[Vision2020] Response to "Stile" (I & II)

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:24:49 -0800

--Boundary_(ID_WgY7HGYt4/AVWEP1SUOKDw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Greetings:

Note: I apologize to V2020 readers.  When Stile first responded to me, I 
thought we were going to have a nice off-line debate, but he keeps posting 
it publicly, so I must respond likewise.

Another Note: I find it interesting that neither Mr. Stile nor Miss Edna 
were in any Quad Cities phonebook that I could find.

Dear Mr. "Stile":

Thank you for your detailed response, but simply listing a string of 
quotations without sufficient commentary and analysis does not constitute 
scholarship.  And quoting the fundamentalists back to me whom I believe to 
be discredited does not advance your case at all.

I will comment on some quotations, but others I will ignore because I can 
see no possible relevance to the questions I raised, or find you just 
preaching.

Just a clarification before we begin.  I do not do "higher criticism" of 
the Bible or other world scripture.  I leave that to the experts, from whom 
I learn and to whom I defer.  The same proviso holds for professional 
historians of all stripes.  When I'm not relying on the best Bible 
scholars, I'm using a simple inductive method that requires that one simply 
read the passage for its plain meaning and its inherent logic.

Stile: Martin Luther) "The scriptures have never erred, the scriptures 
cannot err... it is certain that scripture cannot disagree with itself." 
(Given the full body of Luther's work, I found it amusing that you used one 
quote, obviously not this one,upon which to hang the idea that Luther was 
one of the earliest students of higher criticism)

Gier: You don't give a reference for this passage, but even if it is 
correct, then Luther is at odds with himself.  When I said in my book I 
leave it to the experts, I mean that I don't presume to be a Luther scholar 
and here I defer to a great majority of them who state that Luther did not 
believe in detailed inerrancy.

I suspect that this may be like the debate I had with Doug Wilson about 
Luther and reason.  I listed a bunch of passages, including the famous 
"reason is a whore," and as a response Wilson published one Luther passage 
in praise of reason in his journal "The Hammer." (early 1980s) I requested 
that Wilson run a correction putting that single quote in context, but he 
refused, because top males can never concede anything.

Stile's quotations from Josephus, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr all 
refer to the Septuagint, a very poor translation of the Hebrew.  The 
translators were even stumped by parts of the text, so they simply didn't 
translate them!  Here we have a real conundrum: the Holy Spirit inspired a 
bad translation.  Not a very good basis for detailed inerrancy!

Stile: (Galatians 1.11-12) "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel 
which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of 
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Gier:  Yes, Paul preaches the Gospel but then he writes letters to whom he 
preached.  There is no indication whatsoever that he considered those 
letters divinely inspired.  If he did, he or the writers of 2 Timothy would 
have said so.

So let us now turn to 2 Tim. 3:16.  I should have started with verse 15, 
which has a very important qualifier: "and how from childhood you have been 
acquainted with the sacred writings. . . ."  The logic of this passage is 
crystal clear: for Paul the only inspired books are those of the Hebrew Bible.

If Paul wrote 2 Timothy, then there were no New Testament books in 
existence.  But most scholars believe that Paul didn't write either letters 
and that is why there is a reference to Luke in I Timothy.  Both Paul and 
Peter were long dead before Luke was written, so Peter could not have 
written the books attributed to him.  And of course when these books were 
written (2 Peter as late as 140 CE), the New Testament canon, including the 
Gospels and Paul's letters but not Revelation, was forming.

Stile therefore confuses the issue.  I was not talking about the early 2nd 
Century Christian community.  I was talking about Paul and only Paul. All 
fundamentalists believe that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, 
so if he wrote 2 Timothy, there was no New Testament in existence, 
certainly not one that one could read from childhood.

Stile simply cannot stay on task.  I was speaking about 2 Tim. 3:16, the 
foundational verse for the inspiration of scripture, and my challenge still 
stands.  This verse does not say anything about inspired knowledge of 
geography, science, or history.  The idea of a scientific history, in which 
historians are required to check their sources very carefully, is a very 
recent phenomenon. (That's why we have so many myths and misattributions 
about George Washington.)  That's why most scholars claim that detailed 
inerrancy is also a recent invention by Bible believers insecure in an age 
in which science is the only paradigm for truth.

