Rewriting Scripture: Authorship, authority, and the elephant in the room

[Ani_Ibi]

Dan Wallace writes from a nearby blog:

A year and a half ago, Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why was released… … One lesson we must learn from Misquoting Jesus is that those in ministry need to close the gap between the church and the academy. We have to educate believers… Instead of trying to isolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them…

Ehrman… speaks about some passages that scholars for a long time have considered to be spurious, yet for a variety of reasons are still left in the Bible… Two in particular are noteworthy: Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11.

…It is certainly not too much to say that the great majority of New Testament scholars, including evangelical scholars, would reject both passages as later additions to the Gospels. However, no cardinal truth is lost if these verses go bye-bye. No essential doctrine is disturbed if they are MIA…

…In light of the scholarly consensus… would you want the texts to remain in their place, with only a tiny marginal note that, like the small print in consumer products, is hardly noticed by the reader? Would you want these verses expunged from the text entirely with no trace? Would you want them relegated to footnotes with explanation?

Ultimately, what I’m asking is, How honest do you want biblical scholars to be? Would you rather hear this sort of news from those who are enemies of the faith or from those love Christ and are willing to go to the wall for the scriptures? What say you?

My questions is: With friends who are willing to rewrite Scripture in the name of Authorial Intent Hermeneutics (AKA Reader-Response Hermeneutics ) all the while upholding Sola Scriptura, who needs enemies?

Is the rewriting of Scripture theology or politics? Is it the Second Reformation or just the previous one in raybans?

 

[Teflon93]

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/images/Parchment and Pen/Dan/john8.jpg
Dan Wallace writes from a nearby blog:

My questions is: With friends who are willing to rewrite Scripture in the name of Authorial Intent Hermeneutics (AKA Reader-Response Hermeneutics ) all the while upholding Sola Scriptura, who needs enemies?

Is the rewriting of Scripture theology or politics? Is it the Second Reformation or just the previous one in raybans?

Given that Luther himself didn’t mind rewriting Scripture (when he actually did write it, of course—you try translating a Greek Bible into German in 10 weeks), I don’t think it’s so much a new Reformation as the same one continuing.

Pope Benedict XVI in his new book “Jesus of Nazareth” puts this “textual criticism” bunkem in perspective: when one goes looking for Jesus armed with a mirror, one should not be surprised to find Jesus looks like oneself.

 

[Calvinator]

My questions is: With friends who are willing to rewrite Scripture in the name of Authorial Intent Hermeneutics (AKA Reader-Response Hermeneutics ) all the while upholding Sola Scriptura, who needs enemies?

Is there any evidence that Ehrman upholds “sola scriptura”?

 

[Teflon93]

Is there any evidence that Ehrman upholds “sola scriptura”?

Not today, certainly—Ehrman was a fundamentalist Protestant who fell away from Christian faith once his own inquiries into the history of the Bible refuted sola scriptura in his mind, if I recall correctly. He’s done some interviews on the topic—a Google search may yield definitive results on this score.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator:

Is there any evidence that Ehrman upholds “sola scriptura”?

You will notice that the blog was written by Dan Wallace, an Evangelical. He refers to a book written by Ehrman to launch off on his own propositions concerning removing bits from Scripture. I hope this clarification helps.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Are there limits as to what can be taken out of the Bible? Who makes that decision? On what basis? Anybody have any thoughts on this?

What about Mr Wallace’s belief that the faithful should be ‘insulated’ from scholars? Should we be insulated from all scholars? some scholars? no scholars? Anybody have any thoughts on this?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Insulated from Scholars?

Sounds like an attempt to keep Protestants dumb about history, culture issues of the times of Christ, etc, etc, etc

 

[st_felicity]

Insulated from Scholars?

Sounds like an attempt to keep Protestants dumb about history, culture issues of the times of Christ, etc, etc, etc

I took that statement as meaning they needed to “insulate” them with knowledge concerning the particular texual nuances so that should they be challenged on it in an apologetics exchange, they have a ready answer–“insulate” with the knowledge, not from the knowledge. Nonetheless, it seems several on that blog would rather chop out portions of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of the text.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I took that statement as meaning they needed to “insulate” them with knowledge concerning the particular texual nuances so that should they be challenged on it in an apologetics exchange, they have a ready answer–“insulate” with the knowledge, not from the knowledge. Nonetheless, it seems several on that blog would rather chop out portions of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of the text.

I took it to mean to “Insulate” keeping the inside good and fresh whether it be cold or hot and not allow outside influences to affect the inside. Just like a thermos…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I took it to mean to “Insulate” keeping the inside good and fresh whether it be cold or hot and not allow outside influences to affect the inside. Just like a thermos…

As in cultify them?

