Response To DD’s “What Biblical Inerrancy Really Means” Pt. II
Posted in Bible, Religion, Responses, Thinking Critically on | 8 minutes | 14 Comments →
I've reread DD's arguments a few more times, and I'd like to give them more thorough address, mostly to show why I think they are not justified by a solid foundation of logic, or historical fact. As we noted yesterday, DD's first objection to Jesus' response to the Sadducees as described in Matthew 22 was that,
..Jesus tells the Sadducees that they are wrong because they do not know the Scriptures… then proceeds to “correct” them by declaring that “at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”—which is not written anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures!
In that post, DD also introduced the unsupported claim that,
..the Sadducees believed in the idea that the dead continued to exist as disembodied spirits…
I'd like to stop here and see if perhaps DD's claims contain any assumed premises or historical inaccuracies. I believe they do.
First, I'd like to address an issue of form. Let's dissect Jesus' response to the Sadducees as recorded in Matthew 22, and let's note that we're quoting from the King James Version: "..in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
If we read carefully, we can see that Jesus' response entails three sub-claims: that they are resurrected, that they will not marry when resurrected, and that they will be "like the angels in heaven" when resurrected.1 So, when DD objects on the grounds that Jesus' response "is not written anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures," we do not necessarily know which of Jesus' three sub-claims DD argues aren't written in the Old Testament Scriptures! In other words, DD's argument is unclear, and the reader is left with dangerous room to guess, which affords the unfortunate opportunity to mistake post-resurrection marriage as the main subject, when in fact it is not. Still, note that my objection is more to form than substance: I'm not claiming that DD's mistaken the topic, rather that the form of his argument easily affords this possibility to the inexperienced or slothful inductor. Subtle omissions can establish erroneous context, which lends well to erroneous conclusions.
Fortunately, it seems easy enough to discern DD's position, and that he is on the right track. In fact, he later clarifies this in a subsequent post:
..even if [the Sadducees] had not already believed in an afterlife, Jesus’ argument still would not have come close to proving that there was a future bodily resurrection.
It is crucial to notice how DD phrased that: tantamount to a disclaimer attempting to preserve his argument even if his claim about the Sadducees' belief in a soulical afterlife is incorrect. In other words, DD seems to think his argument is valid whether the Sadducees did or did not accept an afterlife. To me, that's an indication that DD might be potentially stretching and may need to re-examine his argument(s), but I'd rather not belabor that point right now. Instead, let's do our best to resolve this issue of whether or not the Sadducees believed in an afterlife of any sort. Let's recall that in yesterday's thread, commenter Jayman supported my challenge of DD's claim, and today commenter mikespeir echoed our position on DD's blog:
..I thought it was pretty well established that the Sadducees didn’t believe in life after death.
Friends, I believe mikespeir is correct. As I stated yesterday, I'm unaware of any historical evidence or documents that might support DD's claim that the Sadducees accepted a soulical afterlife, and I listed three sources to support my position, so I would appreciate a nod in the right direction if I've overlooked something here. Until such externalizes, I'm going to claim DD is simply wrong.
Interestingly, DD now seems to have backpedaled a bit on this issue of whether the Sadducees accepted the afterlife. Even more interestingly, recall that DD justified his initial position on acceptance of "the pre-Exilic Jewish faith that was recorded in the Old Testament," and the idea that certain sources were "largely hostile" to the Sadducees. DD then linked to another page which stated that, "the writings of Flavius Josephus [are among] the most reliable information about the Sadducees."
What did Flavius Josephus have to say about the matter, you might ask?
[the Sadducees] also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul,
-Flavius Josephus, Jewish War
This, and DD says I can't refute his "facts"!
So let's reparse this from an historically accurate perspective: the Sadducees did not believe in any sort of afterlife or resurrection, so why would they ask Jesus who's wife the resurrected woman would be? It appears their question about marriage could not have been genuine, and it seems plausible that the Sadducees — filled with pride and convinced of the superiority of their own position — intended to trap Jesus with a trick question: after all, when assessing the situation with the seven brothers under the premise that marriage binds at the resurrection, we indeed encounter what might be a problem! Who's wife will she be?
It appears the Sadducees were attempting to justify their denial of the bodily resurrection on account of the absurdity it would inevitably entail if the assumptions they brought to it were true. To me, their subtext clearly reads, "We find the resurrection idea absurd, because if it were true, which of the seven brothers would take this woman as his wife?" The Sadducees' error — just as Jesus told them — was that instead of relying on Scripture and thinking things through, they argued from their own assumption that marriage binds at the resurrection, when apparently it does not.
It's important to note two things here: first, the Sadducees implied that the resurrection was dismissible because it entailed the absurd dilemma of who's wife the woman becomes. Yet marriage doesn't bind at the resurrection, so much like DD's false premise that they accepted a soulical afterlife, the Sadducees also argued from the false premise that marriage binds at the resurrection. In their attempts to trap Jesus, the Sadducees literally appear to have been relying on an argument from personal incredulity, which itself rested on a false premise! Perhaps that's why Jesus responded as He did?
In closing, let's go straight for the jugular and address DD's disclaimer:
..even if [the Sadducees] had not already believed in an afterlife, Jesus’ argument still would not have come close to proving that there was a future bodily resurrection. (DD, bold mine)
I disagree; I believe Jesus' argument most certainly does support the conclusion that there is a future bodily resurrection. Jesus' argument consisted of His citation of Exodus 3:6, and His emendation to it: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;" and "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This argument alone was sufficient to establish either a soulical afterlife or a future bodily resurrection, because both share the prerequisite condition that the subject be living, and not dead.
We defended this logic yesterday with the following syllogism:
P1 God is not the God of the dead, but of the living;
P2 God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;
P3 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead;
C If God is to be their God, then Abraham, Isaac and Jacob must live.
