[Split] Bible discussion split from Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[jammies]

And you keep characterizing my comments in the absolute. I stand by my assertion that in most cases, the ultimate and underlying causes for the majority of human conflicts are political or economic.

"Almost every" and "most" don't mean the same thing. If you don't want to be characterized as being absolute, don't tend that way.

As far as the rest of it goes, my views on human nature are tangential to the this discussion and would require pages of discourse beyond what people are likely to tolerate. So let's agree to disagree on the question of whether polieconomics is the basis of war.

[T@T]

The ostrich egg and the earth are both spheroid.
Except one gets it's "round" look from spinning under gravitational forces and the other gets it's "egg" shape from being pushed from a canal. :whistle:

[Calgaryborn]

Except one gets it's "round" look from spinning under gravitational forces and the other gets it's "egg" shape from being pushed from a canal. :whistle:

Actually at least with chicken eggs they have that shape before they come out. Also, the shape of eggs can differ by quite a bit. They are not as uniformly shaped as you find in a store. I would imagine that egg shapes would be even more varied in the wild.


To argue that the shape of an egg isn't close enough to the shape of the earth to be an accurate description is silly.

[photon]

Islam believes that there are different layers of meaning in the Quran, which contain different depths of knowledge. Some of this knowledge is starting to show now with the improvement in technology.

Going back and finding something that means something different in light of new technology or new social circumstances isn't anything special, you can do that with any text. Passages that don't mean anything new in the new light will continue to not mean anything new, and passages that happen to fit in a new context will do so. But that's like a stopped clock being right, just because you happen to find something doesn't mean that it was written that way.

The earth was known to be round long before the Qur'an was written.

[frinkprof]

The ostrich egg and the earth are both spheroid.Sure, but that's being retrospectively choosy about the accuracy standards of the statement.

Both could be said to have pitted surfaces, both are three-dimensional, both have hard shells and various layers of different materials on the inside. Wow, now that you mention it, the earth is a lot like an ostrich egg.

Looking at it another way, if it was just meant that they were both spheroids, why specifically an ostrich egg? Why not something more closely comparable to what the earth is actually shaped like?

[frinkprof]

Actually at least with chicken eggs they have that shape before they come out. Also, the shape of eggs can differ by quite a bit. They are not as uniformly shaped as you find in a store. I would imagine that egg shapes would be even more varied in the wild.If there's such a variance, then why was the earth compared to an egg in the first place? There's only one earth and it has a unique shape at any one point in time.

Was it just supposed to go without saying that it was meant that eggs and the earth are both spheroids?

To argue that the shape of an egg isn't close enough to the shape of the earth to be an accurate description is silly.It's not silly at all. There are plenty of purposes for which approximating the shape of the earth to that of an egg (ostrich, chicken, platypus or otherwise) just won't do. If it was just accepted that the earth is the shape of an average ostrich egg, the 08:00 from Calgary to New York JFK ends up in rural Maine and the sewer main under the road in front of your house ends up being built under your lawn.

[Mr.Coffee]

Woah.. stepped away and there were some good responses.

People care so much because it a fundamental belief. It shapes and guides their lives. It's nothing like having a favorite color or a favorite hockey team. It's much deeper than that.

I disagree. Perhaps on a smaller scale, my belief in whatever my favourite colour is or whatever my favourite hockey team does actually impact my decisions and actions which does shape and guide my life. Religion does too, perhaps for some on a larger scale but why the push to get others to believe what you believe? I think the answer is more in Cheese's post below which I will get to shortly.

I don't know if this is true anymore if you live in a first world country and are not homosexual. So for some people the effect is quite great but for the majority someone elses religion and religious institutions does no affect their day lives.

I think it is akin to discussing politics. Really if you vote conservative and support them or you vote liberal it doesn't make a difference especially if you never change who you vote for as elections are decided on the margin. And really whoever is in power doesn't affect our day to day lives. I might pay $50 a month more or less in taxes and the economy might grow by 1% more or less but the direct effect on my life is rather minimal.

The reason I think it is discussed so much is that everyone thinks they are right and that the views is ardently defended. It is not so much the effect on people's lives but the percieved attack on a person's way of life.

People don't like being told what to do or what to believe. People want the freedom to choose and to come to this without being forced. Most religions force people to choose.

Nope, I tend to disagree. I think that people are passionate about this discussion because it does effect our every day lives. (Moreso outside of Canada, but here nonetheless)
The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
Canada and Europe have their own issues with a large influx of Muslims starting to push their influence. (moreso Europe, but making inroads here)
No one would care one iota if they kept to themselves, if they practiced what they preached, and did not attempt to force their views on the rest of society.
Unfortunately religions have a job to do, bring more people into its confines, or perish. The Mormons do a great job of this and others work in their own mysterious ways.
None of this is percieved...its out in the open and quite clear.

So it is about power, really. The elite having control over the populace so that their standard of living is higher, because of the power that religion can have. If this is what you're saying, I agree, BUT, what I don't understand is why we sit around and debate about something we cannot change in our counterpart's belief system. You know you can't change what I believe, why do you continue to bemoan the issue? What are YOU trying to achieve? Will it give you peace for me to agree with you? Isn't the world a better place having all kinds of different beliefs?

