Why do people try to make scripture talk science?

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
41

I get so tired of those lists. I come across a new one every few months and my reaction is always a line from a C S Lewis novel, “What do they teach in those schools, anyway?!” except that almost always there’s at least one question that deserves my response of “Come on, use the brain God gave you!”

I’ve met some who get really bent out of shape when they learned that though I am confident that there really was a “Noah’s Flood”, I consider the account as written to be mythologized history – they can’t grasp those two words going together, even.

First most Christians would have to sit down and learn what myth is in the literary sense. Though militant atheists online are just as ignorant generally.

I’ve always regarded the idea that God couldn’t communicate using myth to be quite silly given that for the most part humans are heavily guided by myth (though few recognize it). My view of God says He will communicate in whatever ways people will listen to because He is determined to get as many of us as possible “back to the Garden”.

Those figures rely on what is actually an unlikely reading in the Masoretic text. Other Hebrew texts, notably in the Dead Sea scrolls, agree with the Septuagint that Goliath was 6’ 6" or 6’ 9".

5 Likes
42

I didn’t “come up” with either of those, I learned about the “Egypt not recording” thing from grad courses in ancient Egyptian history and the “nomadic lack of evidence” from more recent papers.

Huh? I didn’t dismiss anything, I noted that there is controversy and that this shouldn’t be surprising. I’ve gone back and forth on the eleph matter as I’ve read articles I hadn’t come across before; in fact I spent half an hour this morning trying to find an article I recall as having noted that this was a word shared by both Egyptian and Ugaritic . . . but I can’t recall which way their use tilted things.

43

Sure… Luther eventually had others in his group but some reformers in the “radical” stream also drafted statements of faith that used language like "we believe, we affirm… etc. and emphasized a group-effort in reading and interpreting scripture so I don’t see this process as being much different across the various reforming groups. And whether Luther called his new “correct Catholic Church” a “denomination” seems to be just semantics? I’m not sure what your point is there…he did distinguish his interpretation and practice from that of the Roman Catholic group.

And perhaps Luther himself didn’t kill a “heretic” but by ordering killing of heretics by the “good Christian princes” in the German lands those princes would have been Lutherans, no? In any case it again seems to be semantics…Luther ordered violence to kill rivals to his own interpretation and version of “Christendom”.

But on a much happier note!!..this article describes recent reconciliation between Lutherans and Anabaptist for historical wrongs.

1 Like
44

As far as I understand, the persecution of Mennonites in the Lutheran lands was a typical guilt by association case. They were theologically close to the other Anabaptists (Thomas Müntzer, the leaders of the Münster rebellion, and the like) who endorsed and organized violent uprisings - therefore, they also seemed politically suspicious. Of course, it was a huge mistake (although not a crime according to the laws of the epoch) - and it’s very good that nowadays we have a reconciliation and a theological dialogue between the Mennonites and the Lutherans.

45

It seems to me that this approach is widespread among all kinds of Protestants - and it arose not so much from the humanist background as from accepting the sola Scriptura doctrine without contextualizing it properly. People tend to believe that the Bible must be entirely clear by itself, that there shouldn’t be any extra-biblical guidance on reading and comprehending it.

Hence they are predisposed to reject the obvious idea that no biblical text was written in a cultural vacuum but was related to a broad cultural context and can’t be understood apart from the latter. The implicit logic of this obstinate rejection is as follows: the cultural contexts of the Hellenistic era and especially of the ancient Middle East are only partially accessible today. Therefore, no biblical exegesis can escape a degree of uncertainty - and they can’t bear this conclusion. That’s why, in the end, they prefer to read the Bible as a self-sufficient and self-referential text. Having substracted any other cultural context but their own, they tend to understand any biblical passage (unless it is unambiguously written otherwise) as a plain instruction (or description) addressed to them directly.

3 Likes
46

Assuming that my arms are typical (which is probably giving an overestimate, as my torso is pretty long), I get that 6 cubits and a span (assuming someone about 5’ tall is the basis) would give about 8’ 6", which I would still be suspicious of as too high, given that basically no one over 8’ has been able to walk well without leg braces. A burly 6’ 6" or 6’ 9" man would still be pretty scary for someone who is say, 5’ 3" (typical for men of the time). Whilst I have not actually tried fighting someone with a sword, the ineffectiveness of my younger cousin (who was about 4’ 10" and sturdy) trying to wrestle me (6’5" then, more like 6’6" now and also sturdily built) gives me a sense of what a fight like that might have been like. The description of Saul’s height relative to the general population suggests to me that he might have been about 5’11" or 6’ 1".

