Canon Fodder

Exploring the origins of the New Testament canon and other biblical and theological issues

A Christmas Gift from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 2)

On Christmas Eve, I wrote part one of my review of Kurt Eichenwald’s piece (see here), and highlighted not only the substantive and inexcusable litany of historical mistakes, but also the overly pejorative and one-sided portrait of Bible-believing Christians. The review was shared by a number of other evangelical sites and thinkers—including the Gospel Coalition, Tim Challies, Denny Burk, Michael Brown, and others—and ever since I have been digging out from under the pile of comments. I appreciate that even Kurt Eichenwald joined the discussion in the comments section.

But the problems in the original Newsweek article were so extensive that I could not cover them in a single post. So, now I offer a second (and hopefully final) installment.

False Claims about Christians Killing Christians

In an effort to portray early Christianity as divided and chaotic (not to mention morally corrupt), Eichenwald repeatedly claims that Christians went around murdering each other in droves. He states:

Those who believed in the Trinity butchered Christians who didn’t. Groups who believed Jesus was two entities—God and man—killed those who thought Jesus was merely flesh and blood…Indeed, for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, groups adopted radically conflicting writings about the details of his life and the meaning of his ministry, and murdered those who disagreed. For many centuries, Christianity was first a battle of books and then a battle of blood.

Notice that Eichenwald offers no historical evidence about the mass killing of Christians by Christians within the first few centuries (we are talking about the pre-Constantine time period). And there is a reason he doesn’t offer any. There is none.

Sure, one can point to instances in the medieval period, such as the Inquisition, where Christians killed other Christians.  But, Eichenwald claims that Christianity began this way: “for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.” This is another serious historical mistake that needs correcting.

When it comes to who-killed-who in the earliest centuries of the faith, it wasn’t Christians killing Christians.  It was the Roman government killing Christians.

Interestingly, the “heretical” groups like the Gnostics–whom Eichenwald presents as the victims–tended to avoid this government persecution. When the Roman officials looked to pour out their wrath on Christians, it was almost always those of the “orthodox” variety (although there were exceptions). Eichenwald either doesn’t know this, or just failed to mention it.

Portraying early Christians as mass murderers makes for great rhetoric. But it makes for lousy history.

Overstating the Popularity of “Other” Gospels

Continuing his portrayal of early Christianity as a movement in “chaos,” Eichenwald claims that other gospels were just as well-known as the canonical ones:

The reason, in large part, was that there were no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian, so most sects had their own gospels. There was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Simon Peter, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Barnabas.

However, Eichenwald’s presentation here is enormously misleading. Apocryphal gospels were not nearly as popular, as wide-spread, or as well-established as the canonical ones. This can be demonstrated in a number of ways, but one simple way is just by observing how many manuscripts we possess of each gospel.

The physical remains of writings can give us an indication of their relative popularity. Such remains can tell us which books were used, read, and copied. When we examine the physical remains of the canonical gospels from the earliest centuries, we quickly discover that they were, far and away, the most popular.

For the gospel of John alone, we have approximately 18 Greek manuscripts from the second and third centuries. The most Greek manuscripts we have for any of the apocryphal gospels listed by Eichenwald is just two (Gospel of Mary). And the Gospel of Barnabas (a very late and notoriously unreliable “gospel”) has zero from this time period.

Blatant Exegetical Fallacies

Throughout the entire article, Eichenwald betrays his limited understanding of even the most basic interpretive and exegetical principles. He assumes that if the Bible really teaches a certain doctrine, then you will find chapter and verse stating that doctrine in a single passage. So, if the Bible really teaches the doctrine of the trinity, then we should find a verse using that word, or saying it succinctly.

He asks:

So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts? Nowhere.

It is clear that Eichenwald wants a single passage that either says the word “trinity” or describes God directly in a tri-fold manner. But, Eichenwald is committing two fundamental exegetical fallacies. First, he is confusing word and concept—one of the most common exegetical mistakes. If a text does not contain certain wording, he assumes it means it doesn’t contain certain concepts. But, this is demonstrably false. A verse can refer to a concept without mentioning certain key words.

Second, Eichenwald assumes that doctrines have to be demonstrable all in a single passage. But, this is a profound misunderstanding of the way doctrines are derived from Scripture. Some of our most fundamental doctrines are pieced together from a variety of texts, in a cumulative fashion. The doctrine of the trinity is one of these.

Even more than this, Eichenwald seems completely unaware of the texts that do speak of the persons of the Godhead in a three-fold fashion. Take the words of Jesus in the great commission that baptism should be done “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). Scholars have noted that the Greek construction uses the singular “name” followed by the threefold Father-Son-Spirit. Sounds pretty close to Eichenwald’s demand for a “triumvirate.”

Peter does something very similar in his first letter when he describes the doctrine of election as coming from “the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for the obedience to Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:2). All of these activities and attributes (election, foreknowledge, sanctification, one to whom we owe obedience) do not belong to merely human figures, but necessitate a divine one. And Peter describes this divine figure in a threefold manner.

And more passages like this can be added.

Eichenwald neither acknowledges nor addresses any of these texts (maybe he doesn’t know about them), but instead glibly declares the trinity to be an unbiblical concept. The audacity of such a conclusion is stunning. It requires us to believe that Christians have just tricked themselves about the trinity for thousands of years until finally, in the modern day, a Newsweek journalist uncovers the truth.

Confused about Contradictions

No critique of the Bible would be complete without the standard appeal to a laundry list of supposed contradictions. Eichenwald’s article is no exception. Instead of picking one contradiction and really developing the exegetical and historical case for his interpretation, he chooses instead to overwhelm the reader with a catalog of complaints ranging from the creation account to differences in the birth accounts to differences in the resurrection accounts.

Such a strategy has a twofold benefit for Eichenwald. First, the long list allows him to rattle off a variety of claims without actually having to do the hard work of demonstrating those claims. Thus, his accusations require him to offer no supporting evidence. Second, he knows no single individual could possibly respond to each of these claims in any level of detail (allowing him to potentially claim that Christians are unable or unwilling to respond).

Even so, there are numerous problems with Eichenwald’s approach. For one, he demonstrates hardly any awareness of the numerous evangelical responses to these problems (nor does he cite a single one). The reader begins to wonder whether he has even tried to find solutions, or whether he is just content to repeat back the arguments of critical scholars because they fit better into the purpose of his article.

In addition, Eichenwald repeatedly employs the fallacious argument from silence. He assumes that if one of the gospel authors doesn’t mention something then he must disagree with it. For instance, he observes that in Mark’s gospel Pilate doesn’t declare Jesus to be innocent, but in Luke’s Pilate does. Thus, voilà! A contradiction! But, this assumes that Mark’s account is exhaustive. Just because he doesn’t mention this part of the story does not necessarily mean he rejects it.

This sort of tendentious historical analysis isn’t designed to solve difficulties but is designed to find contradictions—whether they are there or not. Eichenwald should know better.

To cap it all off, Eichenwald even trots out the tiresome and oft-repeated claim that Jesus taught he was coming back in the lifetime of his disciples. Referring to Mark 13:30, he states:

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says of the Apocalypse, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done”—in other words, the people alive in his time would see the end of the world.

Eichenwald is happy to pluck this passage out of its context and interpret it for the reader: ”in other words, the people alive in his time would see the end of the world.” The problem is that his understanding of the text is directly in contradiction to the very passage he is citing from.

If Eichenwald had looked just one verse earlier, he would have realized that the “these things” the current generation would endure could not possibly refer to the second coming. Why? Because Jesus tells us the “these things” are what precedes the second coming! The prior verse states, “So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates” (Mark 13:29).  This verse makes it plain that the “these things” is something distinguishable from the second coming–a likely reference to the trials of the church age.

Such surface-level exegesis gives the reader the impression that Eichenwald is more concerned to score points against the Bible than he is with really understanding the meaning of the passage.

For a more thorough treatment of supposed contradictions, see my blog series “Does the Bible Ever Get it Wrong” (first installment here).

Homosexuality and Obedience

Up to this point, Eichenwald’s article has been an epitomized by imbalanced and straw-man accusations against the Bible. Unfortunately, in the section on homosexuality Eichenwald reaches a new low. At no point is it more obvious that he is driven by his own entrenched ideological commitments and not by an honest attempt to understand what evangelicals believe.

Eichenwald begins with an analysis of 1 Tim 1:10 that is so blatantly fallacious and so critically flawed that it should be used as a textbook example of how exegesis is not to be done. He states:

But the translation there is odd, in part because the word homosexual didn’t even exist until more than 1,800 years after when 1 Timothy was supposed to have been written. So how did it get into the New Testament? Simple: The editors of these modern Bibles just made it up.

The reader is mystified by this statement. Of course, the word “homosexual” did not exist when Timothy wrote. It is an English word! But, that doesn’t mean there were not equivalent words and phrases in Greek that clearly referred to homosexuals. Indeed, we have extensive examples in ancient Greek works that refer to homosexuality and to homosexuals. Eichenwald’s point here is utter nonsense.

Eichenwald continues:

But suppose for a moment that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, and that “defile themselves” does refer to homosexuality. In that case, evangelical Christians and biblical literalists still have a lot of trouble on their hands. Contrary to what so many fundamentalists believe, outside of the emphasis on the Ten Commandments, sins aren’t ranked. The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God. In 1 Timothy, Paul, or whoever wrote it, condemns the disobedient, liars and drunks.

Eichenwald is correct that homosexuality is not ranked by the Bible as the most heinous of all sins. And he is correct that other sins are also serious problems. But it is unclear how this helps his case. Regardless of where one ranks homosexuality, the key point is that the Bible still clearly affirms it to be a sin.  And just like other sins (whether greed, idolatry, or gossip), one needs to acknowledge it as a sin and repent of it.