And I'm willing to take on the beliefs and values of the Christians the same way that I take on the Conservatives and Republicans (though the three overlapping circles would hardly be distinguishable).

To get back to Mr. Coffee's question, I have no problem with people having their faith, be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish. I, myself, am Pastafarian. To each their own.

My issue, as per above, is when they try to influence policy. Last week we had two gay marriage threads. Most of those opposed to giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals were by and large religious people. And their primary justification has nothing to do with reason or logic. It's "this book written thousands of years ago says these people are sinners". You can't debate that. It's virtually impossible to reason with those that have built their values solely around an old book.

Favorite colours or favorite flavour ice creams do not impact public policy on the environment, human rights or social justice. Therefore I don't care.

If it wasn't religion, it would be something, some motive, that would guide policy and you probably wouldn't be happy with that either. That's human nature. Unfortunately, humans are in politics and guide policy.

Frankly, I think our society has done a bang up job progressing. Look at what we've achieved in the last 100 years, religion notwithstanding.

[spiteface]

Going back and finding something that means something different in light of new technology or new social circumstances isn't anything special, you can do that with any text. Passages that don't mean anything new in the new light will continue to not mean anything new, and passages that happen to fit in a new context will do so. But that's like a stopped clock being right, just because you happen to find something doesn't mean that it was written that way.

The earth was known to be round long before the Qur'an was written.

I never claimed that the Quran was the first text to state the earth is round(ish). I was responding to a poster who claimed that Islam says the earth is flat.

I was initially referring to expansion of the universe, which is stated in the Quran.

[spiteface]

Sure, but that's being retrospectively choosy about the accuracy standards of the statement.

Both could be said to have pitted surfaces, both are three-dimensional, both have hard shells and various layers of different materials on the inside. Wow, now that you mention it, the earth is a lot like an ostrich egg.

Looking at it another way, if it was just meant that they were both spheroids, why specifically an ostrich egg? Why not something more closely comparable to what the earth is actually shaped like?

Because, it is a description that the people at the time of the prophet can relate to...

[Thor]

1. Marriage is not a right
2. Threads are not policy.
3. Grow up. People form policy ON THEIR BELIEFS. Go figure. Disqualifying someone due to their beliefs is a far greater crime than debating same sex marriage from a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Atheist/Zoroastrian perspective.

You don't see the irony in your statement? Does Religion hold a special privileged to be sheltered from debate, criticism, mockery?

I just find it odd that you who passionately debates politics, global warming with great zeal to be telling people debating religious issues to 'grow up.'

Especially since no one has ever been suggesting denying people a right to their beliefs, this debate is all about debating and challenging those beliefs and putting them to the test in a modern world.

[Thor]

A whole page on eggs, hilarious :D

Anyhow Science and the Koran, makes me giggle to say the two in the same sentence, so here we go:

"The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/13/index.htm#2)

"He ... spread out the earth."
Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/13/index.htm#3)

"And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/15/index.htm#19)

The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/18/index.htm#86)

The sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/21/index.htm#33)

The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/21/index.htm#30)

The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/27/index.htm#61)

"He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/35/index.htm#13)

"We decked the nether heaven with lamps."
Allah put "lamps" in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/41/index.htm#12)

"And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/50/index.htm#7)

"And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/51/index.htm#48)

"The moon was rent in twain."
Muhammaed split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/54/index.htm#1)

"Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof."
The "seven heavens" refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the "seven "heavens" revolved around it. 65:12 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/65/index.htm#12)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html

[firebug]

Because, it is a description that the people at the time of the prophet can relate to...

If god is so smart and knows everything, why couldn't he teach his followers advanced geometry?

Amazingly enough in 'modern days' mathematicians can teach even children geometry.

It would seem to me that that god is implying that his followers are idiots if the only thing they can understand is an egg.

Why, in all of the holy books (muslim, christian or otherwise), is there never any new information given for mankind's benefit? Why must we always wait for science to teach us something new that was previously unknown?

~bug

[flamesfever]

Why, in all of the holy books (muslim, christian or otherwise), is there never any new information given for mankind's benefit? Why must we always wait for science to teach us something new that was previously unknown?
~bug

I think in studying the holy books one may gain the wisdom necessary to deal with the knowledge that comes from science. I believe therein lies the connection between the two.

[Cheese]

I think in studying the holy books one may gain the wisdom necessary to deal with the knowledge that comes from science. I believe therein lies the connection between the two.

Im interested to know how this works? Can you elaborate please?

[peter12]

Im interested to know how this works? Can you elaborate please?

I'd recommend more books, but that doesn't go well over here.

Basically, naive readings of texts is a lost art. Actually reading great books in the hope that one will uncover personal meaning within the pages.

Bible readers often exemplify just that. Gaining their life roadmap from the pages of the Bible provides a hermeneutic lens for interpreting and navigating the ethical morass of the world.

[Calgaryborn]

Most people don't know this though.. I mean pastors are taught it at seminary, but when they get to churches they seem to teach mostly from a devotional point of view, they don't touch anything that the past 300 years of Biblical scholarship has worked out.

So most don't have any cognitive dissonance, because they haven't read the gospels horizontally, or struggled with the discrepancies, or know that many of the books were written fraudulently (many of the Pauline letters weren't authored by Paul), etc etc. As far as they know the Bible is inerrant because they haven't seen any different.

