In fourth century Greece, Socrates as a young man met and dialogued with Protagoras, who was then an older man (Plato, Protagoras). Protagoras spent some 40 years as a wandering teacher for hire (a sophist), who would have been able to take either side of an argument in a debate. Socrates, however, treated him as a serious philosopher. In another of Plato’s dialogues he depicts Socrates in dialogue with Theaetetus discussing “what knowledge is.” Theaetetus replies “Knowledge is nothing else than perception.” Socrates replies “good response” and adds that this is the same answer that Protagoras also used to give although he said it a little differently:
For he says somewhere that man is “the measure of all things, of the existence of the things that are and the non-existence of the things that are not.” (Plato, Theaetetus 152a; also Cratylus 386c and Laws 716c)
Socrates explains this saying of Protagoras, in this way:
Individual things are for me such as they appear to me and for you in turn such as they appear to you. (Plato, Theaetetus 152a)
My question is whether or not this saying of Protagoras, as Socrates understood it, is an accurate description of the human situation in life? Socrates disagreed with Protagoras and says, “In our eyes God will be ‘the measure of all things.’” (Laws 716c). Most church folk would no doubt agree with Socrates and declare God the measure of all things (Job 38-39), and particularly of humankind (Ps 39:4-5). From my perspective, however, man is the measure of the Gods, of those that are and those that are not. That is to say, human beings invent their Gods, and each of us gets to decide which we will worship and which we will not. Even in the Bible God is depicted in various ways that cannot logically be harmonized.1
Human beings are even the measure of what texts got into the Bible and have even determined what Scripture itself says. In the earliest days there was no Bible; there existed only individual manuscripts and later small collections of texts initially inscribed by human authors on disassociated papyrus and vellum manuscripts. These individual authors working in isolation recorded their religious experiences and personal faith. Their texts were part of the stream of western civilization. Later, others copied and recopied them and translators translated them into different languages. Small collections of these texts emerged. In the case of the Jewish Bible some of those smaller collections were gatherings related to law, or prophets, or gatherings of “Writings.” In the case of the New Testament, there exist among the papyri collections of gospels and epistles. These individual texts eventually became the religious collections of two faith communities, Israelite and Christian, and the collections are the “inventions”2 of those faith communities. Christian bibles today consist of three different collections: Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic.
Since the enlightenment of the 17-18th Centuries modern critical scholars have gone back to the some 5000 or so original papyrus and vellum fragmentary manuscripts of the New Testament; they compared the different readings of each manuscript—for no two of these manuscripts agree alike in all particulars. The scholars decided by voting (not by praying) what the original autographs of each New Testament text should have read.3 Translators working from the critical text provided by scholars of textual criticism render the Bible into modern languages, and those translations are the modern literary equivalents of the Bible’s ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This process, just described, establishes human beings as the “measure” of the Bible, even to the extent of deciding what the original authors wrote in their texts.4 In this way human beings have provided the raw data from which modern Christian believers develop their individual concepts of God.
The belief that God “divinely inspired” (i.e., influenced, moved, or guided) the authors of the Bible (from outside their minds) should be mindful of the fact that it was human ingenuity and creativeness that made the Bible possible throughout this centuries long process.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1See Wry Thoughts about Religion: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/2016/05/god-does-not-exist.html
2By “invention” I mean to say that the human members of each faith community decided what texts belonged to their collection of Holy Books.
3See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; 1994), 10*-16*.
4Is Mark 16:9-20 an original part of the Gospel of Mark? Ancient Christian tradition says that it is, and it is still part of the New King James Bible. Modern critical scholarship, on the other hand, has decided it is a later addition to the end of Mark and hence it was not a part of the autograph and is excluded from modern translations. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 102-106.
33 comments:
Charlie,
Have you receive my comments on your latest blog? Jim
Charlie,
Re: "my perception is man is the measure of the Gods, of those that are and those that are not"
My perception is the same as yours and the Greeks. It is astonishing the Greeks perceived this thousands of years ago without the assistance of Science, Bible, Christianity, Political parties, Capitalism, free Trade, Internet, TV, etc.
The tremendous contributions to mankind's well being by a very small (<1%) of gifted individuals is striking. I count you, Charlie to be among a somewhat larger % but also significant contributors to mankind's well being due to your lifetime of sharing your scholarly pursuits!
Thanks,
Jim
Hi Charlie and Jim,
When you speak of "man as the measure of the Gods" is it correct to say that you're limiting your remarks to the rational abilities of humankind, and assuming that rationality is the highest faculty one can apply to the "God problem"?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
When I think of the use of “measure” as it applies to humans and accomplishments, I think of the writings of Epictetus, a former slave, on the subject. I really like his statement (paraphrased) that if one measures one must first understand the weights and how to use the scale.
