Inerrancy, harmonization, and understanding

[Difflugia]

Eloi and I have derailed otseng's post about inerrancy and its relation to biblical authority by debating once again whether the Bible is inerrant in fact.

The question I asked of Eloi and will consider the debate topic for this thread is this:

Does denying the possibility of biblical error and instead harmonizing (apparent?) contradiction preclude understanding the text?

[benchwarmer]

One nice example is the spear -thrust in John. There is NO spear thrust in the synoptics and Luke mentions only hands and feet; not a wound in the side, which supports that doubt - never mind that Matthew has no evening appearance at all and Mark has no resurrection appearances.

This is an excellent example and fits with the theory that I currently believe is the best fit to the data. The gospel of John appears to be the last written (among Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) and the author seems to be trying to prove that Jesus really did die. I mean, Jesus had a spear thrust into him! (or so the tale goes). What better way to quash doubt and bolster the previous gospels which were not 'correct' enough to tell the whole story?

We see a clear evolution of the story of Jesus. It grows, much like the iconic fish story, as each version comes along.

I contend the authors of the gospels were actually apologists themselves and trying to 'apologize' for the previous writings and oral tradition and make them 'better'. It's clear as day to me. I see exactly ONE witness to Jesus -> Paul. He has some visions and writes it down. Later, the story grows. Then we have authors claiming a real Jesus with a real body. As each successive author (sometimes by directly copying and pasting previous texts) adds to or modifies the story, they attempt to plug any holes in the theology.

What we have today, with inerrancy, is some apologists desperately trying to smash together all the previous apologies into one coherent apology. This of course can't work if the previous ones where trying to correct each other, not conform to each other.

[Difflugia]

Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise ... The reverse is prejudice and ill will.

I never meant to imply that *all* Christians are inerrantists and was only addressing the subset that is. I recognize that most aren't, in fact, and generally assume that individual Christians are not inerrantists unless, in keeping with your guilt/innocence analogy, they say something incriminating or "confess."

[TRANSPONDER]

One nice example is the spear -thrust in John. There is NO spear thrust in the synoptics and Luke mentions only hands and feet; not a wound in the side, which supports that doubt - never mind that Matthew has no evening appearance at all and Mark has no resurrection appearances.

This is an excellent example and fits with the theory that I currently believe is the best fit to the data. The gospel of John appears to be the last written (among Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) and the author seems to be trying to prove that Jesus really did die. I mean, Jesus had a spear thrust into him! (or so the tale goes). What better way to quash doubt and bolster the previous gospels which were not 'correct' enough to tell the whole story?

We see a clear evolution of the story of Jesus. It grows, much like the iconic fish story, as each version comes along.

I contend the authors of the gospels were actually apologists themselves and trying to 'apologize' for the previous writings and oral tradition and make them 'better'. It's clear as day to me. I see exactly ONE witness to Jesus -> Paul. He has some visions and writes it down. Later, the story grows. Then we have authors claiming a real Jesus with a real body. As each successive author (sometimes by directly copying and pasting previous texts) adds to or modifies the story, they attempt to plug any holes in the theology.

What we have today, with inerrancy, is some apologists desperately trying to smash together all the previous apologies into one coherent apology. This of course can't work if the previous ones where trying to correct each other, not conform to each other.

Very good. And you may be right on all points. I have a different hypothesis, but I could be wrong. I incline to think that Luke and maybe even Matthew is later than John (dated by the Ryland fragment to sometime in the 2nd c AD) even though John's Jesus is the most Godlike, because even he doesn't do a Nativity but tries to bluster his way out of the problem that Jesus should have been born in Bethlehem but wasn't.

Matthew and Luke separately address the problem by inventing explanations of how Jesus was really born in Bethlehem though being a Galilean. Though of course all three are aware of the Bethlehem prophecy which was clearly a problem for Christianity at the time.

I agree that John's spear -thrust is unlikely to be true or at least part of the original story or Mark, Luke and Matthew would know about it and it is a lot to swallow that none of them would mention it. In fact Luke tacitly denies it when Jesus shows his hands and feet but not his side, which refutes the spear wound in John, let alone that story of Thomas. It was pretty clever of John to ferrett out a prophecy to fit it, though when you read it in context it doesn't sound at all like Jesus.

I agree that we get an evolution of Jesus with him becoming more godlike all the time, and I've mentioned before that Paul's Jesus was messianic, not divine, thus the god incarnate was an evolution from Paul. I think that Paul really did know a couple of the disciples (Peter and James) and I have to prefer the idea that they followed a real Jesus rather than a new Joshua that they'd invented. Again it's the principle of embarrassment. One has to read between the lines, but it seems that he wasn't in total agreement with the apostles, even though he tries to gloss over it. Just as in an invented Jesus, he would be a Judean not a Galilean and stoned, not crucified, if Christians had made him up. Equally, Paul wouldn't have invented problems he then had to try to explain away.

I won't go into my hypothetical mechanism for Paul's conversion nor yet the disciples thinking that Jesus has resurrected, though I've posted that before, but that's my take on how the story evolved.