And it is precisely here that the main debate over homosexuality lies. The homosexual community refuses to even admit it is a sin at all.  On the contrary, they want Christians to embrace and affirm homosexuality as something good and right.

Thus, Eichenwald finds himself in a dilemma.  He clearly wants to affirm the validity of many sins in the Bible (especially if he thinks they are committed by evangelicals). Is he willing to affirm that homosexuality is a sin? And if he is not, then he is the one who is “picking and choosing” what to follow in the Bible.  Indeed, if he does not, then he is carving out a special exception for homosexuality.  Isn’t that the same sort of thing that he condemned evangelicals for doing?

A Profound Misunderstanding of the Gospel

At the end of Eichenwald’s article, he deals what he believes is the fatal blow to evangelical Christianity:

Which raises one final problem for fundamentalists eager to condemn homosexuals or anyone else: If they accept the writings of Paul and believe all people are sinners, then salvation is found in belief in Christ and the Resurrection. For everyone. There are no exceptions in the Bible for sins that evangelicals really don’t like.

This is an outrageously misleading assessment of what Paul actually teaches. Indeed, after such a statement as this, one wonders whether Eichenwald has even read Paul (or Jesus).

Eichenwald makes it sound like evangelicals believe that homosexuals cannot be forgiven or that the gospel is not for them. That is simply not the case (and I notice that he cites no evangelicals that actually believe this). Evangelicals believe that even the most heinous sins can be forgiven.

But, here is the key. The gospel is for those who acknowledge their sins and turn away from them. Such an act is called “repentance.” And Jesus spoke of it often. Even in his very first sermon (Mark 1:15).

Of course, Eichenwald doesn’t mention this. It is much easier (and much more popular) to say that the gospel means you can live whatever lifestyle you want and still go to heaven. For Eichenwald, the main point of the gospel is that sins aren’t a big deal, no sin is worse than any other sin, and the main duty of a Christian is not to judge anyone else (which is why he ends his article with a monumental misunderstanding of Matt 7:1).

The truth is that Paul himself actually mentioned Eichenwald’s understanding of the gospel. And he condemned it. In Rom 6:1 he states, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?”

The gospel is not for perfect people. But, it is for repentant people—people who hate their sins and strive to stop committing them. Repentance doesn’t somehow merit salvation; but it is a requirement of salvation because it is the corollary of faith. A person cannot embrace Christ by faith if they are still holding tightly to their sin.

So, for homosexuals who repent of their homosexuality, and for any sinner who truly repents of their sins, then forgiveness in Christ can be theirs.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion, it is hard to know what to say about an article like Eichenwald’s. In many ways, it embodies all the misrepresentations, caricatures, and misunderstandings of the average non-Christian in the world today. It is short on the facts, it has little understanding of interpretive principles, it assumes that it knows more about theology than it really does, and it pours out scorn and contempt on the average believer.

Nevertheless, in a paradoxical fashion, I am thankful for it. I am thankful because articles like this provide evangelicals with an opportunity to explain what Christians really believe, and what historical credentials the Bible really has. Eichenwald’s article is evidence that most people in the world understand neither of these things. With all the evangelical responses to this article, hopefully that is changing.

In the end, there is a rich irony to the title of Eichenwald’s piece: “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.”  While he intended this to refer to evangelicals, I think it applies best to his own article.

Comments

  2. Steven says

    I noticed in the part 1 comment section, Eichenwald basically hinted he now acknowledges that there are errors in his piece by saying that we are missing “the essence of the message”. He should now advise Newsweek of his errors and publicly apologize for spreading false information to the people if he wants to keep his journalistic integrity. Having your opinion about Christians is one thing, but spreading scores of misinformation to make your point is embarrassingly shameful. Do the right thing Kurt.

    • Kurt Eichenwald says

      (Apologies – my comment below was meant to be a response to this comment, not a general statement.)

      Saying you are failing to understand the message of the piece is hardly stating the piece is wrong. It means you are not reading it carefully or with an open mind. Also, I am preparing a lengthy reply to Michael’s comments, since he is one of the few critics of the piece who is not engaging in name-calling or blatant misrepresentation of what the piece says, and so I think his thoughtful writings are the ones I will address.

      • #truthmatters says

        I am interested in knowing why you didn’t call in to or reply to Dr. James White’s concerns. Reading it carefully? Are you kidding me? This is what has led to the responses. Unlike your article, those that are responding have done their homework and are now taking you to school.

        • Grant says

          The reason why he didn’t call in or respond to Dr. James’s White’s Dividing Line episode dealing with his article is that Dr. White, before he was even halfway through the article, could establish that Mr. Eichenwald has done exactly what he accuses Christian scholars of doing.

      • Greg says

        Kurt,

        I understand your struggles with the Bible. I myself have wrestled with many of the same questions that you raise. Unfortunately, your Newsweek piece shows no sign of any struggle for truth – just a hasty surrender to the usual grab-bag of criticisms commonly raised by atheists. It seems you have accepted these criticisms and made them your own without doing even the most basic research into differing viewpoints. Thoughtful believers have been asking – and answering – these questions for two millennia. To mention just one example, you cite Mark 10:18 as if it were a “smoking gun” – Jesus denying his divinity. In fact he is doing just the opposite. He is using a rhetorical device to challenge his audience to a deeper understanding – is Jesus simply a “good teacher” as the rich young ruler stated, or is he God incarnate? I agree with you that too many Christians accept their beliefs thoughtlessly but it seems that you have just as thoughtlessly accepted the arguments of their critics. I would like to challenge you to revisit your questions and give fair consideration to broader points of view. Best regards.

      • Michael Weeks says

        Newsweek should be ashamed to publish such bigotry. Yes there are two views of creation in Genesis, a God perspective and a more human one. This sort of device is used commonly in recounting stories for a full perspective, examples exist today in movies. So the Jews were not very familiar with the naming conventions of the people of Gath. I’m sure they were not particularly interested. It rained for 40 days but the water obviously did not immediately subside. etc. etc etc. So much of the claims are extraordinarily easy to rebuff. The New Testament was clearly and obviously written from eyewitness accounts and are we really meant to believe there was no word for homosexuality until the 1800s? What absolute and unmitigated tripe.

      • Grant says

        Mr. Eichenwald, there are serious, conservative Christians who engage in study of the Bible according to academically sound disciplines, Dr. White, Dr. Kruger and Dr. Albert Mohler being good examples of such people.

        Why didn’t you engage someone like them as you were preparing to write this article? Why did you use poor material from, it appears, exclusively liberal sources?

  3. Timothy Mitchell says

    Excellent response Dr. Kruger. Both of your posts address many of the glaring technical problems of Eichenwald’s article. On of the many problems of postulating extreme diversity and schism in the early church is that it fails to take into consideration the distribution of New Testament, and other early Christian literature (as you mentioned above). Even though the papyri where primarily discovered in Egypt, it is possible that they represent Christian attitudes towards these texts across the Mediterranean and not just in Egypt.
    http://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2014/06/publication-and-circulation-of-early.html

  4. Stephen Mitchell says

    Enjoyed your responses, Dr. Kruger. Thank you. And enjoyed your book: The Heresy of Orthodoxy. I greatly appreciate your ability to “fight the good fight of faith.” I look forward to hearing Him say to you, “Well done, good and faithful servant!”

  6. Kurt Eichenwald says

    Once again, because you are the only critic of the piece who avoids name-calling and personal attacks in responding to the piece, I am going to engage in a lengthy response to you. Hopefully, people will read it as it is intended: a discussion.

    Let me start by saying, I don’t believe anyone should be arrogant enough to argue they knew precisely what the Bible means at all points. (I am not accusing you of that belief, I am addressing others who have attacked the piece.) To say that readers of it should spend time learning more about it and reading it carefully is a statement intended to get people to understand the foundations of their religion, not the attack the Bible. You say what you say – are your words the end point? Are mine? Of course not. We are not Jesus, although sometimes some of the commentators seem to forget that point.

    Second, either the words of the Bible are absolutely clear – and thus not open for discussion – or they are not, and thus must be carefully considered. Since so many people seem to believe that the Bible is so complicated that I – who have been studying it for 30 years – am unqualified to discuss it, it must be quite complex.

    Finally, although this point seems to be missed repeatedly, I am not making a case for a theology. For example, I am not saying the Trinity is untrue – I am saying that, as I will explain later below, a fair and honest reading of the New Testament creates challenges for Trinitarians. They can ignore them if they choose, but I do not believe that is serving the obligations as a Christian. This is why I believe people need the read the words, contemplate them. What some man – be it you, or me or anyone – has to say about the truth of the Bible is irrelevant. God guides those who search for him. It is in searching the words of the Bible, attempting to understand them, that God can be found. Those who don’t make that effort – as I have – are hardly in the position to condemn. (I am not including you in that list Dr. Kruger.)

    Enough throat clearing. Let’s get to the main points: Unfortunately, I can’t spend my day going over all of the evidence regarding the widespread conflicts between the various sects of Christianity. It takes a lot longer to write about the evidence than to just dismiss the statement as untrue. I will however, point out the flaw in your response: There is no doubt that there are far more versions of the Gospels that are in the New Testament. The other writings were declared to be heretical and were repeatedly ordered to be destroyed. The fact that any of these still exist is nothing short of amazing. “Counting up” the difference in numbers between those manuscripts that were preserved and those that were destroyed proves nothing. If you want to get into a lengthier discussion about the sects of Christianity, I can do this but not until the weekend.

    Christians killing Christians: Phillip Jenkins writes “Horror stories about Christian violence abound in other eras, with the Crusades and Inquisition as prime exhibits; but intra-Christian violence of the 5th and 6th century debates was on a far larger and more systemic scale than anything produced by the Inquisition and occurred at a much earlier stage of the church history….vicious civil wars still reverberated two hundred years after Chalcedon.” There are many more historians who address this issue, and again, I can marshall more this weekend if you request.

