"All Things Considered" segment on Bible discrepancies.

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Bikewer
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
I've read a number of Bart Ehrman's books on the various problems with "scripture", as well as the fact that these difficulties have been well known to the scholarly community for a very long time but seldom if ever does this discussion get to the pulpit and that the average believer remains quite ignorant of same.
NPR's All Things Considered just did a segment on the research being done by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary which addresses the very things Ehrman writes about.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries
(read or streaming audio)

The segment points out the research into later additions, mistranslations, poor-quality work from early scribes... All the things that Ehrman has been pointing out for years and which believers have been taking him to task for....
And this from a prominent religiously-based facility.
 
Bikewer said:
I've read a number of Bart Ehrman's books on the various problems with "scripture", as well as the fact that these difficulties have been well known to the scholarly community for a very long time but seldom if ever does this discussion get to the pulpit and that the average believer remains quite ignorant of same.
NPR's All Things Considered just did a segment on the research being done by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary which addresses the very things Ehrman writes about.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries
(read or streaming audio)

The segment points out the research into later additions, mistranslations, poor-quality work from early scribes... All the things that Ehrman has been pointing out for years and which believers have been taking him to task for....
And this from a prominent religiously-based facility.
Click to expand...

I see excommunications and schisms in the future.
 
Bikewer said:
I've read a number of Bart Ehrman's books on the various problems with "scripture", as well as the fact that these difficulties have been well known to the scholarly community for a very long time but seldom if ever does this discussion get to the pulpit and that the average believer remains quite ignorant of same.
NPR's All Things Considered just did a segment on the research being done by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary which addresses the very things Ehrman writes about.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries
(read or streaming audio)

The segment points out the research into later additions, mistranslations, poor-quality work from early scribes... All the things that Ehrman has been pointing out for years and which believers have been taking him to task for....
And this from a prominent religiously-based facility.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the article. It's interesting that a theological seminary has published this, but I can't help but feel that anything that challenges the status quo of literalists will just be handwaved away.

A typical response to Ehrman's previous work:

Daniel B. Wallace, a New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, wrote, "Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the New Testament tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong."
Click to expand...

If you know you are right the only possibility is that they are wrong! :D
 
Ehrman makes the point in Jesus, Interrupted that the way most clergy learn about the Bible when they decide to become clergy is vastly different than the way that most clergy teach about the Bible to their own congregations. In particular, most clergy in the mainline denominations learn about the Bible in seminary through the historical-critical method, which emphasizes source and form criticism, yet they choose to teach their congregations about the Bible through what Ehrman calls the "devotional approach", which tend to take the Bible as, in some sense, a coherent whole.

Why this is done is an interesting discussion piece in itself, but not terribly relevant to the OP in general. However, it is important to not that, if what Ehrman says about the wide-spread acceptance of the historical-critical among the higher ecclesiastical structures of the mainline denominations is true, "schisms and excommunications" (especially the latter) are not as likely as they seem looking in for the outside.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Ehrman makes the point in Jesus, Interrupted that the way most clergy learn about the Bible when they decide to become clergy is vastly different than the way that most clergy teach about the Bible to their own congregations. In particular, most clergy in the mainline denominations learn about the Bible in seminary through the historical-critical method, which emphasizes source and form criticism, yet they choose to teach their congregations about the Bible through what Ehrman calls the "devotional approach", which tend to take the Bible as, in some sense, a coherent whole.

Why this is done is an interesting discussion piece in itself, but not terribly relevant to the OP in general. However, it is important to not that, if what Ehrman says about the wide-spread acceptance of the historical-critical among the higher ecclesiastical structures of the mainline denominations is true, "schisms and excommunications" (especially the latter) are not as likely as they seem looking in for the outside.
Click to expand...

I know someone who was a devout Christian until he went to seminary and started learning the historical-critical method. The stark contrast to his prior understanding left him in a bit of shock and he felt the need to take things from the beginning and really dig into a better understanding of where his faith came from. He left the seminary, he left his church, he finally left Christianity, but what really threw his family for a loop was when he went one step too far . . . he went to law school!
 
Dr. Keith said:
I know someone who was a devout Christian until he went to seminary and started learning the historical-critical method. The stark contrast to his prior understanding left him in a bit of shock and he felt the need to take things from the beginning and really dig into a better understanding of where his faith came from. He left the seminary, he left his church, he finally left Christianity, but what really threw his family for a loop was when he went one step too far . . . he went to law school!
Click to expand...

