Need info asap

[Needing_info]

What do historical liberalists say about how they viewed the Bible?

[seebs]

Luminiferous ether.

:P

[CaDan]

They often viewed it from the backs of their pterodactyls as they cruised the cloudless skies above the Holy Land.

[McCravey]

What do historical liberalists say about how they viewed the Bible?

We probably should begin with how Christ viewed the bible.

He showed the Scribes and the Pharisees that he knew them well and that they all pointed to the Messiah.

The scriptures tell the story of Jesus and point to him (or at least those I'm interested in)

I'm not sure about the "liberal" historian part though. I'm not sure we could easily identifiy them...most historical writings other than the Traditional ones were discouraged and destroyed (sometimes the people with them)

Reference: Fox's book of Martyrs

[Toney]

I'm just hoping someone will explain to me what a historical liberalist is.

[CaDan]

I'm just hoping someone will explain to me what a historical liberalist is.

An anglification of Liberalista?

:)

I heard a rumour it was going to be the Clash's follow-up to Sandinista

[Toney]

CaDan, ¿Ooh es más macho, Benicio del Toro o Clash?

Btw, thanks for the elusificating liberalist rendering.

[Needing_info]

The point is I am trying to find out what a Liberal Historian is and what they wrote or said about the Bible. I guess they would be those who are not evangelicals.

[CaDan]

The point is I am trying to find out what a Liberal Historian is and what they wrote or said about the Bible. I guess they would be those who are not evangelicals.

I'm not that knowledgable about Old Testament.

For New Testament, you should start with Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel for form criticism and Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition for source criticism.

What do they say in general? Probably the idea linking all the "Liberal Historians" is the idea that the writers of the NT were people JUST LIKE US doing the best they could with the tools they had to edify, educate, and evangelize.

[Needing_info]

But then the question would be, even though Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels, Jesus taught many things. Are you then saying he was just like us?

[seebs]

But then the question would be, even though Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels, Jesus taught many things. Are you then saying he was just like us?

No. How did you get from the people who wrote the stories about Jesus down to Jesus? Stories about Jesus are not Jesus.

[Needing_info]

but then some believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God. That is why people believe there are no mistakes, no contradictions in the Bible. Humans did the writing, but the words came straight from God.

[Toney]

but then some believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God. That is why people believe there are no mistakes, no contradictions in the Bible. Humans did the writing, but the words came straight from God.

Most historians, liberal or not, would consider that notion absurd.

[Needing_info]

So then, the liberal and general view is that God did not have a hand in the Bible?

[CaDan]

So then, the liberal and general view is that God did not have a hand in the Bible?

You will get a lot further with this if you just stop misstating people's positions.

Toney did not say that; and I did not previously say that Jesus was "just like us." (although the case could be made that one must affirm that to avoid the heresy of Docetism :)).

[Needing_info]

I am not trying to misstate peopl'e positions. I guess I am kind of jumping around though. I'm basically trying to figure out what you all think about those particualr topics. I really just want information and I need it right away. Unfortuantley, I seem to be having trouble communicating what kind of information I want. Either I am too general or I seem to be upsetting people.

[Toney]

Perhaps you are writing a school paper and need the info quickly. We are happy to oblige. Personal details in your profile are scant. Would you mind letting us know what grade you are in so that we can communicate more effectively?

There is a method of Biblical interpretation called Literal-Historical (sometimes grammatical is tossed in). You may be confusing that with liberal historians. In addition to the sources CaDan listed, we should add another two. Both Michael Goulder and Bishop John Spong (among others) have convinced me that the Midrash interpretation of the Bible (this is a liberal position) is essential to understanding the word of God.

Spong or Crossan, I can't remember which, calls the Bible "prophecy historicized" rather than "history remembered." This essentially is the definition of midrashic interpretation. I hope this helps a little.

God bless you.

[Needing_info]

I am in my third year of College. My paper is one of five on the same question. I am looking at what people throughout history have said about my question. That is the first paper and it is due on Friday. Unfortunatley, my school's library is quite limited on the liberal side of my question. My question is: What are the liberal and evangelical views of Scripture and which is valid?

[Toney]

Thanks for the background info. I'll give you my take as soon as the Yankee's lead comfortably in tonight's game.

[CaDan]

Perhaps you are writing a school paper and need the info quickly. We are happy to oblige. Personal details in your profile are scant. Would you mind letting us know what grade you are in so that we can communicate more effectively?

There is a method of Biblical interpretation called Literal-Historical (sometimes grammatical is tossed in). You may be confusing that with liberal historians. In addition to the sources CaDan listed, we should add another two. Both Michael Goulder and Bishop John Spong (among others) have convinced me that the Midrash interpretation of the Bible (this is a liberal position) is essential to understanding the word of God.