    On to the Trinity. The point here is, what so many Christians consider to be a simple and obvious truth is, in fact, is widely contradicted by the words of Paul. See 1 Tim. 2:5, Eph 1:17, Eph 4:4-6, Gal 3:20, 1 Cor. 8:6. More important, what about the words of Jesus himself? In Mark 10:18, Jesus says “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Was Jesus trying to trick us? How can these words be reconciled with the Trinity?

    It also appears nowhere in the Bible. Since no one will accept my words, I will use others:

    Sir Anthony Buzzard teaches at Atlanta Bible College. Charles F. Hunting is a retired pastor. They are both deeply devout Christians. Here is what they write:

    “There is no passage of Scripture which asserts God is three. No authentic verse claims that God is three persons, three spirits, infinite minds or three anything. No verse of the Bible can be shown to carry the meaning “God is three persons”…the Trinitarian concept relies upon sophisticated and often tortured logic which lacks solid support in the earliest Christian writings. Our impression is that most Trinitarians approach the New Testament as if it were a document en route to Trinitarianism. They overlook the primary fact that no New Testament writer on any occasion can be shown to mean “the triune God” when he says “God.” Then they ransack the documents for evidence that the Apostles provide the materials for the later creation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that none of them arrives at Trinitarianism does not deter them.”…what we know as Christianity today may unwittingly be at variance with the instructions of its founder, Jesus, the Messiah…Church history shows that the concept of even two equal persons in the Godhead – the father and son – did not receive formal approval in the Christian community untile 300 years after the ministry of Jesus, at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and this under circumstances confused with political agitation….if Jesus were ranked as God in the first century, why did it take so long for the Church to declare formally a Godhead of two persons, and later of three persons – and then only under great political pressure?”

    Often, words from John attributed to Jesus are used to advance the Trinity. What do others say? John Shelby Spring, an American Bishop: I do not believe I can make a case for a single word attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel to be a literal word actually spoken by the historic Jesus.”

    John Hick, a prominent religious philosopher: “Among mainline NT scholars, both conservative and liberal, Catholic and Protestant, there is today a general consensus that these are not pronouncements of the historical Jesus but words put into his mouth some 60 or 70 years later by a Christian writer expressing the theology that had developed in his part of the expanding church.”

    What about the Bible itself? We are told in Matt. 4:1 and Heb 4:15 that Jesus was tempted. To be tempted in the Bible is to have thoughts about sinning. Theologians have been wrestling with this issue for a long time, because temptation is to have desires that dont fit the nature of God. How does this fit with the Trinity?

    Again, I am not saying the Trinity is wrong. I am not making the case for unitarianism. I AM however saying that the Bible deserves more respect and reverence than for people to decide what it means without even bothering to read it and contemplate.

    Regarding the End Times: Yes, some have interpreted “these things” to mean that Jesus was not speaking of the End Times. This is a legitimate response and the type of theological discussion I was hoping to encourage (without people approaching this with the pride of “I’m right, you’re stupid!” that seems to be the most common response.)

    You have the intellectual honesty to admit, not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Many expert theologians think you’re wrong. To claim that I am ignorant simply because I disagree with you is, to be honest, far to prideful. Why do I disagree? Because, again, I don;t think God speaks in riddles and whispers. The words preceding these are quite clear. What are these things? Let’s quote lines in Mark leading up to the passage:

    “The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.”

    These are the words of Jesus. These are the things that will happen in that generation. And when they do, the end “is nigh, even at the doors.” Did these things happen before that generation passed? If not, why was Jesus using words with such plain meaning that did not mean what he said?

    But the piece did not end there. You skipped the citation I gave of Paul 1 Corinthians where he states, “The time is short.” He then instructs other Christians, given that the end is coming, to live as if they had no wives, and, if they buy things, to treat them as if they were not their own. Who was Paul speaking to if not the people he was writing? Why do his words not mean what they say?

    Is there a response? Sure. Does that shut down the discussion? Absolutely not. Once again, people need to contemplate the Bible, not start off with the “So and so told me it means this, so let me find those sections that agree with that preconception and move on from there.”

    As for the issue of homosexuality: The english Bibles that use the word “homosexuality” made it up. The word did not exist until the late 19th century. I find it deeply offensive that there are Bible publishers who feel it is within their rights to change the precise words of the Bible to make it easier to justify their beliefs. This examination was NOT about a Biblical justification of homosexuality. It was about Bible publishers misleading their readers about what the Book says. If the precise words were good enough for God, then Charlie or Sam or Bob in Michigan or New York or Tennessee has no right to change them to make their own beliefs reinforced just a little bit stronger.

    Now, is there a condemnation of homosexual acts in the New Testament? No doubt. And, as I say in the piece, Hasidic Jews are perfectly within their rights to condemn homosexuality *because they live the Old Testament (within the confines of the law. They dont go around killing disobedient children.) But when a woman says the Bible is the word of God and uses 1 Timothy to condemn homosexuals, then wears pearls to church, that is irreconcilable hypocrisy. My point in all of this was not to say “the Bible is cool with homosexuality.” It is to say there are scores and scores of things that are in the Bible that those who claim themselves to be literalists and then condemn homosexuality ignore. And I believe that Christianity starts from the redlines: People should not be condemning the splinter in their brothers eyes and ignoring the planks in their own. It is so, so easy to condemn others while ignoring the vast numbers of prohibitions in the Bible that effect the condemners. But those many of them simply ignore – because they haven’t read the Bible or don’t care about the words or, as I wrote, are cafeteria Christians, picking and choosing what they want to make absolute. There is no distinction in the New Testament between being gay and being an alcoholic. Both are sins. Neither is ranked higher than the other. But you never hear anyone say that alcoholics should be denied communion. Why? Because people are using the Bible to reinforce what they already believe. Liars, debaters – all are in the same position. (In fact, I wonder if we are sinning right now by engaging in this discussion. A case could be made that we are.) Women are prohibited from divorcing and remarrying while their husbands are still alive by the same man who wrote about homosexuality. Why is that okay (outside of the Catholic church.)?

    Again, notice – these are questions, not answers. They are not easy to answer. Those who think they are are suffering from an excess of pride that they are right and everyone else is wrong. And it is striking how many people who *know* they are right are simply parroting the beliefs they were raised with. If they were raised with another, would they believe *that* was right?

    Finally, I have to address what is easily the most offensive response being given to my piece: When people justify condemning others, many of them are saying “Jesus did it.” As if we are Jesus. As if Jesus told us not to do so. We are NOT Jesus. God does not need our help in determining who is on the path and who is not. And those who try to assume the mantle of Jesus to justify their condemnations of others truly need to take a step back and think about what they are saying.

    The end point here is, for lack of a better term, I am a redline Christian. I start with the words of Jesus. I explore whether those are known to be the words of the historic Jesus, or whether there are scholarly questions. And I examine those scholarly questions.

    And for that, I am called stupid and uninformed. Discussion is shelved. Name calling is all that remains. (Except for here.)

    Once again, Dr. Kruger, thank you fort addressing the points rather than just engaging in invective. I am happy to discuss this with people who are interested in theology instead of hatred.

    • Mark says

      Hi Kurt,

      Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

      I won’t comment on everything you’ve written, except this one point:

      “There is no distinction in the New Testament between being gay and being an alcoholic. Both are sins. Neither is ranked higher than the other. But you never hear anyone say that alcoholics should be denied communion. Why? Because people are using the Bible to reinforce what they already believe.”

      “Being gay” is not a sin. Many assume that evangelicals “hate gays” because they don’t allow people with homosexual desires to act out on those desires. Having homosexual desires is not sin, but acting out one’s homosexual desires would be considered sin, just as any sexual activity outside of biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Consider the positive review of Wesley Hill’s “Washing and Waiting,” posted on The Gospel Coalition, a conservative evangelical blog site. Wesley Hill is open about his homosexual desires, but is also an evangelical and believes that to be faithful to the Bible he cannot act out his homosexual desires.

      So would my evangelical church keep someone who is gay from communion? Not if he has repented of his sins and trusted in Christ as his Savior (like anyone else), and is continuing to walk in faith and trust in Christ (however imperfectly). Would my evangelical church keep an alcoholic from communion? If he refuses to turn from drunkenness, then yes. Of course, my church wouldn’t demand perfection, but a desire to repent and turn from sin. This would be true of all at our church, whether gay or straight. I just think those who don’t understand the evangelical position conflate the issue by assuming that we “hate gays” because we don’t let them act out their homosexual desires. Do we then also hate adulterers if we don’t approve of their cheating on their wives?

      • Kurt Eichenwald says

        But here is the problem I confront: I believe we are all sinners, each and every day. I think we sin in what we recognize and what we don’t. I think many, many, many people make no attempt to repent because they don’t even know what the Bible says. The hatred and venom (and threats) that have been directed at me for trying to open a discussion on the Bible is an example. People who proclaim that only THEIR belief if the right one seems to me to violate Paul’s admonitions against pride.

        I believe it is our duty to welcome everyone, regardless of who they are, who are searching for a relationship with God and that, in truth, those who attempt to get in the way of that relationship because of what they perceive to be the others’ sin are, in themselves, sinning. Whatever ones sins – and there are many – they are absolved in the search and the finding, not by people deciding who and who is not worthy. I never discuss my charitable works, because I believe if I do so it is in direct contravention of the instructions of Jesus. Are people who make big contributions to something and have their name placed on it acting against the words of Jesus? I would say they are. Should they be banned from receiving communion? No, because hopefully in their search they will find the blessing of humility.

        One thing you might get from my answers: I am hardly a Bible attacker or Christian hater. These are issues I have wrestled with my whole life. There is nothing I have read more about than the Bible.