Here is a quote about how "measures" should not be considered static: "How shameful is this! that a man having received from Nature measures and canons for the recognition of truth, should study not to add to them and perfect them where they are wanting, but the very contrary of this;if there be anything that may lead us to the knowledge of the truth,they strive to abolish and destroy it." (Book 3.3.6 from "The Teachings of Epictetus," something that I found in the public domain online. This chapter was "Against Epicureans and Academics.)
Whether one relies on a god or a human as the measure, one should be cognizant that his or her finger is probably on the scale!
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Evening Charlie- hope Springfield has dried out a little! St. Louis is still soggy but hopefully no more heavy rain like last weekend. We got five inches in one day.
1) Someone in another blog made the claim that fundamentalist churches are the fastest growing churches in North America... Is that true?
2) I also heard a prominent journalist (who happens to be Jewish) say that only 40% of Jews worldwide believe in God... Again, is this your understanding as well? Does that sound right to you?
3) You stated that humans invent their gods and each of us gets to decide who we will worship and who we will not... Does that include children? Do children really have a choice?
4) Why did you start reading the Bible? Was it because of your parents and teachers? Or did you just happen to see it laying around and thought it looked interesting? How much choice do we really have when it comes to which Bible we read? To me, it doesn't seem like we have much choice at all if we want to remain at peace with our society... We only have three choices: Islam, Judaism, or Christianity if we want to fit in with the socio-economic, political, societal environment with any respectability or acceptability. How many Buddhists do you know? Not many I would assume.
Thank you so much- as usual!! Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
You really stuck the landing on this essay, so to speak.
Bravo,
-Mark
Good Morning Jim,
I agree with you about the ancient Greeks. It is nothing short of amazing what they were able to anticipate with just their brains.
Thanks for the compliment. I think of myself, however, as a curious fellow, and am delighted that people want to read my "musings." Thank you for engaging the issues.
Charlie
Good morning Jim,
That would be true of my comments. What other faculty of perception do we have but sight, smell, feeling, taste, and hearing? And what other ability do we have to process what we perceive except the brain?
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Elizabeth,
1) That is my impression, but I have no hard data on the subject.
2)I have no idea, and I would wonder how they measured "all the people of Jewish faith worldwide."
3)In my view that is not true of children. At some point they get to choose, but at that point when it comes to religion their parents may have made the choice for them.
4) I started reading and memorizing the Bible in Baptist Sunday school. Our choices are limited as children basically to that religion of our parents unless we are unusual children. In our early adulthood realistically our choices are limited to the regional communities of faith. In my case when I was growing up Islam was not an option. Nor was Judaism. There was only one synagogue in town right across the street from First Baptist where I attended. As a matter of fact I do know personally a few people of Buddhist faith, and have read a little in Buddhist teachings--although I was reading for intellectual stimulation and information, and not for spiritual enlightenment.
However, in a sense I was one of those who was able escape his past.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good morning Mark,
Thank you for the comment. I did not understand your metaphor, however, until my daughter explained it to me. She explained it as a gymnastics metaphor where the gymnast has a solid landing after an exercise. Is that correct?
Cordially,
Charlie
Sorry, I meant to say Gene, but my old fingers typed Jim.
Oh, I think religious literacy is making gains over fundamentalism and slowly but certainly, over evangelicalism, thanks to work by Charlie, the Jesus Seminar, and others. I am writing a book about evangelicalism, so I have tried to keep abreast with surveys. Evangelical numbers have been rather steady, but in certain key groups, they have been slowly shrinking. “Fundamentalism” is not generally a term I find in polls.
Most surveys I have read do not use the term “fundamentalist,” and a book I have, “Religion in America,” a compendium of religion here, speaks to the difficulty using the term. Conservative Christians are generally labeled self-described “born again” or “evangelical” Christians. I saw one poll that used “non-denominational fundamentalists,” but the sample size was so small that the results could not have been significant. (They sampled 35000 people, but only 103 were “non-denominational fundamentalists.”) That means that, however they constructed the questions, self-described fundamentalism is a fringe element.