And for an immediate sense of what those sizes are like–here are presenters at a conference last month: We are, respectively, 5’2", 5’10", and 6’6". I don’t think that either of them would particularly want to try fighting me, if any reason to do so would arise.

IMG_3321
IMG_3321480×640 59.3 KB

4 Likes
47

It was certainly true that non-violent radical reformers were lumped into same class as the violent strains, and the Muntzer debacle provided a convenient excuse for Magisterial reformers (and Catholics) to issue death-warrants for all dissenters. However, often the various strains of “Anabaptism” actually were not theologically close to one another. Thomas Munzter, for example, once spoke out against infant baptism, but never instituted adult baptism for his followers, so it is questionable whether he should even be considered an “Anabaptist” under that broad technical criteria. And TM’s crazy ideas of escatology and polygamy, e.g., were not shared by other groups of radicals.

If one delves into the historic writings by Luther and Melanchthon, one reason the peaceful Anabaptists were persecuted was not because they were assumed to be violent, but because they refused to take up government positions in the State (refused government military service) and were therefore assumed to be “sedicious blasphemy”, of not conforming to Luther’s State Christendom. I copied this blog-clip from an article on Patheos by Dave Armstong

In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated . . .

Melanchthon this time argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God

2 Likes
48

The tale of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh is a good example on this point. It is essentially the Noah flood tale, and I don’t think anyone doubts that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than Genesis. It isn’t at all surprising that a culture that developed on a flood plain has a flood myth. The lifeblood of Mesopotamian cultures was the Euphrates and Tigris, both in terms of water and the rich soil deposited by flooding. It also isn’t surprising that a group of people would use a well known flood myth within their larger culture to help explain their theological beliefs.

2 Likes
49

Certainly this was a major issue as the peaceful Anabaptists were not only refusing to become warriors or magistrate’s officials but taught that these occupations were incopatible with Christian living. Hence, they implied that the princes and officials were not Christians. For any ruler of the epoch, whether Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed, it was extremely difficult to swallow.

What I was trying to say, however, is that after the unfortunate experience with Müntzer and the like Luther and Melanchton were very suspicious of any expression of the Radical Reformation. Of course, it’s a pure conjecture - but, as far as I understand Luther’s thought and character, he could have allowed some leeway to the radical dissenters (and could have accordingly influenced the princes) if there hadn’t been the “Peasants’ War” and the earlier disturbances in Wittenberg in 1521-1522 (while Luther was absent).

Having said all this, I don’t try to justify the persecution of dissenters. Clearly it was not in line with the Gospel of Jesus. The persistent, almost universal failure of the medieval and, to a great extent, early modern Christendom to understand this only highlights the systemic nature of the long-term abuse.

3 Likes
50

Yes, the blending of theology and politics of the times certainly caused some regrettable events and myopia at the time (none of us is perfect). As you said, we’re very glad to see modern efforts at forgiveness and reconciliation among various Christian groups…a true expression of trying to follow Christ. That doesn’t mean that theological differences aren’t real, and still persist…(I personally still do feel that holding government office is not a valid career for a follower of Jesus! Call me a living radical). But such disagreements over theology are probably inevitable within the global church, and I don’t think we need to force agreement (or suppress conversations) among brothers and sisters in Christ who hold different opinions. But, as expressed earlier in the thread, I think the important thing is the humility and respect we show in dialog with those we disagree with.

4 Likes
51

Its my understanding that the DSS is not its own text but has fragmented copies of both the MT and LXX. Both show little variation from more modern copies which indicate that they were carefully copied over the ages. The other Hebrew texts you are referring to would then be extra biblical. Maybe I’m wrong.