        But some of the criticisms I am getting are simply proving my point. One fellow on the Newsweek site attacked me as stupid based on my “incorrect” description of geography and 98 people liked his comment. I replied by quoting directly out of Matthew to show that the geographical words I was describing as having come from the Bible came from the Bible. This fellow obviously didn’t know that. Neither did the 98. But they eagerly jump all over the “you’re stupid” bandwagon without even opening their Bibles – if they have one – to check if what I say the Bible says is a correct statement. It was.

        This is my frustration. Too many people are taking the easy way out when the message is, focus on your own sins, read the Bible, learn its history. Anyone wants to say I’m wrong in what I say? Wonderful – let’s talk about it. THAT is Bible study, not just sitting around reading a passage here and there, nodding heads and eating cookies. Bible study is hard. It takes a lot of work. There will be – and should be – a lot of disagreement, and a lot of enlightenment.

        And that people call that message anti-Biblical is perhaps the most distressing fact of all.

        • Brett Clemmer (@brettisbald) says

          Mr. Eichenwald – Thank you for taking the time to respond in a measured and careful fashion here. I find myself disagreeing with many of your assertions based on my own study and understanding of the Bible. But I appreciate your effort to do your best to understand what you are reading in Scripture. Moreover, I can see how you came to some of your conclusions, even if I look at the same evidence and believe there are better explanations than the ones you proffer.
          Looking at your Twitter feed, it’s obvious you knew what was coming. (Maybe even baited people a little bit?) But no one should be calling you names – especially those who profess to follow the teachings of Christ and the Bible. I’m very sorry people have done that.
          Thank you for making me think–for forcing me to re-examine some of my own core beliefs. I look forward to the days and weeks ahead as I revisit Scripture and pray for renewed understanding of God’s teachings through it.
          I hope you search for truth never stops, Mine too.
          I wonder: since Newsweek saw fit to publish such an exhaustive review of the Bible from your perspective, would they be willing to publish one from the perspective of someone with equal scholastic standing from an orthodox evangelical perspective, say, Dr. Kruger with equal openness? Would you be willing to advocate for that?

          • Michael says

            Good Response. I was one of those people who called Kurt “stupid”, it was a knee-jerk reaction, but wrong none-the-less. That said, Kurt’s article said much more than what he proffers: Kurt spent much time, keystrokes, and intellectual intent to discredit the Bible and Christianity. Rather than taking the Bible at face value, Kurt consulted (I’m fairly certain) Bart Erhman, Matthew Vines, Anthony Buzzard and other’s who studied out their wrong conclusions, thereby, using secondary sources.

            Anyway, while accusing Christianity of being a bevy of hypocrites, he goes to great lengths to defend the right of sinners to live in their sin; Homosexuality for instance. It’s apparent that Kurt doesn’t understand God’s intent from Adam and Eve, the importance of man and woman, marriage of man and women and the ultimate picture of Jesus and the Church. Kurt goes on to drive a wedge between the writings of Paul and the “red letters”. In closing, there is much wanting in Kurt’s arguments and conclusions; my thought is he just doesn’t like what the Bible says in and of itself.

          • Kurt Eichenwald says

            I appreciate your comments. And yes, I knew people would attack, particularly those who want to claim they live by the words of the Bible but don’t actually know much about what it says.

            And I think you’re probably right – I have baited people a bit on twitter. In part it’s playing games with people who clearly know nothing about the Bible – not even some of the fundamental parts – and attack rather than discuss.

            One of the things I want to address here is a point being raised by your responders. There is so much skimming of the piece going on – I never offered a defense of homosexuality. I never said the Bible was okay with it. As is obvious above, I consider being gay no different than being proud when it comes to the Bible, though.

            However, what people aren’t getting is that what I am saying is if they condemn homosexuality based on a belief that the Bible is the word of God, without error, than they are also taking on a boatload of other issues that they simply can’t ignore because it makes them uncomfortable. For example, how do the fundamentalist critics of Obama reconcile what they are doing with Romans 13. I am not saying they shouldn’t criticize, I am saying there is an apparent contradiction there that they are ignoring. If they want to point to some other section of the Bible to dismiss the very clear words of Paul, or if they want to say that the words must be seen in their historical context, then they are rationalizing and saying God’s words don’t mean what they say.

            So the point wasn’t to attack or defend anything. It was to say “if you want to believe this, fine. But then these are the issues you have to reconcile…and that is hard to do.”

        • Anthony says

          Kurt,

          How can one repent of a sin which is unknown to one as a sin? Scripture deals with that premise by indicating it is worse for a believer WHO KNOWS a sin and commits it then an unbeliever who DOES NOT KNOW and commits the same sin. I guess you can put believers with lack of knowledge in the same latter category.

          As to the “homosexuality” discussion; I think it can be summed up simply:

          There are NO schools, that I am aware of, that teach acts of drunkenness, thievery, revenge, murder, etc. as “alternative lifestyles” that children and adults should learn to tolerate and accept as good, right or equal to NOT doing these things. Can we say the same about acts of “homosexuality”?

          When is the next “Murder Pride” parade? Where are the headquarters of “Citizens Against Condemning Theft” located? Is there a State funded AA (Arrogant Alcoholics) meeting being held somewhere?

          Please do not use the “but homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone” argument; neither does wearing pearls in church by that logic.

          Something to ponder.

          • Kurt Eichenwald says

            Regarding homosexuality, there is a response in this chain I gave, which you can look for.

            How does one repent a sin unknown? Two ways: One, read the Bible. You can’t just take a parenthetical phrase, say “that is the sin” and ignore all of the other ones that are listed as just as sinful. Like pride.

            Second is this: Accept the reality that we are all sinners. We fall short of what we should be, each and every day. And we should focus on that, we should search out the planks in our own eyes rather than the splinters of others.

            God doesn’t need our help determining who is offered access to the Kingdom of Heaven. If we address our own shortcomings – known and unknown – by seeking forgiveness and encourage people to read Scripture for the purpose of learning rather than just reinforcing what they want to believe. Bible study is very very hard. It cannot be accomplished by just reading a passage here or there.

          • Anthony says

            Kurt,

            I do not disagree with anything in your reply. NOTHING that is a sin should be ignored and it is the truth seeker who is always diligent after God’s Will and His Truth.

            The point, however, is NOT whether God needs our help to determine who has access to His Kingdom; it is that the “splinter” of acts of “homosexuality” is not only ignored but even PROMOTED as good, right and equal to the blessed and Divinely ordained act of marital sex between a man and a woman. Is this not what schools teach children today?

            Those who you claim are greedy and prideful may very well be so and those sins are not specifically ranked any higher or lower than acts of homosexuality. However, said people do NOT organize “Greed Parades” or “Pride Festivals” in celebration of these acts do they? Do they promote Greed or Pride tolerance in schools?

            Being unaware of, or struggling with, sin is not equal to CELEBRATING it with full cognizance.

            I hope you view my discourse as respectful as Michael’s; my intent is such.

        • Michael Weeks says

          “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin”

          Has everyone missed the irony of this claim?

          Jesus listed some definitive sins:-

          Mar 7:20 And He said, That which comes out of the man is what defiles the man.
          Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
          Mar 7:22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
          Mar 7:23 All these evil things pass out from inside and defile the man.

          In his effort to justify No.3 in the list Kurt Eichenwald has certainly given Nos. 8,11,12 and 13 a hammering.

      • Michael says

        One more thing: “And it is striking how many people who *know* they are right are simply parroting the beliefs they were raised with. If they were raised with another, would they believe *that* was right?”

        I know what I believe as a result of SEVERAL years of study (30+)..I was raised in a rather “unsympathetic Lutheran” household, so, no one was going to teach me except through my own initiative. Despite what Kurt says, MANY people know what they believe because they’ve studied it out on the flip side, he is correct that there are MANY of simply parrot belief systems….why does he go for the proverbial “low hanging fruit”? Methinks that he is suffering from an advanced form of self-righteousness.

    • steve hays says

      On the deity of Christ, I’d simply point out that Eichenwald is reheating old chestnuts which have been countered in detail by scholars like Richard Bauckham, Gordon Fee, Simon Gathercole, Sigurd Grindheim, Larry Hurtado, and Murray J. Harris.

    • steve hays says

      Here are some responses to three stock objections which Eichenwald raises:

      On the genealogies:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/09/lukes-genealogy.html

      http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/70-the-internal-consistency-and-historical-reliability-of-the-biblical-genealogies/file

      On the relationship between Gen 1-2

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/09/harmonizing-gen-1-2.html

      On Easter chronology:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/easter-chronology.html

    • Ryan Schlinkman says

      Mr. Eichenwald,

      “Sir Anthony Buzzard”

      Have you read any of the works of his critics? Have you read, for example, Richard Bauckham or Larry Hurtado?

      “John Shelby [Spong]”

      A flaming theological liberal who presupposes that miracles cannot happen. That obviously biases his conclusions as to the historicity of the Bible.

      “Once again, people need to contemplate the Bible, not start off with the “So and so told me it means this, so let me find those sections that agree with that preconception and move on from there.””

      That seems to be exactly what you did. You found a bunch of sources that agree with you and none that don’t and just put their conclusions into your article. It is as if you went to some hack atheist website and cut and pasted quotations.

    • steve hays says

      “The hatred and venom (and threats) that have been directed at me for trying to open a discussion on the Bible is an example.”

      That’s a tiresome trope.

      i) To begin, “hatred” becomes meaningless due to it’s hyperbolic overuse.

      ii) In addition, it’s the responsibility of a writer for a national magazine to know his audience and be informed about the people he presumes to write about. If Eichenwald was caught off-guard by the response, then that’s a reflection of his one-sided research and his provincial social circle. There’s a word for that: prejudice.

      “I am hardly a Bible attacker or Christian hater.”