Spong or Crossan, I can't remember which, calls the Bible "prophecy historicized" rather than "history remembered." This essentially is the definition of midrashic interpretation. I hope this helps a little.

God bless you.

That's a Spong phrase.

[CaDan]

I do apologize for being testy. We have a bit of a problem of people showing up just to say their piece, condemning us all to hell and leaving! :)

I am in my third year of College. My paper is one of five on the same question. I am looking at what people throughout history have said about my question.

OK, the quick and dirty version: The most conservative theory is that the entire Bible was written by God and the humans who actually put pen to paper were litlle more than robots. The most liberal theory is that the writers of the Bible were just making it all up, usually for some nefarious social control purpose.

Just about everybody is someplace in the middle.

That is the first paper and it is due on Friday. Unfortunatley, my school's library is quite limited on the liberal side of my question. My question is: What are the liberal and evangelical views of Scripture and which is valid?

Why, the liberal view is the valid one! :) What other answer did you expect here in the Liberal Churches forum?

Hmm... paper due on Friday and you need sources.

Here are authors to look for on the liberal side:

Helmut Koester (if you can find his Introduction to the New Testament, that's all you need)
Rudolf Bultmann (hard reading--he is not shy about having long passages in Greek. You do read Greek, don't you?:))
John Dominic Crossan. If you can find a copy of "Who Killed Jesus?" you're golden; he essentially writes your paper for you.
Burton Mack (but only "Who Wrote the New Testament". His other stuff is too dense and dry).
Marcus Borg
John Shelby Spong (not really scholarly, but he gives good overviews and points you where you need to look)
Raymond Brown (not TOO liberal)
Michael Goulder (VERY hard to find!)
Mark Goodacre (Goulder's student)
Mahlon Smith (one of his assistants prowls Christian Forums as Aramaic_Man [or is it Aramaic_Dude?] - see if you can PM him for info on original languages)


As I said, the New Testament is my thing. I really can't point you to any particular authors on Old Testament studies.

[Rising Tree]

Now this is a deja vu. ...well, almost. I have been thinking about starting a thread in Liberal Theology about biblical errancy for the last few days now.

And then I see this thread. :)

[Needing_info]

Thanks! This is a great list. I'll get started right away looking up information on this. Sorry if I came off sounding judgemental at the beginning. I really apprecaite all of the help I've gotten!

[Toney]

As CaDan hinted, you need to juxtapose liberal and fundamental interpretation inasmuch as there are liberal evangelicals, though not so many.

I note three historical phases after our present Bible was canonized in the 5th (?)century. The first phase lasted 1,000 years. During most of that time, there were no Bibles in circulation and the Church, whose authority was centralized under Innocent III in the 12th century (?), did the 'splaining. Of course, that interpretation was literal and historical, i.e. fundamental.

All that changed in the 15th century with the phase marked by scientific discovery, most notably in astronomy and geology. Keep in mind that our creed was written by men who believed in a three-tier universe and a flat-earth.

The post-modern phase is marked by biblical scholarship and Christian maturity, as oxymoronic as I (at times) consider that phrase to be. Anyway, it seems that Matthew, Mark, and John did not write their gospels; it seems that God is not a liar and that His promises made to the Jews, His chosen people, remain valid; it seems that the Bible is not history, but "prophecy historicized" as Spong wrote (thanks CaDan), and it seems that much of what is attributed to Jesus was never spoken by Jesus (esp. John's gospel).

Fundamentalists think that viewpoint is insane; liberals don't, although some would disagree with what I have written.

If the the New Testament, is read through a Jewish lens it becomes an extension of the Old Testament, which remains valid, active, and certainly not "fulfilled." Using words like "old" and "new" distort biblical truth.

This liberal viewpoint does not dampen one's faith, but strengthens and illuminates it. This liberal viewpoint allows us to read and to appreciate the anti-Jewish 1st and 2nd century (Christian) polemic and, hopefully, to renounce it. That is the beginning of understanding the historical Jesus.

The writers of the synoptics use "the Jews" something like a combined 17 times. John alone uses the phrase 47 times. As the last gospel to be written (A.D. 90-100), that fact evidences the polemic that eventually established two religions, a polemic that continues to this very day.

Who killed Jesus? The Romans. Without a second thought, and because he created a disturbance in the Temple during Passover.

[Needing_info]

What kind of sources can you give me for all that? There needs to be some kind of proof to back that up - especially if I want to use it in my paper.

[Toney]

What kind of sources can you give me for all that? There needs to be some kind of proof to back that up - especially if I want to use it in my paper.