Thanks for the estimate of his size based on someone 5’ tall. Could explain why David was able to knock him down so easily.:joy:

1 Like
52

There are whole articles on Goliath speculating that he had Marfan’s syndrome, which causes tall stature, sometimes visual problems (explaining why he said David came at him with sticks) etc. I would more think he was just a big guy, or perhaps had acromegaly. Sort of like in the Princess Bride scene where Westley and Fezzik (Andre the Giant) fight, big size usually means slow movement and lack of agility. That made him a good target at pretty short range for a sling, which is such a good weapon that armies used them.

1 Like
53

Acromegaly does seem to describe Goliath’s condition as burly and Andre the Giant is an excellent example. He was 7’-4". Maybe both Marfan’s syndrome and acromegaly at the same time?

This shows both in close family members:

54

No, he didn’t; the only violence he urged on anyone was to put down rebellion. He went completely over the top there to our views today, and indeed what he unleashed shocked even a good number of contemporaries. As for ‘heretics’ he grudgingly approved the death penalty but only for those who disturbed pubic order. The worst was in a statement written by Philip Melanchthon who pretty much redefined threats to public order –

“even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God.”

and proceeded to define any threat to public order as sedition, which was how he got Luther to go along.

No – that’s projecting our understanding backwards. In the sixteenth century the concept of the church was thoroughly geographical; the idea that subjects of a given ruler could “belong” to different “churches” was horrifying to almost everyone. So when Anabaptists led a revolt that took over the city of Munster, declaring it the “New Jerusalem”, doing away with private property, smashing images in churches, made it a crime to not be re-baptized, burned all books except the Bible, legalized polygamy, imprisoned any women of childbearing age who did not promptly get married and/or who did not submit to sex on demand from their husbands – and when many women decided that living in a women’s prison was preferable to what amounted to slavery, enacted a law saying that rather than being imprisoned such women would be executed, and more, every person of authority in Germany demanded the rebellion be put down. The most advanced concept of religious freedom to date – cuius regio, eius religio, “whose realm, his religion” – was thus upheld.

Rabbit trail: This principle had two results down the line. First was that, given how many different principalities there were in Germany, people became accustomed to having neighbors of a different religion (especially after the principle was extended to include the Reformed) ; second, after a time, when two principalities with different churches merged rather than abolish one rulers demanded the two fashion a union (enforced by law of course)(fast forward to Napoleon for the widespread implementation of this when he reduced the numbers of German states/princedoms from scores [I’ve read there were nearly two hundred] to just 39) – and as these unions tended to be in name only, the modern phenomenon of multiple churches in one nation-state began to emerge.

At any rate . . . Luther continually returned to the position that only active rebellion/sedition or attacks on people and/or property (such as trashing churches) should be punished.

55

Given what slings are like, it wouldn’t make much difference. Combining values that I found cited for flight distance for top ancient to classical-era slingers and weights and shapes for sling bullets and plugging them into this simulator Projectile of a Trajectory: With and Without Drag | Desmos (I’m not that good at differential equations yet) suggests that at a range of say, 20 m (it doesn’t matter much between 15 and 40), the sling bullet would have been traveling at about 110 m/s, and had a kinetic energy of about 1300 J. Given that it probably weighed about twice as much as a baseball, and baseballs to the head at half that speed (or golf balls at that speed) can be fatal, and that that’s about as much energy as a .40 caliber pistol round, I doubt that anyone would remain conscious after a short-range sling bullet to the head.

1 Like
56

Luther signed the order drafted by Melanchthon, did he not? Last I heard, signing a document indicates one’s agreement with it. I’m not out to demonize Luther in all respects (even Anabaptists learned from aspects of his theology) but don’t think we should simply try to whitewash all past behaviour either (your speculation that he “grudgingly approved the death penalty” is just that…speculation).

But as seen from the Patheos blog post I attached in a previous comment, Luther’s death edict extended not just to the groups that perpetrated violence, but to known-to-be passive Anabaptist dissenters who disagreed with his theology. He made no distinctions. This shows he was not simply trying to stamp out violence, but to quell intellectual (theological) dissent.

Rabbit hole: I’ll attach the link to that Patheos post here. The author seems to be a Catholic who does have a real axe to grind with Luther. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in that harsh tone, but I think the recorded text of Luther’s writing is a fascinating window into history.