      Naturally he doesn’t view himself that way, but that’s the problem. He has no larger frame of reference. He doesn’t understand the people he presumes to characterize. He needs to practice some shoe-leather journalism. Why not visit some evangelical seminaries (e.g. RTS, DTS, TEDS, WTS, Gordon-Conwell) and speak with some of the faculty?

      Talk to the people in question before you talk about the people in question. Listen and learn.

      • David W. says

        Right, because Professors at evangelical seminaries are representative of the average Joe and Jane evangelical American.

          • David W. says

            I believe, in the article Kurt was clearly addressing Christians who actually know very little about the Bible they profess to believe in. I failed to see where he was addressing Bible scholars.

          • steve hays says

            He is making blanket claims about the Bible itself. About Bible contradictions, textual transmission, &c. So that’s where knowing the other side of the argument is germane. It’s incumbent on his, as a journalist, to know what conservative scholars have to say in response.

    • beyond partisan (@beyondpartisan) says

      “The english Bibles that use the word “homosexuality” made it up.” Did the thought ever occur to you that the idea of homosexuality as an “identity” or state of being was made up by LGBT activists instead of the old-fashioned way of just seeing it as a behavior? Heck, just in my short lifetime (I’m under 50) I can remember when homosexuality was seen as fluid and not some sort of fixed, genetic thing like race (which it is not, BTW).

      And here’s your big problem – because YOU believe in the “made up” identity of “homosexual” as a noun instead of an adjective describing a behavior, YOU think that condemning homosexuality is condemning the person. Well, guess what? Conservatives don’t believe gay people were born that way nor is being gay an inherent, critical part of a person’s being. That’s what you are missing here. So you keep protesting about conservative Christians “condemning people” when they are not condemning people but their behaviors.

      • Jim says

        It depends what you mean by “born that way”. Conservative Christianity teaches that people are born sinful; I see no reason to assume homosexual desires are not part of our innate sinfulness.

    • Jim Milliken says

      Kurt, thank you for engaging Dr. Kruger here and the other commenters with the graceful manner you exhibit. It is very admirable.

      When I read your Newsweek article, I think I could understand the heart of what you were trying to get at in encouraging further discussion on what the Bible says and how to interpret it. I can identify with your points that biblical literacy is generally lacking, and than many people use their biblical illiteracy to put-down, shame, and oppress others.

      But when I read your article, I felt like the plethora of information you presented seemed to convolute your intended message. You tried to hit on so many subjects, but the very heart of your point got lost in the multitude of other subjects you presented. Yet I feel like the whole point of journalism is concisely speaking your point without going down too many rabbit holes. You just tried to do too many things, in my opinion. Perhaps you should try to write a book to explore more fully each specific issue you attempted to explore in your article. That would also provide you the space for the more scholarly references and counter-arguments I know you are capable of. Obviously, Dr. Kruger is a great resource for providing counter-arguments and scholarly sources for many of the issues you are curious about.

      I hope you find the criticism by all the commenters here constructive and not attacking in any way.

    • Art Eddington says

      Mr Eichenwald,
      I’ve been an evangelical pastor for almost half a century and one thing I can say is you certainly know us well. While I disagree with much of what you said, you are right about the prevailing arrogance that cripples the evangelical message. Much of the invective you have received from Christians in this forum proves my point.
      I don’t know if Freud actually said this or not (it’s probably appocryphal) “I don’t like Christians because they have all the answers; the problem is they only let you ask certain questions.”
      Thank you for making us “think.” Most people, including Christians, choose to let others do the hard cognitive work for them. That’s what’s brought us to this shallow age. I respect both you and Dr. Kruger, though I undoubtedly disagree with both of you at various points. It is our shallowness that poses the greatest threat to evangelical Christianity, not those who disagree with us.
      Thank you sir.
      Pastor Art

    • Joseph says

      Mr. Eichenwald says he is responding to this blog because Michael Kruger is “the only critic…who avoids name-calling and personal attacks.” Not true, of course. Others have responded just as courteously. But let me suggest another motive: Either consciously or unconsciously Mr. Eichenwald is attempting to limit the battlefield. By claiming this blog as the one location of civil discourse on the matter, he can concentrate his defense here and ignore the legitimate criticisms brought against his article by scholars such as Daniel Wallace and James White. Mr. Eichenwald must know that, when you pick a fight on multiple fronts, you have to prepare for multiple counter-attacks. And your defense will have to be stronger than “No fair!” and “Stop calling me names!”

  7. Gene Hisey says

    A man who divorced his wife except for sexual immorality comits adultery, why is he not then required to repent and remarry her to end the sinning? How is his not remarrying his wife to end the sin any different from the homosexual that admits his sin but continues to practice homosexuality?

    • Jim says

      I would argue that he *should* repent and take her back as his wife, though admittedly a lot of people seem to have (in my mind fairly tenuous) arguments in the opposite direction, or just ignore the issue entirely.

  8. Benjamin P. Glaser says

    I just have a hard time understanding why we should take someone seriously on this subject who says this:

    “In Mark 10:18, Jesus says “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Was Jesus trying to trick us? How can these words be reconciled with the Trinity?”

    How can someone who misses such an obvious use of irony (i.e.- Jesus is God, John 10:30) be trusted to do research on more complicated subjects?

    (and by the way it is “red-letter Christian”, not “redline Christian”)

  10. anaquaduck says

    The Inquisition has become a broken record classic accusation & icon of unbelief when seeking to malign belief by secular mindsets. Yet so many wars were secular & based on godlessness.

    Eugenics too has a horrible history bound up in atheistic dogma & assumptions of superiority that reeks of hypocrisy or ignorance.Dumbing down debate is a real wooden horse of Troy that fools many people in opinion pages, media articles & presentations.

    They only seem to let secular science get away with its statements of faith & talk of multi verses without really challenging the alleged evidence, past & present with cycloptic reporting styles.

    Thanks for sharing your faith & insights Dr Kruger, it reminds me of the prophets duelling with the false prophets in OT times. What appeared messy & out of control was covered by God who was & is at work (as is the deceiver ) in what is now a fallen world.

  11. Steven L says

    Kurt, I appreciate your comments here and in response to Dr. Kruger’s first post – I find them to be much more informative and balanced (not without their problems) than the original Newsweek article. I think a big part of the reason for all of the controversy that your piece has stirred up is that it was simply very poorly written. I agree with you that it is important for readers to do their job by reading carefully – but I have found that it is better to take responsibility for misunderstandings as a writer than to accuse readers of doing a poor job (even if some/many readers really do a poor job). The amount of discussion concerning what your primary and additional points were indicates that those points were not made clearly. I’m assuming you asked others to read over the piece and give you feedback before publishing it, but in this case they were the wrong people to ask. Instead, I think Dr. Kruger is correct that the piece actually comes off as an offensive, insulting, and highly under-informed rant – even if that was not your intention. I think you will make much more headway in discussions of the piece if you say “I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear, let me try again…” rather than things like “Saying you are failing to understand the message of the piece is hardly stating the piece is wrong. It means you are not reading it carefully or with an open mind.”

    That said, while I agree with many things that you have to say, I disagree with many others, and am in general pretty squarely in Dr. Kruger’s camp. On to a couple of specific points – with plenty of sub-points:

    **** 1 ****

    (Full disclosure: I am merely an amateur on this topic, but hope I won’t say anything too unfounded…)

    You wrote: <>

    I agree that there are problems with “counting up”. However, keep in mind that during the many Roman persecutions of Christians in the early centuries, manuscripts containing the canonical books were also destroyed in large numbers, and yet we have a number of manuscripts witnessing to the canonical books which date to the Ante-Nicene period – before orthodox Christianity carried the weight of the Roman government behind it. Furthermore, Eusebius, who was a first-rate scholar in his day, catalogued the various Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, and Epistles in circulation in the early Church and grouped them according to their reputation and circulation. The result? Most of the canonical books were universally recognized, a few were disputed (e.g. 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation), a few additional disputed books ended up not making the cut (e.g. Barnabas, Hermas, 1 Clement), and then there were all the rest which were clearly in a different league and widely held in disrepute. This was before Constantine’s conversion and therefore rules out any influence from Constantine or the Roman government.

    On a different note, “counting up” differences between New Testament manuscripts is also problematic. In your original article you wrote: <> This is an incredibly misleading statement because of the way that such variations are counted. Let’s look at a simple example. Here are ten simple sentences:

    The gray colored cat is in Washington state.
    The grey colored cat is in Washington state.
    The gray coloured cat is in Washington state.
    The grey coloured cat is in Washington state.
    The grey-coloured cat is in Washington state.
    The gray-colored cat is in Washington state.
    The gray-colored cat is in WA state.
    The grey-coloured cat is in WA state.
    The gray colored cat is in WA state.
    The grey coloured cat is in WA state.

    It’s easy to come up with more variants on these sentences. Let’s use the first sentence as the baseline. How many words are in it? I count 8. How many variants can I find in the other 9 sentences? I count 18 (including the replacement of a space with a hyphen). More variants than there are words! Suppose each of these sentences is from a separate manuscript. Now what if I find an 11th manuscript that reads as follows:

    The grey coloured cat is in Washington state.

    The 2nd and 11th sentences are identical, but since the 1st sentences is the baseline, I now have an additional 2 variants, bringing the total up to 20. I find that the “counting up” of variants is a very poor way to quantify how closely we know what the New Testament originally said. True, there are the two cases of the woman caught in adultery and the ending of Mark (which Dr. Kruger dealt with), but all other NT manuscript variants are essentially like the variants in these 11 example sentences.

