What bothers me too much is that the church is worried that people will stop believing if it isn’t “true.” But then again, Bart Ehrman. And many others have become theologians without faith. If we present the scriptures the way you suggest, how do the clergy lead Christian’s to maintain their faith. Is it true that admitting we should look at the texts as human first will collapse our faith and then the collapse of the church will follow? It begins to look like our faith is built on sinking sand. And yet, I know all these things you write about to be true, and although tattered, my faith remains.
A honest remark: how knowledgeable one must be in order to get it right? Is Bible reading accessible only to those who understand hermeneutics and textual criticism? Something just doesn't feel right. I just wonder.
As knowledgeable as possible to “get it right". It's like reading the Sermon on the Mount without understanding the context around who and what, specifically, Jesus was addressing in his comments. My dad, a pastor, always said some people never get past the Sunday School version of the biblical stories we learned as children. As adults, it's our responsibility to learn as much as we can about the historical, cultural and political culture Jesus was speaking into. An unlearned person can still read scripture, understand it on some superficial level, take it to heart and live their life according to that understanding- but they are are still only benefitting from a part of the story.
Robert Eisenman, in James the Brother of Jesus, notes that in Acts there is an error of fact in Steven's speech just before he is martyred. The error is Steven's statement that Abraham bought the land where Joseph's tomb is.
Upon reading this, everyone in Palestine would say, "Wait a minute, that's Jacob!"
I know some people would say this is Steven's mistake. But Steven was in Palestine, where everyone knows about Joseph's tomb. This sort of mistake is unlikely. Eisenman claims the speech comes from the book of Joshua. The point is that this is in the received text. Lots of people copied it, even though it is easily corrected by reading Joshua. Why wasn't this corrected?
The story of Steven's martyrdom introduces Paul. The received text of Acts ends with the story of Paul. Perhaps the original version of Acts ended with the martyrdom of Jacob (James in English). Thus the error may have been introduced by the second century priest assigned to rewrite Acts to promote Paul and demote Jacob. A priest who knew he was lying, and left a clue for those who knew. Or maybe he thought it was his defense on Judgement Day.
What bothers me too much is that the church is worried that people will stop believing if it isn’t “true.” But then again, Bart Ehrman. And many others have become theologians without faith. If we present the scriptures the way you suggest, how do the clergy lead Christian’s to maintain their faith. Is it true that admitting we should look at the texts as human first will collapse our faith and then the collapse of the church will follow? It begins to look like our faith is built on sinking sand. And yet, I know all these things you write about to be true, and although tattered, my faith remains.
A honest remark: how knowledgeable one must be in order to get it right? Is Bible reading accessible only to those who understand hermeneutics and textual criticism? Something just doesn't feel right. I just wonder.
As knowledgeable as possible to “get it right". It's like reading the Sermon on the Mount without understanding the context around who and what, specifically, Jesus was addressing in his comments. My dad, a pastor, always said some people never get past the Sunday School version of the biblical stories we learned as children. As adults, it's our responsibility to learn as much as we can about the historical, cultural and political culture Jesus was speaking into. An unlearned person can still read scripture, understand it on some superficial level, take it to heart and live their life according to that understanding- but they are are still only benefitting from a part of the story.
Oh, I see. Thanks
Robert Eisenman, in James the Brother of Jesus, notes that in Acts there is an error of fact in Steven's speech just before he is martyred. The error is Steven's statement that Abraham bought the land where Joseph's tomb is.
Upon reading this, everyone in Palestine would say, "Wait a minute, that's Jacob!"
I know some people would say this is Steven's mistake. But Steven was in Palestine, where everyone knows about Joseph's tomb. This sort of mistake is unlikely. Eisenman claims the speech comes from the book of Joshua. The point is that this is in the received text. Lots of people copied it, even though it is easily corrected by reading Joshua. Why wasn't this corrected?
The story of Steven's martyrdom introduces Paul. The received text of Acts ends with the story of Paul. Perhaps the original version of Acts ended with the martyrdom of Jacob (James in English). Thus the error may have been introduced by the second century priest assigned to rewrite Acts to promote Paul and demote Jacob. A priest who knew he was lying, and left a clue for those who knew. Or maybe he thought it was his defense on Judgement Day.