The only change in the last three hundred years in Biblical scholarship is the rise of german rationalism. Its view is that the scriptures are just a book written by men without inspiration from God. The goal of their textual study is to find the most likely explainations for the supernatural events of scriptures that would exclude God in their explaination. They see fullfilled prophesy as proof that what ever book it was in must have been written after the event. They see all the miracles of Christ as either lies or tricks.
They assert that any resemblance to another religion is proof of plagiarism. They see any minor conflict in the narrative of the gospels as proof of inaccuracy while ignoring all the work scholars have done in the last 18 hundred years to understand and explain those supposed conflicts. Pretaining to the gospels and epistles; when they see differences they scream error and when they see harmony they scream plagiarism.

In actual fact they see nothing at all because they exclude the most obvious conclusion before they even begin: That God inspired the 66 books that make up the bible and that the Messiah came 2000 years ago; taking on the form of a lowly man and was faithfull unto death; rising again 3 days later having reconciled all who would believe unto God.

I can see how an atheist would delight in german rationalism because it gives you all a false confidence that you are right and their is no God. But what I don't get is how you personally accept their half truths as (pardon the pun) gospel. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure their assertions against orthodox apologists?

Now I worked 70 hours last week and hoping this week to shave it down to a mere 60 hours. I don't have a lot of time to respond to these posts. If you or your atheist buddys want they can flood this thread with questions and half truths and I won't have even the slimmest hope of responding to it all. Perhaps you guys need such volume to keep your faith up; I don't know. But I would appreciate you backing up some of the claims you have made against Christianity as of late.

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

[VladtheImpaler]

I'd recommend more books, but that doesn't go well over here.

Basically, naive readings of texts is a lost art. Actually reading great books in the hope that one will uncover personal meaning within the pages.

Bible readers often exemplify just that. Gaining their life roadmap from the pages of the Bible provides a hermeneutic lens for interpreting and navigating the ethical morass of the world.

Nice. It's rather sad I picked up Larry Flynt's publication as a youth before I picked up a bible, and thus stand before you a twisted, broken parody of a human being....

[peter12]

Nice. It's rather sad I picked up Larry Flynt's publication as a youth before I picked up a bible, and thus stand before you a twisted, broken parody of a human being....

It's probably more complicated than that. The Bible has some pretty kinky stuff in it. Most Jews that I know aren't exactly stiff-necked Protestants.

[flamesfever]

Nice. It's rather sad I picked up Larry Flynt's publication as a youth before I picked up a bible, and thus stand before you a twisted, broken parody of a human being....

Sorry about that...but thanks...I now have a clear mental image of you when reading your posts.

[oilyfan]

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

It is a simple google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles)

And frankly, what proof do you have that all of they were authored by Paul?

[VladtheImpaler]

Sorry about that...but thanks...I now have a clear mental image of you when reading your posts.

Don't forget the healthy dose of Lenin and Brezhnev I got by age 11, and, for all intents and purposes, I am basically the anti-Christ...

[photon]

The only change in the last three hundred years in Biblical scholarship is the rise of german rationalism. Its view is that the scriptures are just a book written by men without inspiration from God. The goal of their textual study is to find the most likely explainations for the supernatural events of scriptures that would exclude God in their explaination.

Even the Christian scholars who don't take an inerrant view of scripture have the goal of excluding god eh? All the religious educational institutions that have classes with a historical critical approach in their divinities programs are all trying to remove god... fascinating.

They see fullfilled prophesy as proof that what ever book it was in must have been written after the event. They see all the miracles of Christ as either lies or tricks.

Nope, that's not what they "see". What they "see" is far more deep and nuanced than that.

They assert that any resemblance to another religion is proof of plagiarism. They see any minor conflict in the narrative of the gospels as proof of inaccuracy while ignoring all the work scholars have done in the last 18 hundred years to understand and explain those supposed conflicts. Pretaining to the gospels and epistles; when they see differences they scream error and when they see harmony they scream plagiarism.

Anyone who disagrees is "they"? I can see how it's easy to classify everyone who disagrees as "they" when you lump them all together with such simple (and incorrect) characterization of the scholarship.

In which group would you include Origen I wonder? As a scholar that tried to help understand and explain the supposed conflicts? Or as an atheist who tried to remove god? Because Origen frequently mentions differences among the writings and disputes the Pauline letters' authorship.

In actual fact they see nothing at all because they exclude the most obvious conclusion before they even begin: That God inspired the 66 books that make up the bible and that the Messiah came 2000 years ago; taking on the form of a lowly man and was faithfull unto death; rising again 3 days later having reconciled all who would believe unto God.

All the Christian biblical scholars who work from a historical critical perspective exclude these conclusions eh?

I wouldn't call these conclusions, they're claims. Claims that have little in the way of support.

I can see how an atheist would delight in german rationalism because it gives you all a false confidence that you are right and their is no God. But what I don't get is how you personally accept their half truths as (pardon the pun) gospel. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure their assertions against orthodox apologists?

"You all".. always a great foundation for discussion.

