|
[ Home Page | News | Archive | Books | Buy Stuff | FAQs, etc. ]
From Cecil's Mailbag by the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
Dear Straight Dope:
Regarding the recent post concerning (once again) the Ark of the Covenant:
SDSStaffDex included, in his response, the following:
"Second personal note: I did check the 'whole' Bible, JHJ, you needn't be snippy
about it. I just didn't bother with that appendix that you call the New Testament."
Had this been an email response to someone, I would have no problem with it. Posting a
religious opinion, however, when one is supposed to be objectively presenting facts is
abhorrent. Who is Dex to say the New Testament is not the Bible?
I find the comment personally offensive, and would not dream of making similar jibes at
Judaism -- but even more importantly, I thought you guys were supposed to be subbing for
Cecil. He would willingly toast anyone writing anything idiotic, but would not cast
aspersions at the religious beliefs of millions.
I doubt that it will happen, but I feel a public apology is in order. --John Brown
SDSTAFF Dex replies. Comment from Cecil Adams follows:
I'm sorry that you were offended. The questioner had asked why we didn't check the
"whole Bible," which was as offensively worded to me as my rejoinder may have
been to you. I wanted to make the point that the definition of "whole Bible"
depends on where you sit.
There was another point I wanted to make clear, since we were talking about a
contradiction (about historic or quasi-historic events) with three or four consistent Old
Testament text citations on one side and a single New Testament paragraph citing several
elements differently on the other side. I did my best to take the scholarly approach of
weighing evidence, and I checked with a few New Testament scholars (of varying
denominations) who agreed with my conclusions: that the New Testament writer got it wrong.
However, I was warned that this scholarly approach would be the target of fundamentalists
who feel every single word of the Bible (however defined) is absolutely correct and
perfect.
I therefore wanted my reply and my biases to be clear (no one comes to the Bible without
bias of some sort). If some of the Teeming Millions want to reject the scholarly approach
in favor of a religious approach, that's their privilege and I don't want to get involved
in that particular tug o' war. I thought the best way to make that point was by commenting
that I personally (being Jewish and preferring the scholarly approach) have no problem
with saying that the author of Letters to the Hebrews got it wrong, as I think he got many
other things wrong (IMHO). That seemed the safest way to avoid getting into a dispute over
irreconcilable differences.
As I say, I am sorry you are offended. The question of resolution of contradictory texts
depends very much on where a person stands, and I therefore felt it was reasonable to
clarify where I stood. My intent was not to say that any particular position was right or
wrong, but to let you know my position as responder to the question. All positions in this
matter have an inherent bias (scholarly, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or whatever), and I
therefore felt it reasonable to alert folks to where my biases were.
Cecil Adams replies:
Normally I don't comment on Mailbag items, but John Brown's beef is so spectacularly off
base that I feel obliged to respond.
I don't edit the contributions of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board (Little Ed does
that), nor do I read them before they are posted. I read them all eventually, however, and
I have re-read Dex's ark commentary just now. In my view he has handled a complex and
frankly pretty esoteric topic with extraordinary thoroughness, fairness, and tact. I would
have done very little different had I answered the question myself, although I doubt I
would have shown the same patience with the insufferable attitude displayed by some of the
Teeming Millions, in particular John Brown.
Let me put the matter plainly. At the Straight Dope we try to explain the facts as
completely and accurately as we can. This does not mean we are "objective,"
whatever that means, and only a fool, or someone who has never read the Straight Dope,
would think otherwise. On the contrary, I have argued as forcefully as I could for various
positions over the years, and to a lesser extent so has the SDSAB. Naturally one considers
all sides, weighs the arguments, etc. But in the end, when possible, a judgment is made.
This is what Dex has done in his articles about the Ark of the Covenant.
Now comes some churl with the temerity to complain that Dex, who has never made any secret
of the fact that he is Jewish, has not considered the "whole" Bible, in
particular a passage from the New Testament--and this in reference to a matter having to
do with the Old Testament. My instinct would have been to say: The New Testament is
not part of the Jewish Bible, you idiot. Dex, in contrast, showed remarkable
restraint in making only a jesting reference to "that appendix that you call the New
Testament." The affronted John Brown then shoots back, "Who is Dex to say the
New Testament is not the Bible?" The answer, of course, is: He is a Jew. How
hard is this to understand, you twit? He is a Jew. He is not obliged to think the
NT is part of the Bible just because Christians think it is. Nonetheless he has done a
commendably evenhanded job of addressing the NT issue, and I am well pleased with him.
There is someone here who owes a public apology, but his name is not Dex.
Cecil's Mailbag is researched and written by members of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil's online auxiliary. Although the SDSAB does its best, these articles are edited by Ed Zotti, not Cecil, so accuracywise you'd better keep your fingers crossed.
[ Return to the Mailbag Archive ]
The Straight Dope / Questions or
comments for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com
Comments regarding this website to: webmaster@straightdope.c
om
Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Chicago Reader, Inc. All rights reserved.
No material contained in this site may be republished or reposted without express written
permission.
The Straight Dope is a registered trademark of Chicago Reader, Inc.