57

It was a political mess: when the Münster rebellion began, Roman Catholic rulers didn’t want to be seen as possibly impious once Bishop Waldeck began his siege of the city to get it back, and so began a serious campaign to eliminate Anabaptists. Anabaptists began fleeing into states with Lutheran rulers, who joined the overreaction by coming down hard not just on the refugees when they caused problems but on all Anabaptists. Part of the Lutheran motivation was that since 1529 the law in Germany – technically, in the Holy Roman Empire – required the death penalty for Anabaptists causing disorder, where the term was defined by each ruler; the Lutherans were still trying to be good subjects of the emperor in every way but religious, so they had to be as zealous as their Roman Catholic neighbors (as I recall, the emperor at the time was content to not enforce the religious judgments against the Wittenburg Reformers and their adherents so long as no one caused any trouble, so they had good [political] justification for wanting to show their zeal).

After Münster, it could have been a bigger mistake for the Lutheran princes to not go an an Anabaptist hunt lest the emperor’s brother – fanatically Roman Catholic and the emperor’s viceroy in Germany – use weak or absent action as an excuse to invade them one by one. Despite the formation of the Schmalkaldic League they were still technically part of the Holy Roman Empire. While the emperor was focused on the army of Sulieman, the Lutherans didn’t entirely trust his brother.

An outgrowth of all this was that the Elector of Saxony, John Frederick I, insisted that Reformed rulers and cities who subscribed to the Tetrapolitan Confession could be admitted to the Schmalkaldic League, not just those who adhered to the Augsburg Confession. Another was the development of a movement under Menno Simons that was thoroughgoingly pacifist and rejected most of the ideas from the Münster rebellion, a group eventually called Mennonites. Thus strangely it was Anabaptist violence that spurred the birth of what is perhaps the most pacifist group of Christians today.

2 Likes
58

It’s too bad that it got called “sola scriptura” because that tended to be understood in practice as “nuda scriptura” when it was intended to be “prima scriptura”. The last can be found among the Fathers, but Roman Catholics won’t admit that because in any defense at all of the idea they just see nuda scriptura – which they rightly oppose given that it is contrary to scripture.

Magical thinking.

I read an article a while back that demolished the notion that the concept of the perspicuity of scripture means there’s no need to read anything else – and the hypocrisy of those who claim it does since none of them are actually consistent.

It’s surprising to me just how different the statements of passages popularly held to be simple become when read in light of scholarship.

That was encouraged oddly enough by a liberal approach to Bible study, focused on “what this means to me”. That was the third step in applying scripture to one’s own life but the first two required actual brain work.

1 Like
59

When I was in grad school there was a lively scholarly debate over whether Genesis relied on Gilgamesh or they both relied on a common source. My advisor was a “common source” type guy, and I still am – and from what I see that side is in ascendance these days.

Especially since there is evidence of more than one flood that was wide enough that someone floating along where those two main rivers were wouldn’t have been able to see anything but water! I just read one article that proposed that one of those floods was a convergence of a massive tropical storm surging up the Tigris-Euphrates valley and a volcanic eruption that melted vast amounts of snow and ice that then surged down the valley – thus storm surge, monsoon-heavy rains, and melt from the mountains all heaping up.

Bingo, especially when the entire region preserved flood stories as based on a real event.

60

Interestingly Luther commented on this very issue: he held that it was better to have an unbeliever for a ruler if he was a good ruler than a Christian who was a poor ruler.

Yes – Luther repeatedly returned to the view that only those guilty of disturbing pubic order (with violence) or sedition deserved death. At one point he opined that it was fine for those with different Christian beliefs to meet in their own houses so long as they lived their lives quietly – astoundingly radical for his time!

I saw an online conversation where a Greek Orthodox guy was holding forth on the position that Rome was to blame for the idea of using force for keeping doctrine pure. I was still thinking how to begin a response when an Antiochene Orthodox chimed in and said it started the moment Justinian made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

The east has learned since then, but the fact that for over a thousand years we in the west have seen religion enforced by violence has left the idea that it is acceptable, in our culture. Even the German example of allowing Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed in one kingdom didn’t change that since this was still a list of approved religions. And the “American experiment” is still young historically, enough so that there is actual nostalgia for the days of “the divine right of kings” where church and state are enmeshed.

1 Like