So again, can anybody explain to me where the flaw is?
FOOTNOTES:
1. There is still debate amongst Christians over whether the Bible teaches a bodily or spiritual resurrection, and this point could be argued as evidence against the idea of a bodily resurrection, because though apparently able to temporarily assume human form, angels are purportedly among the heavenly host, and not human. However, this argument leans on the assumption that the metaphor "as the angels of God in heaven" was intended to describe the state of the resurrected. Recall that the Sadducees originally framed their trick question in the context of marriage, so it seems more likely that "as the angels of God in heaven" referred to the fact that angels don't marry.
To close on a note of agreement, I think DD should be applauded when he says,
Even if we assume that the Bible contains no errors, there’s no certainty that the person quoting the Bible is actually understanding and applying it correctly.
In that, DD simply echoes the wisdom of St. Augustine before him:
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in the Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture, but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture… —St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram
Gideon
says...I think you’re right about the Sadducees, cl. If memory serves, they were the liberals of their day, and, though they did believe in a deity, they were not very organized in their doctrine, and would often squabble among themselves, when they weren’t arguing with the Pharasees.
I do remember that they did not believe in disembodied souls living on after death, and, for that matter, neither do I. Anyway, we’ve been over that ground.
cl
says...I tend to agree with you. Though, some writers claim otherwise. DD rejects Josephus’ claim on grounds Josephus was hostile towards the Sadducees. Thing is, whether they believed in a partial afterlife or no afterlife, Jesus’ logic remains intact in His original argument. I wish DD wasn’t “beyond” commenting here; I’d really like to hear his responses. I don’t engage him on his blog because he’s another one of those who cries troll and censors people when the going gets tough.
Hey, I need an invite for your blog, unless I’m not welcomed anymore [sniffle, sniffle..] ;)
Gideon
says...I took my blog offline to make some changes, but, I’m not sure I’ll bother with it, anymore. Too time-consuming. Also, it’s turning into troll central, which wasn’t my original design.
I’m not sure what I’ll do, maybe just freelance awhile.
Maybe it’s time to resurrect the Highwayman…
Gideon
says...Update:
I just had a romp with some scumbag trolls on another site, and, I’m all good to go. Blog’s up and running.
Maynard
says...Do angels get civil unions? Scripture doesn’t say. So without scripture to guide us, they might or might not. Therefore gay marriage is “as the angels of God in heaven.” Prove it wrong!
Dominic Saltarelli
says...lol, good one
Titfortat
says...CL
Im curious, if you are Christian, how can you actually associate yourself within an individual that uses the language Gideon does? I have no clue who or what they are but they sure dont seem to have much love in them. And isnt that supposed to be the main ingredient in a Christian’s life?
cl
says...Hi T4T.
That I dialog with Gideon doesn’t mean I support every instance of his language, right? Didn’t Jesus walk with sinners and tax collectors? If you have a daughter and she gets pregnant out of wedlock, or does something else you disapprove of, you wouldn’t just cast her aside, right?
If I were to take an “all or nothing” stance with people I wouldn’t have anybody to relate with! My basic philosophy is to try to find God in everybody, and magnify it. Yes, Gideon says some things I strongly disagree with, even some things that raise doubts. But I refrain from making judgments, because I lack knowledge. I do plenty of things that don’t exactly track alongside “what God would do.” We’re imperfect people, it’s as simple as that.
Well, we could say the same thing about PhillyChief, but I’ll bet even he respects and loves his theist relatives. Can we really make an accurate assessment about somebody based off their blogging comments?
I refrain from passing judgment on whether or not Gideon has love in him because I’ve seen certain comments that suggest not, and I’ve seen others that suggest so. Gideon gets a bad rap. Read the way he debates here. It’s totally different than how he debates at SI’s. Really, in my experience, as long as there’s no resident dogmatic atheist poking at him, Gideon can argue just fine, and most civilly. I encourage you to see for yourself.
Paul did say “the greatest of these is love,” so yes, love is supposed to be a main ingredient in a Christian’s life. This doesn’t mean that Christians will never fail to love, because they’re imperfect people just like the rest of us. And honestly, look what Gideon gets; you know how those guys are over at SI’s – it’s their way or the highway. They can be quite the unlovable bunch at SI’s don’t you think? Gideon just holds a mirror up to them. That’s my honest opinion, and it doesn’t mean I support his idea that “fags” should be killed on site.
What I’m interested in is this: being able to see God in everyone, being able to dialog with anyone, and being open to reaching common ground with anyone. That’s why I’ll proceed with pretty much anybody.
Anyways, thanks for stopping by. I’m glad you gave it another go.
Titfortat
says...cl
Good for you that you can be that open minded.
Didn’t Jesus walk with sinners and tax collectors?(cl)
I think in the case of Philly and Gideon, Jesus probably would have tried to perform an exorcism to rid them of their Demons. :)
cl
says...Open-mindedness is good for anyone most of the time, I’d say, but that doesn’t mean we should be without conviction either. Personally, I think your own open-mindedness and unwillingness to tow the party lines is what arouses PhillyChief’s fury over there. It’s not so much that I disrespect or am intolerant of their convictions, what I criticize is the posturing that it’s their way or the highway, followed by pretense to being reasonable. I get much of where you’re coming from regarding energy-based ideas, and open-mindedness is certainly not irrational.
[laughs] I wonder what mine are…
Titfortat
says...[laughs] I wonder what mine are…(cl)
Why, your belief in Christianity of course. :)
cl
says...And yours?
Titfortat
says...Does family count. ;)
cl
says...LOL LOL LOL LOL! Hilarious. Yes, family counts!