Biblical Scholarship and the Right to Know

[SecularMotion]

This is a very different audience from what I’m accustomed to as a scholar of the Bible. I teach in the Bible belt, and my students come largely from North Carolina, have grown up in the church, and, in my experience, have a much deeper commitment to the Bible than knowledge about it. So when I teach my class in the New Testament, which I do every spring semester, I begin by explaining that it’s not a Sunday school class and I’m not a preacher. I’m a historian and the class will engage in a historical study of the New Testament.

I then give students a pop quiz, which they think is very odd since I haven’t taught them anything yet. But I want to know what they know about the Bible. And actually I want them to know what they know about the Bible. It’s not a hard quiz; there are eleven questions and I tell them that if anyone gets eight of these eleven right, I’ll buy them dinner. Last year, out of 300 students, I bought one dinner.

Like I said, they’re not hard questions and these are mostly conservative, Bible-reading church kids. The first question is: How many books are in the New Testament? (It’s actually a very easy answer: twenty-seven. Because you think about the New Testament, you think God. You think the Trinity, and what is twenty-seven? It’s three to the third power. It’s a miracle!) The next question is: What language were these books written in? Now, it’s interesting––half of the students think the answer is Hebrew, which is wrong. Fortunately, only about four or five students typically think the answer is English. It turns out the answer is Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, just like English is the common language today.

One of the reasons I give this quiz is to get the students to start learning some things. And one of the things I want them to learn right off the bat is that the contention that the very words of the Bible are divinely inspired has some problems. First, the Bible wasn’t written in English, it was written in Greek. So when you’re reading it in English, you’re reading it in translation. Not only that, but Jesus spoke Aramaic. And there are some things in Aramaic that can’t be represented in Greek, and then there are things in Greek you can’t represent in English. You’re getting it third hand and things get changed with translations, so it ends up mattering.

http://thehumanist.org/november-december-2011/biblical-scholarship-and-the-right-to-know/

[left is right]

1. I understand that you can’t afford too many dinners

so therefore you are right to not publish your quiz but I would really love to test my own personal knowledge. I was an adult Sunday School teacher for over 10 years and I, too, left the church. For me, it was that I could no longer square the direction that modern Christianity was taking away from what I believed Scripture actually meant. I miss teaching every single Sunday.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Perhaps you could give a adult Sunday School lesson here on Sundays

just a thought

[left is right]

3. you are so kind

thank you

[Thats my opinion]

8. Perhaps"modern Christianity"

may have gone in a very different minority direction that still my be worth exploring.

[Sal316]

4. The problem with Bart Ehrman

From a theologian friend of mine who saw him @SBL in San Francisco

3) Ehrman's work to the wider public, which he uses as the standard for speaking to the wider publich and which he said takes a lot of skill and talent compose (of course he would say this right, because these are traits, which again, he himself believes he has!), has a ton of flaws in it. In fact, a great number of his books were questioned and challenged by scholars before ever going into print. However, he ignored those comments and published anyway. Essentially, he ignored the peer-review process. So, the question must be raised, how can this "expert" (by his own terms) who has written for the wider public and whose work has been so wrong and/or misleading at many points, pass as real, sound scholarship and expertise? By the opinions of many reputable scholars, much of Ehrman's work is dubious and not to be taken seriously. The contradiction in terms, then, is that his own work is incredibly flawed, yet he still submits it to the wider public! Perhaps it is the fact that at HarperCollins, once you reach a certain threshold of sales, you receive an extra $100,000 check. This seems like a fine enough reason to keep publishing the same type of work all the while ignoring what peers in the guild are suggesting!

[Jim__]

6. That sounds like a critique of the paper Ehrman gave at that meeting.

I didn't see it as a general critique of Ehrman's work.

[Sal316]

16. It is, and the paper was on the same subject.

So, there is relevance.

[trotsky]

13. LOL

Also from your theologian friend's critique:

here's my beef with Ehrman's thesis: 1) The fact that Ehrman set himself up as A) The one who gets to define who is and isn't a "biblical expert" and B) His own criteria for deciding this, is very problematic.

Gosh, I can't think of ANYONE else who fits this description. Not a soul, Sal. Really, no one, Sal.

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

5. Try and get that across to some people

First, the Bible wasn’t written in English, it was written in Greek. So when you’re reading it in English, you’re reading it in translation. Not only that, but Jesus spoke Aramaic. And there are some things in Aramaic that can’t be represented in Greek, and then there are things in Greek you can’t represent in English. You’re getting it third hand and things get changed with translations, so it ends up mattering.


To them the Bible is the Word of God, breathed directly from his mouth to the book in their hands. Every single word of it is true as it is on those pages. There are no translation errors or problems, and the way they've interpreted it is correct. How dare you question or criticize a single thing they say God told you to do/not do?

[Thats my opinion]

9. Because--despite your sarcasm--he is using his mind!

While Muslims believe that about their holy book, it was never a Christian holding until the American fundamentalists came along a century ago. And outside that ilk, it is not a reputable concept now.

[NMMNG]

10. Sure

Yet theocrats of all types (including you) think their poorly translated Bible, the interpretation of which depends on the reader, should be infused into our government and our laws. Why should it matter to me if the individual theocrat considers the Bible to be literal or allegorical? The end result is still the same.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Sorry, but where has "that's my opinion" ever advocated basing

our government and laws on the Bible?

[trotsky]

12. That is one very limited definition of theocracy.

It can be as simple as "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority." And in TMO's case, there is an actual quote of his, which he has never denied or clarified or apologized for, stating that no one wants to live in a society that was NOT based on religious ethics.

Ergo, a theocrat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. And your definition of theocracy is overly broad

:shrug:

Western culture has been shaped by Christianity one way that most people are unaware of, such as the ban on infanticide, which was considered a normal means of birth control in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and the Germanic and Slavic tribes.

Yes, it still happens, but we don't think it's normal, and we are horrified, no matter what our worldview.

[trotsky]

17. Christianity is 100% solely responsible for that, huh?

Can I see some documentation, please? Everything from relevant bible passages (Jesus' own words, naturally) to the clear revulsion for the practice in the earliest Christian writings up to each and every Christian-based society specifically including a ban on it. Thanks, it is appreciated!

It is sad how many Christians agree with the implicit bigotry in a statement that says ethics without religion are inferior to those with it.

[Thats my opinion]

19. Hold on.

I think the Bible ought to be infused with our law? I don't want to bore you with what I have often written that takes that notion on. But you had better accuse somebody else of that one.

[Thats my opinion]

7. Great start!

you have a front-line job. I'l like to know what has changed by the end of the semester.

[Duppers]

15. I've a tiny problem - "Jesus spoke Aramaic"

And just how do we know that?

More to the point: how do we know if such a real person ever existed?

I'm sure this point has been brought up in this forum before.

[Thats my opinion]

18. Try looking at the evidence of

The Roman, Gaius Tacitus,(The annals Book 15 Chapter 44)
The Jew, Josephus (The Antiquities 18-63.64)

The manuscripts from southern Lebanon and northern Galilee--and a whole lot of history which flowed from them.
The early emergence of communities based on his life.

[cleanhippie]

20. And those sources prove that Jesus, son of god, actually existed?

Really?