I had an interesting conversation with a friend this morning about the difficulty of being an authentic academic and assenting to the creeds, which by nearly all accounts go beyond the evidence in the Bible (the Apostles’ Creed being the lone exception, I think). I’d be really interested in hearing from you, my genius readers. Can one do authentic, intellectually honest, biblical scholarship and also hold to, say, a full-blown trinitarianism… even if one believes that the Bible doesn’t teach such a doctrine?
If so, how? Blind faith? How?
Let’s have a good conversation about this. I’d be interested in hearing from all of you, but particularly those of you who reject important creeds on historical grounds, yet would identify yourself as a Christian.
the better question might be- can one be a scholar of the bible and NOT hold to the condensation of its message as found in the apostles creed? the way the question is framed determines the nature of its answer.
By: Jim on August 6, 2009
at 4:49 pm
Fair enough. So then what say ye?
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 4:57 pm
Well,
Fortunately, I am not a biblical studies person, only a poor poor theological ethicist. I can assent to all of the creeds. I just have a different interpretation of them, and I ignore those statements at the end of them like, anyone who believes that God is not impassible remains an anathema to the church, well, let’s just say I look over those statements (being an Open Theist and all)
By: Rod on August 6, 2009
at 4:52 pm
You’re dead to me, Rod.
(only kidding.)
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 9:06 pm
How can the Bible teach a doctrine? It seems you already have to have certain pre-existing theological beliefs about the Bible (including the idea that there is even such a thing as a Bible and not just a bunch of unrelated books) to even entertain that question. If you have no problem holding to those pre-existing beliefs about the Bible, which themselves go beyond the Bible, then you shouldn’t have any problem with something like trinitarianism or other important doctrines.
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on August 6, 2009
at 5:14 pm
Thanks for chiming in, Bryan. Everybody had theological presuppositions about the Bible, even if they are atheological. I identify myself as a Christian, but you have read too much into my use of the term “bible.” I’m historical critical in my approach to the texts of early Christianity, which is precisely why I asked the question in the post in the first place.
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 5:21 pm
What have I read into your use of the term bible? What do you mean by the term “bible” just so we’re clear?
My point is why believe the Bible speaks or teaches or that it has anything to say to you or the church? Why believe that there is a thing called the Bible that serves this function? Why isn’t it instead just a bunch of ancient unconnected documents to you? If you are approaching this collection of 66 books and assuming that it actually speaks and then asking whether it really teaches a particular doctrine then it seems you have moved out of the realm of pure objective scholarship that merely seeks to interpret what a text means without caring about the relevance of that meaning.
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on August 6, 2009
at 5:34 pm
Bryan thanks for asking for clarification (and providing a bit yourself). I guess I should have been more precise with my language. I do hold that the text popularly called the Bible is in fact 66 separate documents, some of which are related to varying degrees (e.g., Pentateuch, Pauline epistles, and the Synoptics, Luke-Acts), while others are not connected (Regardless of what Rob says!
)
I’m not sure about the bible (to speak of it as a collection) “speaking.” I don’t think the documents therein were written to “us.” You see where I’m going? I just wanted to clarify my starting point.
I see your point, but I’d comment that “pure objective scholarship” only exists in fairy tales and the illusions of we who pursue it. As Paul (sort of) said, “there is no one who is objective, no not even one.”
That quibble aside, I get your point. However, I think everybody brings something extraneous to the text… despite our most valiant efforts.
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 9:14 pm
Michael it doesn’t sound like the Bible is something you should base your beliefs on then. You don’t seem to believe that there is any reason that we should read the various books as a single whole (except maybe for the fact that they’ve historically been grouped together), you aren’t sure whether it speaks to us today (which I guess means it doesn’t ‘teach’ us either), and you don’t believe it was written by its original authors (or by its divine author if you beleive it has one) to the people of God throughout history (including us today).
Have I understood you correctly?
If I have understood you correctly then I don’t really see what the use is in discussing whether the Bible teaches a particular doctrine. That view depends on the Bible being seen as a single book, having a single author (in this case divine), written to people other than just the original audience and intending to speak to those people throughout history, up to today and beyond. Well that’s how it seems to me anyway.
Instead of pure objective scholarship maybe I should have said disinterested scholarship that has no real stake in the implications of its findings since it doesn’t affect the scholar’s life or beliefs.
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on August 6, 2009
at 10:51 pm
Bryan: Yes, I think you’ve understood me correctly. I would seem to me that any “application” to current situations would be to go beyond the original intent of the writings themselves, even if that application is consistent with the original meaning of the text and indeed beneficial to one’s life in general.
It would seem that this position offers a great deal of freedom to formulate theology apart from the text of the Hebrew Bible and the NT.
By: Michael on August 7, 2009
at 11:40 am
yes. i’ve blogged the answer to ‘how’ here:
http://kashow.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/a-brief-assessment-of-the-distinction-between-%E2%80%9Cperson%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cessence%E2%80%9D-in-the-canonical-scriptures/
By: Rob Kashow on August 6, 2009
at 5:41 pm
Rob, you tease, how about you give a synopsis instead of just advertising.
