Journalists and Scriptural Authors: Vulnerable to the Same Human Failings

Comments

6 responses to “Journalists and Scriptural Authors: Vulnerable to the Same Human Failings”

1. 

   2006-05-07

   college_student

   A question for clarification:
   You write that “we have no reason to think the scriptural authors weren’t subject to at least the same potential human failings in this area as are New York Times reporters” (emphasis mine). Is this the extent of your claim (agnositicism with respect to inspiration), or would you hold the somewhat stronger position that the authors were, in fact, subject to the same potential human failings in their authorship of scripture?

   Reply
2. 

   2006-05-07

   Scott

   It’s easy to make that sort of claim about Scripture, but backing it up can only be a matter of conjecture and mud-slinging. The fact is that there were many, many people familiar with the life of Christ in the 1st century–because they themselves were followers! The remaining 11 Apostles were the leaders of the Church, and held each other, as well as other Christians, accountable for what was said (witness the book of Acts).
   If Scripture was written in solitude and passed mysteriously on to an unfamiliar multitude, your doubts might be warranted. The fact is, though, that it was produced IN and BY a community of believers who had direct first-hand experience of the story they were telling. Given the weight they gave to it, and who they believed Jesus to be (God made flesh), anyone who altered the story would have been quickly corrected.
   That’s kind of a one-off comment. Having followed your blog for a while, I would recommend Gerhardsson’s “The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition.” Even if you don’t agree with everything he says (I don’t), it’s a worthwhile read for correcting some common misconceptions about the Early Church and text transmission.

   Reply
3. 

   2006-05-07

   D. C.

   Scott writes:

   The fact is, though, that it was produced IN and BY a community of believers who had direct first-hand experience of the story they were telling. Given the weight they gave to it, and who they believed Jesus to be (God made flesh), anyone who altered the story would have been quickly corrected.

   Scott, the evidence I’ve seen doesn’t allow us to say even that much with any confidence. Quite the contrary: The various inconsistencies and manuscript differences in the New Testament establish pretty conclusively that these corrections didn’t always happen. (Moreover, on the specific issue of whether Jesus was God, Acts says unequivocally that the Apostles preached that Jesus was Mashiach, the Anointed One, which is a very different thing from preaching that he was God.) And so, for any given passage in Scripture, we’re left to wonder: How much of this can I believe?
   What we DO know from experience — beyond any shadow of a doubt — is that people regularly “get it wrong,” in ways both obvious and subtle, for a wide variety of reasons. That’s why the legal system has a foundation requirement and a hearsay rule (going back as far as the Torah). Given the inconsistencies and manuscript differences referred to above, it’s simply not credible to claim that the scriptural authors enjoyed some special protection against error.
   Thanks for the pointer to Gerhardsson; I’ll have to check it out.

   Reply
4. 

   2006-05-07

   D. C.

   College_student writes: “Is this the extent of your claim (agnosticism with respect to inspiration), or would you hold the somewhat stronger position that the authors were, in fact, subject to the same potential human failings in their authorship of scripture?”
   I don’t hold a fixed view. My presumption — which is based on humanity’s historical experience, but is also rebuttable — is that the scriptural authors were indeed subject to the same potential human failings. Until someone produces persuasive evidence to the contrary, I’m going to act as though that were true.
   That’s a thought-provoking question; thanks for posting it.

   Reply
5. 

   2006-05-07

   college_student

   Thanks for your response, D.C.
   Given that presumption, though, it’s unclear to me why you would privilege the canon of scripture over any other contemporary literature of the nascent church. If when reading scripture we ought to “do fact-checking, seeking out multiple sources to confirm our information,” then limiting ourselves to the canon would be akin to that New York Times reporter only interviewing one interest group (e.g., the AAC or Integrity) while researching his article. On what grounds do you justify the received canon?
   (I’m assuming that you don’t appeal to Church authority, since it would then be inconstent to reject Church authority on other doctrinal issues.)

   Reply
6. 

   2006-05-07

   D. C.

   College_student asks: “On what grounds do you justify the received canon?”
   That depends on what you mean by “justify.” As I see it, the received canon is simply a reading list, approved by certain early church leaders who were regarded as especially knowledgeable — but some of whom apparently also saw fit to anathemize or even prohibit certain other readings, which is always a bad sign.
   Reading lists are wonderful when they’re treated as gifts offered by experts to help students learn. But we can’t forget that all knowledge is provisional. Humanity has had plenty of experience with received views, widely held by experts, that turned out to be mistaken or simply incomplete. (For a quick example, consider the Aussie doctors who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for refuting received medical dogma about the cause of common stomach ulcers.)
   Consequently, in any field of study (including but not limited to religion), it would be a grave mistake to treat a given reading list — no matter how well regarded the authors or the list-makers — as necessarily being definitive, final, or irrefutably authoritative.
   I’m not sure if that answers your question; let me know if you had something else in mind.

   Reply