Fact Check Preachers, Commentators and Other Bible Interpreters

First, Andrew, I've enjoyed your suggestions. In my own Bible software, I've keyed verses relative to traditions and their theological structures.

That said, 'fact check' to make sure your preacher's opinion is factual seems bizarre? Even the base doctrines are old opinions. Ergo 'believe'. I suppose maybe an exegetical detail might be incorrect. Our pastor usually does 1-2 each sermon, none worth mentioning, even in jest.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992336#Comment_992336

Thanks for the positive start, Denise. You often seem to be among the first to respond to my posts.

I'm often torn between trying to over explain, and writing something that contains ambiguities and then just responding to whatever misunderstandings arise in other people's posts. Maybe by now I should be better at heading these off, and I can certainly see that this post allows people to misunderstand in the way that it appears that you have.

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions. And I can see that this post may have led people to believe that I was trying to show 'correct' interpretations. I hope that the data I provided for Jude (5756.Jude Issues and Stances - 17 August 2018.xlsx), together with the graphs and other comments (7043.Jude Charts.xlsx, 3755.Jude Graphs.pdf, 8535.Jude Analysis.docx) show that this was not my intention.

I hope the example I provided above, which relates to a quote regarding spiritual marriage (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/169335.aspx) shows the kind of fact that can be checked. There I say that "This does not resolve issues regarding spiritual marriages and the interpretation of 1 Cor 7, but I hope that it does illustrate how easily scholars can mislead and how hard it can be to check their claims." In other words, it will not decide between different ways to interpret 1 Cor 7, but it will help people to decide (or fact check) whether certain types of claims are true. It's amazing how many times authors write "most scholars..." or "most commentators...", without giving any indication as to how this can be checked. Sometimes it will be quite true, and fairly easily seen to be so. In other cases, it's more questionable.

As another example, I'm not altogether convinced by: "most scholars agree that Paul must have penned this letter [1 Thessalonians] in the winter months of late A.D. 50 or early 51" (Anon, 2010. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, San Francisco: Ignatius Press). A quick look at the New Testament Books Timeline in Logos shows that a number of scholars disagree (e.g. Guthrie, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Malberg), although Hill, Peterson and Robinson may well agree. Walvoord & Zuck have a wider range of options. Thus, we can see that the Logos timeline is a little limited, as well as making it hard to compare options, and that the bold claim of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible would need a fair amount of data to substantiate its claim. The database I propose would allow the claim to be checked fairly quickly and easily. Otherwise, a wide variety of commentaries would have to be separately consulted.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992336#Comment_992336

First, Andrew, I've enjoyed your suggestions. In my own Bible software, I've keyed verses relative to traditions and their theological structures.

On a different note, Denise, are your "keyed verses relative to traditions and their theological structures" easily shareable? I'd be interested to see them if so.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992336#Comment_992336

I was recently preaching the story of Hosea and Gomer in an Asian country, getting really wound up, and my translator stopped me and said, "Did you mean Hosea was being sold on the auction block? Or was that actually Gomer?"

I was thankful he fact-checked me. Not sure how that would work in Logos.

--------------

The idea is a good one and might be refined till it actually works. I can sort of imagine tagging theological concepts or pet interpretations by denomination or theology description. I wonder if such a database would be wider than it was long.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992380#Comment_992380

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? [I was going to add a lot to that question to flesh it out, but I think I'll simply let it stand as is.]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992494#Comment_992494

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? [I was going to add a lot to that question to flesh it out, but I think I'll simply let it stand as is.]

Quality editors, and a forum-like (and/or a typo-like) reporting system. Remember, we're talking facts, not opinions. [I was going to add a lot to that question to flesh it out, but I think I'll simply let it stand as is.]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992497#Comment_992497

One person's fact is another's heresy. It is an accepted fact in most scholarly circles that Paul did not write the pastorals due to their vastly differing style from his unquestioned letters. While many more conservative scholars would say it is an undoubted fact Paul wrote it because his name is right there. It is one thing to say it is wrong for a person to claim the Ark was 450 cubits long when Genesis 6 tells us it was 300 cubits long. what again id debatable is what size is a cubit measuring me we are gong at about 18.5 inches but was Noah a shorter or taller man. Some Bibles do modern equivalents (CEB 450 feet--- NIV notes about 450 feet long or about 135 meters long --- GNB 133 metres) so in the case of this fairly indisputable fact you can get 3 or 4 differing numbers all correct depending on the system making fact checking this figure not difficult for a human but much more nuanced for a machine, indeed i can think of certain unusual but not unheard of phrasing that also could mess up some automated system of analysis. Going back to the ark size I remember hearing a sermon one time on this preachers hypothesis that the ark was much larger than we think because of the better conditions of the time of Noah (as indicated by the remarkably long life spans) Noah and the people of his day were likely taller. This is speculative but in no way unfactual because in the end we do not know the size of Noah. And in deed we have other items like Mary and her mother status even into the late 19th century it was virtually a given that most Christians be they catholic or protestant took Jesus to be her only child (many older classic protestant commentaries i checked seemed to either be in favour of perpetual virginity or leave the matter open). Yet today most protestant and even a few catholic scholars affirm the brothers and sister of Jesus are not cousins (or Joseph's children from a first marriage) as had been long held traditionally in the catholic and orthodox churches). But are the natural born children of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. And it is true there is a long history of people holding this belief, but what some maybe even the vast majority of Christians accept as a fact many protestant scholars accept as an error though even in protestant circles this is a relatively modern idea. I am sure we could come upon an agreement for a vast majority of things all Christians will accept as facts but there is enough ambiguity and variation of thought that leaves me uncomfortable where this goes.. Last night I read about one saint locked up in the 16th century because he was suspected of teaching a heretical view (his view was at odds with a local bishop but in no way heretical and in the end he was released without charge but only after many years of deprivation and torture). And while I realize no one here is looking to judge anyone so harshly only to help one avoid error. I am reminded also of the wise old hermit who when called to join a panel of others to judge another came to the tribunal with a bag of sand on his back leaking, and when asked about it his response was today we come to judge this man's sins what you see are my sins following me.