Gier: I also have two other questions for you:

1. What constituted the Old Testament for Paul or Jesus for that 
matter?  Remember, it was not yet canonized. Was it the very poor 
Septuagint translation in Greek, Targum paraphrases, or was it Erza's 24 
books and 70 additional esoteric books? See I Esdras 14:1-48 for the last 
one. Lots of weird stuff was circulating in the First Century CE!  Pick 
your poison!

Here I must apologize for my misleading language.  I have nothing but 
respect for scripture of the world's religions.  What I meant by my 
ambiguous phrase was that any choice for the fundamentalist is poison--that 
is, it destroys his position about detailed inerrancy.  The Gospel writers 
did not seem to care what they were using--Targum paraphrases or poor 
Septuagint translations--perfectly accurate rendering of scriptures was not 
on their radar screen.  The so-called "closing of the canon" at Jamnia is 
not historically verified.  In fact, the Hebrew text that all Bible 
scholars use is the Massoretic text from the 9th Century CE, 1,500 to 2,500 
years after the events of the Old Testament.

I'm afraid that there is nothing in the Second Part of your response except 
preaching, and we've had far too much of that on V2020.  And my colleagues 
who spent their lives studying the Bible do not find any of your sources 
very credible.  These positions would not survive for a minute at a meeting 
of the Society for Biblical Literature.  Truth here is approximated in the 
same way that scientific truth--namely, by consensus in open debate at 
professional conferences.

Mr. Stile, you still owe an answer to the two questions I posed in my 
Civics 101 class.  I still want a reference to that George Washington quote.

So again I sign myself,

Yours for careful and accurate scripture reading,

Nick Gier

Nicholas F. Gier
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm
208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm

--Boundary_(ID_WgY7HGYt4/AVWEP1SUOKDw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

