Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Claims and Actions about the Bible

    The surest sign that somebody doesn’t read the Bible that much is that they claim to do everything it says. Now there are lots of ways to nuance that statement, but I’ve found that in general those who make the claim are unaware of many commands of the Bible, and don’t have an explanation for why they don’t follow those commands. (There are plenty of commands given in the Bible that don’t apply to you.)

    Unfortunately many people regard claiming to follow the Bible or do all the things it says is a sign of piety, so whether or not they know what the Bible says they make the claim.

    Via Twitter I found this post at Coram Deo, in which some such ignorance is documented. I think Matt makes many good suggestions for dealing with this Biblical ignorance.

    I would add two things:

    1. Address controversial issues in the church, rather than sticking with questions that permit “Sunday School answers”
    2. Remember those commands in the Bible that deal with honesty and integrity, and don’t claim to value the Bible if you don’t actually read and study it.

    Check out Matt’s entire post.

  • On Mythicist Views of Jesus

    For those who may not watch all these things the term “mythicists” refers to those who believe Jesus never existed, that the stories about him were made up at some point and were not even centered on a minimal historical figure. There is a near alternative which holds that there were so few valid words of actions of the historical figure that he might as well have just been some random figure. But that’s a different argument.

    James McGrath has an excellent short post on this, which will go into my library of links to use in response to such questions. I think he makes his case well and does so in easily understood language. He gets us away from “proof arguments” which dominate so much amateur discussion of history. Very little, if anything, can be absolutely proven about history even if it happened yesterday. One deals with probabilities. Sometimes these probabilities are overwhelming, but even so we should remember they are probabilities so as to deal reasonably with the less probable events.

    In any case, read the whole post at Exploring Our Matrix.

  • On Etymological and Anti-Etymological Fallacies

    Clayboy has an excellent post on preachers who say “What the Greek really means…” or words to that effect.  I was drawn to this one because of my own experience.

    My wife tells me that when we first got married she quickly got used to watching me during sermons.  I need to tell you that my wife is extraordinarily observant and will catch people–especially me–trying to conceal feelings and reactions.  She told me that I was very good at concealing my reaction, but she would see me get a certain fixed expression on my face whenever a preacher said “What the Greek really means …”  (They rarely do it with Hebrew, but for what it’s worth, the comments on Hebrew are generally less accurate than those on Greek.)

    Often the preacher is simply replacing he word in his English translation with one that is possible, though not necessarily probable, but which better supports his point.  Besides the inaccuracy, I dislike the implication that someone with a couple of years of Greek can correct the work of translation committees in such an authoritative fashion.

    I also, however, understand the reservations expressed by Bob MacDonald in the comments in reminding us that etymology has value.  It can be useful in studying the history of words or in suggesting meanings for derived forms for which we have too few examples in the literature.  Of course, the context of the word in actual used, studied as synchronically as possible, governs, but the etymology can be very useful.

    I’ve encountered a few people who have heard of the etymological fallacy, and some of the very careless uses of etymology, especially in ancient near eastern studies, and have therefore determined that any use of etymology must be a fallacy.  There are legitimate uses.

    My suggestion to preachers and teachers has always been to use whatever skills they have in the original languages for they’re worth in preparing to teach, but to avoid making the sermon into a language lesson.  There are, after all, many factors other than the structure of language in understanding a text.

    I recall one professor I had in graduate school who was incredibly good at the structure and vocabulary of a language.  I took readings in Biblical Aramaic from him and I value highly the time I spent in his classes.  But while he could analyze the nuts and bolts better than anyone I have encountered, before or after, I would not rely on him for the exegesis of a passage.  The only thing he cared about were those nuts and bolts.  Which is fine–I’d build on his foundation any day.

    The problem, as I see it, is that when we use the language to give a single word for “what the Greek really means” or provide a few synonyms, we imply that getting the right gloss for the word is what using Biblical languages is all about.  It’s much better to learn to express the result in good English–assuming that’s the language in which we’re preaching.

  • Justice Thomas on Citizens United

    I don’t find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Justice Thomas very often, but Allan Bevere calls attention to remarks he made in Florida (NY Times), and I think he makes some very good points.

    Allan says:

    Interesting, isn’t it? In the fear over the corrupting influence of lots of money, some folk haven’t even considered the corrupting influence of regulating speech.

    Just so. Head on over to Allan’s blog and comment. I’m going to close comments here.

  • Fallibility, Inerrancy, and Mystery

    I think Mark at Pseudo-Polymath is absolutely correct in his excellent post Of Scripture and Tradition.

    When I first decided that inerrancy didn’t work, it was because I found errors as they would be defined by the people that first taught me to regard the Bible as inerrant.  At the same time I remained convinced of Biblical inspiration.  Over time this has evolved in my mind to the position that inerrancy causes us to ask the wrong questions of scripture, something I still believe, despite the efforts of many to frame inerrancy so that it does not have that effect.  My problem is that once one has so framed inerrancy, it appears meaningless to me.

    It seems to me that we try to judge the Bible as a book amongst books, and that we err in doing so whether our judgment is favorable or not.  As scripture, the Bible is a unique phenomenon.  There is no standard by which we could judge it.  There is no category “books inspired by God” which as a set of criteria (presumably also divinely inspired) against which we can judge the Bible.

    I like Mark’s statement “The mystery is the experience …”  That is a very good descriptive phrase.

    Now I don’t think there is any problem evaluating the Bible’s impact on some area of study, for example, its value to historical study, and so forth.  But its value to historical study is not the same thing as its value as God’s message.

  • Essence Restored on the Repeal of Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell

    He thinks Christians should support the repeal, and explains his position very clearly.

  • Congratulations Ken Brown of C.Orthodoxy

    Head on over and congratulate Ken Brown. He’s headed to Göttingen, Germany for his doctorate.

  • Can One Be a Bibleist?

    I received a link to the following video in a tweet from @TheActiveWord.  It seems so closely related to my last post that I’d include it here:

    There are several things I agree with here.  First, I do believe that the Bible has the sovereignty of God and the responsibility (of which some sort of free will seems to be a corollary) of humanity.  Second, I also find labels confining.  Yet the very act of using language involves assigning labels, and I note that Rev. Coy is unafraid to apply labels to the editors of Christianity Today.

    But the bottom line again is the idea, presented right toward the end, that one can be a “Bibleist” and believe “the Word of God” without “man’s interpreations.”  Yet even the statement that the concepts of sovereignty and responsibility exist together in some sort of tension is an interpretation.

    I don’t understand why so many Christians are afraid to admit that they are interpreting and then they are following their interpretations.  It sounds so pious to claim that one is following just the word of God without any human involvement.  But by the very fact of recognizing it as God’s word, reading it, and applying it, you are interpreting it.  It’s nothing to be ashamed of.  It’s just a fact.