-dan

Al Het

I'm all for fact checking anyone who is teaching you something about the Bible. I believe it is the responsibility of all followers of Jesus to check all that others are "teaching" against Scripture. This goes for books, sermons, or casual conversations.

However, in a software application like Logos, I don't believe the company would want anything to do with what you are asking. The purpose of Logos is to bring Biblical materials to people in easily usable electronic form. What you are talking about is passing judgement on the "factual nature" of the entirety of what they offer - tens of thousands of books. I'm sure that is a MUCH bigger job than they would want to take on, and I don't think this is practical, or particularly useful. Also, of all of the things that seem to you to be "factually incorrect," it is unlikely that all of them will seem that way to me, which creates a host of other problems.

A couple of other observations:

First, if a company like FaithLife decides they are going to "fact-check" things like your example, should they not state when and where they feel like a commentator gets it entirely wrong in interpretation? Even if things start out narrowly defined, over time it could easily expand to them fact checking general interpretation.

Second, as a student of the Bible, I don't want my Bible software fact checking resources I choose to buy. I want me to do that, fully and carefully. Your clarification example is one good reason why. You may feel like it is misleading for a commentator or a preacher to say something like "Most scholars say..." And, if that person is implying that of all the scholars that live in the world, the vast majority (most) say X or Y, then you are absolutely correct that what they say is misleading. However, when I come across a preacher or commentator who says, "most scholars say," I assume that to mean, "...of the scholars I value enough to reference, most say X or Y..." And, I doubt that most people in their audience believe that they have polled every scholar who has ever lived, done qualitative analysis, and are giving hard facts. I think most people believe that this is the summary of the scholars they value enough to read.

Having said all of that, I would agree that statements such as "most scholars," or a variety of other catch-all statements for that matter, are far too imprecise for my liking, in almost any context. I think that is a good and healthy criticism.

However, I for one, wouldn't want Logos to dip into the "fact checking" business. Just my opinion.

Good conversation to discuss here.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992510#Comment_992510

Well this is a surprise - I am usually on the side of "no way can this be made to really work". It has been discussed in the forums before as a prelude to a BibleTech 2011 conference re: the now defunct http://blog.orthotomeo.com/category/examples/ There are a number of reasons that particular project failed, I suspect but the concept was sound.

Consider the "Questions" in Abernathy, David. An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1–16. Exegetical Summaries. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013, for example, where we are given items that are "disputed" and how various resources come down on them. Similar material is in the "Issues at a Glance" in Brown, Derek R., Miles Custis, and Matthew M. Whitehead. Lexham Bible Guide: Ephesians. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham Bible Guide. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013. So we have evidence that something along this line can be done.

However, we need to start with a slightly different premise - the term "fact" here is pretty much limited to the letters on the physical manuscript, everything else is inference, supposition and deduction. What could be very useful is an argument map that shows positions, supports for those positions, critiques of those position and alternative positions. In building these, special care should be used to include the scriptural basis used by those promoting the position, support, critique, or alternative. The foundation must be built from the Talmud (et. al.) and the Early Church Fathers (Greek, Latin and Syrian). Then add Medieval, Reformation, and modern sources.

Faithlife simply presents the material much as they do in the Passage Guide - Systematic Theologies and Biblical Theologies. The features would be required to make it useful to the non-scholar:

Ability to screen to a single tradition
Ability to screen for positions held by <n> sources or more
Ability to screen for positions held by church documents
Ability to report to Faithlife positions held but not included along with the documentary evidence - this is required as Faithlife resources do not cover all traditions equally.

I would suggest that this project would be a large enough undertaking that Faithlife should run a proof-of-concept version on a limited set of disputed issues before making a major investment.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992523#Comment_992523

Well this is a surprise - I am usually on the side of "no way can this be made to really work". It has been discussed in the forums before as a prelude to a BibleTech 2011 conference re: the now defunct http://blog.orthotomeo.com/category/examples/ There are a number of reasons that particular project failed, I suspect but the concept was sound.

Consider the "Questions" in Abernathy, David. An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1–16. Exegetical Summaries. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013, for example, where we are given items that are "disputed" and how various resources come down on them. Similar material is in the "Issues at a Glance" in Brown, Derek R., Miles Custis, and Matthew M. Whitehead. Lexham Bible Guide: Ephesians. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham Bible Guide. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013. So we have evidence that something along this line can be done.

However, we need to start with a slightly different premise - the term "fact" here is pretty much limited to the letters on the physical manuscript, everything else is inference, supposition and deduction. What could be very useful is an argument map that shows positions, supports for those positions, critiques of those position and alternative positions. In building these, special care should be used to include the scriptural basis used by those promoting the position, support, critique, or alternative. The foundation must be built from the Talmud (et. al.) and the Early Church Fathers (Greek, Latin and Syrian). Then add Medieval, Reformation, and modern sources.

