Desperately Seeking Errors

Faith & Science Conversation
21

?

I don’t follow… Enns quote does use (or claim) that Paul was making a physical reference, which Paul did not.

That was kind of my point, Paul in the text only spoke about only a spiritual rock, and Enns (by slight of hand in my opinion) then claimed Paul believed in a physical rock.

that is exactly what I tried to replicate here… of course Paul was making a spiritual reference about them being baptized… hence why it would be odd (and unfair) for me to criticize Paul for believing in a physical baptism, so i tried to make an exact analogy, so i’m not seeing where you’re seeing me compare apples and oranges…

  • Paul talks about a “spiritual rock”, and Enns said, “see, Paul believed in a physical rock.”

  • Paul talks about a “spiritual baptism”, and I (trying to emulate Enns) said, “See, Paul believed in a physical baptism.”

I tried to make it exactly analogous with a 1:1 correspondence to make the point, so i’m not seeing the breakdown of the analogy you’re seeing? can you clarify?

22

I guess I was seeing “baptism” as entirely spiritual since the original story of the parting of the Red Sea said nothing about baptism.

So, for example:

1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,a that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

Verse one lists the physical, historical events, verse two references those same acts as a spiritual metaphor.

Probably I’m just splitting hairs at this point. I do think Enns has a point, but can also see why you think that he’s overstating his case.

23

No, certainly not, there are plenty of genuinely legitimate conflicts and discrepancies where I do not particularly object if someone sees a contradiction, though I might not personally agree. the time of the crucifixion is perhaps one good example and i could name a dozen others. If someone thinks that the different times listed as the time of the crucifixion are irreconcilable, that genuinely seems to me a reasonable position, though i would disagree, giving Scripture the benefit of the doubt.

(The best “solutions” to the different times I’ve heard are either that both evangelists were making very rough estimates, or that John was using the Roman civil time that began at midnight… an interesting hypothesis but to my knowledge never demonstrated as particularly plausible. Thus an error here is a reasonable supposition, though evangelical though i am i would still withhold judgment even if i didn’t have a good answer.)

other examples are the timing of the withering of the fig tree, whether Jesus told his disciples to bring a staff or not, and i could list others. there are some discrepancies that don’t seem to offer any immediate reasonable solution.

hence the point of this thread for me… What baffles me is the phenomenon as to why some seem to need to invent these supposed contradictions, where the text simply doesn’t support them in any way… and where significant creative exegesis or glossing must be done just to have the supposed error. Or where folks ignore obvious answers or alternatives, or insist on literalistic interpretations. just pick a better example!

If i were a critic or were arguing against inerrancy, i would like to think i would have both the sincerity, forthrightness, and fairness to acknowledge that some discrepancies may well just appear as such (the number of women at the tomb, for instance)… in almost any context, i find it pedantic to classify a simple omission or selection of material as an “error.”

If i were a critic or skeptic of inerrancy, , i would limit my treatment to clear cases of irreconcilable conflict. i would not go after cases that had potentially reasonable or legitimate alternatives to error, and i certainly wouldn’t re-interpret the text to invent an error that wasn’t right there already!

That is the part that baffles me that i’d especially be interested in discussing… what is going on there when people, especially the very learned who should know better, resort to having to invent such problems?

24

Ahh - your point of clarity is taken. And while you were writing that, I also added a massive edit to my response above - which you’ve now pretty much answered. I’ll leave it in - but I do agree with you that it is silly for people to go out of their way to invent or preserve discrepancies when they could be easily answered.

25

While it may be that ancients might not articulate a three tiered universe exactly, they would have laughed if you told them they were spinning at 700 miles an hour on a big ball. I suspect our materialistic view of existence would be a bit limited and narrow to a people who took a more metaphysical view. It seems a lot of our problems in understanding comes from imposing our concrete worldview on a text written to an audience that was much more “spiritual” in their outlook.
So, I think Daniel is right in saying we are dolts for reading a lot of scripture literally. The rub comes in where to draw the lines, if indeed lines can be drawn or need be drawn.

2 Likes
26

I don’t disagree he has a point either, to be clear… i think it may well be fascinating, and i for one don’t doubt or take issue with the fact that Paul may well have been referencing or familiar with this myth to some extent. Not convinced, but i would hardly rule it out, it seems plausible enough.

my major issue in this case, as mentioned, is that as we examine this, there are multitudinous possible explanations and interpretations, and ways to understand what may have been going on in Paul’s mind… none of which we really can have any certainty about. Was he intentionally borrowing that mythological language because it happened to fit with the reality that God, in the cloud, literally did follow the Israelites, and since he was only talking in spiritual terms it made no difference? Did he intentionally borrow that language since it fit his conception that Jesus was there spiritually with and following the Israelites? Did he know he was writing to an audience where many people were familiar with the myth so he intentionally used that language just since it was common parlance? Maybe just subconsciously he used that language since that language was just so familiar, even though, when, back in seminary, he thought it was the dumbest thing he’d ever heard and he and Gamalial used to mock people that really believed in a literal rock? Did Paul know that no one really believed that myth and took it seriously, but it was in everyone’s cultural consciousness so why not use it, since he was only using the idea for a spiritual lesson and no one would think he was taking it literally? Did Paul perhaps repeatedly inject the word “spiritual” to make sure that people knew he was distancing himself from that silly literal rock idea? There is no way of knowing any of these things or specifically which was in his mind. and i suggest we should hold out the benefit of the doubt and not jump to conclusions about what people did or did not believe, especially given basic principles of charity… i try not to assume a person made an error if there are multiple other reasonable alternatives.