This is the funny thing, some Christians just can't even conceive that someone could look at things and come to a different conclusion than they do. So instead, accusations of delighting in what must be false evidence to confirm a pre-conceived conclusion. If I don't come to the same conclusion, I clearly must lack the ability to measure the orthodox responses.

First, I've never made any claim to being an atheist.

Second, I didn't start from a position of non-belief and grabbed onto something to defend it, I started from a position of believing exactly as you do. I've read very little that you've ever posted that I could not imagine myself writing not too long ago.

It was when I started to actually read the Bible, to actually research church history, to learn that I was forced to question what many Christian denominations say the Bible says. My position isn't a matter of desire, I didn't WANT to not believe in the Bible, I was forced into it. That's part of why I participate in threads like this, part of me still wants to believe and hopes to find something that will change how I see things.

Now contrast this:

If you or your atheist buddys want they can flood this thread with questions and half truths and I won't have even the slimmest hope of responding to it all. Perhaps you guys need such volume to keep your faith up; I don't know.

with

But I would appreciate you backing up some of the claims you have made against Christianity as of late.

This. Usually if someone asks for something starting out with such negative language and accusations will result in conflict rather than discussion...

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

The wiki article on this has a decent summary and lots of links to resources and books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

[flamesfever]

I believe that many non religious types feel that Christianity is a static thing, however that is not true.

I am by no means a scholar on the subject but taking from authors like Borg, some of the changes are:

1. The Bible's origin is a human response to God, rather than a divine
product with divine authority.

2. In interpreting the Bible, much of it should be understood in its
historical context, and is metaphorical in nature, rather than taking it
literally or considering it factual.

3. The emphasis in Christian life is to use it to transform your life through
a relationship with God, here on earth, rather than concentrating on
what to believe or do in order to go to Heaven.

I believe that the main message in Christianity, is to understand how we should act and relate to one another, and that true happiness comes from helping or serving others.

I know you can live a good life, without becoming involved in organized religion, but for me, going to church, besides associating with generally great people, gives me a chance to recalibrate from time to time, my sense of morals and ethics, and what and where I should take my life.

[Wiggum_PI]

It was when I started to actually read the Bible, to actually research church history, to learn that I was forced to question what many Christian denominations say the Bible says. My position isn't a matter of desire, I didn't WANT to not believe in the Bible, I was forced into it. That's part of why I participate in threads like this, part of me still wants to believe and hopes to find something that will change how I see things.



In your opinion what makes the bible so inaccurate?

There are thousands of manuscripts, more than any other book known to man.

[oilyfan]

In your opinion what makes the bible so inaccurate?

There are thousands of manuscripts, more than any other book known to man.

What manuscripts are you talking about?

[Wiggum_PI]

What manuscripts are you talking about?

The Greek ones that the bible was translated from.

[oilyfan]

The Greek ones that the bible was translated from.

Oh I misunderstood.

There are thousands of manuscripts, but a lot of them are duplicates because that was one of the only ways to transfer manuscripts once the old one starts to deteriorate. And all of the manuscripts don't agree with one another. Before maybe a couple hundred years ago most literate people were actually in the church, and the only thing worth writing about to them was religion.

Just because a lot was written about Jesus doesn't mean the bible is the word of God. By the same rationale is the Quran the word of god?

[photon]

In your opinion what makes the bible so inaccurate?

I guess that depends on what you mean by inaccurate.. the Bible (or rather the NT anyway) looks like a collection of books written by people who had various goals and messages for their writings. There's enough differences among the manuscripts and enough differences between the various books and authors that I think it discounts the position that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. every word is 100% accurate and free of error). As a history book it's inaccurate. As a book on theology though, that's a different question.

There are thousands of manuscripts, more than any other book known to man.

Sure, over 5700 of the NT in Greek. And no two match. Even the smallest fragments the size of a credit card differ from every other manuscript. There's more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

To be sure a lot of those differences are incidental, punctuation, differences in abbreviations (it was common to abbreviate Jesus or Lord or God) etc, but not all are.. some are entire portions that only appear in later manuscripts (the story of Jesus drawing in the dirt while they bring him the woman who had committed adultery for example).

Even though we have that many manuscripts, what we don't have are the autographs. Trying to derive the originals is no easy task, a whole area of scholarship has arisen around it. So even if you could get everyone to agree on what the earliest version of Mark was, we still wouldn't know what the original was.

And I am not trying to say that the textual issues or differences among the books of the NT refutes Christianity, otherwise there would be no Christian Biblical scholars. But it does make some kinds of Christianity more difficult.

[Hack&Lube]

I guess that depends on what you mean by inaccurate.. the Bible (or rather the NT anyway) looks like a collection of books written by people who had various goals and messages for their writings. There's enough differences among the manuscripts and enough differences between the various books and authors that I think it discounts the position that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. every word is 100% accurate and free of error). As a history book it's inaccurate. As a book on theology though, that's a different question.

Sure, over 5700 of the NT in Greek. And no two match. Even the smallest fragments the size of a credit card differ from every other manuscript. There's more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

To be sure a lot of those differences are incidental, punctuation, differences in abbreviations (it was common to abbreviate Jesus or Lord or God) etc, but not all are.. some are entire portions that only appear in later manuscripts (the story of Jesus drawing in the dirt while they bring him the woman who had committed adultery for example).

