Good. So we have three things:
The accounts of demon possession and exorcism in the Synoptics are meant historically. (Verified by J. Burke.)
The Christadelphians believe that there are no such things as demons or exorcisms. (Verifiable from various Christadelphian sources.)
It would seem to follow that Christadelphians must believe that the authors of the Synoptics were in error.
Is that the Christadelphian position, that there are historical/theological errors in the Gospels?
Why would that make them âin errorâ?
At the time the gospels were written, it was common to attribute to demon possession, what today we attribute to mental disease.
I would not call it an error, if their attibutions where consistent with the social practices of the time.
Itâs quite obviously an error, if there are no such things as demons, possession, or exorcism. If such things are not real, then the Gospel writers, in teaching that they were real, were teaching a falsehood. Whether the view was common in that era is completely irrelevant to the question whether the view is true or false.
Then you should toss out the entire Bible as obviously false. For, on your standard of truth, Genesis 1 is a falsehood.
Iâm not so sure about this.
If I was teaching âchemistryâ in the 18th century and I didnât teach atomic theory, is that an error? I really wouldnât think so. I wouldnât have had knowledge of it at the time. If Iâm teaching physics in the present (as I am) and I teach only Newtonian mechanics and not quantum mechanics, am I wrong? Not necessarily. If itâs a course on atomic physics then yes, if itâs introductory physics for health science, then no. Both what I know, and the context/audience/purpose, matter.
Perhaps the human author thought it was demon-possession out of ignorance of psychological/physiological reasons. I donât think thatâs necessarily error. Of course, conversely it could have been demon-possession and our ignorance of the circumstances cause us to read 21st century psychology/physiology into the text. Can we tell the difference? How can we navigate the difference?
If there really are errors there, wouldnât it be best to acknowledge that? Are you a biblical inerrantist?
The error would not be that you failed to teach atomic theory. The error would be that you were teaching phlogiston theory or the four humors or alchemy or some other falsehood.
If the cause was not demons, and the authors said that it was demons, then the authors were in error.
Yes, it could have been. But the context of my discussion is the view of Christadelphians that demons and possessions do not exist. How can one say that demons and possession donât exist, and not acknowledge that the Gospel writers were wrong to believe that they did?
Exactly my point. Iâm asking J. Burke if the Christadelphians believe that the Gospel writers made an error about demons. I await his answer.
Not in the sense that Ken Ham is. But the question I was asking was whether Christadelphians were Biblical inerrantists. I donât see how they could be, since they think demons donât exist, and the Gospels attest to the existence of demons.
I donât think you are following me. I have not claimed in this particular discussion that anything in the Bible is true or false. I have not said that demons do or do not exist. I am asking a particular question of a Christadelphian who knows the views of Christadelphians: whether Christadelphians (who reject the existence of demons and exorcisms) believe that the Gospel writers made an error, or whether they come up with some feat of intellectual athleticism that enables them to deny demons while maintaining that the Gospel writers made no error.
Remember how this started. A blunt charge was made that Aquinas was not seeking the truth, but only to fit things into a preconceived theology that he favored. It was mentioned in one case that Aquinas had no Biblical basis for his claims. I countered by asking what Biblical basis the Christadelphians have for disbelief in demons and exorcism. How do they discount the most natural sense of the narratives in three of the four Gospels? Are they not equally guilty of beating the Bible into the shape of some theology accepted on a priori grounds? The pot should not be calling the kettle black.
So you are, just in another sense, an inerrantist?
No. This is a non sequitur. I refer you again to Galileo and the other examples I gave. You are making exactly the same mistake that YECs make when they read the Bible, and you are making the same arguments as them also. Meanwhile other people here have clearly understood the issue perfectly well. This does not speak well for your claims of hermeneutical knowledge.
I note you didnât answer my question, which certainly explains your confusion over this topic.
Saying something is a non sequitur does not make it so. Show why it is a non sequitur.
I know Galileo very well. I taught Galileo in a university course fairly recently, including the writings to which you are doubtless referring. Youâre badly misapplying his discussion to the case of the Gospels.
