__________________________________________________________________________
EXCURSUS
Most of the people who are deeply interested in the Bible in modern American culture are committed Jews or Christians who have been taught that this is a book of sacred texts, Scripture, unlike other books. For many of these – especially many Christian believers – the Bible is the inspired word of God. In communities of faith that hold such views, the Bible is usually studied not from a historical perspective by situating it in its own historical context, or in order to learn about its discrepancies and inconsistencies, or in order to learn that it may have historical mistakes in it. You yourself may find the historical approach to stand at odds with what you have been taught to believe. If so, then it is for you in particular that I want to provide these brief additional reflections in this excursus.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW!!!
I know that you posted something on the virgin birth in Isaiah in the past (which I think was in fact an excerpt from your forthcoming Bible Intro book) – but can you elaborate how how you will apply your approach you discuss here with passages such as Isaiah 7 where there is debate around whether it is a prophecy refering to Jesus or not. Will you take a hardline interpretation and saying it must not be referring to Jesus, or will you just outline the major interpretations and stay neutral so the reader doesn’t know how you personally interpret it?
I’ll try to respond to the question — a good one! — directly on my blog.
Professor Ehrman,
You said here that “For many of these – especially many Christian believers – the Bible is the inspired word of God.” Would you consider at one point writing a basic post or series of posts on the range of views about biblical inspiration within Christianity? e.g. historically and today, what Christians held to biblical inerrancy, what are alternatives to biblical inerrancy within Christianity, whether all Christians hold to the broad view that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and how those who do not treat the Bible as a text. Also, how do informed Christians today reconcile their views of biblical inspiration with modern historical critical findings, e.g. that certain books of the Bible are forgeries? And why do Christians today, as opposed to e.g. during the Council of Trent, hold books within the canon to be inspired or authoritative but not books outside of it?
Thanks!
Huge questions! it would take a full book! But I may respond to parts of them on the blog down the line. Thanks for raising the issues.
I have read your thoughts about the separation of history from faith previously and, as always, you have such a gift for thinking and writing that you express these ideas very capably. Do you think, however, that faith can really be separated so cleanly from history? Aren’t history and faith tightly intertwined? If, for example, one’s faith is based on reading the Gospels, since the Gospels are our main source of information about Jesus, and if one then discovers that these Gospels, because of their numerous contradictions, are not historically reliable, doesn’t that historical information undermine one’s faith? I know, I know, you have written that you did not lose your faith because of such historical findings, but because of the problem of suffering, but I still think it is hard to have faith if the historical evidence for that faith is weak. I think this, as you know, explains why so many react so strongly to your criticisms of the Biblical evidence.
I”ve tried to respond in my new post. It’s a good question/point!
I find the explanation more confusing. When is something for the public record and when not?
I would say anything that requires a faith commitment to a doctrine or theological assumption or belief is not a matter of the public record. That Jesus was crucified was there for all to see; that he died for your sins is a theological statement. The first is a historical statement (part of the public record) and the second a theological one (not of the public record). Make sense?
Can’t wait! Sounds like a great book.
A fundamentalist/ very conservative evangelical might affirm that the writers of the biblical books had a wide range of perspectives, but could not affirm that they disagree with each other, or that they ever made flat out mistakes. To do so would contradict his high view of Biblical inerrancy, and would mean that he was no longer a thoroughgoing fundamentalist/evangelical.
So some Christians might accept some or all of your historical perspectives and retain some or all of their Christian faith positions, but any fundamentalist/ evangelical who accepted these historical insights will have undergone a major change in his theological outlook, of such magnitude that in many cases one might anticipate that many of his other Christian faith positions will be up for serious reconsideration.
OK, I’ve tried to respond to your good point in my new post today.
I think this was my question!