    [Side note: I’m experimenting with a different way to quantify the similarities and differences between manuscripts – I don’t know if this has been done before. As a simple example, compare the Greek text of Colossians according to the United Bible Society 4th edition (Aland et al) with the Greek text of Colossians from papyrus P46 (dated around 200 AD). P46 is missing words and individual characters on each page where the text has been rubbed off or the manuscript is tattered or torn. Nevertheless, it is possible to build what I’ll call an “agreement matrix” comparing the two documents. From this matrix you can calculated a correlation coefficient and square it (R^2). This is, in statistics, the coefficient of determination, and it tells you how much of one document can be predicted from the other. If two documents are identical, then R^2 = 1 because 100% of the first document can be predicted from the second document. If two documents are completely different, then R^2 = 0 because 0% of the first document can be predicted from the second document. The R^2 value for UBS vs. P46 Colossians is between 0.99 and 1, indicating extremely close agreement between the two. R^2 is nice because it allows for multiple simultaneous comparisons (like the 11 sentences in the example above) but is always between 0 and 1. This is in contrast to the “counting up” method which gets artificially large as the number of documents involved increases.]

    **** 2 ****

    You wrote: <>

    Language doesn’t work the way you appear to think it does (and now I’m speaking as a scholar rather than as an amateur). Languages change, old words disappear from the vocabulary (e.g. “forsooth”), new words are introduced (e.g. “quark”), other words simply change – both in pronunciation (e.g. “knight” was pronounced more like the German “Knecht”) and in meaning (e.g. a “villain” was originally an innocent “villager”). And as Dr. Kruger has pointed out elsewhere, homophones exist – the same words that mean different things in different contexts. Borrowing from Dr. Kruger, you wouldn’t translate the Cinderella story into contemporary English by saying “she went to the sphere” or “she went to the globe”, or “she went to the baseball” – you would say “she went to the party”. By your argument, if the earlier word “ball” was precise enough for an earlier generation, who are we to make up the word “party” to replace it? It is not at all surprising that a word like “homosexual” would appear in our modern English translations, since that’s the word in common usage today that matches the Greek word in the original.

    The notion that our English New Testaments are translations of translations of translations, simply because earlier translations were consulted while preparing newer translations, is patently false. Critical editions of the Greek New Testament are the basis for all serious English translations of the New Testament since the King James Version at least. Translators do make use of previous translations, of course, and doing so is valuable. If there is a particular word or phrase which is ambiguous to us today, why wouldn’t we want to know “How did Jerome understand it?” After all, Jerome was a polyglot and a scholar who lived in the Hellenized world – maybe he knew something about it!

    You wrote: <>

    I’m sure this is true of all of the “redlines” in the New Testament, not just those in the Gospel of John. Jesus said and did many things (John tells us), and some of these things were written down several decades after his death and resurrection (if you believe that, which I do). Can we prove that the “redlines” are authentic? No. Assuming authenticity, should we expect them always to be word-for-word accurate? Probably not. Did the Evangelists pick and choose their quotes to fit the structure of their argument? Sure. Is any of this problematic? Not really. The historical, theological, and doctrinal agreement among the New Testament books is stunning, even if there are minor differences here and there (and two not-so-minor differences that we can account for, i.e. the woman caught in adultery and the ending of Mark).

    Furthermore, the notion that the Gospel writers were expressing a theology (or theologies) that had developed in their part(s) of the expanding church, as if in isolation, is not warranted. The Gospel of John was written in Asia Minor and quickly made its way to Egypt where it was discovered as papyrus P52 (dating to within about 25 years of the composition of the Gospel of John). The letters of Paul circulated – even as a group! – from the beginning. And wide-spread regions of the church kept in step with each other through informal means (e.g. individuals traveling from one church to another, such as Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabas, Mark, Peter, Luke, John; or through letters carried by these individuals, such as the canonical epistles, 1 Clement, Ignatius), and through formal councils starting with the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts. There was very little opportunity for isolated theological developments even in the first century (or especially in the first century, since the Apostles and their immediate successors were still living).

    You wrote: <>

    Ten different translations of a single source text are not going to be identical, I grant you, but that doesn’t mean they are not all right. If I say “Die graue Katze, die alt ist, liegt da vor der Tur” in German (with umlauts on the “u” in “Tur”), I can translate it perfectly correctly as “The gray cat, which is old, lies there before the door”, or “The old gray cat is lying in front of the door”, or …. Each of these translations is correct – the first one is more word-for-word, but it’s also more awkward, as we might expect given the fact that English grammar is not German grammar. The ESV is a more word-for-word translation than the NIV, but the NIV is generally more popular because it is more idiomatically *English*. This doesn’t mean that the NIV is wrong.

    You appear to think that language works like math – with very precise symbols that mean very precise things that are very precisely translatable into other very precise symbols. In a way, language is very precise, but it is mostly terribly imprecise, with ambiguities abounding. Take the following perfectly grammatical sentence as an example: “The horse raced past the barn fell down.” If you haven’t encountered this one before, it probably makes no sense at first reading, but think about it a while….. It’s called a “garden path” sentence because the apparent grammatical structure leads you down the garden path. Or take another example: if language were as precise as you appear to think the New Testament ought to be, then your original Newsweek piece should have been clearly understood by everyone, rather than confusing. The precise words that were good enough for you have not been good enough for many others.

    You are apparently fond of the quip that “God does not speak in whispers and riddles”, because you have used it two or three times in this discussion. And yet in the “redlines” Jesus says pretty much the opposite: “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matt. 13:13, ESV). Since we’re suspending disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity here, consider the following examples instead: God’s finger writes “Mene mene tekel upharsin” on the wall of Belshazzar’s feast hall; in Job 4:12 Eliphaz says “Now a word was brought to me stealthily; my ear received the whisper of it”; Job 33:14 is from a similar passage, this time spoken by Elihu: “For God speaks in one way,
    and in two, though man does not perceive it”; there are the dreams of Pharaoh, the baker, and the cupbearer that Joseph interprets, and the dream of Nebuchadnezzar that Daniel interprets; there’s a lot in Revelation (666, anyone?); and so on.

    God has indeed spoken clearly enough (e.g. check out Hebrews 1 and 2, or 1 John 1, or John 1, or John 20:30, or Romans 1), but it is also true that readers need to do their job well, because even the language of the “redlines” and of the rest of the New Testament is not so precise as to be immediately apparent in all cases. And frankly, sometimes God does speak in whispers and riddles.

    ****

    To end my comments on a more positive note, I fully agree with you that Biblical literacy is in decline and should be taken much more seriously. We should not hold our deepest beliefs simply because someone else holds them and is vocal about it. We should study seriously. We should not pick and choose our doctrines arbitrarily or hypocritically. All sins are sins and are not rank ordered. This is my distillation of the points that you made much more clearly in your earlier comments to Dr. Kruger’s Part 1 response, and I endorse each of them. I think the discussion here on Dr. Kruger’s blog has helped a lot to clarify what it is you are trying to say and why. It also allows for a much more clear-cut framing of the debate on points of disagreement.

    Dr. Kruger: Thanks for doing what you do.

    • Steven L says

      Hm, my comment didn’t make it into print completely unscathed. The bits actually contained quotes from Mr. Eichenwald’s article and comments, and none of the text was supposed to be italicized. Sorry for the formatting issues. I suppose that the quotes are not absolutely necessary, but in case it is confusing with just , I will take some time soon to fill in the blanks.

  12. Dave says

    The claims about the word “homosexual” in 1 Timothy 1:10 fail to acknowledge that the term “arsenokoitai” is also used in the Septuagint versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:33. It was used by Philo as well. One thing that scholar Robert Gagnon mentions about 1 Tim 10 is that if it was not written by Paul, it proves that Paul was considered authoritative by the early church and the author of 1 Tim. Exactly what does Eichenwald think the source of the term is? It means his liberal fundamentalism fails to acknowledge just how the NT writers used the OT. Had he mentioned the Septuagint his case for dismissing Leviticus would have fallen to pieces.

  13. Blake Reas says

    In regard to 1 Corinthians 7:

    As AL Moore said in his book on the parousia:

    The second expression “ho kairos sunestalmenos estin” need not simply mean that there is not much time left, for kairos; is neutral con- cerning its duration,3 and the expression “sunestalmenos” whilst clearly affirming that the Parousia is in some sense imminent, does not necessarily mean that Paul thought it must come within a delimited time.5

  14. steve hays says

    i) I’d like to make an additional observation about the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. These are hard for readers to harmonize for the simple reason that we aren’t starting where Matthew and Luke started; rather, we’re starting where they ended. We don’t have access to the sources (oral or written) which they used. We haven’t seen what they were working with. We’re not privy to all their selection-criteria. All we have to go by is the end-product, which both of them edited down from more complete records.

    ii) Inerrancy doesn’t mean the Gospels are harmonizable with each other. Rather, it means the Gospels are harmonizable with the underlying facts. The Gospels are an accurate representation of historical events.

    But each Gospel writer has his own selection-criteria. They employ narrative compression. The summarizes speeches and paraphrase statements. They sometimes rearrange events.

    We can’t necessarily reconstruct their editorial process, and we don’t need to.

    iii) If Eichenwald presumes to criticize the historicity and inerrancy of scripture, then he needs to become an informed critic. It’s incumbent on him to acquaint himself with some of the standard literature from the opposing position. For instance:

    Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP; 2nd ed., 2007)

    Steven Cowan and Terry Wilder, In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture (B&H 2013)

    James Hoffmeier & Dennis MaGary, eds., Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? (Crossway 2012)

    Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003)

    Jonathan Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely (Baker 2012)

    Vern Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels (Crossway 2012)

    I. Provan, V. P. Long & T. Longman, eds. A Biblical History of Israel (WJK 2003)

    Robert Stein, Interpreting Puzzling Texts in the New Testament (Baker 1997)

    BTW, this work is available online:

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PoythressVernInerrancyAndTheGospels.pdf

    And here’s a review of another fine resource:

    http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony/

  15. Pacem says

    I think Mr. Eichenwald suffers from a self-inflicted lack of credibility. There are a sufficient number of factual errors in his article that any substantive arguments he may have lose force. Its awfully hard to take someone seriously who is making serious claims when small but obvious facts (such as the bit about Constantine and the canon or the number of manuscripts) are incorrect. If one is going to stray from the mainstream of scholarship, then one’s recitation of facts needs to be accurate. He could have grabbed any grad student at whatever school of religion is nearest to review his article and avoided the problems the article presents. Its sad that his points (whether one agrees with them or not) are lost in (hopefully) unthinking error.