 

[st_felicity]

I took it to mean to “Insulate” keeping the inside good and fresh whether it be cold or hot and not allow outside influences to affect the inside. Just like a thermos…

If that’s so, I don’t know why they would acquiesce to challenges to textual integrity by excising that which some may question. That seems like surrender and certainly doesn’t bolster the notion that Scripture is “sacred.”

 

[st_felicity]

Teflon93:
Pope Benedict XVI in his new book “Jesus of Nazareth” puts this “textual criticism” bunkem in perspective: when one goes looking for Jesus armed with a mirror, one should not be surprised to find Jesus looks like oneself.

Love that Pontiff!!!

 

[rciadan]

I took that statement as meaning they needed to “insulate” them with knowledge concerning the particular texual nuances so that should they be challenged on it in an apologetics exchange, they have a ready answer–“insulate” with the knowledge, not from the knowledge. Nonetheless, it seems several on that blog would rather chop out portions of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of the text.

Why not? They did the same thing when they put together the NAB and the other modern texts. Just compare it to St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate or the Duoay-Rheims!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I took that statement as meaning they needed to “insulate” them with knowledge concerning the particular texual nuances so that should they be challenged on it in an apologetics exchange, they have a ready answer–“insulate” with the knowledge, not from the knowledge. Nonetheless, it seems several on that blog would rather chop out portions of the Bible rather than defend the integrity of the text.

Insulate them with what knowledge? And against what? And most importantly, how?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sola Scriptura: How much of the Bible must be read for a person to be saved?

Click here or here.

So, if a person reads a bit of the Bible that is later removed, is he still saved? Was he saved in the first place?

What happens if a bit is added to the Bible? Before it is added can a person legitimately say to himself: “Self, I think I would be saved if only this other bit were added to the Bible.”

Or can a person legitimately say to himself: "Self, I don’t like that bit. As long as no one adds that bit to the Bible, I am saved.

Thoughts?

 

[st_felicity]

Insulate them with what knowledge?

Well…according to them…insulate them with the knowledge that some passages in the Bible are “spurious.” That’s their take–mine is that texts codified by those with apostolic authority are the Holy Scriptures despite authorship.

And against what?

…I dunno…I think antagonistic atheists or agnostics.

And most importantly, how?

ELIMINATION of the texts some group of unnamed “scholors” determine are “spurious.”

 

[st_felicity]

Why not? They did the same thing when they put together the NAB and the other modern texts. Just compare it to St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate or the Duoay-Rheims!

Could you be more specific–are you talking like the Johnnine Comma (sp)?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Well…according to them…insulate them with the knowledge that some passages in the Bible are “spurious” …I dunno…I think antagonistic atheists or agnostics…

So if I buhleeve-ah that some passages in the Bible are-ah ‘spurious-ah’ and I-ah cast them out from my household-ah, then antagonistic atheists-ah or agnostics-ah won’t get to me-ah?

st_felicity:

That’s their take–mine is that texts codified by those with apostolic authority are the Holy Scriptures despite authorship.

Since this thread is partly about authorship can you define authorship for us? Thank you.

 

[st_felicity]

So if I buhleeve-ah that some passages in the Bible are-ah ‘spurious-ah’ and I-ah cast them out from my household-ah, then antagonistic atheists-ah or agnostics-ah won’t get to me-ah?

That’s the gist I got.

Since this thread is partly about authorship can you define authorship for us? Thank you.

The Authorial Intent method of critical analysis attempts toooooooo…AwwwwHeck…I’ll quote C Michael Patton’s blog where he explains it on Parchment and Pen:
C Michael Patton on Parch & Pen Blog:

I was teaching on the importance of what is known as “authorial intent” or “historical grammatical” hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a fancy word that has to do with one’s method of interpreting the Bible. An authorial intent hermeneutic simply means that we must seek to understand what the text meant from the standpoint of the original author and audience before we can apply it to our lives. This involves an understanding of many things including the argument of the writing, the situation of the audience, the rules that govern the particular genera (type of writing), the culture in which the book was written, issues of grammar and syntax, and personality and mood of the author.

 

[Teflon93]

If that’s so, I don’t know why they would acquiesce to challenges to textual integrity by excising that which some may question. That seems like surrender and certainly doesn’t bolster the notion that Scripture is “sacred.”

Well, they have had a general disposition since Luther of excising inconvenient bits of Scripture, whether boldly through radically different cuts and “translations” or by simply playing Bible verse bingo in sermons.

Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the supernatural parts—wham!—The Jefferson Bible.

Luther thought Romans was better with “faith alone”—blam!—The Luther Bible.

Not to mention the “inclusive” versions of the Bible, the “modern” versions, etc.

For all the criticism Catholics take for not revering the Bible enough, non-Catholics seem to treat it far less reverently in practice.