Faithlife simply presents the material much as they do in the Passage Guide - Systematic Theologies and Biblical Theologies. The features would be required to make it useful to the non-scholar:

Ability to screen to a single tradition

Ability to screen for positions held by <n> sources or more

Ability to screen for positions held by church documents

Ability to report to Faithlife positions held but not included along with the documentary evidence - this is required as Faithlife resources do not cover all traditions equally.

I would suggest that this project would be a large enough undertaking that Faithlife should run a proof-of-concept version on a limited set of disputed issues before making a major investment.

For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to:

Positions held
Who holds/held them
Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position
Links to resources supporting each position

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992534#Comment_992534

For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to:

Positions held

Who holds/held them

Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position

Links to resources supporting each position

I agree with EastTN & will risk saying why.... by using a "fact-checker" we think we've fulfilled our duty to test the spirit of every teaching to see if it's from God. (loosely paraphrasing 1 Jn 4:1). We haven't. For all issues, it's helpful to know the info EastTN asks for. But it's up to us to choose carefully which we'll teach. To me, that inherently excludes the use of any "fact-checker" to the extent it goes beyond those 4 data.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992379#Comment_992379

First, Andrew, I've enjoyed your suggestions. In my own Bible software, I've keyed verses relative to traditions and their theological structures.

On a different note, Denise, are your "keyed verses relative to traditions and their theological structures" easily shareable? I'd be interested to see them if so.

Well, Andrew, if identifying poor logic were in the cards, or obvious excesses ('most scholars being right up there), I'd be an avid fan. I may be mis-stating MJ, but I think she spent efforts in that arena. But Biblical scholarly logic is so poor, I'm not sure who would be qualified. Logos wouldn't. Nor me obviously (just to be clear).

My database is a bit different. I'm not particularly interested in 'correct'. Only in how you would arrive at a given opinion (aka doctrine, belief, etc). And then indexed to sentences (since I also include the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, DSS, apostolic fathers, and early NT apocrypha). An example would be how a group decided a writing was from a god (it's modern equivalent 'inspired'). Or why dipping in water has spiritual significance (baptism).

The low-level isn't intended to question. Instead, it's then matched to the datings (my neural nets) on the writing segments, so I can watch the development.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992534#Comment_992534

For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to:

Positions held

Who holds/held them

Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position

Links to resources supporting each position

I suspect that the data defined as you prefer would be very close, if not identical, to the data as I described it. In fact, my first reaction was puzzlement as I missed what changes you intended. Many positions held are positions against rather than a positive assertion. From the research I did in 2011, I believe that the sheer quantity of the data requires screening options.

But Biblical scholarly logic is so poor, I'm not sure who would be qualified. Logos wouldn't.

Too true, unfortunately. Not only is the logic poor, but they often use the wrong logic tool when they attempt to use logic. [:'(] You might enjoy Logic in Theology by Bartosz Brozek and Adam Olszewski

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992605#Comment_992605

I ... will risk saying why.... by using a "fact-checker" we think we've fulfilled our duty to test the spirit of every teaching to see if it's from God. (loosely paraphrasing 1 Jn 4:1). We haven't. ... But it's up to us to choose carefully which we'll teach. To me, that inherently excludes the use of any "fact-checker" ...

Totally agree. Be a Berean and rely on the Spirit to be your fact-checker. "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 NASB

Also, I would recommend the same series that MJ mentioned above, the Exegetical Summary Series from SIL, as an excellent resource for laying out the various interpretive options.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992650#Comment_992650

Be a Berean and rely on the Spirit to be your fact-checker.

Er ... ah... Aren't you and BillS slipping away from what the request was for? It was not for determining the "true interpretation" of the text. It was for "most modern scholars say" .... I personally don't count on the Spirit for statistical data [;)]

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992534#Comment_992534

For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to:

Positions held

Who holds/held them

Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position

Links to resources supporting each position

This would be incredibly helpful to me. And while I'd appreciate having Scriptural documentation from each individual/group as to why they held the positions they did, I'd just be happy with some resource that told me the primary theological positions each individual/committee holds to. For instance, if I'm going to do a study on, say the book of Daniel, it helps a lot if I could find out whether the commentator of a particular book/volume was premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial. That one little bit of information alone would help me to quickly whittle down the commentaries I'm going to look at.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992685#Comment_992685

I think this might be very useful:

https://babylonbee.com/news/logos-update-introduces-microsoft-clippy-correct-pastors-unbiblical-sermons/

This should solve the problem. 👍😁👌

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992643#Comment_992643

For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to:

Positions held

Who holds/held them

Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position

Links to resources supporting each position

I suspect that the data defined as you prefer would be very close, if not identical, to the data as I described it. In fact, my first reaction was puzzlement as I missed what changes you intended. Many positions held are positions against rather than a positive assertion. From the research I did in 2011, I believe that the sheer quantity of the data requires screening options.

You're probably right - you usually are. But for what it's worth, here's what I was thinking. I understood you to mean that for paedobaptism, for instance, you would include all of the major arguments both for and against the position. You might get much of the benefit, with less work, if you just included the Scriptures most commonly cited in support of paedobaptism along with links to resources supporting that view - and then did the same thing for credobaptism. That would allow a user to research both view, but wouldn't require building out all of the links between the arguments for and against the two positions.