Even though we have that many manuscripts, what we don't have are the autographs. Trying to derive the originals is no easy task, a whole area of scholarship has arisen around it. So even if you could get everyone to agree on what the earliest version of Mark was, we still wouldn't know what the original was.

And I am not trying to say that the textual issues or differences among the books of the NT refutes Christianity, otherwise there would be no Christian Biblical scholars. But it does make some kinds of Christianity more difficult.

Also, aren't all extant sources from around 100 years after the death of Jesus? The authors of the synoptic gospels and John (the different one) were a generation or two separated from the events they were documenting. Until then, information in the community (which appeared to be expecting eschatological return within their lifetimes) appears to have been transmitted by word of mouth - you know how well the telephone game works or how things are easily exaggerated when one is trying to convince someone else of something.

Look the divergance here is whether or not you believe the Bible was divinely inspired and divinely guided into the form that we have today and you can take it's word at value (some interpret it literally, others do not) and it is applicable today...or if it's just the collaborative work by commitee of hundreds of thousands of people, put together by by medieval councils who decided what was canon and what was aprocryphal, and simply a haphazard historical document of cultural history.

[Wiggum_PI]

I guess that depends on what you mean by inaccurate.. the Bible (or rather the NT anyway) looks like a collection of books written by people who had various goals and messages for their writings. There's enough differences among the manuscripts and enough differences between the various books and authors that I think it discounts the position that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. every word is 100% accurate and free of error). As a history book it's inaccurate. As a book on theology though, that's a different question.



Sure, over 5700 of the NT in Greek. And no two match. Even the smallest fragments the size of a credit card differ from every other manuscript. There's more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

To be sure a lot of those differences are incidental, punctuation, differences in abbreviations (it was common to abbreviate Jesus or Lord or God) etc, but not all are.. some are entire portions that only appear in later manuscripts (the story of Jesus drawing in the dirt while they bring him the woman who had committed adultery for example).

Even though we have that many manuscripts, what we don't have are the autographs. Trying to derive the originals is no easy task, a whole area of scholarship has arisen around it. So even if you could get everyone to agree on what the earliest version of Mark was, we still wouldn't know what the original was.

And I am not trying to say that the textual issues or differences among the books of the NT refutes Christianity, otherwise there would be no Christian Biblical scholars. But it does make some kinds of Christianity more difficult.

The accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts is 99.5% in comparison to Homer's Illiad which is 95% accurate. If the bible is to be discredited, then what about other ancient texts?

[Hack&Lube]

I can see how an atheist would delight in german rationalism because it gives you all a false confidence that you are right and their is no God. But what I don't get is how you personally accept their half truths as (pardon the pun) gospel. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure their assertions against orthodox apologists?


I have never heard of the german rationalists but I have studied apologetics and I have found the orthodox apologists wanting in terms of what satisfies my rational process and world view. On what basis can you simply say their truths are half-truths? Just like Photon said people can come from the same background, look at the same information and come to vastly different conclusions. Nobody is attacking anyone, defensive posturing or critcizing beliefs by lumping them into schools of thought that you disagree with is not a valid argument. I could say the same for you. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure the assertions of your faith against those who would question your beliefs etc? I think you are perfectly able to do so, you have just come to a different conclusion that satisfies your beliefs.

[Hack&Lube]

The accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts is 99.5% in comparison to Homer's Illiad which is 95% accurate. If the bible is to be discredited, then what about other ancient texts?

Nobody is saying that ancient texts are wholly accurate. Nobody is taking the Illiad as a basis for three of the world's largest and dominanting religions and applying it to their lives and prosetylizing it, using it to justify their actions, using it to influence government and state action, etc.

Accuracy is not the rubric by which validity of the work is judged. You just have to decide for yourself whether you believe or not that something is divinely inspired and guided into the form you have today and therefore you can take as valuable to you...or not. Hopefully, you will at the same time examine the Bible at length to try to rationalize all the different facets and contradictions within it to try to figure out just what makes your religion and come to your own conclusion instead of accepting it blindly. When a great part of Christianity is the observance and discipline of your conduct and daily actions based on quoted scripture, it's not really WWJD anymore, it's what does Leviticus tell you (and should that be applied?), what does Paul tell you (and should that be applied?), etc. and if there is validity and applicability to those strictures.

[photon]

Also, aren't all extant sources from around 100 years after the death of Jesus? The authors of the synoptic gospels and John (the different one) were a generation or two separated from the events they were documenting. Until then, information in the community (which appeared to be expecting eschatological return within their lifetimes) appears to have been transmitted by word of mouth - you know how well the telephone game works or how things are easily exaggerated when one is trying to convince someone else of something.

And in the case of the gospels, written in a different language than Jesus or his followers spoke. The authors of the gospels were educated enough in Greek to be able to write a coherent narrative.

And Paul never claims to have known Jesus and gets all his doctrine through revelation, even distancing himself from the disciples (well in one case distances himself, in another case says he spoke with them).

[photon]

The accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts is 99.5% in comparison to Homer's Illiad which is 95% accurate. If the bible is to be discredited, then what about other ancient texts?

What do those percentages mean? Accurate with respect to what? How were they arrived at? Who claims this 99.5%?

