A lot of this has to do with clergy who actually know something about the state of ancient/Biblical scholarship and choose not to divulge those findings to the laity. (Of course, I am not speaking of professional knuckle-draggers of the Evangelical/Southern Baptist varieties, who ostensibly believe in Biblical inerrancy.) I have personally known priests and Lutheran and Methodist ministers who were well read in modern scholarship and knew damned well that the Bible is not historically reliable but wouldn't breathe a word of that in their sermons.
The few I ever discussed this with said that their reticence had to do with not unnecessarily upsetting their parishioners, which is a breath-taking expression of contempt for the intelligence of their flocks.
Per$onally, I $u$pect there wa$ another motive in play.
The few I ever discussed this with said that their reticence had to do with not unnecessarily upsetting their parishioners, which is a breath-taking expression of contempt for the intelligence of their flocks.
Per$onally, I $u$pect there wa$ another motive in play.