My biggest issue, as mentioned, and it applies to the larger concern i am raising here, (as i have seen the same pattern time and time again)… why, if there are multitudinous alternative and reasonable interpretations, do critics insist on the one interpretation (often the most literalistic) that just happens to establish the supposed error?

But given Dr. Enns choice to latch onto this one particular explanation (Paul embraced this false myth) as the only one worth considering, and rejecting even the consideration of any and all very real and reasonable alternatives, I can’t help but get the impression that he wanted to find Paul erring. it just doesn’t come across to me in any way like an objective treatment.

1 Like
27

I spent some time doing basic fact checks of a few of his published works. it is atrocious the errors he makes, he makes a claim and has no apparent desire to find the truth, merely to further his agenda.

But then, sadly enough, people absorb his ideas, and no one seems to stop and fact check the narrative or the specific examples.

I’m baffled by how he is not held accountable.

2 Likes
28

Well - as somebody who has read at least one - maybe two of Enns’ books and generally remember them being pretty insightful and helpful; - or at least I don’t remember being horrified at atrocious theology in it; I’m curious what huge errors of teaching you find him promoting. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention. But again - I guess my focus probably wasn’t so much on how precise somebody is in their language so much as how aligned they are in Spirit with “the weightier matters of justice and mercy” with Christ. While there might be a place for pedantic certainty on the particulars of all fine points (something you hope your jet engine mechanic has), I’m not sure that story-tellers and narrative builders shouldn’t have a different (higher) level of accountability that focuses on other things.

But - as somebody who has spoken positively about Enns, I really do want to be shown where that may be in error so that I can be more informed if making recommendations in the future.

1 Like
29

I think Mr Fisher is referring to Dr Ehrman primarily here, in response to @Boscopup. Not that some concerns don’t relate to Dr Enns, too.

Mr Fisher, I do appreciate your thoughts here. They are making me think. I do think we sometimes miss the forest for the trees…on both sides, perhaps.
I wonder if you have read Kenton Sparks’ “God’s Word In Human Words.” Thank you

30

Randy is right, i was referring to Dr. Ehrman above…, but that said, There are many things i could point out where i take extreme issue with Dr. Enns overall theology, that (and I don’t say this lightly) I find truly dangerous… essentially, I truly believe if you take his principles and follow them, they will entirely unravel all of christianity. and i don’t mean just my own particular evangelical version, i mean any and all of it.

but in charity i don’t generally a hesitant to publish those thoughts without discretion. if you’re interested, perhaps we could do a private and or small group discussion for those who would be interested? anything i say in that context i would endeavor to limit my critique to the thoughts and ideas, and not to the person, for what it is worth.

31

I can totally relate. At seminary studying some of the arguments of modern Biblical criticism I sometimes found the arguments to be pretty far fetched – more incredulous than the straight forward reading of the text. It was hard to understand at times why they would bend so far backwards. Do these people believe in God at all? I wondered.

Yes I find numerical errors and exaggerations a bit more plausible example of errors in the Bible, and I attribute them to a widespread attitude of people at the time who simply didn’t bother to actually count such things with any attempt at accuracy. There was no motivation to count such things accurately as there is today and no doubt they would have just as hard a time with us for making such a big deal about numerical accuracy as we do.

32

I can respect that. But it’s hard to know what is going on under the surface of someone else’s acceptance or rejection of a viewpoint, so probably out of bounds for us to speculate about what he “wanted.” I wonder if hearing it from a Jewish scholar added an extra dimension to it – like the realization that there was an entirely different layer to the text that evangelical interpretations had completely missed or ignored.

1 Like
33

I agree. And on another level, it seems that Enns’ point that it seems disingenuous for evangelical scholars to consider themselves unbiased, when they accept all portions of standard critique applied to other ancient literature except that which would contradict their position, well founded. I do feel torn in both ways, however.

Kenton Sparks’ “God’s Word in Human Words,” which I’m slogging very slowly through when I can’t sleep, explains that well in comparison to the Sumerian and other accounts, I think. I’d be interested in what Mr Fisher thinks of that book, if he ever gets to read it. He maintains a belief in miracles, yet takes criticism seriously. It seems that defending small accounts misses the forest for the trees, similar to defending special creation against evolution–the big picture makes much more sense in all points, in every way, that human authorship left a strong mark. I do think some of Enns’ mission could be not just to find the truth, but also to speak truth to evangelicals to avoid disenchantment among the youth.