And I don't know what you mean about the Bible being discredited, discredited in what way? That it's a collection of books written sometime between 40 and hundreds of years after Jesus' death? No one discredits that. That the writings were part of the foundation of what would become the world's most powerful religion? No one discredits that.

As I said, acknowledging the changes in the manuscripts over the centuries doesn't discredit Christianity in general, or else there would be no Christian scholars who research and publish and teach the Bible from a historical critical point of view.

[Wiggum_PI]

What do those percentages mean? Accurate with respect to what? How were they arrived at? Who claims this 99.5%?

And I don't know what you mean about the Bible being discredited, discredited in what way? That it's a collection of books written sometime between 40 and hundreds of years after Jesus' death? No one discredits that. That the writings were part of the foundation of what would become the world's most powerful religion? No one discredits that.

As I said, acknowledging the changes in the manuscripts over the centuries doesn't discredit Christianity in general, or else there would be no Christian scholars who research and publish and teach the Bible from a historical critical point of view.

The 99.5% comes from biblical scholars. They cross reference any discrepancies between manuscripts.

[photon]

The 99.5% comes from biblical scholars. They cross reference any discrepancies between manuscripts.

Which biblical scholars? Do you have a source for that percentage?

The only time I've ever seen that 99.5% number used is by apologists saying that it came from Bruce Metzger, when Metzger said no such thing.

No one's ever done a complete comprehensive cross reference of all discrepancies across all manuscripts as far as I know.

Plus determining accuracy isn't just a "count the # of copies game". The quality of each manuscript must be determined, it's obvious that if you had 10 manuscripts, and 8 were copies of a bad manuscript while one was a good one saying the text was 90% pure was meaningless.. worse than meaningless, completely misleading. So just because 99.5% of the extant copies agree doesn't mean that's an accurate representation of the original, it just means that 99.5% of the copies agree.

And even if the 99.5% number is accurate that's still based on extant copies, which are centuries removed from the originals, which we don't have. And centuries of copying by hand will introduce errors, unintentional and intentional, small and large.

But that 99.5% number I doubt very much, since textual critics (the scholars who study such things) say that there are more differences among the manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

[Wiggum_PI]

Which biblical scholars? Do you have a source for that percentage?

The only time I've ever seen that 99.5% number used is by apologists saying that it came from Bruce Metzger, when Metzger said no such thing.

No one's ever done a complete comprehensive cross reference of all discrepancies across all manuscripts as far as I know.

Plus determining accuracy isn't just a "count the # of copies game". The quality of each manuscript must be determined, it's obvious that if you had 10 manuscripts, and 8 were copies of a bad manuscript while one was a good one saying the text was 90% pure was meaningless.. worse than meaningless, completely misleading. So just because 99.5% of the extant copies agree doesn't mean that's an accurate representation of the original, it just means that 99.5% of the copies agree.

And even if the 99.5% number is accurate that's still based on extant copies, which are centuries removed from the originals, which we don't have. And centuries of copying by hand will introduce errors, unintentional and intentional, small and large.

But that 99.5% number I doubt very much, since textual critics (the scholars who study such things) say that there are more differences among the manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Go to this Website: http:////www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068)

[photon]

Go to this Website: http:////www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068)

That site references Geisler for the 99.5% number, and Geisler is the one who says Metzger estimates it at 99.5% when Metzger doesn't. So that reference to 99.5% is wrong. Or not wrong, just made up.

Plus the article they quote for the statistic is published by Moody which is an institution that starts from a position of inerrancy.

Moody Bible Institute believes strongly in the factual, verbal, historical inerrancy of the Bible. That is, the Bible, in its original documents, is free from error in what it says about geography, history and science as well as in what it says about God. Its authority extends to all matters about which the Bible speaks.

So their position is backwards.. rather than examining the evidence and deciding if something is inerrant (or historically or scientifically accurate) and coming to a conclusion, they decide on what they believe and then work backwards to try and find evidence to support it.

Moody clearly denies evolution, so I'd question their scholarly integrity... or at the very least I'd examine anything from there with a bigger grain of salt than usual.

[Azure]

Yeah, Moody.

Don't think I would listen to anything from them considering their past history. Publishing the Chick Comics for one.

[photon]

Lol seriously? No way, no serious institution would publish Chick Comics.

[Azure]

Lol seriously? No way, no serious institution would publish Chick Comics.

Oops.

I was under the impression that they did for some reason. Seems like Chick Publications publishes them.

[Cheese]

So it is about power, really. The elite having control over the populace so that their standard of living is higher, because of the power that religion can have. If this is what you're saying, I agree, BUT, what I don't understand is why we sit around and debate about something we cannot change in our counterpart's belief system. You know you can't change what I believe, why do you continue to bemoan the issue? What are YOU trying to achieve? Will it give you peace for me to agree with you? Isn't the world a better place having all kinds of different beliefs?


Who's bemoaning? Im not trying to change anyone's mind, but if it happens, great.
Debate is healthy, without it we allow total control.
Education is also healthy, without it we have ignorance.
I don't think any of us really care if you change your mind and it certainly wouldn't create anymore peace than I already have. Isnt the world a better place when people are actually allowed to disagree, have varying opinions, and discuss everything "based on the facts".
So...lets get the world educated, and allow everyone to debate freely.