One danger of this approach for more complicated questions is that you might not see all of the various opposing views. One answer might be to tag each position with the topic involved - in this case, you might tag paedobaptism and credobaptism with tags for baptism, subjects of baptism, or something similar. Sprinkling, dipping, immersion, etc. might be tagged baptism, forms of baptism or some such. (By the way, I agree completely with the need for screening options.)

It seems to me that something along these lines would work for a variety of types of positions, such as the various eschatological views, covenant theology vs. dispensationalism, annihilationism vs. eternal punishment, catholic vs Lutheran vs reformed views of the Eucharist, etc.

So I guess what I'm suggesting is that with appropriate tagging you may not need to build out the "web" of connections between the various competing views. Of course, you would lose something with this approach. It could, I suppose, be seen as an intermediate step. If you developed this more limited database, nothing would preclude you from going back later and adding the links between the major arguments back and forth.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992692#Comment_992692

I think this might be very useful:

https://babylonbee.com/news/logos-update-introduces-microsoft-clippy-correct-pastors-unbiblical-sermons/

This should solve the problem. 👍😁👌

DAL

The problem may not be horrifyingly limited to sermons:

https://babylonbee.com/news/bible-margins-filled-heresy/

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992643#Comment_992643

MJ, thank you on the Brozek title. I’ll have to check what they mean by theology!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992693#Comment_992693

if you just included the Scriptures most commonly cited in support of paedobaptism

This would work for "sola scriptura" traditions but that represents a minority of Christians and theological positions. I think IIRC that nearly all traditions require that there be some Biblical support but that may be implicit rather than explicit e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity.

From a post from 2015:

When Verbum was created, I made my position clear - that while I appreciate marketing and product acquisition aimed at the Catholic market, the division that I see as more relevant to the software is liturgical/non-liturgical which serves as a shorthand for a wide variety of factors relating to the sense of continuity, history and tradition. These traditional illustrations for Episcopal and Methodists reflect the sense of tradition - Orthodox and Catholic are labeled.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992720#Comment_992720

if you just included the Scriptures most commonly cited in support of paedobaptism

This would work for "sola scriptura" traditions but that represents a minority of Christians and theological positions. I think IIRC that nearly all traditions require that there be some Biblical support but that may be implicit rather than explicit e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity.

MJ, even those of us who adhere to sola scriptura as a foundation principle still must apply reason, historical context, linguistic and literary principles, etc. - and those of us who're honest also recognize the debt we owe to past generations. I don't intend to minimize any of that, and I apologize if it came across that way. I do think it would be critical to include links to the key authors who support each position. My thought was two-fold. First, keep it simple by linking to works that support a position, rather than trying to outline all of the arguments pro and con. Second, differing theological views do generally involve differing interpretations of scripture, and often different camps point to different sections of the text. Seeing what passages someone is focusing on can often help you understand why they believe what they do.

To your point, for traditions with formal confessional statements, perhaps it would be appropriate to point to those as well. My only concern was that if FaithLife really tried to capture all of the main arguments, it would simply become undoable (at least in my lifetime).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992751#Comment_992751

MJ, even those of us who adhere to sola scriptura as a foundation principle still must apply reason, historical context, linguistic and literary principles, etc. - and those of us who're honest also recognize the debt we owe to past generations.

I did not mean to imply that the sola scriptura position led to major differences in how scripture is studied, only that scripture alone does not capture the basis of many disputes. If one looks at ecumenical documents, one often finds agreement at the Bible/verse level but disagreement on how it fits into the "big picture".

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992758#Comment_992758

Returning a tiny bit to the OP's intent, it's actually not that hard to assign the theological structures to verses, presuming a familiarity and disinterest in arguing. You just go verse by verse, assigning codes as you go. Then you do that 5-6 times, since each pass, you develop improved coding. Then you go backwards and clean it up. Since the NT is fairly small, it's not that tedious. The OT's a much bigger problem, and extra-Biblical is far worse.

The problem you run in to, is as MJ notes, a perspective in one direction, is not the perspective from another. Coding Latter Day Saints, as an example, is easy enough from an external view. From an internal view, the base changed (multiple codings) and the theology concept changed (verse-basing vs traditions). Most denominations today (all?) are the latter.

The end result has to be labeled, not as a dataset, but a perspective (Evangelical, etc).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992758#Comment_992758

I did not mean to imply that the sola scriptura position led to major differences in how scripture is studied, only that scripture alone does not capture the basis of many disputes. If one looks at ecumenical documents, one often finds agreement at the Bible/verse level but disagreement on how it fits into the "big picture".

I agree with that - it's always hard going from verse by verse exegesis to systematic theology. I would be fine adding confessional documents, or dropping the scripture references and just cataloging positions with links to supporting resources. My only real concern is that if FaithLife attempted to catalogue all of the arguments for and against the various positions on a really complicated topic - such as end times, or the nature of the eucharist - they would end up running down the mother of all rabbit holes.

Of course, if the could do it, it would be way cool. [:)]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992875#Comment_992875

Still feels over all like a slippery slope that may rob some people of valuable insight. Barclay for example at times verges on universalism. yet even in the moments he does i dare say he usually offers a great deal to chew on that is very good. I hate someone not purchasing or using Barclay's Daily Study Bible because it or he has been flagged 'unreliable'. But if FL chose to jump into this it is not likely an option I would avail myself of.