4 Likes
34

I think skeptics can often see errors not there and apologists often don’t see errors clearly there. We see erroneous howitzers from modern day academics from time to time. Probably a good reason to cut the gospel authors some slack for some of their errors since their access to resources was far more limited than our own.

I’m not sure why these guys wouldn’t just appeal to the death of Judas, the resurrection appearances or the infancy narratives as the clearest cut examples of errors. I’d stick with the gospels.

Vinnie

35

Yes - regarding what you think so dangerous about Enns’ theology, I am interested and will private message you for your opinions.

36

It can’t do that for me. If you approach rationality from God you cannot do it rationally. Start with only the rational and you can still find space for faith in God: Approaching God with rationality does unravel all of belief, which is scary, but wanting Him regardless is valid.

37

Unlike this thread, Enns’ writings bring up the moving rock to show that Paul interpreted Scripture like other Jews of his time. It’s not about Paul making an error or believing stupid things.

In Inspiration and Incarnation, this comes up near the end of a long section called “Apostolic Hermeneutics as a Second Temple Phenomenon: Interpretive Traditions” that aims to show “places in the New Testament where writers likewise incorporate such [extrabiblical] traditions in references to Old Testament episodes.” He goes through the naming of Pharaoh’s magicians as Jannes and Jambres, how Noah was a preacher of righteousness, how angels disputed over Moses’ body, Jude’s quoting of 1 Enoch, Moses being taught the wisdom of the Egyptians, and the law being put into effect by angels – and in each case he traces the connection to other Jewish writings. His last example is “Paul’s movable well.” He deals directly with the “spiritual” dimension:

By referring to spiritual food and drink, Paul is using this Old Testament story to make his point to his readers: the food and drink in the Old Testament are symbols of the spiritual sustenance that God provides for his people through all time. And that spiritual sustenance for Paul’s readers is the very same Christ who sustained the Israelites in the desert.

What is striking, however, is the comment that the rock that provided this spiritual drink is said to have accompanied the Israelites through the desert. What does this mean? When we place Paul’s incidental comment here side by side with other ancient texts, a picture begins to emerge. Other Second Temple texts refer to a mobile source of water accompanying the Israelites through the desert. Actually, there are some variations on this story, but what they all have in common is the notion of mobility. [Goes on to cite and comment on several texts.]

Should Paul’s comment be understood as another example of this tradition? I think that is beyond a reasonable doubt. These other versions, even though they are later than Paul, are too elaborate to have been caused by Paul’s incidental comment. Rather, Paul’s incidental comment would have no meaning unless there was in existence a well-known tradition of a mobile source of water to back it up. Both Paul and the other texts are witnesses to an interpretive tradition that preceded both of them. By calling the rock Christ, Paul is certainly Christianizing this Old Testament story. But Paul’s Old Testament is one that has already been subject to a rich history of interpretation. It is not just the words on the page but the interpretive tradition as well that make up Paul’s Old Testament. (pp. 139–41, second edition)

Rather than seeing an error, Enns is saying that if our view of Scripture treats examples like this as illegal operations, then so much for our view of Scripture. It needs to adapt to match what God inspired.

(Also, Enns wrote a 16-page peer-reviewed paper on the “Moveable Well” in the Bulletin for Biblical Research in 1996. If one wants to critique his view, it may be worthwhile to “steelman” him by reading his in-depth scholarly writing rather than reacting to something he said on a podcast or such. Just send me a private message if you’d like a copy of his article.)

7 Likes
38

Well, For what it is worth… , I was quoting from his published book “The Bible Tells Me So”…

Why was this moment so significant and unsettling for me? These early Jewish interpreters were interesting to read about, maybe even a little entertaining, like when they talked about a movable water-producing rock. But Paul?! No, not Paul!! He’s a Christian. He’s on our side. He is speaking for God and so he’s not supposed to say stupid things like rocks follow people around in the desert to give them a drink.

1 Like
39

Even that bit of context helps. Note that he is phrasing how the issue looks to someone who believes in a common view of inerrancy – a view that he also held in the past. So, even in his popular writing, his point seems to be the same: if your view of Scripture can’t tolerate stuff like this in the Bible, your view of Scripture needs to change. If we consider biblical authors stupid for holding beliefs common to their day, we need to check our chronological snobbery.

7 Likes
40

Ehrman is a good example of the problems that occur when people claim the Bible is inerrant — once an error is found, the foundation of a faith based on inerrancy crumbles.

There are a few minor errors in the Bible, and it is a greater error to claim the Bible is inerrant. The Bible never claims inerrancy for itself.

This interview with Daniel Wallace might be helpful:

‘What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.“

3 Likes