[Calgaryborn]

Even the Christian scholars who don't take an inerrant view of scripture have the goal of excluding god eh? All the religious educational institutions that have classes with a historical critical approach in their divinities programs are all trying to remove god... fascinating.



Nope, that's not what they "see". What they "see" is far more deep and nuanced than that.



Anyone who disagrees is "they"? I can see how it's easy to classify everyone who disagrees as "they" when you lump them all together with such simple (and incorrect) characterization of the scholarship.

In which group would you include Origen I wonder? As a scholar that tried to help understand and explain the supposed conflicts? Or as an atheist who tried to remove god? Because Origen frequently mentions differences among the writings and disputes the Pauline letters' authorship.



All the Christian biblical scholars who work from a historical critical perspective exclude these conclusions eh?

I wouldn't call these conclusions, they're claims. Claims that have little in the way of support.



"You all".. always a great foundation for discussion.

This is the funny thing, some Christians just can't even conceive that someone could look at things and come to a different conclusion than they do. So instead, accusations of delighting in what must be false evidence to confirm a pre-conceived conclusion. If I don't come to the same conclusion, I clearly must lack the ability to measure the orthodox responses.

First, I've never made any claim to being an atheist.

Second, I didn't start from a position of non-belief and grabbed onto something to defend it, I started from a position of believing exactly as you do. I've read very little that you've ever posted that I could not imagine myself writing not too long ago.

It was when I started to actually read the Bible, to actually research church history, to learn that I was forced to question what many Christian denominations say the Bible says. My position isn't a matter of desire, I didn't WANT to not believe in the Bible, I was forced into it. That's part of why I participate in threads like this, part of me still wants to believe and hopes to find something that will change how I see things.

Now contrast this:



with



This. Usually if someone asks for something starting out with such negative language and accusations will result in conflict rather than discussion...



The wiki article on this has a decent summary and lots of links to resources and books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles


First of all I will answer your question:

Origen was born in 184 AD to well-to-do Christian parents. He became a respected teacher at a young age. At 17 his Father was killed for his faith and all the family's wealth was taken from them. A year later due in part to Clement running from the persecution he became president of the Alexandrian Catechetical School. He was obviously very intelligent which was helped by having parents who could afford to provide him teachers. He studied under the pagan Ammonius Saccas who was the founder of Neo-Platonism. He had a huge collection of books including the complete library of the gnostic Ambrosius. He vigorously opposed some gnostic beliefs while embracing others. He wrote it is said about 6000 books in his life time with the help of his students whom he would dictate to or use to make copies of his work. His beliefs lead him to live an extreme ascetic life: He walked barefoot; He slept on the bare ground; He even castrated himself. The scriptures didn't tell him to do those things. That probably came from the gnostic belief that the flesh is wicked and can't be saved.

Origen believed souls existed from eternity past and that they transmigrated to a higher or lower life form after death, depending on one's deeds. He believed everyone including the devils would eventually be saved after some punishment and instruction by angels. He denied a physical resurrection which by itself would explain why he rejected certain of Paul's epistles. Origen has been called "the Father of corrupt bibles" but, I'm not sure if that is because of his translations and practice of conjectural emendation or because of what his school produced in the century following his death.

Regarding the link you provided it only mentions two ancient authorities who questioned the authorship of some of Paul's epistles: Origen and Marcoin. I've discussed Origen already. Marcoin actually only accepted 11 of the 27 New Testament books into his canon. He only accepted 1 of the gospels(Luke) and he edited it himself before accepting it into his canon. It should be telling that both Origen and Marcoin were excommunicated by their own religious communities at some point in their short lives. They both rejected certain books of the Bible because they conflicted with their personal teachings.

Apparently according to your article most modern scholars reject or have serious doubts about the authorship of some of Pauls epistles but, I see no examples of denominations altering their Canons in light of this witness. I also am not aware of any of the new translations omitting some of Paul's epistles. With two or three new translations coming out every year you would think someone would stick to this new revised Canon. I see no movement in that direction.

I also wonder why modern scholarship would have more credibility than the scholarship 1600 years closer to the source? I mean wouldn't there be a net loss of information over that time? Most likely some of the churches still existed that these letters were written to. There is no doubt that more of the early writings of the church Fathers still existed which would have referenced Paul's writings. Obviously the copies of the originals were nearer to the source as well. In the absence of new compeling evidence wouldn't the early scholarship carry more weight?

What have I missed that cause you to say with any certainty that Paul didn't author some of the books that is credited to him within the Canon of scriptures? Could you tell me in your own words rather than just providing a link? Thanks.

[photon]

Marcoin actually only accepted 11 of the 27 New Testament books into his canon. He only accepted 1 of the gospels(Luke) and he edited it himself before accepting it into his canon.

There was no canon at that point, so to say Marion only accepted 11 of the 27 books is misleading. Marcion chose those 11 not out of 27, but out of many gospels, letters, and apocalypses.

The whole idea of a "canon" of Christian writings may have even originated with Marcion, certainly the earliest list of writings that the list's author thought were authoritative was from Marcion.

After that various lists circulated for hundreds of years before settling on the set used by many churches today (not all though, there's still disagreements about which NT books are canonical). Of course each person's list is going to reflect their outlook on various doctrinal questions, that's why there were generations of many different lists.

