by slimboyfat 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
Not to derail the thread, EP, but you must surely have come across a thread or two like that by now. Search the forum on "Flying Spaghetti Monster," or "Sky Wizard," and let me know.
You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it and let ME know.. I am not your research assistant. The book referenced in the OP is not making the claim you made that I quoted, so it's not really valid as a reference, tersely or otherwise.
OGD,
Saw this and a couple of your other recent posts
If I don't get a chance to say anything more about your discussion about acceptance or rejection of "ambiguity", I would like to say thanks. It's worth my consideration considering circumstances that brought me to this forum.
Anyway, I would like to attest to what you say about the New Jerusalem Bible. Several years ago I was able to find a copy of the version with footnotes and introductions to many of the books at a used bookstore. The footnotes are wonderful since they point out to the reader many issues or implications of the text that would not be obvious at first reading. The layout is also helpful. Just from this it is fairly clear that the Book of Isaiah is made of three distinct parts. Or that text changes back and forth from poetry and prose. The translators, contributors and/or editors largely let the chips fall where they may. And even at that they seem to remain optimistic that the readers will find their work edifying and spiritually uplifting.
The introduction explains that the Jerusalem Bible undertaking began during the papacy of Pius XII in the 1940s. It was felt that Catholic Biblical scholarship was falling behind that displayed in other religious communities and that it was urgent that things not remain in such a state.
Since you mentioned "Lord of the Rings", I should note that Tolkien was among the contributors to the Jerusalem Bible effort.
Prior to joining the forum, and of course since, it has been necessary to consult other sources. Starting from near zero perhaps five years ago, I have become used to looking at Hebrew and Greek texts with guides, the NWT and the KJV as well.
Correspondingly, I should say that for people who come from a Protestant background, it should be remembered that there are numerous non-canonical books in the Catholic Bible. In many cases, despite this strike against the included text, there is an awful lot of pertinent information in these books. Some are simply the stuff of legends such as Judith, but others such as the Maccabees tell things about Christian and Jewish history that would not be understood otherwise. If one were to cite Josephus, then Maccabees would be equally as valid.
Avalos is relentless. By the end of the book you wonder if there is any reasonable basis for respect for the Bible left.
I found that after the deconstruction of the Bible, I now have an even greater respect for it. I'm less worried about divine command -- there's no need for a moral guidebook telling me when I can take a s*it. I recognize it for what it is: a hodge podge of texts written by the frail yet noble hand of homo-sapien, searching for the numinous and trying to grapple with their tumultuous desert-world. Literary and aesthetic quality varies between texts - but it is most of all RICH, filled with meaning and symbolism deeply imprinted on western consciousness.
I've directed my skeptical gaze at the Bible for a while, now I'm getting a little skeptical of evangelical Christians turned evangelical 'skeptics' pronouncing the end of theology/religion/biblical studies/God etc... (Nietzsche did the same thing long ago, only with more poetry, verve, and vigorous thought).
1) The Bible is the Big Truth. According to Bible Fundamentalists.
2) The Bible is Half Truth, Half Lie. According to most modern Bible Scholars.
3) The Bible is the Big Lie. According to atheists.
These are your choices. I believe in 1), as well as in cause and effect (where there is smoke there is fire). Here is a few good quotes of people in the know, having made a thorough study of the Bible and its manuscripts. And an archaeologist worth his salt, working in Palestine, will also study what the Bible has to say about a certain town, geographical location, etc.
End of Biblical Studies? I don't think so. Thousands and thousands are studying the Bible worldwide. I wonder why?
Rudolf Kittel, the first editor of Biblia Hebraica (BH), containing the Masoretic Text of the HAS, said: “Even so the Biblia Hebraica will remain subject to the saying, ‘One day instructs another’. May it find everywhere fair critics, but especially readers worthy of the greatness of the subject!” [i]
Adolf von Harnack, author of the authoritative two-volume work, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (‘The mission and expansion of Christianity during the first three centuries’) commented on the influence of the LXX on Western thought: “The most common attitude among Greeks who came into contact with the Old Testament was that this book and the cosmos are mutually related and must be understood together. Whatever they might think about the book, it appeared to be certain that it was a creation parallel to the world itself, equally great, and comprehensive, and that both are the work of the same Creator. What other book received a comparable verdict among thinking men?” [ii]
R.H. Pfeiffer, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, insists, “No book or collection of books have over the years been more carefully read, more widely circulated or more zealously studied than the books of the Old Testament”.