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992886#Comment_992886

Still feels over all like a slippery slope that may rob some people of valuable insight. Barclay for example at times verges on universalism. yet even in the moments he does i dare say he usually offers a great deal to chew on that is very good. I hate someone not purchasing or using Barclay's Daily Study Bible because it or he has been flagged 'unreliable'. But if FL chose to jump into this it is not likely an option I would avail myself of.

-dan

Dan, that's an interesting take. I hadn't viewed it in those terms - I more saw it as a way to investigate positions, rather than as a "good housekeeping seal of approval" on writers or speakers. I agree with you on Barclay. (Though he is a bit of a personal challenge for me, because we have one teacher in our congregation who begins every third sentence with "according to Barclay." I wish the old boy would buy a second commentary set.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992508#Comment_992508

One person's fact is another's heresy. It is an accepted fact in most scholarly circles that Paul did not write the pastorals due to their vastly differing style from his unquestioned letters. While many more conservative scholars would say it is an undoubted fact Paul wrote it because his name is right there. It is one thing to say it is wrong for a person to claim the Ark was 450 cubits long when Genesis 6 tells us it was 300 cubits long. what again id debatable is what size is a cubit measuring me we are gong at about 18.5 inches but was Noah a shorter or taller man. Some Bibles do modern equivalents (CEB 450 feet--- NIV notes about 450 feet long or about 135 meters long --- GNB 133 metres) so in the case of this fairly indisputable fact you can get 3 or 4 differing numbers all correct depending on the system making fact checking this figure not difficult for a human but much more nuanced for a machine, indeed i can think of certain unusual but not unheard of phrasing that also could mess up some automated system of analysis. Going back to the ark size I remember hearing a sermon one time on this preachers hypothesis that the ark was much larger than we think because of the better conditions of the time of Noah (as indicated by the remarkably long life spans) Noah and the people of his day were likely taller. This is speculative but in no way unfactual because in the end we do not know the size of Noah. And in deed we have other items like Mary and her mother status even into the late 19th century it was virtually a given that most Christians be they catholic or protestant took Jesus to be her only child (many older classic protestant commentaries i checked seemed to either be in favour of perpetual virginity or leave the matter open). Yet today most protestant and even a few catholic scholars affirm the brothers and sister of Jesus are not cousins (or Joseph's children from a first marriage) as had been long held traditionally in the catholic and orthodox churches). But are the natural born children of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. And it is true there is a long history of people holding this belief, but what some maybe even the vast majority of Christians accept as a fact many protestant scholars accept as an error though even in protestant circles this is a relatively modern idea. I am sure we could come upon an agreement for a vast majority of things all Christians will accept as facts but there is enough ambiguity and variation of thought that leaves me uncomfortable where this goes.. Last night I read about one saint locked up in the 16th century because he was suspected of teaching a heretical view (his view was at odds with a local bishop but in no way heretical and in the end he was released without charge but only after many years of deprivation and torture). And while I realize no one here is looking to judge anyone so harshly only to help one avoid error. I am reminded also of the wise old hermit who when called to join a panel of others to judge another came to the tribunal with a bag of sand on his back leaking, and when asked about it his response was today we come to judge this man's sins what you see are my sins following me.

-dan

Thanks for the response, Dan. Apologies that this is such a late response. I had a break, which included a break from technology.

The short response is that I don't think you've understood what I'm proposing. I probably should have mentioned my work on Jude, where I attempt to demonstrate how it could be done, in my opening post. As it is, you'll have to see the third post above, or take a look here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/156612.aspx (Note that the latest version of the spreadsheet shows a copy of the data transposed, which may well be the best way to view the original data.)

A longer response would address the issues you raise in more detail. For example, the idea isn't to decide who wrote the pastorals, but to show the range of views on offer, mapped against the authors (or at least commentaries, articles and books) that choose each stance. This can be displayed and filtered by denomination, theology, country, date range, etc. Therefore, we would see how the idea of Paul not writing the pastorals has waxed and waned over time, as well as how authors of different traditions have responded. This is similar to the question of who wrote Jude, so my examples should help with this.

The same basically applies to your Noah's ark example and Joseph and Mary example. In fact, the database would help us quickly check, and provide evidence for, your suggestion that "even into the late 19th century it was virtually a given that most Christians be they catholic or protestant took Jesus to be her only child". We wouldn't have to check lots of commentaries, but we would have a lovely graphical tool that lets us get an overview of those commentaries (Catholic and Protestant, ideally throughout the last 2000 years) at a glance.

I agree with you that there is "ambiguity and variation of thought". This project is intended to make the ambiguity and variation clearer by displaying it and allowing the reader to see some of the influences that have created the variation, not to end the ambiguity by making a decision one way or another. The reader can then, using Logos, dive into the books that are referenced, and check the reasoning provided and get a feel for what created the sea change and how it spread within different traditions (such as the example you mentioned of 'cousins' vs 'children from a previous marriage' vs 'natural born children of Mary and Joseph').

