Let's talk about univocality, bitches

Author: Castin

Posts

Total: 9
Topic's author
#1
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,285
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
AND A THIRD THREAD.

Univocality is the idea that the Bible speaks with a single, consistent voice. It says there are no contradictions or disagreements between books or authors in the Bible.

It's worth noting that univocality is rejected by basically every critical scholar and historian in the academic field of biblical studies. The idea that these different authors, writing from different periods, in different languages, for different reasons and to different audiences, all shared some unified perspective or hive mind, is not an argument that has any traction among critical experts. The biblical authors wrote largely in ignorance of one another, and often in ignorance of one another's works, and had no inkling that their books would one day be gathered into this specific collection that we now know as the Bible.

So I'll extend the question: why should we believe the Bible is univocal? Why should it be read that way? We can get a better understanding of the Bible by treating it as multivocal. Change my mind.



#2
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,594
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Castin
univocality is rejected by basically every critical scholar and historian in the academic field of biblical studies
A claim like this really needs a source. But if it's true, I assume it's because assume most scholars aren't fundamentalist Christians and thus don't hold fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I don't think most Christians are even fundamentalists.
#3
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,886
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Castin
I think most serious Christians think it's kinda both, but I don't know the strict definition.

It's like the holy Spirit is giving the writers the impression. Of what to write but the human is still there so he will use what is most comfortable to him. 

So if God gave me and some British person the same impression I might say

"The cop beat the shit out of that nigger"

The British person might say

"The Bobby unjustly assaulted an up and coming civil engineer"

We both are describing the same exact thing God gave us but through different filters. 
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,588
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
Yo bitch.

The Bible is an inanimate lump of ex-trees, that sit's lonely and unspeaking on the top shelf covered in dust and cobwebs.

Plagiarism was rife.


#5
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
So I'll extend the question: why should we believe the Bible is univocal? Why should it be read that way? We can get a better understanding of the Bible by treating it as multivocal. Change my mind.
Hard to see the Bible as univocal when it is made up of 66 books written by different authors spread over a period of time.
Topic's author
#6
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,285
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Savant
univocality is rejected by basically every critical scholar and historian in the academic field of biblical studies
A claim like this really needs a source.
Fair point.

Here's a video from a scholar explaining why the assumption of univocality is not practiced in critical scholarship (short, but jump to 0:58 if you like).

For context, couple scholarly articles on why univocality is an erroneous dogma:

Studying inconsistencies in the Bible is just part of the scholarly disciplines -- the critical-historical method, textual criticism, source criticism, etc. Inconsistencies can be crucial for identifying literary strata, literary sources, interpolated passages, pseudopigraphical texts, and so on.

Don't get me wrong; there are some professionals who argue for univocality, but (like scholars who believe in biblical inerrancy) their critical scholarship is not thought very highly of -- for the simple reason that they begin with a conclusion and then try to make the data fit it, instead of letting the data lead them to their conclusions.
Topic's author
#7
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,285
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Savant
But if it's true, I assume it's because assume most scholars aren't fundamentalist Christians and thus don't hold fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I don't think most Christians are even fundamentalists.
Apologies for splitting my reply into two posts.

So here you seem to be arguing that univocality is a fundamentalist belief, and there I must disagree. I don't think it's exclusive to fundamentalists. In fact, I don't think it's even exclusive to religious people.

I think univocality is an assumption we all find ourselves slipping into, that we can't help but treat the Bible like it speaks from one point of view, like any passage can be used as context for another, like all these texts were intended to be read together somehow. Like here are a bunch of common examples off the top of my head:

  • Any Christian who tries to reconcile a passage from one book with a passage from another in order to find an overarching doctrine is assuming univocality.
  • Atheists who rail away at biblical contradictions between books are treating the Bible like it's univocal.
  • Any time we act like "the Bible says" Jesus was born of a virgin, we're assuming univocality -- half of the Gospels don't say so at all, but we assume they silently agree with the other two on this point.
  • Letting any New Testament book govern your interpretation of an Old Testament book is just a flashing red sign screaming "assuming univocality".
  • Anyone who thinks the Bible teaches a complete and consistent moral framework or guide for life is treating it like it's univocal.
I think most Christians -- heck, most people -- are guilty of doing it at some point.
#8
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,594
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Castin
Here's a video from a scholar explaining why the assumption of univocality is not practiced in critical scholarship
That's still one guy. Also, just because scholars adhere to one thing in scholarship doesn't mean they don't have personal religious beliefs that differ.

I think univocality is an assumption we all find ourselves slipping into, that we can't help but treat the Bible like it speaks from one point of view
Well, that's because most of this is said when arguing between or against Christians who believe the Bible doesn't contradict.
#9
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
Well, that's because most of this is said when arguing between or against Christians who believe the Bible doesn't contradict.

75 books were removed from the Bible so the Bible would appear not to contradict itself.
Why were 75 books removed from the Bible?
Their eventual exclusion was not because they were regarded as heretical, but because they either lacked apostolic authorship or were thought to be too shallow in spiritual content.