The Bible and Scholars (3)Doug Focht, Jr. In our past articles we have challenged the common misconception that the understanding of the Bible belongs to the clerics, theologians and scholars. We have done so by showing that they too are fallible in their scholarship, sometimes to the point of carelessness or perhaps even dishonesty. One should not infer from those past articles a hostility toward biblical scholars in general. Not all scholars are charlatans. How can you tell the good ones from the unscrupulous? The best scholars give as many facts and as few interpretations as possible. Where interpretation is needed, it is made clear that this is an interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, in the realm of biblical scholarship, it is the less-than-careful scholars that often make the news. The articles and documentaries about the Bible which appear in the popular media tend to promote these scholars, whose opinions and assumptions are advanced as facts. A clear example of this is the recently formed (1985) Jesus Seminar, a group of self-styled scholars who have collectively “decided” (by voting!) that Jesus only said a small portion of what is written—18%, in fact. Thus, 82% of His sayings are pure myth. Please understand: What they are saying is that the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have substantially fabricated the story and sayings of Jesus. Put simply, they lied a lot. Yet the views of the Seminar are continually foisted upon an unsuspecting public through men such as Dominic Crossan, one of their “premier” scholars, who is often consulted and interviewed on screen and in print. Let's first take a look at how some of these conclusions are reached, then consider the implications of these conclusions, if they be true. I believe that the Bible as we have it today can not be refuted on its own merits because there are no inconsistencies within it. To discredit the Bible, one must depend upon misinformation and assumptions. In past articles, we have noted some glaring examples of misinformation. Assumptions are a little different. An assumption, or premise, may be true or not true. But any conclusion that is based on an assumption can only be as true as the original assumption. The Jesus Seminar begins its “search for truth” with a primary assumption that the historical Jesus (what we know of him from sources outside the Bible) “is to be distinguished from the gospel portraits of him.” Although this sounds very scholarly, there are three things which are glaringly deficient in this “premise.” In the first place, this is more a conclusion than a premise. If one begins with the conclusion that the gospels are not to be considered as historical documents, then it is predetermined that all other documents carry more weight than the gospels. This means that when there is a conflict, the gospel accounts are trashed in favor of the other accounts. This is scholarship? In the second place, this conclusion is based upon nothing. There is no evidence to suggest that the gospels are any less historically accurate than any other accounts. In the third place, this “basic premise” violates another of their own tenets (#55) which says that the same methods of study should be applied to the Bible that are used in the study of other ancient texts. Do you see how this is inconsistent with their first “premise?” On the one hand, they are willing to except any text other than the Bible as historical, and on the other they say the Bible should be considered using the same methods which apply to other texts. They don't really want to apply the “same methods” to the Bible as other texts; they want the Bible eliminated from other texts. Now in all honesty I ask: What kind of conclusions will you end up with if you start with the assumption that the gospels are not historically accurate? Why do liberal religious leaders have such a desperate compulsion to discredit the Bible? I believe the reason is so that they and their followers can have the freedom of conscience to live and lust as they desire. If you doubt that assessment, consider first some of the thoughts of the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Robert W. Funk. These comments were taken from an article which appeared in our local newspaper, the Sunday Record (see references at end). Notice how these thoughts start with philosophy and end with freedom from guilt, specifically, the guilt of sin [my comments are in bracketed italics]:
Obviously, no one can believe these things and believe the Bible too:
If Jesus didn't actually say these things, then what can we believe about the Bible? How many other things did the writers of the Bible “make up?” Maybe there's nothing wrong with stealing, murder, rape, lying, cheating. Maybe one religion is as good as another. Maybe belief in God is irrelevant. Who's to say? These “scholars?” Will you permit them to become the “new authority” for your morality and faith? Are you prepared to surrender your destiny to their scholarship? In a sense, you may have already unknowingly done so, if you have not made an effort to understand your Bible. It makes no difference to Satan whether one is kept in the dark because of ignorance or because of false teaching. References“The Gospel Truth?' by David Van Biema. Christianity today. April 8, 1996, Vol 147. No. 15 “Separating Christ from Christianity” by David Gibson. The Sunday Record. (Bergen County, NJ) June 9, 1996. Section L, p1, 10. Jesus at 2,000. Carl W. Conrad. Internet source: Http://www.harpercollins.com/sanfran/js.htm (See also e-mail debate at same URL) —Reprinted from “Growing in Grace” Vol. 1 #6, June 16, 1996 Doug Focht, Jr.
To contact the author, please send e-mail to: dnfj@yahoo.com
|