No, Iâm not. This has nothing whatever to do with YEC. Not just the YECs but all orthodox Christians of every stripe have accepted that demons and exorcisms are real. Only unorthodox Christian groups like the Christadelphians think otherwise. And since you have undertaken to criticize an orthodox Christian (Thomas Aquinas) on the grounds (among others) that he diverges from the teaching of the Bible, you have to meet the same standard you are demanding of Aquinas. Christadelphian doctrine departs from the most natural, unforced reading of the Gospel narratives. If you are willing to say that the Christadelphians have been wrong about demons and exorcism, then fine. But based on your responses so far, I donât think you are willing to say that.
I suspect that your concession that the Gospel stories about demons and exorcism were âmeant historicallyâ contains an equivocation. If Iâm wrong, you can show me by explaining what you mean by âmeant historically.â And donât waste your breath going on and on about what âscholarshipâ supposedly says. It isnât necessary. (Especially since you frequently distort the scholarship, to slant its results in a direction pleasing to your own theological orientation.) Just explain your position in coherent English. If you canât do that without throwing in âscholarship says thisâ and âscholarship says that,â itâs likely because you canât defend it from the Greek Biblical text under your own steam, i.e., because you donât have enough command of the Greek or the literary features of the narrative to make the case based on the text alone.
I donât like the term âinerrantist,â because it calls up all kinds of associations that donât reflect my understanding of Christianity or how to read the Bible. The majority of those who are called âinerrantistsâ typically insist on all kinds of things which I donât think the Bible actually teaches. For example, I donât think that the Genesis âteachesâ that the world was created in six 24-hour days, even though it uses a scheme of six days for literary purposes. I might be an âinerrantistâ in some broader, looser sense. But I think the term is so soiled by its association with cultural boorishness, that Iâd rather it was retired from theological and religious discussion.
If you donât understand why itâs a non sequitur, that doesnât say much for your ability to construct a syllogism. nwrickert and Jordan have both agreed that your conclusion does not proceed logically from your premise. Letâs look at it again.
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect. Note that you have made no effort to explain how the conclusion proceeds logically from the preceding premises. This syllogism may help you understand whatâs wrong with your argument.
Hereâs another one.
Hereâs another one.
How did I guess you would say something like this?
Please demonstrate this. Do you agree with this reasoning that the apparently plain reading of the text is informed by evidence outside the text, so that the plain reading of the text may in fact be misleading without that external evidence?
Sure it does. Youâre making the same argument they do; âThe text plainly says X, so if you believe X isnât true then you believe the Bible is in errorâ. You need to demonstrate how your methodology is any different to theirs.
And I am.
No, just as I am not equivocating when I say Genesis 1-3 are meant historically, or that the Genesis account of the flood is meant historically. Maybe itâs you equivocating on the meaning of âhistoricallyâ.
Oh but it is necessary. Why do you want to avoid scholarship on this matter?
Demythologization.[1]
[1] See in particular Dunn and Twelftree. But you donât accept scholarship, right?
Since you havenât defined what you mean by âmeant historicallyâ, your âhelpfulâ syllogisms arenât very helpful.
Letâs try to make one of your examples more precise, by replacing the equivocal term âmeant historicallyâ with something more exact.
The conclusion now follows from the premises.
By removing the ambiguous phrase âmeant historicallyâ, and substituting more concrete expressions, regarding the demon-possession stories in the Synoptics, one can obtain a similar result.
Why do you want to avoid discussing the Greek text of the Synoptics on this matter?
It figures. Thatâs in line with your general liberalization of exegesis and theology. Iâm surprised the Christadelphians would invoke it, though. Biblicist sects generally donât.
What you mean by that is: I donât defer to the conclusions of the scholars you happen to agree with. It hardly follows that I donât accept âscholarship.â Also, your conception of scholarship appears to be âshowing erudition about current leading opinionsâ; my conception of scholarship, though it does not deny the value of consulting current opinions, is more focused on the mastery of primary texts. I havenât seen such mastery in your comments on the Bible â only endless citations of scholars in an attempt to batter your opponents into submission to their authority (and hence to your conclusions). If you have really mastered the relevant texts, you shouldnât need help from others to make a convincing case. So show us from the texts what the Gospel authors really meant when they told those stories about demons. Tell us what claims about reality they were making. And then tell us whether they erred in any of the claims that they made. If âscholarshipâ canât handle such basic tasks, it isnât good for very much.
Iâm using it in the perfectly normal every day sense of a historical event.
Yes but thatâs a completely different syllogism to the one I presented, and itâs not analogous to my beliefs about demons in the gospels, so itâs irrelevant. I note youâve been unable to differentiate your personal argument from the hermeneutical method of the YECs and other fundamentalists.
But you canât remove the phrase âmeant historicallyâ from my statement and replace it with something I donât mean.
I donât. You know full well Iâve written pages on the relevant Greek words, and had my work published in a peer reviewed and refereed scholarly journal. You also know that I donât discuss the Greek without reference to scholarship. So again, why do you want to avoid discussing the scholarship?
But weâre not a Biblicist sect; we believe interpretation of the text must be informed by extra-Biblical sources of information, including scientific evidence and the socio-historical context.
No that is not what I mean. You regularly rail against mainstream modern scholarship. You dismiss historico-critical scholarship. You reject hermeneutical methods which have become de rigueur in modern scholarship. You describe scholarship you disagree with as âleft-liberal-feministâ, âleft-wing propagandaâ, âmodernistâ, âMarxistsâ, and âdeconstructionistâ.
Then why donât you clarify, by telling us your beliefs about demons in the gospels? (Your beliefs, not a string of citations to what scholars are saying.)
I read that work. It was primarily on the Apostolic Fathersâ understanding of the Gospel passages about demons, not on the text of the Gospels. Iâm interested in your view of what the Synoptic Gospels teach about demons, possession and exorcism, not your view of what the Apostolic Fathers thought the Gospels taught, or of what the Apostolic Fathers themselves taught.
(I also read the critique of your essay by Thomas Farrar, and thought that he pointed out some serious weaknesses in your argument regarding the Apostolic Fathers, but as that is not my interest, I donât make an issue of it here.)
[Post shortened by author for more focus]
@Eddie and @Jonathan_Burke , please drop the scholarship and Greek line of back-and-forth.
@Jonathan_Burke, please stop calling @Eddie a Fundamentalist or implying as much, weâve been down the unfruitful road several times. @Eddie, in turn youâll need to extend the same courtesy to @Jonathan_Burke if it comes up.
Please try to stick to the more useful conversation about how each otherâs approach toward Scripture, especially considering the demons/possession passages. I would like to break it out if it stays productive, otherwise weâll have to just shut it down.
I donât dismiss all historico-critical scholarship. But I donât worship it, as you seem to.
I couldnât care less what is âde rigueurâ in Biblical scholarship, evolutionary theory, climate change, or anything else. I demand convincing arguments.
As far as I can tell, your âhermeneutical methodâ to dispose of the clear claims of the Gospel writers regarding demons is (based on your statements on BioLogos, where you set forth your principles more clearly) to repeat âSecond Temple Judaismâ like a mantra, as if hoping that the authoritative, scholarly sound of the phrase will intimidate those who would rather talk about the text.
[Post shortened by author for more focus and to remove heat]
Just got your note after posting my last, Jordan. Will try to work co-operatively.
I prefer to talk about Biblical texts and passages, because in a setting like this, where only a few of the readers are professional Biblical scholars or theologians, a trading back and forth of scholarly references is likely to be of less interest than a discussion of the relevant Biblical passages. I think many people here may be a little hesitant to enter the discussion when phrases like âdemythologizationâ or âSecond Temple Judaismâ are inserted into the discussion, or when names of scholars they have never heard of are cited; but if particular passages of the Synoptic Gospels are discussed, that allows maximum participation by non-specialists, who can see for themselves how the texts are being interpreted and follow the reasoning.