I did look at one criterion, however, that tends to imply a shrinking of at least one fundamentalist view, in a study done by Gallup in 2017. One thing that can distinguish a fundamentalist from an evangelical is in the criteria that the Bible is the “literal Word of God.” [Evangelicals would look also at the intent of the biblical author and contextualization of the passage.] (Grant Osborne, in “Evangelical Interpretation of Scripture” does a good job of describing the research goals and diverse views of the evangelical scholar.) In the last 40 years, belief that the Bible is literally “the Word of God” has fallen from 38% to 24%, while those who consider it “an ancient book of fables” has doubled, from 13% to 26%. That would imply to me that fundamentalism is shrinking.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx
That would probably be the best way to see whether “fundamentalism” is increasing or shrinking. Also longitudinally, one would look at traditional fundamentalist views, like the virginity of Mary, the authenticity of miracles and of the Genesis accounts. Of course, these overlap with evangelical views to some extent, but one can probably get a fairly good picture.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Elizabeth,
Re: "Someone in another blog said......"
I might opine one might read any true or absurd thing imaginable in an internet blog. My limited experience is blogs are used by numerous individuals, organizations, propagandizes, and even foreign adversaries in efforts to influence and deceive the impressionable blog readers-sort of like TV commercials and political candidates/office holders.
There is much legitimate & professional polling data available on the internet too. One can investigate the ongoing growth & demise of religious institutions attendance on these poll sites.
One interesting and consistent polling result is the growth of the so called "unchurched" Americans...including atheist, agnostics, and believers.
Jim
Exactly, Jim. I clipped this from the bottom of my post just above (slightly edited), not sending it yesterday:
A few years ago, a Pew survey showed about one in four to not be affiliated with any religion, up significantly from the 16.5% they polled in 2008. In 2016, a Barna survey (Barna is an evangelical polling group),showed those who didn’t believe in the existence of God at 10%, which, though worded differently than other poll, a decade ago was 1.6% in at least one poll (Pew 2008).
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Charlie,
I'm thinking that some things regarding values need to be said, that aren't being said, when rationality is used for investigation and problem-solving. For example:
1. If reasoned inquiry results in a robot eliminating a job for a human, rationalism has done humanity no favors by ignoring the higher value of work, creativity, and need fulfillment as part of the definition of humanity.
2. If one does a thoroughly reasoned analysis of the historical formation of the biblical literature, the introductory statement of the text should probably read something like, "The information found herein does not call into question or disprove the long held emotional truth of human hope and longing for life after death."
How else will those who value emotional truths respect and take seriously the rationalists.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
That was well stated by Dennis regarding the overlap between fundamentalism and evangelicalism- I agree with what he said about the Bible being the literal, inrerrant word of God as the number one criterion of a fundamentalist. Also the virgin birth, resurrection, etc... The person who commented on this blog about fundamentalist churches growing the most rapidly was anonymous- it was in response to Charlie's blog dated June 30, 2019 and the person made the comment on July 16. I was very surprised to read it, but didn't know if it was true or not.
Dennis, I have read a very interesting dissertation regarding the split between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Since I grew up as an Evnagelical, it really fascinated me to learn how Billy Graham tore apart the whole Evangelical movement in the 1950s. I'd never heard that before. He started out as a Fundamentalist in reaction to the growth of "liberal" churches in the northeast in particular... But as his popularity grew, he became more "moderate," I suppose. In other words- fundamentalism emphasized "separation" from the world. While Evangelicals emphasized "fellowship" and "sharing the Gospel" and love... This was Billy Graham's approach- and he ticked off a lot of leaders such as Bob Jones, John R. Rice, and Harold John Ockenga. They were livid that he would dare share the stage at one of his New York Crusades with a Roman Catholic Bishop... What an apostate! They were also incensed that he did not designate a list of "appopriate" churches for his converts to attend after they came forward to receive Christ.
Anyway, their emphasis was "purity of doctrine," while Graham emphasized spreading the gospel to all, regardless of their faith or creed. It was very eye opening. I have no idea if you would be interested in reading such a thing, but if you are- the name of the author is Farley P. Butler Jr and the title of his dissertation is "Billy Graham and the End of Evangelical Unity." If you do happen to read it, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
But the bottom line is that I am very glad to hear that Fundamentalism is on the decline- and I hope it stays that way. Many thanks, Elizabeth
Hi Gene,
Critical scholars are not concerned about how their research impacts either the faith community or the secular community. That is simply the nature of the beast. Ecclesiastical scholars who work critically with materials that impact the faith community on the other hand are concerned with how their essays impact the faith community.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charley,
That's a very disappointing description of the critical community for me. To my way of thinking one can be objective in one's investigation and still genuinely care and be responsive to how the work affects others. As groundbreaking as the work of the Jesus Seminar was, perhaps you have stated the reason why it remains relatively isolated.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Since “...history has nothing to say about the truth of religious beliefs” (Miller, Back to Basics, from Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence, p.15) I would question such a “warning label” on any publication purporting to be higher criticism. I would see that more for the “Inspirational” section of the library, not the “History” section. Belief or disbelief, as well as what one considers emotional truths, are not a function of data. If the reader wants, he or she can make inferences based upon what has been written.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
The "warning label" approach was a bad way to try to make a point.