This is not about calling out errors or sins, nor about casting the first stone (though I guess it could be used that way by some, showing the perpetrators of particular heresies, in their view), but about helping us better understand the various positions taken. When I ran the idea by Richard Bauckham, he was positive towards it, after I assured him that the aim wasn't to suggest that just because an idea was currently popular that it was somehow better or right, but simply to display the range of views and allow further exploration. With the example he gave of a particular stance that had been suggested before, but either fallen out of popularity, or even barely gained traction in the first place, my suggested database would allow this to be seen, allowing us to find the book or books that had originally proposed it quickly and easily, and check whether they might have had the right idea all along.

Lastly, I know that by using the expression 'fact check' in my title, it may have led people to draw the wrong conclusion. However, I hope that viewing what I produced on Jude will help to set the matter straight. Judging by the response, it has managed to draw attention better than my other posts on the topic.

Thanks again for engaging.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992510#Comment_992510

I'm all for fact checking anyone who is teaching you something about the Bible. I believe it is the responsibility of all followers of Jesus to check all that others are "teaching" against Scripture. This goes for books, sermons, or casual conversations.

However, in a software application like Logos, I don't believe the company would want anything to do with what you are asking. The purpose of Logos is to bring Biblical materials to people in easily usable electronic form. What you are talking about is passing judgement on the "factual nature" of the entirety of what they offer - tens of thousands of books. I'm sure that is a MUCH bigger job than they would want to take on, and I don't think this is practical, or particularly useful. Also, of all of the things that seem to you to be "factually incorrect," it is unlikely that all of them will seem that way to me, which creates a host of other problems.

A couple of other observations:

First, if a company like FaithLife decides they are going to "fact-check" things like your example, should they not state when and where they feel like a commentator gets it entirely wrong in interpretation? Even if things start out narrowly defined, over time it could easily expand to them fact checking general interpretation.

Second, as a student of the Bible, I don't want my Bible software fact checking resources I choose to buy. I want me to do that, fully and carefully. Your clarification example is one good reason why. You may feel like it is misleading for a commentator or a preacher to say something like "Most scholars say..." And, if that person is implying that of all the scholars that live in the world, the vast majority (most) say X or Y, then you are absolutely correct that what they say is misleading. However, when I come across a preacher or commentator who says, "most scholars say," I assume that to mean, "...of the scholars I value enough to reference, most say X or Y..." And, I doubt that most people in their audience believe that they have polled every scholar who has ever lived, done qualitative analysis, and are giving hard facts. I think most people believe that this is the summary of the scholars they value enough to read.

Having said all of that, I would agree that statements such as "most scholars," or a variety of other catch-all statements for that matter, are far too imprecise for my liking, in almost any context. I think that is a good and healthy criticism.

However, I for one, wouldn't want Logos to dip into the "fact checking" business. Just my opinion.

Good conversation to discuss here.

Thanks for engaging, Al Het.

I suspect that you have misunderstood in a similar way to Dan (see post above). It's not about passing judgement on the entirety of everything Logos offers, but helping people to better engage with Biblical material. It's not about Faithlife fact-checking different interpretations. That's not their aim, but it would be about them continuing to provide tools that help users of their software check things more quickly and easily.

I don't think it is always wrong to say "most scholars say...". In fact, the suggested database would allow claims like this to be made more easily and with greater integrity, as well as providing a way to demonstrate the integrity quickly and easily. If I am addressing a particular congregation who know me well, or addressing another well-defined audience within a particular tradition, then it may well be understood which scholars I am referring to, but this is not always the case. The suggested database would allow people within that tradition to see whether the claim only applied to that tradition, or was held by people from a wider range of traditions, or was even held across pretty much all traditions, despite a possible strong vocal element suggesting otherwise.

I hope you get a chance to dip into the Jude material to see what I am actually intending.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992523#Comment_992523

Well this is a surprise - I am usually on the side of "no way can this be made to really work". It has been discussed in the forums before as a prelude to a BibleTech 2011 conference re: the now defunct http://blog.orthotomeo.com/category/examples/ There are a number of reasons that particular project failed, I suspect but the concept was sound.

Consider the "Questions" in Abernathy, David. An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1–16. Exegetical Summaries. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013, for example, where we are given items that are "disputed" and how various resources come down on them. Similar material is in the "Issues at a Glance" in Brown, Derek R., Miles Custis, and Matthew M. Whitehead. Lexham Bible Guide: Ephesians. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham Bible Guide. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013. So we have evidence that something along this line can be done.

However, we need to start with a slightly different premise - the term "fact" here is pretty much limited to the letters on the physical manuscript, everything else is inference, supposition and deduction. What could be very useful is an argument map that shows positions, supports for those positions, critiques of those position and alternative positions. In building these, special care should be used to include the scriptural basis used by those promoting the position, support, critique, or alternative. The foundation must be built from the Talmud (et. al.) and the Early Church Fathers (Greek, Latin and Syrian). Then add Medieval, Reformation, and modern sources.

Faithlife simply presents the material much as they do in the Passage Guide - Systematic Theologies and Biblical Theologies. The features would be required to make it useful to the non-scholar:

Ability to screen to a single tradition

Ability to screen for positions held by <n> sources or more

Ability to screen for positions held by church documents

Ability to report to Faithlife positions held but not included along with the documentary evidence - this is required as Faithlife resources do not cover all traditions equally.

I would suggest that this project would be a large enough undertaking that Faithlife should run a proof-of-concept version on a limited set of disputed issues before making a major investment.

MJ - I think you basically understand what I am suggesting. Thanks for engaging. When I produced my own proof-of-concept database based on the book of Jude (see https://community.logos.com/forums/t/156612.aspx), I started with the SIL Exegetical Summary series, among the resources I drew from. There is no Lexham Bible Guide for Jude yet, but I suspect that it would not provide enough detail to be that helpful for what I am proposing. The series does begin to show ways that the data could be presented though.

Sadly, I'm not familiar with the previous discussions you referred to, and the link you provided (http://blog.orthotomeo.com/category/examples/) didn't seem to work.

I've suggested elsewhere that this is the next stage of an ongoing project. I think it fits well with, and uses, the denomination and theology tagging project that you helped to get off the ground (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/54491.aspx). I think your suggestions take this project even further, but I would be concerned that it perhaps bites off too much at this stage. My suggestion is conceivable and doable, and I'd like to think fairly clear (despite my own shortcomings in trying to explain it).

Specifically, I'd love to see "the Talmud (et. al.) and the Early Church Fathers (Greek, Latin and Syrian)." plus "Medieval, Reformation, and modern sources" included. I began with modern sources, partly because the work has been ably begun by the Exegetical Summaries series and other capable scholars, but also because I think that will get the greatest interest from people using the tool. Whether all the sources you suggest should be included from the start is a decision for whoever takes the project forward. It will significantly increase the size of the project.

Your suggestions for screening match my suggestions for filtering. I think you're using different language for much the same thing, though I'm aware that you may want different ways to filter the product. I agree about the "single tradition" filter, hadn't suggested but agree with the "held by <n> sources or more" filter, and think that church documents would need to be added to the list of other sources I mention in the paragraph above. The "church documents" suggestion is a good one, but I may be tempted to make this a later phase of the project, in order to keep the project relatively tight, well-defined and manageable at each stage.

I suspect that your fourth suggestion about reporting to Faithlife regarding other positions would also make the tool more helpful, but more costly to produce. It would be helpful, but I would leave this to a later phase.

Much as I would love a full-blown version instantly, I recognise that your suggestion of a proof-of-concept is a good one. As I said above, I have attempted to do this for Jude, though this avoids some of the most controversial issues. I am only too aware that the data is not presented well, so I put out a call for a web developer to present the data in a better format (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/171664.aspx). This could help to provide a better proof-of-concept for the overall tool, rather than just the database. However, there has been no real interest so far. If you know of anyone who could produce something fairly quickly and easily, that would demonstrate the power of what I'm suggesting, then feel free to pass the data on.

Lastly, I wondered whether you were hoping for an all-singing-all-dancing database of theological positions. I wasn't sure. What I'm suggesting is merely a database of issues and stances relating fairly clearly to the biblical text. In time, this could be developed to tackle more developed theological positions, but that would be a much bigger project, which could use this as a base. Feel free to come back to me on that one. This might be worth further exploration.

Thanks again for your positive engagement.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992664#Comment_992664

Be a Berean and rely on the Spirit to be your fact-checker.

Er ... ah... Aren't you and BillS slipping away from what the request was for? It was not for determining the "true interpretation" of the text. It was for "most modern scholars say" .... I personally don't count on the Spirit for statistical data

Thanks, MJ. It is indeed not about "true interpretation" (see my response to Dan above). The expression "fact check" drew attention, but the project is about so much more than just being able to fact check expressions like "most scholars say". Hopefully, I demonstrated this with regard to Jude, even if the tools to delve into the data and display it well are lacking.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992685#Comment_992685

For me, it would still be very helpful if it were just limited to:

Positions held

Who holds/held them

Scriptural basis appealed to by supporters of the position

Links to resources supporting each position

This would be incredibly helpful to me. And while I'd appreciate having Scriptural documentation from each individual/group as to why they held the positions they did, I'd just be happy with some resource that told me the primary theological positions each individual/committee holds to. For instance, if I'm going to do a study on, say the book of Daniel, it helps a lot if I could find out whether the commentator of a particular book/volume was premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial. That one little bit of information alone would help me to quickly whittle down the commentaries I'm going to look at.

Thanks for the backing, Gary. I hope I got your vote at https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w

I think that what you want with regard to checking whether a particular book is premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial may already be available as part of my earlier project regarding denomination and theology tagging: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/54491/932951.aspx#932951

If you go to https://faithlife.com/logos-library-theology-denomination-tags/documents and look through the available documents for Theology: Postmillennialist, etc then, if I understand you correctly, that should allow you to do what you want. It builds a collection of all the resources you have that fit the named theological position, allowing you to browse and search them more easily.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992886#Comment_992886

Still feels over all like a slippery slope that may rob some people of valuable insight. Barclay for example at times verges on universalism. yet even in the moments he does i dare say he usually offers a great deal to chew on that is very good. I hate someone not purchasing or using Barclay's Daily Study Bible because it or he has been flagged 'unreliable'. But if FL chose to jump into this it is not likely an option I would avail myself of.

-dan

To clarify, if a user wanted to equate "Feminist" or "Dispensationalist" or "Catholic" or "Universalist" with 'unreliable' then that would be their choice. All the software would say is that a particular book by someone who is happy to self-define as "Feminist" agreed with such and such a view. I don't think I've ever suggested using the label 'unreliable', and I'm not convinced that Barclay would have self-defined as "Universalist". I hope that what I'm actually suggesting is getting clearer, Dan.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992894#Comment_992894

Still feels over all like a slippery slope that may rob some people of valuable insight. Barclay for example at times verges on universalism. yet even in the moments he does i dare say he usually offers a great deal to chew on that is very good. I hate someone not purchasing or using Barclay's Daily Study Bible because it or he has been flagged 'unreliable'. But if FL chose to jump into this it is not likely an option I would avail myself of.

-dan

Dan, that's an interesting take. I hadn't viewed it in those terms - I more saw it as a way to investigate positions, rather than as a "good housekeeping seal of approval" on writers or speakers. I agree with you on Barclay. (Though he is a bit of a personal challenge for me, because we have one teacher in our congregation who begins every third sentence with "according to Barclay." I wish the old boy would buy a second commentary set.)

Thanks, EastTN. I am indeed suggesting a tool that allows people to investigate positions, rather than acting as a seal of approval. I hope I got your vote: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993430#Comment_993430

To clarify, if a user wanted to equate "Feminist" or "Dispensationalist" or "Catholic" or "Universalist" with 'unreliable' then that would be their choice. All the software would say is that a particular book by someone who is happy to self-define as "Feminist" agreed with such and such a view. I don't think I've ever suggested using the label 'unreliable', and I'm not convinced that Barclay would have self-defined as "Universalist". I hope that what I'm actually suggesting is getting clearer, Dan.

And I most certainly would find this handy.

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993440#Comment_993440

To clarify, if a user wanted to equate "Feminist" or "Dispensationalist" or "Catholic" or "Universalist" with 'unreliable' then that would be their choice. All the software would say is that a particular book by someone who is happy to self-define as "Feminist" agreed with such and such a view. I don't think I've ever suggested using the label 'unreliable', and I'm not convinced that Barclay would have self-defined as "Universalist". I hope that what I'm actually suggesting is getting clearer, Dan.

And I most certainly would find this handy.

-dan

That's good to know, Dan. I hope I got your vote. [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993545#Comment_993545

I hope many of my comments above have illustrated that this is not just about checking statements that begin "most scholars say...". There are a whole host of different uses, but on a similar theme, I thought I'd add a couple more comments.

Here are three examples from IVP's big black dictionary series that remains a bestseller in Logos.

1. On Hell:

"The trend of late has been to see a chronological sequence in 1 Peter 3:18–22. This proclamation occurred after Christ’s death (see Death of Christ) and resurrection and before he was enthroned at God’s right hand (see Exaltation)."

Shogren, G.S., 1997. Hell, Abyss, Eternal Punishment R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, p.459.

The evidence for this kind of statement ("The trend of late...") would take quite a bit of digging. My proposed database would allow this to be seen quickly and graphically, with the underlying data available to check, including links so that owned resources could be opened and checked. I'm not suggesting the statement is wrong, but it would be great to have the data quickly and easily available and checkable. It would also allow more such comparisons to be made quickly and easily, so it's not just about checking what others say, but also about researching, or finding out for yourself.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993822#Comment_993822

2. On Hellenists

"If all academic questions were settled by vote, the clear winner in the precinct of Acts 6–8 would be Baur and his Hellenist party. All the same the choice would not be unanimous, and the incumbent’s future would not be assured. Scholars are asking new and substantial questions about the validity of Baur’s interpretation."

Hill, C.C., 1997. Hellenists, Hellenistic and Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, p.464.

Again, this could be seen graphically using the proposed database. Maybe Baur would have more votes, but if the tide is turning, then that would be evident as well, and if it's turning in only one or two places, such as denominations, theological traditions or countries, then that would be clear too. If the current position is unsettled, as people are turning from Baur, but haven't yet come up with a settled alternative proposal, then that would also be clear, as would the current range of options, and the popularity of each of them, along with the actual scholars/authors backing each one.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993823#Comment_993823

3. On Hermeneutics in Hebrews

"There has been widespread disagreement over the hermeneutical technique used, with some interpreters arguing for a Philonic type (see Philo) of allegorical exegesis (e.g., Sowers, Spicq), but most recent studies (Hanson, Longenecker) have shown a much closer correspondence with Qumran pesher, Jewish midrash and typology."

Osborne, G.R., 1997. Hermeneutics R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, pp.479–480.

These dictionaries don't have space to provide all the evidence for the statements they make, but it would be great to be able to dip into Hebrews in the proposed database and see who joins Sowers and Spicq, and who joins Hanson and Longenecker. There's also the statement "most recent studies ... have shown...". The proposed database would provide the easily checked evidence for this. It may be right but, at the moment, it's not easy to check. If Logos created the proposed database, then that could speed up fact checking and new research, whether for preaching, writing or personal study.

Remember, you can still vote for the suggestion here: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w

Thanks.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992894#Comment_992894

I wish the old boy would buy a second commentary set.

Lol!

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/992664#Comment_992664

and BillS away from what the request was for?

Nope. Support the original intent. But "fact checker" goes beyond that. What's fact? The view that most scholars support? Most scholars don't think one Isaiah could have written Isaiah, because they believe that no one could have predicted so accurately . the book's internal logic (a quick survey below) claims exactly that Isaiah's words were written long before the events happened that he predicts. So yes, I'm interested in a survey of scholarly opinions for any given passage. But I'm not as interested in labeling such as a "fact checker" that leads us to think we haven't consulted the internal evidence. And since Scripture claims that only the Holy Spirit can open the Scriptures for us, I'm also not interested in discounting His input in checking the "facts."