It appears that we cross posted. If you can get to reviewing my previous post, I would appreciate it.
In short, I agreed above that some proof of 4a is possible.
As I see it, the gauntlet was not even 4a, but that LCs do so in the face of manifestly “better” interpretations. The more mean-spirited version of this is that LCs are disingenuous when doing so (I don’t think you, IzzyR, are suggesting this, FTR).
My counter, and, I think, xenophon41’s, is that
Interpretation cannot be made with no hint of bias.
Those manifestly “better” interpretations either don’t exist, or are not objectively or consensually “better”.
Given 2 equally likely interpretation, no judgement can be rendered.
And, as for disingenuousness, the gauntlet throwers have some way to go to demonstrate this in the particular case of Polycarp.
I don’t know that that’s true. You’re probably right that interpretation can’t be made without any bias. It’s hard to do anything without any bias. And I also agree that, given two equally likely interpretations, no definitive judgement can be rendered. But, I don’t know that I agree with 2. There are undoubtedly “better” or “worse” interpretations. I assume that Jesus did have an opinion on some things, so, for issue X, one position or another probably does represent the actual position of Jesus.
Now, of course, there are difficulties on figuring out what these positions are. Jesus never wrote anything down. Everything was written down by his followers after his death. Documents get lost, etc. However, based on the information we have, we can come up with a “best” statement of his teachings, which is what certain groups, like the Jesus seminar, seem to be doing.
I didn’t get the impression anyone thought Poly was being disingenuous. I think it’s more a subconscious thing. I do, however, think that he (and most other non-fundy Christians) interpret the bible based on what they value in its teachings, and ignore or re-interpret those teachings that don’t show the sugar-coated side of Christianity, i.e., ban on divorce, homosexuality, eternal damnation, etc. I have yet to see any cite that backs up Poly’s take that Jesus didn’t mean what he said he meant regarding divorce.
And why would we assume the writers made mistakes. If I was worshipping a guy and if I was awestruck by his very being, I’d sure as hell be taking good notes.
Gosh, go away and do some work for a few minutes and a discussion breaks out. (Nicely done, btw IzzyR, Captain Amazing and Tinker Grey.)
Before I join back in, I gotta apologize yet again to Kalhoun. I think you perceived my “snide bullshit comment” remark to be aimed at you; it was not. I was offering one possible characterization of the godzillatemple quote I’d falsely attributed to you. (The other possibility being “logical objection”.)
Now that I got that done… it looks as if we might be working toward a rough consensus that both Christians and Christian detractors (and in fact any other parties performing scriptural exegesis) are somewhat biased in their contextual assessments of scriptural meaning.
I hope we’re also working toward a consensus that the argument made went beyond contention 4 in Tinker’s list (because there was a general indictment of the typical liberal Christian interpretations rather than Poly’s alone), and probably went beyond 4a as well (because the charge was misinterpretation as “general practice” rather than “occasional error”), into 4b territory.
I think it’s pretty clear that Izzy sees a “tu qoque” fallacy in my offered corollary and my assessment of its meaning. However, I’m not offering that rebuttal as either a validation for LC’s or a repudiation of Christian antagonists. I’m pointing out that if one accepts a contention 4b, which would invalidate LC interpretations on the basis of prejudiced conclusions, one must accept that contention 4b is true for any class of contextual analysts who are predisposed to look favorably on a particular conclusion, and one is left with a general condemnation of contextual analysis as a tool wherever an outcome is desired. It becomes the exclusive realm of disinterested academics.
I don’t think we’re covering the same territory. So here’s the post anyway…
Fair enough.
Supposing that Jesus had one or two meanings in mind (allowing for the layered teaching of a genius), then a best interpretation exists.
Thanks for the correction.
I would agree that it is difficult. I would tend that approaching absolute understanding is impossible.
For example, protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox have their disagreements. Various groups within the church (before schism) had their disagreements from the beginning. Paul chewed Peter a new one for disdaining to eat with Gentiles. Paul’s adamant stance on circumcision forced the ruling body in Jerusalem to lay a minimum standard of behavior for gentile Christians (abstain from meat offerred to idols, sexual immorality, and one or two others, IIRC).