  16. San says

    I think perhaps Kurt should discuss with the folks at Newsweek letting Dr. Kruger and a few others refute his points in a different article. That would be the right thing to do.

  18. James Snapp, Jr. says

    [Editing note: recommend changing, “Of course, the word “homosexual” did not exist when Timothy wrote” to “Of course, the word “homosexual” did not exist when First Timothy was written.”

  19. James Snapp, Jr. says

    I went ahead and made a third part to my response to Eichenwald’s article; the third part is accessible at http://onyxkylix.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-sin_31.html and consists of a point-by-point engagement with some parts of the article, with the result that in my three-part response, 26 problematic statements in the article are contested.

    Mr. Eichenwald, I hope you’re still here. I say that you have made 26 statements in your article that are false or misleading or both. Which of these 26 statements do you wish to defend as true?

    (Also, it’s John Shelby *Spong,* not “Spring.” And his teachings are about as virulently antithetical to the New Testament’s teachings about Jesus, and about morality in general, as they can possibly be. If you’ve been taking Spong seriously, that could explain a lot. You quoted Spong as saying, “I do not believe I can make a case for a single word attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel to be a literal word actually spoken by the historic Jesus.” Now, earlier, you described yourself as a “redline” Christian, which seems to mean the same as “red-letter” Christian. So were you just quoting Spong casually, or is your actual position that you favor the red-letters in the Synoptic Gospels only? What is the difference between being a red-letter Christian (except when one is reading the words of Jesus in John, or parts of the other Gospels that one does not like) and being the “cafeteria” variety of Christian that you denounce in the opening paragraphs of your article?)

    • Gene Hosey says

      Cafeteria Christians have existed since the beginning of the church, does no one read acts? Paul and Peter decided on four things out of the whole of the law for gentile followers, and circumcision was not one of them, maybe he should have called you guys “cafeteria Jews” but even you guys cannot agree on it or there would not be Protestant and Catholic and …..

  20. Dawie says

    Mr Eichenwald

    When regenerate (“spiritual”) and unregenerate (“natural”) persons look at the word of God, they get totally different meanings. Which are you?

    1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

    God teaches his children and them alone. Jesus explained the parables only to the disciples, not to the crowd. Has God taught you?

    Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
    Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

    Has God shown you that your wisdom is foolishness?

    1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
    1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
    1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

  21. John says

    Thank you, Dr. Kruger, for your careful critique. The difference between someone who has invested decades in serious academic research and study and one who is clearly far out of his area of expertise (with a shoulder heavy-laden with chips) is obvious.

    Eichenwald’s piece is neither “news” nor did it happen in the last week, so what’s it doing on the cover of Newsweek? It’s not really even journalism, as it appears to violate several widely affirmed journalistic principles such as citing sources, verifying facts, obtaining opposing points of view, etc. So how did it end up on the cover of what was once one of the US’s leading news weeklies?

    Here’s where the opportunity for a real news story using real journalistic rigor may lie. (Warning, this may sound like conspiracy theory, but the sources are all listed at the bottom: Mother Jones magazine, USC’s Annenberg center, New York Times, Christianity Today) I am not a journalist (nor do a I play one on TV), but if any reader is, perhaps here is real story worthy of careful research.

    1. End of 2012: Newsweek publishes what was supposed to be its final issue after years of failure.

    2. 2014: Newsweek is back, this time owned by a shadowy group called IBT, publishers of International Business Times. Mother Jones magazine links this group to the secretive sect of David Jang (Jang Jaehyung), sometimes known as “Young Disciples of Christ,” whose network has tried to acquire other brand names and properties using less than transparent means and have used threats of lawsuits and ad hominem attacks on the few writers who have dared to expose them, such Ken Smith, writing in Christianity Today (August 16, 2012.)

    This network, which appears to be behind Christian Post, Olivet University, and scores of other websites and exerts significant influence over the leadership of the World Evangelical Alliance and Ralph Winter, now appears to be attempting to gain acceptability by buying or borrowing previously developed brand names with their reputations, or putting up websites with remarkably similar names (e.g. “Christian Today” not to be confused with the magazine Christianity Today, founded in 1956 by Billy Graham and others, or “Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches” denomination founded in 2000, not to be confused with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, an older and entirely unrelated denomination.)

    Apparently founder David Jang was married by, and spent many years within Sun-Myung Moon’s Unification Church, which also has tried to establish it’s influence by acquiring news media, for example owning the Washington Times. Though he and his sect may not exert direct influence over editorial decisions of Newsweek, it appears that they may well be the money being its resurrection. So much for the Young Disciples of Jang.

    3. Newsweek’s great come-back story (7 March 2014), which supposedly uncovered the secretive creator of the bitcoin, was a flop, demonstrating the kind of sloppy journalism one could expect from the Newsweek staff. (See NYTimes article listed below.) Perhaps due to inexperienced editors, and underfinancing of the news department, Newsweek has not recovered its former glory.
    Mother Jones describes the work environment at the parent company’s International Business Times as being one of little actual investigative journalism, but instead repackaging of other sources news stories, with the goal being to get as many “clicks” as possible, by whatever means possible (e.g. beauty pageant slideshows), just to stay viable. (One can see evidence of a similar approach on Christian Post’s website.)

    4. Thus far what has been published to date. Now a bit of speculation (granted) but based upon the trend listed below:

    If Newsweek is now being run along similar lines, then the what happened with Eichenwald’s cover story seems clear. Newsweek is desperate to stay relevant and viable in the incredibly competitive field. Though it can fill its pages with others’ stories, for the cover it needs something that will get people to take it off the newsstand and visit its website. It doesn’t have the resources to produce real ground-breaking news journalism anymore so instead it finds a subject it knows is emotive for many potential readers, the Bible. Newsweek has no real “news” on the Bible to publish, but instead buys a provocative opinion piece sure to arouse emotion in Bible readers across the spectrum. The fact that it’s not based upon actual research, written by an expert in the field of any stripe, and has not been properly peer-reviewed or published in combination with articles by experts with other points of view is irrelevant, the goal is simply to get attention, and try to make it through its first year of publication. (My assumption that Mr. Eichenwald does not have professional background in the subjects upon which his article touches is based upon his Wikipedia entry, though I recognize that Wikipedia entries are not always reliable, as the tags at the top of this entry remind us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Eichenwald. If Mr. Eichenwald does have graduate studies or other background in these subjects then I stand corrected.)

    The bigger storm of controversy it creates, the better—like the bitcoin article. (And of course, those who actually believe the Bible to be God’s Word, be they evangelicals, Catholics, etc. are safe targets, not a protected class, unlike a slanderous, provocative article about some other minority group might be.) The more people blog about the Newsweek cover story, the more Newsweek appears to still be a “player.” The more hits their website gets, the more they can charge for advertising…like an insecure, disruptive child…

    And if they appear dismissive of traditional Christianity (however that’s understood), then all the better. On the one hand, it helps to shield Newsweek from accusations of bias that some might level given that their refinancing was apparently accomplished by a shadowy leader of a religious sect who appears to be financing such media sites in order to gain influence, and on the other hand, perhaps Mr. Jang doesn’t object too much as his group really doesn’t want people adhering themselves to traditional Christian exegesis of the Bible or established churches anyway. (This is not at all to say that Mr. Eichenwald has anything to do with Mr. Jang at all, I take him for what he says he is, and that his article was written merely to promote his own pet grievances, not to promote Newsweek’s goals of relevance or Jang et al’s desire for legitimacy, influence and revenue. My guess is that Mr. Eichenwald would find Mr. Jang’s group’s exegesis as “sinful” as he does that of many other readers of the Bible.)

    So “this calls for wisdom.” Should we ask Newsweek’s editors to give Dr. Kruger or other real scholars page and web space to reply? Or should we treat Newsweek as what it has become, a tabloid akin to the National Enquirer, and ignore it completely, including its website? Every time we visit, Newsweek, IBT, and Jang et al. get what they’re seeking. In the age of this kind of internet tabloid “journalism,” the decisions of which websites we read and where we publish may have unintended consequences for who has voice in the public square.

    Sources:

    I don’t know if this blog accepts web links, but if interested in following this story, check out these stories which I’ll list with dates, so you can search the sites:

    Mother Jones: May/June 2014 Issue, Ben Dooley, “Who’s behind Newsweek.”
    http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang

    Christianity Today: 16 Aug 2012, Ted Olsen and Ken Smith. “The Second Coming Christ controversy.”
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/september/david-jang-second-coming-christ.html

    USCAnnenberg Center’s Religion Dispatches: 1 October 2012, Jonathan D. Fitzgerald. “Christian media battle over controversial figure.”
    religiondispatches.org/christian-media-battle-over-controversial-figure/

    New York Times: 8 March 2014. Leslie Kaufman and Noam Cohen. “Newsweek returns to print and sets off a Bitcoin storm.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/business/media/newsweek-returns-to-print-and-sets-off-a-bitcoin-storm.html?_r=0

  23. Bud Ahlheim says

    Just want to say “Thanks” for taking the time fore efficiently and effectively proffering a sound response to the oh-so stereotypical attacks on our faith.

    I’ve linked to both parts on our site’s blog … John316.rocks.