What I'm trying to get at is that the possible understanding between rational truth advocates and other sectors of the community plummets drastically if the rationalists "are not concerned about how their research impacts the others." How can that be a good thing?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Gene,
If one presents historical findings, and wants to see history as meaningful, I think one dilutes history by equivocating in order to placate a portion of the public. The research itself should be what determines the impact, not prior beliefs of the audience. Otherwise, historiography loses purpose.
I do think it is important to point out (to some) that all history is reconstruction, someone writing about the past, not living it, thus the historian is dealing in his or her “probable,” not the “absolute.” That, however, is where my “warning label” would end. Results of an investigation can be disquieting to some. As history goes past the incredibly biased Suetonius & Tacitus to resemble more a science, it is particularly important, I think, to lay the “facts” as determined by standardized criteria, without letting the impact bias the presentation.
Quelling discomfort is not the purpose. I’m sure the “Sand Creek Massacre” was extremely upsetting to the Methodist church, but the UMC laid out the facts as they found them and published them. (The event was the murder of 230 Cheyenne & Arapaho, found to be instigated by a Methodist pastor and a probably paranoid territorial governor who was also big within the Methodist church. The church found the men and the church culpable.) The purpose of the UMC was to disclose the facts. They didn’t fudge, as far as I can tell. ( The report is by Gary Roberts, “Massacre at Sand Creek,” copyrighted by the General Commission on Archives and History of the UMC). I see empirical truth, not current emotional truths, the goal of the historian.
When I think of the impact to a faith community of unsettling biblical criticism, I like what was attributed to I-an Chen, a Zen Buddhist: “The old saying runs, ’When there is enough faith, there is enough doubt which is a great spirit of inquiry, and when there is a great spirit of inquiry there is an illumination’...” Such inquiry is the spirit of history.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
Empirical truth certainly is the goal of the historian, as you say. Thanks for the excellent example of the treatment of 'The Sand Creek Massacre' by the United Methodist Church, and for the wisdom attributed to I-an Chen.
The point I'm trying to make is very simple. One can remain completely faithful to The definition of historical inquiry that yourself and Charlie endorse and still energetically promote good relationships and communication with those groups who see it as a threat to their emotional truth commitments. In fact, in my view, it's a must for optimal health in society.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
One problem I have with that: Would the disclaimers extend to books describing physics, biology, geology, climate change, and the range of science publications with which religious groups don't agree? The truth commitments of fundamentalists and evangelicals I have known or heard on TV extend to a disdain for many mainstream positions in science. (For instance, Earth is young, God created all plant & animal life and it, along with climate, is static, and if there are climate events they are God's punishment on wickedness.) I don't see disclaimers as being something that would go over well with the scientist. A major difference I see in history and science is that history is far less precise, but it seems the same principle of following the evidence to answer questions and solve problems. I am under the impression that if one has no questions and sees no problems with the Bible, that one probably won't read the material, anyway. (As we who made it for decades without assigning kids homework say, "Those who don't need the practice do it and those who need the practice don't do it." Not exactly optimistic, but based on observation.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Gene,
Sorry to be so long replying. You may be right the marginalization of the Jesus Seminar from the evangelical and what I call church supporting critical scholars from the churches. But for the many years that I was active in the Jesus Seminar on the Road Seminars we conducted multiple seminars in churches and colleges and they are still doing so. So in a sense members of the seminar went around the professional guild to address the churches directly. They seemed to welcome the programs. You are correct in one thing: we were continually chided for not telling the churches what they should they do with our research and publications. I personally felt that it was up to the churches what they should do with the information rather than it was the responsibility of the scholars to tell the churches what to do with the information.
Cordially, Charlie
Hi Dennis,
I'm obviously not writing very clearly. I'm not making any reference to "disclaimers." The word never entered my mind.
In my view, any group of professional investigators is responsible for good public relations and dialogue with those who nd to oppose their work.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Charlie,
Many thanks for that insider perspective.
When my friend Kris Komarnitsky wrote his book 'Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box,' he asked me what it would take for me to endorse the book. I told him that I hoped that he would offer an alternative
to a resurrection belief, rather than just leave the reader hanging in disbelief.
In his last chapter (177-187) he explored how "equality before God" and "empathy in its socialized form,'do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' -- compassion-- appears in almost every religious and philosophical tradition...In my view the founding event of Christianity is the basic idea of equality, not resurrection..."