[historia]

Does denying the possibility of biblical error and instead harmonizing (apparent?) contradiction preclude understanding the text?

I think this perhaps hampers the reader's ability to understand the intention of the original author.

But the intention of the author has not historically been of great concern to those reading scripture. Jews and Christians (and even ancient pagans reading, say, Homer) understood that an inspired text, in particular, could have meanings beyond what the (human) author intended -- that's precisely why it was inspired. And so one was expected to read those texts differently, with an eye toward harmonization or allegorical meaning.

In the modern world, we tend to treat authorial intention as paramount, and that leads to conflicting ways in which people approach the Bible, with the historian and theologian wanting very different things from the text.

We actually retain some of that ancient attitude when reading fiction or poetry (or listening to music), as most people seem to appreciate the fact that an artist might capture an idea or attitude that they didn't fully intend. In fact, in those genres the reader is often explicitly invited to consider what the text means to them rather than the author.

[Difflugia]

I think this perhaps hampers the reader's ability to understand the intention of the original author.

But the intention of the author has not historically been of great concern to those reading scripture. Jews and Christians (and even ancient pagans reading, say, Homer) understood that an inspired text, in particular, could have meanings beyond what the (human) author intended -- that's precisely why it was inspired. And so one was expected to read those texts differently, with an eye toward harmonization or allegorical meaning.

In the postmodern sense that it's valid to experience a religious text in a religious way, I'm not going to argue with you. I don't deny, for example, that Jewish midrash is a valid way to experience and enhance the text in a religious way and modern inerrantist apologetics might be considered a similar form of religious art.

On the other hand, both Rabbis of the past and inerrantists of the present have often proclaimed that harmonization is the one way to understand the texts and that other approaches are dogmatically invalid. Whether they have intentionally closed off other understandings or not, the inability to reach them is still a lack. A synthesis of the texts can create theologically valid insights and the Trinity is an example of a conclusion that is greater than the sum of its parts, but to reject all but this synthesis is just as limiting as any other dogmatism. John's divine unity, for example, can't really coexist with Mark's adoptionism and vice versa, but excluding those understandings is still a limitation even if that limitation is itself considered desirable. In the same way, the oft-discussed death of Judas can't be both divine punishment and character redemption through repentance and suicide even if there's a theological beauty to the priests buying a field for Judas with his filthy lucre.

In the modern world, we tend to treat authorial intention as paramount, and that leads to conflicting ways in which people approach the Bible, with the historian and theologian wanting very different things from the text.

Rather than paramount, I think it's more accurate to say that authorial intention is foundational. Certainly the historian can only gain clearer insight from knowing what story the author intended to tell, even in cases where the author was writing allegory, was mistaken, or was lying. Theology is a bit more subjective, but again, I'd argue that a theologian that understands, but rejects the author's intent is in a better place than one that simply misses the intended point in the first place.

We actually retain some of that ancient attitude when reading fiction or poetry (or listening to music), as most people seem to appreciate the fact that an artist might capture an idea or attitude that they didn't fully intend. In fact, in those genres the reader is often explicitly invited to consider what the text means to them rather than the author.

Again, I don't disagree with this. I've debated the science fiction continuity of both Star Trek and Star Wars, including whether and which novels should be considered canon. I enjoyed watching and discussing The Wizard of Oz to The Dark Side of the Moon (though that post-dated my college experience, so there were certainly facets of the experience that I chose to forego). I'm a somewhat older than average fan of the Harry Potter franchise and one of my favorite mashups is Wizard People, Dear Reader.

I would argue, however, that an understanding of each original work on its own and in light of authorial intention can rarely, if ever, be said to result in a lesser understanding of a work or combination of works from other perspectives.

[TRANSPONDER]

Does denying the possibility of biblical error and instead harmonizing (apparent?) contradiction preclude understanding the text?

I think this perhaps hampers the reader's ability to understand the intention of the original author.

But the intention of the author has not historically been of great concern to those reading scripture. Jews and Christians (and even ancient pagans reading, say, Homer) understood that an inspired text, in particular, could have meanings beyond what the (human) author intended -- that's precisely why it was inspired. And so one was expected to read those texts differently, with an eye toward harmonization or allegorical meaning.

In the modern world, we tend to treat authorial intention as paramount, and that leads to conflicting ways in which people approach the Bible, with the historian and theologian wanting very different things from the text.

We actually retain some of that ancient attitude when reading fiction or poetry (or listening to music), as most people seem to appreciate the fact that an artist might capture an idea or attitude that they didn't fully intend. In fact, in those genres the reader is often explicitly invited to consider what the text means to them rather than the author.

Always worth bearing all that in mind. It is tempting (especially for the modern mind) to assume that Eden, the Flood, the nativities and resurrection - stories were intended as historically reliable. After all, it's how they've been taught by the Churches from the first.

I don't mind about the Symbolic/Metaphorical Truer than True aspect. It is with those who argue that we must believe these tales (or some of them) because they actually happened, that I am in dispute.