Proof Texts, the problem with many "critical analyses"

[Archaea]

In the rhetorical give and take, when speakers discuss a particular religious topic, it seems that distortion is frequently the key precisely because we rely upon "proof texts".

The prime example of a falacious proof text is 1 John 5:7-8 and the Johannine Comma. For those who don't speak German, Johannine, simply means, of John. Trinitarians are wont to rely upon this fraudulently procured "greek byzantine or western text" as proof of the validity of a spurious doctrine.

Much of our discussion in this forum seems revolve around proof texts. BY said this and here is the key verbiage, hence I'm right and anybody who disagrees disagrees with the prophet of God and therefore disagrees with God himself.

IOW, most of argumentation revolves around proof texts, instead of the scholarly approach of consensus analysis, addressing majority and minority opinions on texts and observations. Now majority opinions can be influenced by a sufficiently powerful enough authority, such as Brigham Young regarding his policy on blacks and the priesthood. Such authority can generate a "majority" of opinions even if the majority opinion is wrong.

In higher and lower criticisms, we see that when it is believed the Byzantine texts, more prolific but newer, disagree with Alexandrian texts, frequently older and thought to be more authentic. I'd need to go back to search for a specific example.

Does anybody agree that much of our disagreement and discussion arises from a tendency to use too frequently proof texts?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Does anybody agree that much of our disagreement and discussion arises from a tendency to use too frequently proof texts?

I don't think I have been paying enough attention lately to the threads to comment decisively on whether people are employing a lot of a proof texts. However, I do agree with you more generally. We, as a people and religion, employ proof texts quite frequently. Of course, as you pointed out in your comment, we are not alone in the use of proof texts. Another famous historical example is Augustine's use of Romans 5:12 as a proof text for the doctrine of original sin (If I remember right, he based it off a poor or incorrect translation from the Latin Vulgate).

I think my earliest memory of Family Home Evening involves the use of proof texts. Specifically, using Ezekiel 37:15-17 as a proof text. Of course, we have lots of other proof texts as well. Jeremiah 1:5 as a proof text for the doctrine of pre-existence and Amos 3:7 as a proof text for the role of prophets come to mind. Regardless, of whether a proof text is accurate or not I find them troubling in many ways. In other words, even if Amos 3:7 is an accurate reflection of what a prophet does and correlates highly with our modern doctrine of the role of prophets, I still worry about using it as a proof text. When we use it as a proof text, we usually don't ask questions about the text and I think we at least implicitly lead people (ourselves) to start viewing scriptures in isolation removed from their larger context and narrative. Thus we lose the chance to learn or try to discover what the author (often a prophet) was trying to teach his/her audience. For example, I think we need to ask questions like the following for the call narrative found in Jeremiah 1:4-10:

• What do we learn about the LORD and what do we learn about Jeremiah in these verses?
  
  
• Why does the LORD mention Jeremiah's pre-birth call? Is it really to tell Jeremiah and us about the doctrine of a pre-existant state?
  
  
• Why does the LORD touch the mouth of Jeremiah? Is the touching of the mouth somehow related to why the Lord mentions Jeremiah's pre-birth call? How are these narrative elements related? How does each of them affect our understand of the narrative? How do these elements affect our understanding of the relationship between God and Jeremiah and God and his people?
  
  
• Why are call narratives similar? Are the similarities important? How is Isaiah's call narrative similar and different than Jeremiah's?

Probably, not the world's most insightful questions, but hopefully they illustrate my point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think I have been paying enough attention lately to the threads to comment decisively on whether people are employing a lot of a proof texts. However, I do agree with you more generally. We, as a people and religion, employ proof texts quite frequently. Of course, as you pointed out in your comment, we are not alone in the use of proof texts. Another famous historical example is Augustine's use of Romans 5:12 as a proof text for the doctrine of original sin (If I remember right, he based it off a poor or incorrect translation from the Latin Vulgate).

I think my earliest memory of Family Home Evening involves the use of proof texts. Specifically, using Exekiel 37:15-17 as a proof text. Of course, we have lots of other proof texts as well. Jeremiah 1:5 as a proof text for the doctrine of pre-existence and Amos 3:7 as a proof text for the role of prophets come to mind. Regardless, of whether a proof text is accurate or not I find them troubling in many ways. In other words, even if Amos 3:7 is an accurate reflection of what a prophet does and correlates highly with our modern doctrine of the role of prophets, I still worry about using it as a proof text. When we use it as a proof text, we usually don't ask questions about the text and I think we at least implicitly lead people (ourselves) to start viewing scriptures in isolation removed from their larger context and narrative. Thus we lose the chance to learn or try to discover what the author (often a prophet) was trying to teach his/her audience. For example, I think we need to ask questions like the following for the call narrative found in Jeremiah 1:4-10:

• What do we learn about the LORD and what do we learn about Jeremiah in these verses?
• Why does the LORD mention Jeremiah's pre-birth call? Is it really to tell Jeremiah and us about the doctrine of a pre-existant state?
• Why does the LORD touch the mouth of Jeremiah? Is the touching of the mouth somehow related to why the Lord mentions Jeremiah's pre-birth call? How are these narrative elements related? How does each of them affect our understand of the narrative? How do these elements affect our understanding of the relationship between God and Jeremiah and God and his people?
• Why are call narratives similar? Are the similarities important? How is Isaiah's call narrative similar and different than Jeremiah's?

Probably, not the world's most insightful questions, but hopefully they illustrate my point.

Illustrates my point better than I could, of course, you are resident intellectual/finance nerd, so one could expect nothing less.

[UtahDan]

Arch I get what you are saying but am not sure I agree with the application. The example you have given seems to be one where there is a clear distortion that is relied upon.

While I think there is SOME distortion that gets relied upon in these discussions, I would say that it is much more true that the doctrine of the church is enough of a amalgamation (and moreover that there is such diverse and prolific commentary from church authorities) that you can find material that supports a great many positions. I would say it is more of a case of people picking and choosing their authority than it is people misrepresenting that authority.