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 5:50 pm
ha! thanks for letting me advertise my perspective, Mike. synopsis? is that even possible with such an astute and great question that you have posed?
By: Rob Kashow on August 6, 2009
at 6:50 pm
Rob, You just got p3wn3d! POWNED BY MIKE!
By: Rod on August 6, 2009
at 8:50 pm
ridiculous.
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 9:15 pm
oh mike busted rob!
By: Jim on August 6, 2009
at 5:59 pm
Along with Bryan I’d ask which doctrines does the ‘Bible teach’? It seems to me that the authors of the various books had plenty to say on any given number of subjects, but it was later interpreters who came along and turned them into ‘doctrines.’ It seems to me that if you’re able to hold to any ‘doctrine’ that you think the ‘Bible’ does ‘teach’ then you should be able to assent to the creeds without problem (assuming of course you believe the contents of the creeds to be accurate).
By: Nick Norelli on August 6, 2009
at 6:56 pm
Nick, see my comments to Bryan above. I think that, for me, the problem becomes, by what standard to one deem a creed to be truthful if one does not find it taught in the Hebrew Bible or the NT?
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 9:16 pm
Michael: I suppose I’d need to see a creed that taught something not found in the Hebrew Bible or NT. As I see it the Apostles’ Creed, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Symbol of Chalcedon are all quite Biblical and truthful.
By: Nick Norelli on August 6, 2009
at 9:36 pm
Nick, this may more may not come as a surprise to you, but the only creed that you mentioned for which I think there is enough evidence to conclude that the writers of the NT would give assent is the Apostles’ Creed. The others, even if there are seeds in the NT, go beyond the evidence we have in the NT. At least, that’s my opinion on the matter.
That’s not to say that the others are not truthful, but only to say that they go beyond what is represented in the NT.
By: Michael on August 7, 2009
at 11:34 am
It is a challenge specific to Protestants, since our historic stance on the Bible trumping the authority of any church, person or creed often leads us to want to justify all our beliefs from the Bible. But since we can’t justify the Bible’s contents on the basis of the Bible, it really is something of a hopeless enterprise.
Once one is free from the vain attempt to justify everything one believes based on the Bible alone, there’s no reason one might not find legitimate extrabiblical reasons for assenting to the creeds.
By: James McGrath on August 6, 2009
at 7:44 pm
James, thanks for chiming in. (I was secretly hoping you would based on our recent bloggersation.)
What specific reasons might you have had in mind? I think you may have mentioned philosophical reasons before. Is that right?
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 9:18 pm
James: Out of curiosity, why can’t we justify the Bible’s contents on the basis of the Bible? I imagine you’ll say because that’s circular, but so what? Why can’t we be circular (since ultimately all reasoning is circular anyway)?
By: Nick Norelli on August 6, 2009
at 9:38 pm
You can be circular if you want to. I’ve always been more of a square myself.
Kidding aside, the issue of circularity is an important one, but it wasn’t what I had in mind when I left the comment.
I was thinking less of the “contents” in the sense of claims or affirmations made in the Bible, and more of the “contents” in the sense of the table of contents, i.e. what the Bible contains. It is no good starting with the Bible with its contents already defined as though it came pre-packaged. The same church that debated and formulated the creeds debated and formulated the canon. And so to treat the church as guided perfectly one case and gravely in error in the other is not a self-evident position to take.
And so, to stir the pot a little, might I be so bold as to suggest that anyone who accepts the Bible as authoritative has already given a great deal of credit to the authority of the church that vouches for the creeds?
By: James F. McGrath on August 6, 2009
at 10:37 pm
James: I see, thanks for the clarification. You raise very good points and I’m inclined to agree. If you can accept the canon you can accept the creeds.
By: Nick Norelli on August 7, 2009
at 1:22 am
James: You said, “And so, to stir the pot a little, might I be so bold as to suggest that anyone who accepts the Bible as authoritative has already given a great deal of credit to the authority of the church that vouches for the creeds?”
You bring up a very interesting point indeed.
By: Michael on August 7, 2009
at 11:36 am
Isn’t it possible to use the creeds in a way that allows for the historical contingency of their declarations?
It seems that one of the problems with the creeds is the way we are taught to view them. As if they are timeless and true interpretations of Scripture which everyone can accept. (I mean really isn’t it silly think such a thing exists or even ought to exist?)
Also, they only answer some questions which usually are not the questions that we even care to ask. It is really hard for me to empathize with a controversy that produces an answer that claims “three persons one essence” — does that even make sense? Or are we just told to accept it?
On the other hand it would do us all good to remember that while we may be able to see the cracks in the creeds foundations we should not be so quick to be confident of our foundation repair since we too are asking our own set of question that no one will be asking in five hundred (fifty?) years.
By: S. Daniel Owens on August 6, 2009
at 8:29 pm
Daniel,
Good thoughts all round. I really appreciate your sentiments about the historical context and our set of questions being different from theirs. I’m glad you chimed in!