    God bless!

  24. A blindman pointing other blind men to the eye surgeon says

    Kurt’s article is intended to be provocative and it is not surprise that it accomplished its objective in provoking the emotions and passions of many. Given that many believe the Bible to be God’s revelation to humanity of what we need to know about him, ourselves and his means of salvation, it is no surprise that may would have emotive responses. People are passionate about things they care about and are committed to. I myself live in a developing nation where childhood vaccinations have not been widely administered and where preventable diseases such as Hep A and B are widespread. The government is doing its best to get this generation vaccinated, but is sometimes hampered by unsubstantiated rumors of various sorts. I personally cannot discuss those rumors in a detached and unemotional way because I really care about children getting the vaccinations that could save their lives (and those of their parents and grandparents too, as otherwise children may transmit diseases to their more immuno-compromised relatives. So in the same manner it ought to come as no surprise to Kurt that people have emotional responses when he states as facts poorly-grounded opinions about the book on which they have staked their eternal security.

    That said, this is no excuse for disciples of Jesus to resort to name-calling and pejorative language, as we know that our God is sovereign over all the provocative simplistic cover stories that profit-driven media with little interest in truth may publish. And we know that our battle is not against flesh-and-blood.

    In Kurt’s article and his responses here I see emotion as well, and that is not surprising—it is clear that for Kurt this is not just another writing assignment or project, he cares about this issue and has put some of himself into this article. It’s because he cares about this topic that he’s been willing to take the time to defend his article on this blog. Naturally he takes criticism of his article personally, his life has been shaped based upon his own exegesis of the Bible, as is true for everyone who encounters the Bible’s words, even those who reject the Bible entirely. And sadly some of the attacks have been unnecessarily personal in nature.

    That said, hopefully Kurt also realizes (if he’s still following this blog) that he has not just been the object of cheap, often anonymous name-calling, but of caring prayers by a number of us. I would guess quite a few people see what I think I see, namely, someone perhaps a bit like the apostle Paul (Saul), who is wrestling with God’s Word, who thinks he understands God better than those Jesus followers do, (in Paul’s day “the Way,” in modern America, perhaps “evangelicals,” “fundamentalists,”) but somehow can’t keep himself from being really, really bothered by them!

    Many of us are praying that Kurt will find what he is looking for, or rather that the Truth will find him. That may sound patronizing to some ears, but I only say it because the Truth found me, when I was not even looking for it. I pray for Kurt in hope that he is wise enough to see past the chaff to the substance of what has been said in response to his article, and humble enough to listen to it, asking our God and Father to open his eyes to see “wonderful things in your word.”

  26. Roger Chilvers says

    Thank you Dr Kruger for your response to the Newsweek article. I agree with the position and arguments that you make. However, my main criticism is not of Kurt Eichenwald or even his article, as people are entitled to have their own viewpoint, but with Newsweek who, presumably (?) commissioned and then printed the article with great prominence.

    I would not expect to agree with everything a news journal writes about the Bible – not even such a respected magazine such as Newsweek. However, I would expect that in a leading article the views presented to be balanced, fair, reasonable and well researched. But we see none of these attributes in Kurt Eichenwald’s piece. He appears to write only as a journalist bent on making an impression or reaping a response rather than presenting a carefully researched viewpoint. It is all too easy to take views of small number of fringe and even ‘wacky’ people, some attached to the church and some not, from the past and present time and present their views and practices as serious facts and mainstream behaviour without allowing careful research to counterbalance. This is both poor and even irresponsible writing that is unworthy of Newsweek. I look forward to reading an article given similar prominence from genuine and mainstream Biblical scholarship. Think again Newsweek; this is poor and extremely biased writing with almost no source research presented.

  27. Chris says

    I have to say… the comment about the term “homosexual” not existing made me laugh a little. The English language didn’t even exist when the NT was written.

  28. Candace Walls says

    H2O=ice, water, steam. Essentially, they are the same substance, but we don’t call ice “water” or water “steam.” If we look at the Greek-English transliteration of 1 Timothy 2:5-6, we find that clauses were used to essentially speak of the same–two separate beings, yet not two distinct essences. It’s the equivalent of saying, “I have H2O, [also] one glass of hot water to which I’ve added ice–ice, which sacrificed itself to produce steam.”

  29. John says

    Kurt, When I read your Newsweek article it made me angry, at first, and then I realized that about twenty years ago I was as critical of Christianity (and Christians) and the Bible as you are. Cynical is the word to describe me, but I began to search for something without knowing what it was that I was looking for. What I found eventually is a deep belief in God and the Bible, and believe me, no one was more surprised than I was to find faith. I had many intellectual, moral, spiritual, emotional questions and they needed to be answered, and my search was long. Looking back, it was as if God took me by the hand and led me through my search and eventually I found a personal faith in Him, and his Son Jesus. A faith and relationship that I hold dearly and know without a shadow of a doubt that God exists and knows and loves me and vice versa. It is astounding to know God and his love, peace, joy, vastness — I could go on and on. And the Bible is the most amazing book that tells us who God is and what he requires and thinks of us. It can be amazingly comforting but on the other hand can cut deep into our souls. It’s not like any other book that I have in my library or any book I’ve ever read. After I got over my anger with you, I was just sad that you couldn’t see what I see or what other Christians see and have. Faith in God and the Bible is the most amazing journey you will ever go on and I sincerely hope you don’t miss it. And it is a journey that doesn’t stop in this lifetime. Dr. Jim Denison wrote an article about why the Bible is to be trusted and one of the things he said is this. Try living by the Bible. Accept its Savior as yours; make its principles the guideposts of your life. And you’ll learn for yourself that its words are the word of God. Here is his link..http://www.denisonforum.org/faith-questions/21-bible/63-why-trust-the-bible

    Yes, there are many things that Christians do and have done in the past that are not Christ like — they are people who are imperfect (sinners, myself included). Only God is perfect, and I constantly have to remind myself of that. I sincerely hope that you will continue in your questions and study of the Bible, and I welcome your critique. I think you will find that God’s word can stand up to any criticism we might have (and has for centuries) and not only that, it will change our lives in a powerful way, if we will only open our hearts. Isaiah 55:11 says, “so is my word that goes out from my mouth; It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

  30. Alan says

    Hi Kurt,

    With regard to your comments on the Trinity and the nature of Jesus I would simply say this: The son of a lion is a lion. The son of a duck is a duck. The son of God is God.

    You seem to reject the authorship of John the Evangelist, and with it, his testament the divinity of Christ, yet the quote below is by Ignatius who was a disciple of John, and he is saying the same thing as the Gospel of John.

    “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.”
    Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians (A.D. 110)

    Ignatius was also called Ho-Theophorus because he was reputed to be the child that Jesus held in his arms in Mk9:35. He was also the third bishop of Antioch succeeding St Peter and Evodius.

    If you want to know what the bible is saying, you should read what the early Christians believed. They were being taught from it very early on. Here is a sample.

    “For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.”
    Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (A.D. 155)

    ” Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”
    Didache 7:1 (~90 AD)

    “… having learned that He[Jesus] is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove”
    Justin Martyr, First Apology (110-165 AD).

    “Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.”
    Martyrdom of Polycarp (157 AD).

    ” For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;’ He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.”
    Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (180 AD)

    “But nothing exists, the cause of whose existence is not supplied by God. Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one–that is, God.”
    Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (A.D. 202)

    Ex. 3:14 – In the Old Testament, God reveals His name as “I AM who AM”.

    Jn. 8:24,58 – In the New Testament, Jesus says of Himself, “Before Abraham was, I AM”.

    Lk. 1:31-32 – The angel of the Lord proclaims Jesus as Son of the Most High.

    Mt. 2:2,11;8:2;14:33;28:9;28:17;Lk. 24:52;Jn. 9:38 – Jesus allows Jews to worship Him. Only God can be worshipped.

    Mt. 9:2;Mk. 2:5;Lk. 5:20;7:48 – Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

    Mt. 4:7;Lk. 4:12 – Jesus tells Satan, “you shall not tempt the Lord your God” in reference to Himself.

    Mt. 12:8;Mk. 2:28;Lk. 6:5 – Jesus says that He is “Lord of the Sabbath.” He is the Lawgiver. He is God.

    Mt. 26:63-64;Mk. 14:61-62;Lk. 22:70;Jn. 10:30 – Jesus claims to be the Son of God.

    Jn. 1:1;Rev. 1:8;22:12-13 – John says the Word and God are one. Jesus Christ is the Word; the Alpha and Omega.

    Jn. 20:28 – St. Thomas addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God!”.

  31. Brad B says

    It seems that many of the critics of the integrity, clarity, and faithful transmission of the biblical texts argue in an assumed dialectical manner which should not be assumed when dealing with any search for factual support of actual history. Nor, especially should it be employed regarding anything related to Christian doctrine.

    Some of the pushback from commenters on parts 1 and 2 amounted to suggesting that the truth is somewhere between the traditional Christian hardline and their own more evolved, higher, intellectually superior offering. The dialectic occurs when the logic doesnt uphold the “new math” so instead of letting facts and logic lead, they offer the mid ground as possible solution.

    Another observation regarding these somewhat ubiquitious characters is that they usually claim some hurtful motives to the more stubborn of us who regard their attack on scripture to be fighting words. I for one want all to come….kicking and screaming if necessary against the worldly wisdom that bewitches them to a full knowledge of the truth that alone SETS MEN FREE. It is benevolence that will not allow a slippery slope, CWAGA compromise.

Featured Posts

About

I am President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC, and husband to Melissa Kruger, Director of Women’s Content at The Gospel Coalition.

Social Media

twitterrssemailfacebook

Popular Tags

Share via
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mix
Email
Print
Copy Link
Powered by Social Snap
Copy link
CopyCopied
Powered by Social Snap