<html>
Greetings: 
Note: I apologize to V2020 readers.&nbsp; When Stile first responded to
me, I thought we were going to have a nice off-line debate, but he keeps
posting it publicly, so I must respond likewise. 
Another Note: I find it interesting that neither Mr. Stile nor Miss Edna
were in any Quad Cities phonebook that I could find. 
Dear Mr. “Stile”: 
Thank you for your detailed response, but simply listing a string of
quotations without sufficient commentary and analysis does not constitute
scholarship.&nbsp; And quoting the fundamentalists back to me whom I
believe to be discredited does not advance your case at all. 
I will comment on some quotations, but others I will ignore because I can
see no possible relevance to the questions I raised, or find you just
preaching. 
Just a clarification before we begin.&nbsp; I do not do “higher
criticism” of the Bible or other world scripture.&nbsp; I leave that to
the experts, from whom I learn and to whom I defer.&nbsp; The same
proviso holds for professional historians of all stripes.&nbsp; When I’m
not relying on the best Bible scholars, I’m using a simple inductive
method that requires that one simply read the passage for its plain
meaning and its inherent logic. 
Stile: Martin Luther) &quot;The scriptures have never erred, the
scriptures cannot err... it is certain that scripture cannot disagree
with itself.” (Given the full body of Luther’s work, I found it amusing
that you used one quote, obviously not this one,upon which to hang the
idea that Luther was one of the earliest students of higher
criticism) 
Gier: You don’t give a reference for this passage, but even if it is
correct, then Luther is at odds with himself.&nbsp; When I said in my
book I leave it to the experts, I mean that I don’t presume to be a
Luther scholar and here I defer to a great majority of them who state
that Luther did not believe in detailed inerrancy. 
I suspect that this may be like the debate I had with Doug Wilson about
Luther and reason.&nbsp; I listed a bunch of passages, including the
famous “reason is a whore,” and as a response Wilson published one Luther
passage in praise of reason in his journal “The Hammer.” (early 1980s) I
requested that Wilson run a correction putting that single quote in
context, but he refused, because top males can never concede
anything. 
Stile’s quotations from Josephus, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr all
refer to the Septuagint, a very poor translation of the Hebrew.&nbsp; The
translators were even stumped by parts of the text, so they simply didn’t
translate them!&nbsp; Here we have a real conundrum: the Holy Spirit
inspired a bad translation.&nbsp; Not a very good basis for detailed
inerrancy! 
Stile: (Galatians 1.11-12) &quot;But I certify you, brethren, that the
gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received
it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ.” 
Gier:&nbsp; Yes, Paul preaches the Gospel but then he writes letters to
whom he preached.&nbsp; There is no indication whatsoever that he
considered those letters divinely inspired.&nbsp; If he did, he or the
writers of 2 Timothy would have said so. 
So let us now turn to 2 Tim. 3:16.&nbsp; I should have started with verse
15, which has a very important qualifier: “and how from childhood you
have been acquainted with the sacred writings. . . .”&nbsp; The logic of
this passage is crystal clear: for Paul the only inspired books are those
of the Hebrew Bible. 
If Paul wrote 2 Timothy, then there were no New Testament books in
existence.&nbsp; But most scholars believe that Paul didn’t write either
letters and that is why there is a reference to Luke in I Timothy.&nbsp;
Both Paul and Peter were long dead before Luke was written, so Peter
could not have written the books attributed to him.&nbsp; And of course
when these books were written (2 Peter as late as 140 CE), the New
Testament canon, including the Gospels and Paul’s letters but not
Revelation, was forming. 
Stile therefore confuses the issue.&nbsp; I was not talking about the
early 2nd Century Christian community.&nbsp; I was talking about Paul and
only Paul. All fundamentalists believe that Paul wrote all the letters
attributed to him, so if he wrote 2 Timothy, there was no New Testament
in existence, certainly not one that one could read from
childhood. 
Stile simply cannot stay on task.&nbsp; I was speaking about 2 Tim. 3:16,
the foundational verse for the inspiration of scripture, and my challenge
still stands.&nbsp; This verse does not say anything about inspired
knowledge of geography, science, or history.&nbsp; The idea of a
scientific history, in which historians are required to check their
sources very carefully, is a very recent phenomenon. (That’s why we have
so many myths and misattributions about George Washington.)&nbsp; That’s
why most scholars claim that detailed inerrancy is also a recent
invention by Bible believers insecure in an age in which science is the
only paradigm for truth. 
Gier: I also have two other questions for you: 
1. What constituted the Old Testament for Paul or Jesus for that
matter?&nbsp; Remember, it was not yet canonized. Was it the very poor
Septuagint translation in Greek, Targum paraphrases, or was it Erza's 24
books and 70 additional esoteric books? See I Esdras 14:1-48 for the last
one. Lots of weird stuff was circulating in the First Century CE!&nbsp;
Pick your poison! 
Here I must apologize for my misleading language.&nbsp; I have nothing
but respect for scripture of the world’s religions.&nbsp; What I meant by
my ambiguous phrase was that any choice for the fundamentalist is
poison--that is, it destroys his position about detailed inerrancy.&nbsp;
The Gospel writers did not seem to care what they were using--Targum
paraphrases or poor Septuagint translations--perfectly accurate rendering
of scriptures was not on their radar screen.&nbsp; The so-called “closing
of the canon” at Jamnia is not historically verified.&nbsp; In fact, the
Hebrew text that all Bible scholars use is the Massoretic text from the
9th Century CE, 1,500 to 2,500 years after the events of the Old
Testament. 
I’m afraid that there is nothing in the Second Part of your response
except preaching, and we’ve had far too much of that on V2020.&nbsp; And
my colleagues who spent their lives studying the Bible do not find any of
your sources very credible.&nbsp; These positions would not survive for a
minute at a meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature.&nbsp; Truth
here is approximated in the same way that scientific truth--namely, by
consensus in open debate at professional conferences. 
Mr. Stile, you still owe an answer to the two questions I posed in my
Civics 101 class.&nbsp; I still want a reference to that George
Washington quote. 
So again I sign myself, 
Yours for careful and accurate scripture reading, 
Nick Gier 
 
<x-sigsep></x-sigsep>
Nicholas F. Gier 
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho 
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843 
<a href="http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm" eudora="autourl">http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm 
</a>208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950 
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO 
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm</a></html>

--Boundary_(ID_WgY7HGYt4/AVWEP1SUOKDw)--