By: Michael on August 6, 2009
at 9:20 pm
Between rescuing my blog from hackers, and coping with the time differences, I’m a bit late to this party. However …
I’m quite baffled by the form of your question, Mike, and wonder exactly what you mean by “authentic, intellectually honest, biblical scholarship” and exactly what beliefs you think someone has to hold in order to do it. I would include as practitioners of such scholarship people like Fitzmyer, Dunn, Sanders, Meier, even Bird and Crossley. Their views range from full-blown Catholic orthodoxy to secularism. Which of those views do you think invalidates (or validates) their scholarship?
I think I might be missing the point
By: clayboy on August 7, 2009
at 5:05 am
I hope you’re putting Sanders in the secularism category.
By: John Anderson on August 7, 2009
at 7:35 am
Why?
By: clayboy on August 7, 2009
at 9:01 am
Doug: Thanks for chiming in. I do hope that your blog is and remains back up and running.
Let me see if I can’t clarify things a bit. My original question wasn’t so much about scholarly methodology, but more about how one could give assent to creeds that he or she didn’t find evidence for in the text of the OT and NT. This assumes, of course, that said individual doesn’t find the creeds in the OT and NT, but that was the focus. As I look back at the post, I certainly could have been more clear.
So, to give another go at it, is it possible for some one who, on the basis of historical critical investigation, does not find the support for the creeds, to nevertheless hold to the creeds? Does that make more sense?
This question may be grossly elementary, but it’s one that I, as of late, have been considering more and more.
So, to answer your closing question, I don’t think any of those views invalidates the work of any of those fine scholars. Rather, how would any of those scholars (or you or me) hold to the creeds if they/we didn’t find support for them in the OT and NT?
By: Michael on August 7, 2009
at 11:49 am
OK – that helps. I suppose it’s not a problem I have. My main answer is along the lines of points people have already made about canon. However, I want to emphasise the process (rather than decision). The church that was wrestling its way to the rule of faith expressed first in the Apostles’ and then in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan one was also the church that was wrestling with the question of which books were recognisable as scripture. The worked at and answered the questions in tandem, Effectively these were the books that were consonant with the faith of the reading community, and these creeds were consonant with the faith of the writers of scripture. The books they ruled out or questioned were those where there was a perceived mismatch. In that context it is interesting that the first clear NT canon list that we have (Athanasius’ Festal Letter of 367) comes precisely from that time when the doctrine of the Trinity was reaching maturity.
Now modern historians are much more aware of development, and perhaps have a broader picture of the diversity across the Roman Empire than anyone alive then did. Equally modern historians clearly lack very many significant details of exact Christian practice, and common forms of non-literary belief. So while we can see some ways in which patterns of development may have happened from Paul’s ascribing divine agency to Jesus and the Spirit (if that’s what we think he did) to a full-blown Trinitarianism, we don’t know enough about even Paul’s faith to be sure exactly how he worshipped, or whether Pliny’s description of the Bithynian Christians worshipping Christ as a God would also have applied to Paul a half-century earlier. In short we also have to admit the provisionality of our own reconstructions.
So, I think I would say that first of all that there is (from this argument) a clear inference in favour of finding in nuce at least, “support” (though it depends what you mean by support) for these doctrines. Secondly, as others have noted, once you say: “But I don’t find the faith of the Creeds in these books” then you have to ask, “Why then should I choose the same books as those who did find that faith in them?”
By: clayboy on August 7, 2009
at 1:14 pm
I suppose it is wrestling with issues like these that have led me to end up as a Liberal Protestant. It seems that I have a choice either to recognize the authority of Bible, church and creeds (in whatever sense), or to recognize the historical, contextual, contingent character of all of them – in other words, follow the reformers in their challenge of authority all the way to its logical conclusion, not exempting even the Bible from such investigation. And of course, eventually that leaves one aware that, if one recognizes such aspects of the greatest of Christianity’s thinkers and literary works, any contribution you or I make will be at least as historically contingent and context-specific!
By: James F. McGrath on August 7, 2009
at 2:18 pm
James, I’m not sure that “authority” is quite the way I’d ask the question myself – perhaps more authenticity? But then it becomes easier to say that perhaps “authentcity/authority” and “historical contingency” are not necessarily opposites.
By: Doug Chaplin on August 7, 2009
at 3:02 pm
I’m trying to get my secular head around the question… I am inclined to agree in a way with the other commenters who are saying, in effect, that if you don’t accept the creeds, you have no business accepting the Canon to begin with – much less any business searching it for a foundation of the Creeds.
It’s a curse of Protestantism – or some strains thereof – that anyone believes the myth of the Bible as something that exists unto itself and carries authority independent of the authority of Church tradition.
By: smijer on August 7, 2009
at 9:56 am
[...] Theology, trinity by Aaron Rathburn Mike Whitenton runs a very excellent biblioblog. He has has posed the question: Can one do authentic, intellectually honest, biblical scholarship and also hold to, say, a [...]
By: If the Bible isn’t Trinitarian, should we be? “Sola Scriptura” and “Inspiration” « . : theology & culture : . on August 8, 2009
at 5:27 pm