Point is, put 4 Christians in a room to discuss some sticky-wicket, and you will get 5 opinions.
The last 2000 years don’t give us much reason to suppose that the what Jesus actually meant is knowable.
As to disingenuousness, I suppose appearances can be deceiving. Forgive me for the assertion.
The last part of your statement “I have yet to see any cite that backs up Poly’s take that Jesus didn’t mean what he said he meant regarding divorce. [emphasis added]” supposes that anyone knows what he meant when he said it! (Also, note that Jesus made no recorded statements on homosexuality. I believe it was Seige who made some detailed analysis of Paul’s greek indicating that associating his choice of words with homosexuality has a weak foundation.)
As to
While I am quite fallible, no matter how close to God I thought any professor was or how interesting or important the topic, or dynamic the speaker, I’ve never made error-free notes.
The fault lies not with the speaker but with the writer. No matter how hard we try, we are flawed.
I wish I could pretend I was busy composing a reply to Captain Amazing and Kalhoun but then Tinker Grey said it for me… unfortunately, I was just off browsing other threads and neglecting this one.
In any case, I endorse the replies provided by Tinker above, and would only add that, even were a consensual determination of the entirety of scripture to be produced by a united group of respected Christian scholars, further analysis can’t necessarily be called into question on that basis alone.
I think that the average reader would agree[ol][li] that contextual analysis is a valid tool.[]that completely bias-free scholarship is impossible.[]that complete knowledge of the information an author wishes to convey is problematic.[/ol][/li]
I think I may have miss-characterized the problem (and, so, perhaps arguing for that with which few would disagree. sigh)
What appears to missing from 1 and therefore from 4b is that there error lies in the direction of the learning vector (if you will). That is, that the beliefs drive the interpretation of scripture rather than interpretation of scripture driving the beliefs.
I believe what we have here is a discussion evolving into epistemology. How do we know? How do we learn?
If we agree that we cannot learn without using our experience as a referrant, then the original allegation is baseless.
If however the accusation is the more strident (in spite of Kalhoun’s statement) that LCs invent explanations out of whole cloth, then I think the burden of proof is on the accusers.
Tinker said, “The last part of your statement “I have yet to see any cite that backs up Poly’s take that Jesus didn’t mean what he said he meant regarding divorce. [emphasis added]” supposes that anyone knows what he meant when he said it! (Also, note that Jesus made no recorded statements on homosexuality. I believe it was Seige who made some detailed analysis of Paul’s greek indicating that associating his choice of words with homosexuality has a weak foundation.)”
Well, this conversation has been going on for so long, I’m too tired to find the biblical quote that someone posted, but if I remember correctly, it didn’t seem tough to understand as far as I’m concerned. He said NO DIVORCE. I don’t know why anyone would get all analytical on it when it was spoken in simple terms. No quaatrains, no mystical reading between the lines. What’s to dissect?
Kalhoun, what version of modern English was Jesus speaking when he made those comments, and what was the typeset on the printing made the next day?
The point being that what you vaguely remember reading in the other thread in such plain language was a paraphrase of a translation of probably at least one other translation of the original text from a witness to the discussion written down decades afterward and possibly second or third hand when it was written down. It would have been spoken in Aramaic or Latin, recorded in either Latin or Greek, and then at some point translated into the English version that somebody else paraphrased for your consumption.
And we haven’t even begun to get into the real context of the thing… To whom did Jesus address his views on divorce? Was it in response to a question? If so, who put that question to him, and what does the chapter say about why the question was asked? Was Jesus referring to any existing law or moral code of the time? Was the questioner trying to justify anything based on Jesus’ probable answer?
Do you see why all of that might alter the intended meaning of a pronouncement stated in such plain… Aramaic (or Latin)?
Here’s a radical concept for you. Why don’t we simply ask Poly whether his beliefs regarding homosexuality and divorce (and all the other parts of the Bible which he has analyzed to the point where they either (a) don’t mean what they state or (b) are considered invalid because they contradict the “known teachings” of Jesus) are the result of his analysis or not. In other words, did he analyze the Bible in the way he described and, as a result, come to believe that it was really OK to marry a divorced woman, that homosexuality is not a sin, that sinners won’t really be cast into a lake of fire, etc.? Or did he already believe all that before he engaged in his in-depth analysis.
I realize that whatever answer Poly gives won’t be incontrovertible “proof” of anything. However, I for one would certainly be willing to reevaluate my position if, for example, Poly were to say that he had a deeply felt belief that homosexuality was wrong until he did his analysis and discovered what the Bible “really” said about the subject, or that he assumed that marrying a divorced woman was wrong until he did his analysis of the Bible and discovered that Jesus wasn’t really saying what he seemed to be saying on the subject.
As was mentioned by more than one person in the original thread, it’s the sheer coincidence of somebody doing a detailed analysis of the type Poly described and just happening to discover that all the parts of the Bible you alread believed in were true, while all the parts you disagreed with were false, that makes people suspect of Poly’s claims.
As for all the other arguments that have been discussed in this thread, I agree that without being able to read Poly’s mind it’s impossible to know for sure whether he was really being disingenuous or not. I honestly don’t know enough about the subject to say for sure whether the type of analysis Poly describes is even possible, whether it’s really possible to know for certain what the culture of the day was, etc. Therfore, I can’t offer an informed opinion as to whether Polycould have done what he claimed or not. Based on what he has written and my not insignificant knowledge of human nature, however, I can offer what I believe is a fairly educated opinion that Polydid not, in fact, do what he claimed (whether willfully or not).
In the original thread, BTW, I did quote passages from Poly at length that to me (and others) clearly demostrated his biases and his circular reasoning, Each time, however, those who supported Poly stated that they couldn’t, for the life of them, figure out how the passages I quoted led to my conclusions. This either means that my conclusions were not, in fact, supported, or else that my detractors suffered from an unwillingness or inability to see the obvious. For this reason, I have no desire whatsoever to waste my time requoting all the passages I quoted in the original thread and making the same arguments all over again, simply to have them rejected on their face.
If you dislike his analysis because scripture reads differently, well, you have that right.
Poly, and anyone else, has a right to his analysis.
I see no particular reason to rehash these issues all here in this thread.
The topic, as I see it, is whether contextual analysis is valid and whether it is possible to engage in any analysis without bringing our biases with us.
So, is it? Is contextual analysis valid? Can you (generic) analyze with no trace of bias?
He gave you his answers. That you don’t like them does not impune his or anyone else’s integrity.
What difference does it make what the order was – as long as he was open to whatever truth he found. Again, he has indicated that he has studied honestly.
Scientist perform experiments hoping to see what they predicted they would see. If they change their views when the evidence contradicts them, or if they modify their theory to make it fit the evidence, they are honest. If not, not.
It would indeed be amazing if this were so.
Generally, we don’t come to the table with fully formed ideas of all aspects of a world view.
I, for one, may start a study with a small set of ideas. But continued study of any subject molds or changes that set. Further study increases the size of that set.
It is not at all surprising for one to study the Bible with some set of ideas of who God is. Having begun to understand who God is, it is not surprising that further study of the Bible should reinforce those ideas. Nor is it particularly surprising that we interpret further study in light of that knowledge.
If I understand that God is Love, then I will interpret scripture in that light. For part of one’s understanding of God is one’s experience of God.
Quite. So the gentlemanly thing to do, in the absense of contradictory evidence, is to accept his word.
What aspect of human nature are you talking about?
That humans lie? That humans engage in wishful thinking? That humans cannot and, in general, do not study honestly?
It seems that one could quite honestly assert that having an axe to grind, you found evidence to support your claims. (I am not asserting this.)
And this, friend, is rather the point. Why exactly should Poly or any other Liberal Christian waste time restating their positions and making the same arguments all over again, simply to have them rejected on their face?
But to the OP: is contextual analysis invalid or not? Can you or anyone analyze free of their experiences?
I don’t do analysis. I have only a listener’s understanding of the historic sociology of the period of Jesus’s birth. I speak no Greek, nor Aramaic, and only the sort of Latin that gets embroidered on rich kids school jackets.
Yes, my biases affect my interpretation of scripture. My own narrow point of view is the same narrow point of view through which I take in all information, and the Bible is information. It is from the Bible that I know of Christ. But it is in my heart that I have found Him.