The historical-critical method does not make all faith impossible, just certain types. Ehrman himself went from being a scriptural inerrantist to being a more moderate Christian.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Ehrman makes the point in Jesus, Interrupted that the way most clergy learn about the Bible when they decide to become clergy is vastly different than the way that most clergy teach about the Bible to their own congregations. In particular, most clergy in the mainline denominations learn about the Bible in seminary through the historical-critical method, which emphasizes source and form criticism, yet they choose to teach their congregations about the Bible through what Ehrman calls the "devotional approach", which tend to take the Bible as, in some sense, a coherent whole.

Why this is done is an interesting discussion piece in itself, but not terribly relevant to the OP in general. However, it is important to not that, if what Ehrman says about the wide-spread acceptance of the historical-critical among the higher ecclesiastical structures of the mainline denominations is true, "schisms and excommunications" (especially the latter) are not as likely as they seem looking in for the outside.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I'll pose a semi-snarky hypothesis: Professionally schooled clergy have a well developed cognitive dissonance about the historically obvious man-made origins of faith and scripture, but the flock can't or shouldn't be bothered with trying to overcome that. If you want to keep them in the pews (and keep your sinecure), then don't go mixing a dose of reality into the emotionally powerful devotional recipe.
 
hgc said:
Very interesting. I'll pose a semi-snarky hypothesis: Professionally schooled clergy have a well developed cognitive dissonance about the historically obvious man-made origins of faith and scripture, but the flock can't or shouldn't be bothered with trying to overcome that. If you want to keep them in the pews (and keep your sinecure), then don't go mixing a dose of reality into the emotionally powerful devotional recipe.
Click to expand...

Or possibly the fact that scripture is man-made does not necessarily affect their belief in the existence of a transcendent reality that those scripture describe.

I hold not personal views here, as I am an atheist.
 
mijopaalmc said:
The historical-critical method does not make all faith impossible, just certain types.
Click to expand...

True. But when Christianity has been taught to you one way throughout your childhood and you don't learn the facts until you enter higher education, I can imagine it being very disconcerting.

I'm sure there are many Christians who don't hide the historical-critical understanding of Christian tradition from their children, and pastors who don't hide it from their congregations. But there are undoubtedly those who do.
 
godless dave said:
True. But when Christianity has been taught to you one way throughout your childhood and you don't learn the facts until you enter higher education, I can imagine it being very disconcerting.

I'm sure there are many Christians who don't hide the historical-critical understanding of Christian tradition from their children, and pastors who don't hide it from their congregations. But there are undoubtedly those who do.
Click to expand...


I personally know of one reverend who lost his position because he gave a few sermons that were borderline inquisitive. He was FORCED to retire so at least he still has his pension....but he is only 50.
 
mijopaalmc said:
The historical-critical method does not make all faith impossible, just certain types. Ehrman himself went from being a scriptural inerrantist to being a more moderate Christian.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then he went on to become an agnostic. He sets out his reasons why in his 2008 book, God's Problem.
 
Jon. said:
Yes, but then he went on to become an agnostic. He sets out his reasons why in his 2008 book, God's Problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that was due to the problem of suffering and not the historical-critical methods.
 
Leumas said:
I personally know of one reverend who lost his position because he gave a few sermons that were borderline inquisitive. He was FORCED to retire so at least he still has his pension....but he is only 50.
Click to expand...

What was he thinking? Challenging parishioners' faith is the exact opposite of the job description.
 
Bikewer said:
I've read a number of Bart Ehrman's books on the various problems with "scripture", as well as the fact that these difficulties have been well known to the scholarly community for a very long time but seldom if ever does this discussion get to the pulpit and that the average believer remains quite ignorant of same.
Click to expand...
The reason why the logistic doesn't work well is that the academia very frequently adjusts its views often in a non-consensual way. This shouldn't and really doesn't affect the curriculum in general education schools or the word from the pulpit.
 
epix said:
The reason why the logistic doesn't work well is that the academia very frequently adjusts its views often in a non-consensual way. This shouldn't and really doesn't affect the curriculum in general education schools or the word from the pulpit.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "non-consensual"? That they are forced by the evidence to change views that they cherish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom