Re: What Bible?

There is a dilemma to wrestle with here. On the one hand, questioning
guiding standards (ie. the Christian canon in our case) and denying
them any sacred status or exemption from hostile scrutiny leads to
further individualistic fracture of the (Christian) community -- the
very thing Ireneaus fought against, as Pagels elucidated. Everybody
would get to pick, choose and follow whatever revelatory visions that
catch their fancy. Chaos followed.

On the other hand, we can't escape our individualistic perceptions
anyway -- even if we do choose to accept a sacred standard. We still
must make that decision for ourselves, and still choose our own
interpretations of even the orthodox standard (again, by selfish whim
according to cynics -- but hopefully by the leading of the Spirit
according to believers). And as critics charge, perhaps even the
current standard was a whim at one time, although they apparently refuse
to consider the possibility that the whole process could have been
superintended by divine providence despite the involvement of fallible
-- even wicked human agents. As an Anabaptist, I harbor my own
criticism of the Constantinian mutation of Christianity & the continued
seduction today of Christianity by martial power. But that doesn't
prevent me from acknowledging that God can and will use all things to
his glory eventually. Yet I'm still responsible for my own evil actions.

Despite Pagels' (and perhaps others here) wish that orthodoxy be
dethroned (or at least be thrown open to validate everybody's input
--although I doubt they really want that), such an agenda seems
spiritually dangerous (to put it mildly). There is a place in a
classroom to doubt and question an instructor -- especially if the
students are peers of the instructor. But one can imagine the
frustration among eager students, after they've paid good tuition money,
of going to class only to have their more knowledgeable instructor grant
floor time for every student to air their opinions. Some will respond
that in these philosophical debates there is no equivalent to the
'knowledgeable instructor', and the playing field is somewhat more
level. But that throws us straight back into the dilemma above. Are we
the judges of the 'standard' or is it the judge of us? How we posture
ourselves is significant. The builder's measuring line (origin of the
word 'canon' according to Pagels) seems to me to be an indispensable
part of the Christian's life. Just because somebody can point at a
myriad of alternatives and demand "which one is the straight one?"
(which is typically the prelude to dismissing all of them) doesn't
excuse us from the responsibility to follow what we know to be true --
or at least continue our relentless quest if we have not yet found it.
As for me and my household ...

--merv

Robert Schneider wrote:

> I upset some students in my NT Lit. course when I told them that the
> doctrine of the Trinity was not in the Bible. "But what about the
> verse, 'There is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and these
> three are one'?" I pointed out that this text, by the consensus
> of modern editors, is a scribal addition to the text of 1 John 5.
> That did not go down well for whom the KJV is THE Bible.
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Pim van Meurs <mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> *To:* Janice Matchett <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net> ;
> asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 12, 2006 8:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: What Bible?
>
> Cool seems that Christians and non-Christians alike have found
> something in the writings of this author. Understanding the
> history of Christianity seems something we should be all
> interested in, even if the past may show something some of us may
> not like.
>
> I listened to some of the NPR interviews with Ehrman, he sounds
> like a very interesting and well informed person.
>
> His book "The orthodox corruption of Scripture" (see
> http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/orthodox.htm for instance)
> helps us all understand how history has shaped much of what we
> consider nowadays to be the canonical books of the Bible.
>
>
> <quote>Ehrman, perhaps better than any other scholar to date,
> shows that the manuscripts of the Bible were written and copied
> and recopied, not by emotionless machines, but by living breathing
> human beings "who were deeply rooted in the conditions and
> controversies of their day." (p. 3). They could not have
> approached th eir task objectively, as they went about rewriting
> the Bible manuscripts to say what they already felt that the Bible
> meant! "...theological disputes, specifically disputes over
> Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of
> scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical
> task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more
> patently "othodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the
> opponents of orthodoxy." (p. 4). "...it was the perception of
> their opposition that led scribes of the proto-orthodox party to
> change the sacred texts that they transmitted." (p. 14). Ehrman
> shows how the term "heresy" was sometimes the original
> Christianity which later orthodoxy fought! And in the first three
> centuries there was not an "orthodox" *original* Christianity,
> rather, there were various sects all claiming original "Apostolic"
> teachings! The various sects fought each others' views and claimed
> their own was the "original" and all others were "heresy". In oth
> er words, it won't do to just simply label the Gnostics as the
> heresy and throw out their beliefs, anymore than it will do to say
> the "orthodox" are the correct Christian teachings! Orthodoxy was
> in later times, what the earlier heresy used to be, and vice
> versa! It is an amazingly complex and utterly fascinating issue
> which most of us are completely unaware of. We Mormons
> particularly would do much better to acquaint ourselves further
> with the history of early Christianity. I say this more for my own
> benefit than for others, as I hold quite high standards for my own
> level of learning.</quote>
>
Received on Sun Mar 12 22:55:35 2006