However, be assured, even my love for Christ is affected by my biases. The very miracles from which my faith was born were perceived within those same biases.
It’s a human thing.
So, yes, I interpret Scripture, and that interpretation is very strongly affected by my own existing prejudices and opinions. Even more to the point, I interpret Scripture wrong. I am sinful even in my every attempt to seek God. It seems to me beside the point, but it is the truth.
But of course, to me, being right is not a big part of being a good Christian. It I am wrong, it’s off to the ever burning pit for me. There I shall, no doubt, fail to hold on to my assurance that love is the greatest of all those things that endure. I am not all that good at enduring even ephemeral torment.
I don’t know if this was “Pursuant to the Original Post:” or “For the Original Poster:” but I might as well restate my position.
Contextual analysis is valid for all users. In my view such an analysis done thoroughly makes it more difficult to justify an improper reading of historical or religious text. However, this method is no better than any other method of study at resisting the biases of the user.
When I joined these boards, I largely believed rougly the same scriptural interpretations believed by the antagonists of the other thread: that the so-called Prince of Peace and love thy neighbor dude also concdemned homosexuals, required belief above all else and in general just further confused a book already riddled with foolishness and inconsistencies. Then I ran into a few posters with different interpretations, and I thought “Oh, come on!” Somebody, I thought in my little xeno way, needs to work on their reading comprehension and change their p.o.v.
Sometimes I asked for justification to those interpretations, but usually other posters did. And then Poly or Lib or tomndebb or whomever would explain their process of discovery. And I found that they had done things I’d never even considered, like read texts in the original language, or considered Jesus’ life and words in terms of the society of Roman occupied Palestine, or even just placed the verse in the context of the chapter and author. They, unlike me, had not been data-mining the bible or reading for amusement or derision, or searching for quotes. They had read for understanding and had pursued that understanding in ways I was not equipped to dispute, having done none of them.
So, even where I suspected they might be wrong, I realized I would have to do my own scholarship in order to prove that, rather than conveniently throw around the charge of “wishful thinking”. Not that I didn’t go ahead and dispute their belief system on logical grounds, mind you.
Those debates didn’t convince me of much beyond my own ignorance. But I learned two important things on this board. First, my highly valued intellectual honesty was a conceited sham if I failed to recognize such honesty in others. Second, truth doesn’t exist exclusively in the rational --in fact, it hardly ever shows up in that realm of probability and linear progression. That’s where fact hangs out.
I don’t know whether any particular searcher for truth is led or misled by their biases. All I know is that biases change when their exercised by fact, and they never change if they’re protected from fact. And truth is something that happens regardless of facts and biases.
But I am glad you answered as you did! It is remarkably apt to this whole discussion. The testimony of your experience pursuing truth and your understanding of how other posters “work”.
And of course the pleasure was mine, Tinker. If nothing else good comes of this thread, I got to blow hot air (which I love to do), interact with intelligent posters on both sides of the discussion and make your acquaintance.
Since you’re both here, guys, care to add any comments regarding which methods of study you find valid? Doesn’t necessarily have to be the study of scripture; could be, say, any area of philosophy. (If only we had a degreed philosopher in here…)
So far we know that you retroactively dismiss any approach which produces confirmation of the tightly held beliefs of the student. And, from the other thread we also know that you retroactively dismiss any approach which produces an understanding which is not inconsistent with the tightly held beliefs of the student. We know that in the interpretations you’ve publicly disputed here, you’ve shown preference in every instance for interpretations produced by a cursory methodology and antagonistic or neutral point of view over more heavily researched interpretations made from an involved point of view.
What we haven’t seen yet is whether you’d prefer a heavily researched interpretation made from an antagonistic or neutral point of view. While I realize this may be too rigorou— er, boring a test for badchad, I had been under the impression that godzillatemple possesses other mental gears besides “snide” which he could apply to the subject.
It would be interesting to see a case made in favor of analysis from ignorance, but I’m sure neither of you actually favors this. So even better would be a case supporting your (apparent) conclusion that an analysis which fails to resolve inconsistencies in a structural worldview is somehow more consistent than one which succeeds.