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
I understand your point, Gene, but there is also another factor: When one gets past the problems the average evangelical “pew sitter” has about the historical Jesus, one aspect that hasn’t been mentioned is evangelical biblical criticism, which I have been looking at lately, odd as the procedure is to me. Evangelical scholars, as I read it, are doubtful of historical criticism. They challenge the criteria of mainstream research and are more comfortable with what they consider a “grammatical-historical” methodology (where the other criticisms are subordinate to making the text clear), though they have generally studied the other criticisms. They do not accept redaction criticism, unwilling to see Q as a basis for the core of their method because at the heart of their exegesis is the earliest, not the redactor’s contribution in the final product as the heart of the historical Jesus. That relates back to the core concept of the Bible being the “Word of God,” with the earliest writings being inerrant. In other words, mainstream historical scholarship doesn’t have an audience when there are other brands, evangelical and fundamentalist (which seems to be more “apologetic” in nature), out there. If *their* scholars are saying this, is there even a reason for there to be an audience? I wasn't even aware of evangelical scholarship until lately.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Charlie- you stated the following: "They seemed to welcome the programs. You are correct in one thing: we were continually chided for not telling the churches what they should they do with our research and publications. I personally felt that it was up to the churches what they should do with the information rather than it was the responsibility of the scholars to tell the churches what to do with the information."
For those who don't know- my husband was one of Charlie's students at Southwest Missouri State in the late 80's (now called Missouri State)... so that is who introduced me to "Dr. Hedrick," as my husband still calls him. Anyway- my husband said that many of his classmates "lost their faith" when they found out how the Bible was really written and translated, or what quotes attributed to Jesus were truly authentic. My husband even went to Charlie because he was troubled by having some of his long held beliefs "challenged," so to speak. I'm sure Charlie had many such conversations with students over the years. Charlie- don't you think the academic classroom is the best place to hash out these collisions between faith and reason? Don't you think churches are for those people whom you have referred to as having a "settled faith?" In other words- is it possible to wake up and become enlightened to critical thinking in a church?
Dennis, you stated "In other words, mainstream historical scholarship doesn’t have an audience when there are other brands, evangelical and fundamentalist (which seems to be more “apologetic” in nature), out there. If *their* scholars are saying this, is there even a reason for there to be an audience? I wasn't even aware of evangelical scholarship until lately." 1) Don't you think evangelical scholarship is another term for "apologist?" 2) Have you heard of Ravi Zacharias? He is the one who stated that it is a historical fact that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Do you know what historical evidence supports that statement? 3) What is "redaction criticism?" 4) You said that evangelical scholars are doubtful of historical criticism- so do they believe the disciples were literate and could write down every word Jesus said? I just don't know where they are getting their facts from.
Many thanks!! Elizabeth
PS: Just like Charlie was chided- Billy Graham was very much chided for not telling his converts what church to attend after they came forward to an altar call... What is it that makes us want to be led around like sheep??? Why are humans like that?
Good Morning Elizabeth,
I think it is possible (as you put it): "to wake up and become enlightened to critical thinking in a church." Basically all one needs is curiosity and the courage to ask the question "why is that." But I do not think that the traditional church encourages either curiosity or critical thinking. My own intellectual journey began in the traditional church and led me into graduate study in academic institutions to find answers to questions. On the other hand there are churches that encourage both curiosity and critical thinking. One just has to find them. They are scarcely traditional, however. They hold on to aspects of traditional faith but are trying to demystify it.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
I'm responding to your following remarks: "... we were continually chided for not telling the churches what they should they do with our research and publications. I personally felt that it was up to the churches what they should do with the information."
Why wouldn't the Jesus Seminar folks reply with something like, "We're researchers and educators. These materials are meant to educate the public, to help them become literate in the 4th R, religion. Use the materials in whatever educational settings you may have (worship, Sunday School, gatherings, etc.) to help folks become knowledgeable about the history of their religion."
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Gene, Charlie,
I like the inside back cover of "The Fourth R's" from the early 2000's, which included "liberation from evangelical bullies" & "inoculation against religious fanaticism." That fit my demographic as one in the audience to whom they were seeking to sell.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Gene and Dennis,
Dennis I did not recall that blurb on the inside cover. I suspect that it was Bob Funk at his most provocative.
Gene there never was an official answer to such questions that I know of. Each fellow answered it in his or her own way. But in general it was something similar to what you wrote.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie,
It was under "Religious Literacy" and the page did a great job of summarizing its purpose and potential audience.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Post a Comment