Who Killed Jesus, John Dominic Crossan
The Christian Problem, Stuart Rosenberg
Liberating the Gospels, John Spong
Constantine's Sword, James Carroll
A History of God, Karen Armstrong

[CaDan]

What kind of sources can you give me for all that? There needs to be some kind of proof to back that up - especially if I want to use it in my paper.

Your all-in-one citation for this would be "Christianity" by Hans Küng.

He is a professor at Tübingen, so he's a real source. :)

[Needing_info]

Thanks! I'll se what I can find with all these sources you have given me.

[Toney]

Just one more ...

CaDan's citation of Burton Mack reminded me of Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible, which presents a clear and concise explanation of what is called the documentary theory -- that the five books of Moses were written at different times by different authors in the midrash tradition.

Fundamentalists in Judaism have Moses as sole author of the first five books of the Bible, a claim that collapses under the weight of serious scholarship.

[inquisitor_11]

If you need a quick summary of a lot of the ideas floating around about the Bible, or more particularly, Jesus, you might find The Jesus Quest by Ben Witherington useful.

He writes from a much more mainline evangelical perspective, which by the sounds of your posts, is where you might be coming from. The work of Crossan, Borg, Funk etc. and even more evangelical writers- such as Luke Timothy Johnson are given a bit of critical going over.

Good luck with the paper

[Toney]

I added some material to my Post #24 that some readers may consider touchy. It could be edifying if members of WWMC added their two-cents. We cite these great contributors to the post-modern religious meta-narrative, yet we rarely articulate their ideas. Why is that?

Kung is a good example. Here is a truly great Catholic Theologian who would have been burned at the stake a mere 500 years ago in order to save his soul. Even today, the Vatican stripped him of the title "Catholic Theologian." Why is Christianity so afraid of the truth?

[Kaonashi]

Excellent websites you need to check out:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

http://www.religion-online.org/

Good luck on your paper.

[Needing_info]

Thanks. I'm making my way through all this information, but I have to get all my information from the web. My library has nothing from these authors. If you know any quotes from these authors or explanations on why they believe what they believe, that would be wonderful. I've printed off basically a book of information, but mostly its opinions on what these authors have said. However, I haven't as of yet had time to look at those website, but I will do so later today.

[inquisitor_11]

Does your library do inter-library transfers? If you request a book most unis are usually able to get it from somewhere else.

[Needing_info]

It's a small, private college. However, I do have a lot of information from what I have gathered from the internet. The evangelical side of the question I can get out of books and I believe that will be enough as far as sources go.

[plmarquette]

The point is I am trying to find out what a Liberal Historian is and what they wrote or said about the Bible. I guess they would be those who are not evangelicals.
book is relative .... good example ... not literal

then they can use what supports their diatribe and reject
what comes into conflict with it , as the Jehovah's witness
bible rewrites John 1.1-14 ; denies the virgin birth ; atonement
; trinity ...

[CaDan]

book is relative .... good example ... not literal

then they can use what supports their diatribe and reject
what comes into conflict with it , as the Jehovah's witness
bible rewrites John 1.1-14 ; denies the virgin birth ; atonement
; trinity ...

And your point is?

[freespirit2001]

Have you checked out these sites on the internet about "historical liberalists":

www.calvarychapel.com/redbarn/bquotes.htm (http://www.calvarychapel.com/redbarn/bquotes.htm)
This has some wonderful early christian writers work in quotes...

www.classicsnetwork.com/essays/1013 (http://www.classicsnetwork.com/essays/1013)

Isn't The Gnostic Gospels liberal historical christian writings...?

There is an article about the early christian woman writers (historical liberalists)including Mary Magdalene:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html
In this article are modern bible scholars that appears on PBS in this study:
~Dr.Karen King---(Professor, Ecclesiastical History, Harvard Divinity School)
She has a book about Mary of Magdala based on an ancient Gnostic text:
"The Gospel of Mary" found in 1896 in Egypt. Translated over the last half century, the bits and pieces of papyri are decomposed, and thought to date from 125 C.E.
~Elaine Pagels (Author of Gnostic Gospels)
~Linda Piecczynski (Call to Action)
~Bruce Malina (Professor, Biblical Studies, Creighton University)
~Graham Brock

[plmarquette]

Theological Liberals tend to render a number of issues " relative " ; " cultural " or " historical "rather than literal and doctrinal... Morals , Ethics , norms = societal norms ..

Liberal in the sense of latitude .... more modern music , use of multimedia , to compete with worldly message that is antichristian and antibiblical

Liberal in the sense of works ... less apt to sit back and let pastor do it all ...
can visit sick , prisoners , hand out tracks