F.J.A. Hort, a co-producer of the Westcott and Hort text, writes: “By far the most of the words of the New Testament is lifted above all sifting processes of textual criticism, because they have no variants and only needs to be copied... If relatively unimportant questions... are ignored, the words that we vouch to be doubtful only encompasses about a thousandth of the whole of the New Testament.”[iii]
Sir Frederick Kenyon, Bible scholar and erstwhile director of the British Museum, said: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. (But general faithfulness and (pinpoint accuracy) is a different matter).” [iv]
In his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon said: “We must be satisfied with the knowledge that the general faithfulness of the New Testament text has been remarkably confirmed by recent finds. These shortened the time between original MSS and the oldest available MSS to such an extent that the different readings, even though interesting, do not change the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.” [v]
Professor Aland writes: “It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in
examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any
other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.” [vi]
[i] Biblia Hebraica edidit Rudolf Kittel, Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1973 edition, Introduction p. xxviii.
[ii] E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica , p. 49.
[iii] B.F Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881), part I, p. 561. Cf. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (1988 edition), p. 2.
[iv] F. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (1940), pp. 288, 289.
[v] F. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1962), p. 249.
[vi] K. Aland, Das Neue Testament - zuverlässig überliefert (1986), pp. 28.27, 28.
Thanks for the thread SBF, and thanks to all contributors thus far, you all have given me much to think about and plenty to read !
I just have to say that my trajectory out of the WT after so many decades, is exactly the same as you describe SBF, and I think it arises because we were so uneducated as JW's that as each new "truth" unfolds we take a step further along the road, and realise the conclusion we just came to was not the whole story, we then move on to the next stage, just as you describe.
This thread is another step on my journey to enlightenment, thank you all.
I guess one thing we can all agree on is that the Bible is a book... full of words... lots & lots of them. Those who retain a reverence for the Bible most likely stay within their 'comfort zone' of favourite scriptures without really realising it.
Vidquin wrote:
1) The Bible is the Big Truth. According to Bible Fundamentalists.
2) The Bible is Half Truth, Half Lie. According to most modern Bible Scholars.
3) The Bible is the Big Lie. According to atheists.
These are your choices.
Really? The only choices? What about "none of the above." Once one gets past claims to "truth", one can read the Bible as metaphor, which is where it's real power lies. As far as "truth" goes, it's pretty clear by now that the Bible is hodge podge of mythology, poetry, laws with some debatable history thrown in. I don't think calling much of the Bible mythology invalidates it, mythology can hold rich meaning and be an impetus for spiritual growth.
Also, interesting post, but most of the references that you quote are quite dated and from the conservative side of biblical studies.
These are your choices.
Those are false choices. There a large spectrum you didn't even think of.
Slimboyfat your opening thesis was beautifully and pithily stated!
I can honestly state that when I was an active JW I would often erroneously refer to the "Original Manuscripts" which---I swear I did not know--DID NOT EXIST!
I just "assumed" they were preserved in museums somewhere!
In Evangelical Seminaries a tricky statement lies in their charter asserting that: "The bible is without error in the originals..."
Which is intellectual dishonesty writ large, if you ask me.
No Originals? No test!
How can something True be subject to "interpretation"?
Is 2+2=4 an interpretable truth?
Terry, you are correct about the common Evangelical claim about Biblical inerrancy, "in the original autographs." So, if we one day found the book of Exodus that "Moses" actually wrote or the original gospel of John, that would be free from error. Those can't be found. But this just makes the point that the book slimboyfat is referencing is mostly a product of a specific Evangelical (and JW, for that matter) approach to scripture. As such, it is actually a late innovation to reading the Bible.
