Bob Thune 2004-04-26
From Summa Bergania
From : David Bergan
Sent : Monday, April 26, 2004 10:47 PM
To : Bob Thune, Jr
Subject : A (more) Greek Bible
Hi Pastor Bob,
Thank you for a challenging reply.
I think the best way to think about all of this is to clothe it as ancient pagan literature. So, let's say that the book of Isaiah was written by Homer. Let's say that Proverbs was written by Aristotle, and that the Gospels were written by Dio Cassius. And we'll say the Pauline Epistles were written by Epictetus. A poet, a philosopher, a historian, and a moralist... all with respectable reputations except that Dio Cassius is generally thought of as slightly biased toward Roman senators (and therefore against the Caesars) in his recounting of Roman history.
Ok, so what is different now that we have Greek and Roman writers instead of Jewish ones? Well, the main difference is that we aren't as eager to label the Greek and Roman writers 'inspired' or 'inerrant.' They're just citizens with an education and ink... does that affect the conclusions we draw?
Let's see: So our historian tells us of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. He even includes details of the crucifixion meant to dispel the doubts - such as having a guard at the tomb to make sure Jesus's followers wouldn't steal His body, and piercing Jesus's side to see the blood and water flow. It is, for sure, an incredible tale to think that Jesus was resurrected, but unless we have some philosophy that's opposed to miracles, we can't say with certainty that it didn't happen. We know both that it could have happened, and that Dio Cassius was convinced that it happened. And we can add to that our knowledge that Christianity does exist in this world here and now... meaning that it had to have a beginning, meaning that people had to start it that were convinced to the point of martyrdom that it was true (which we also know from secular historians commenting on Roman persecutions). These martyrs were as convinced as Dio Cassius that Jesus was resurrected. Philosophically, there will always be the debate of whether or not God does miracles (or even exists). But when it comes to the historical debate, there isn't even a case against Jesus being resurrected. There is no historical evidence, from any source, that denies it.
So in a historical setting, this would be analogous to someone denying that Caesar defeated Pompey and rose to the throne of Rome... all the accounts (and they are also merely secular) point to Caesar. Sure there might be a wacko who says that philosophically it could never have happened because Rome has never existed. Very well, and on that wacko's terms of the argument you can have a convuluted discussion about the definitions of 'existence' and 'Rome.' But provided that Rome (and God) can be proven to exist, then we examine the historical evidence to see what role Rome (or God) and its (His) people played in the past. And all the history points to Caesar defeating Pompey.
But so far we have not had to assume Dio Cassius's inspiration either in his real account of Caesar or the pretend account of Christ. We accept his accounts as true without the need for inspiration. We accept them as true because (a) they jibe with our philosophical beliefs, (b) they have no historical antithesis, and (c) they help explain the way the world is as we know it here and now.
Moving on... Aristotle wrote the book of Proverbs full of helpful advice, and empty of historical references. There are a lot of good things in Proverbs, and apart from the Gospels, I have spilled more highlighter on its pages than any other book in the world. But even though Aristotle is full of good ideas, that doesn't mean that all his ideas are 'a priori' good. I should remind myself every day of the gems like "Rebuke a fool and you make an enemy, rebuke a wise man and you make a friend," and "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his personal opinion." But on the other hand, hunched next to the majesty of those powerful phrases, we also have tainted epigrams that seem to suggest that a good person will be materially wealthy, a bad person will be severely punished, lazy people deserve to starve, and naughty children deserve to be beaten with a rod. I will take the parts of Aristotle's wisdom that ring true, but I won't beat my son with a rod.
Does our Aristotle have any special inspiration? I think not. Wisdom like that written in Proverbs is not unique to the Bible. Jewish, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Persian, and Viking cultures all had their sages with or without the God of Abraham. In my room, I have a collection of maxims and reflections by Goethe (best described probably as a pantheist) - some of which ring as true (and therefore get as much highlighter) as those of Solomon.
And now let's go to Homer. Homer, in our game, made some startling predictions regarding Christ that He fulfilled. For sure, as far as those prophesies go, I must say that Homer was divinely inspired, because I'm not going to believe that he was merely lucky. How big an umbrella of inspiration does that open? That's really tough to say for sure. The safe answer, probably the only one that would hold up in court, is that only those specific prophesies are inspired. However, I'm inclined to take the rest of the book of Isaiah, I mean Homer, as inspired simply by association. The guy's on fire, so everything he writes burns. But I can't think of a reason why I would think that Homer's inspiration would lead me to believe in Aristotle's or Dio Cassius's or the author of Job's inspiration.
And lastly for Epictetus. Epictetus/Paul offered a lot of important moral guidance and basic theology for understanding Jesus. It's pretty unlikely that Christianity would have made it without him. From time to time in his moral guidance, he claimed inspiration... and there also are times when he said that he clearly wasn't speaking in the spirit. But he didn't have any prophesies that came true to 'prove' the inspiration; none that I know of anyway. His moral guidance, like that of Aristotle/Solomon and Goethe, deserves highlighter when it rings true - although that doesn't prove inspiration. I might have to re-look at those verses specifically, but I don't remember hesitating at any claim he made while specifically speaking in the spirit.
But in his last letter, while neither specifically claiming nor denying inspiration, Epictetus urges his struggling friend Timothy to trust the Scriptures as God-breathed and useful for instruction, rebuke, etc. And he doesn't dwell on the issue at all. There's no paragraph explaining the meaning of that statement, on how literally it should be taken or what he even means exactly by Scriptures. Epictetus could have said something similar about the works of Plato - not meaning that everything Plato wrote was meant to be literally true, but that it is overall the useful beginning of a good education for all men, and a worthy authority for most disputes. Most of all, the intention is to help friend Timothy find some answers - and reading anything in Scripture (or in Plato) is going to give him more than if he just drifts with the current of popular opinion. It is especially good advice for Timothy since Epictetus is about to be dead himself and not there to guide him anymore with his own letters.
And good advice for us, too. If I want my friend to read something life-changing, I will refer him to the Gospels. If he is looking for practical advice, I will recommend Proverbs. If he wants comfort, I give him Job. However, I just don't think the spirit of the Timothy phrase means for us to be extreme and literal in following everything in the Bible. I see no immorality with a woman praying in front of a man or cutting her hair. And I will not beat my son with a rod to keep him from being spoiled.
- "But in the broader scope, I'm still hoping to convince you of the weakness of your epistemological framework. You wrote, "We cannot choose the beliefs that we want and declare them true." Yet that is exactly what each of us does, all the time, in order to think at all. Epistemology starts not with facts, but with presuppositions."
This part really interests me. I hope our conversation will get there soon. Did this example of ancient Greeks and Romans help make my point?
Hope to hear from you soon.
Yours,
David
--David Bergan
"I wish I had never been born," she said. "What are we born for?"
"For infinite happiness," said the Spirit. "You can step out into it at any moment..."
-CS Lewis (The Great Divorce)