It should be telling that both Origen and Marcoin were excommunicated by their own religious communities at some point in their short lives. They both rejected certain books of the Bible because they conflicted with their personal teachings.

This makes no sense. "Sorry we're excommunicating you because you rejected certain books of a canon of scripture that hasn't even been made yet."

They were rejected by those who had a different view, and accepted by those who accepted their view or held the same views, the same as proto-othodox writings and authors were rejected by those who held different views.

All of which is interesting but hardly relevant, the authorship of Paul's letters isn't disputed because of the authority of Marcion or Origen.

Apparently according to your article

It's not my article, it's just a convenient summary of the issues with lots of references.

most modern scholars reject or have serious doubts about the authorship of some of Pauls epistles but, I see no examples of denominations altering their Canons in light of this witness. I also am not aware of any of the new translations omitting some of Paul's epistles. With two or three new translations coming out every year you would think someone would stick to this new revised Canon. I see no movement in that direction.

Why would there be? It's "The Bible", not "The list of what we currently think is right".

Scholars and people willing to accept a more nuanced view wouldn't remove the pseudepigraphic letters because there's no point, and those with a literalist view would never accept the possibility of such a thing anyway.

I also wonder why modern scholarship would have more credibility than the scholarship 1600 years closer to the source?

Modern scholarship just goes by what is written, it's not like they have access to more information. But they have access to much better technology, much better methodology, much better communication. It wasn't nearly as organized or developed back then.

When Jesus was walking the earth, no one beyond a few followers and locals knew or cared. Who would care to examine the claims of some guy named Paul or some gospel authors when they were going on about someone no one else had heard of or written about? And by the time enough cared for scholarship had begun, a century or more of proliferation of writings and copies had taken place.

I mean wouldn't there be a net loss of information over that time?

Not necessarily, more copies means more information, not less. Not necessarily GOOD information though :D

The question is is there enough loss of information to make something like the authorship of a letter indeterminable. You can't both argue that there is enough information loss to make authorship impossible to determine AND argue that there's little enough information loss that there's zero change to the meaning and intent.

We're in a much better position to evaluate that information loss though, if you wanted a copy of a letter to study back then you had to have one commissioned, which was another copy with its own set of errors, making the problem worse. Now scholars can have access to detailed images of every single copy, and computers to analyze and index and cross reference every word.

Most likely some of the churches still existed that these letters were written to. There is no doubt that more of the early writings of the church Fathers still existed which would have referenced Paul's writings. Obviously the copies of the originals were nearer to the source as well.

But unless they traveled to each church and viewed or took that original they wouldn't have access to it. If they went and viewed it they wouldn't have it for reference. If they took it then the church would be left with a (flawed) copy. Don't view the problem in light of our fast travel, perfect copies, and instant communication.

In the absence of new compeling evidence wouldn't the early scholarship carry more weight?

But new and compelling evidence is exactly what there is. No one 1600 years ago could take all the existing copies of all the letters of Paul in Greek and analyze their vocabulary. Or at least they couldn't within a reasonable amount of time and get someone to pay for it. Today a large number of scholars can spend significant portions of their adult lives analyzing doctrinal positions of Paul's letters and comparing and contrasting them, all communicating their findings back and forth and discussing and working out the issues and finding a consensus. That simply wasn't possible 1600 years ago, things were too slow, far less literate people, far less educated people...

What have I missed that cause you to say with any certainty that Paul didn't author some of the books that is credited to him within the Canon of scriptures? Could you tell me in your own words rather than just providing a link? Thanks.

First it was common in those times. Many authors wrote about the problems of pseudonymous writings (things written in an author's name, but not by that author).

There are many examples of this happening. Third Corinthians was written in the 2nd century in the name of Paul to combat views that Jesus was not flesh and blood at all that were circulating then. Another is the Sibylline oracles where Christian authors took the writings of a pagan prophetess and inserted references to the coming of the Messiah to support their cause. Or another when Paul(?) in Colossians tells his readers to also read his letter to Laodicea, of which there are no copies.. except when someone helpfully writes one in Paul's name in the 2nd century. There's tons more.

So it was a common phenomenon. It's not implausible at least that some of the writings claiming to be written by Paul aren't.

One thing used is vocabulary. Everyone has a vocabulary that they use. The pastoral epistles have a significantly different vocabulary than the rest of Paul. Over 35% of the words used in the pastorals don't appear anywhere else in Paul, and more than 2/3rds of those words are words common to 2nd century Christian writings. Even specific meanings of words vary, the meaning of some words Paul uses in the pastorals is different than how he uses the same words in the other letters.

Another is style. Same thing, except with patterns of words and common phrases and the thousand other things which you can identify in someone's style. Paul generally wrote short simple sentences but the author of Ephesians and Colossians both wrote long and complicated sentences. Almost 10 percent of the sentences in Ephesians are over fifty words, while Galatians (undisputed) has only one.

Another way is by the actual theological content.

2nd Thessalonians for example tells people to stop thinking the end has already arrived, that there will be clear signs, while 1st Thessalonians has a different theme, calming people who are worried that Jesus hasn't returned yet and that some of them have died, that the dead will be raised first and to be vigilant because the end will come suddenly.

Or the author of Colossians disagrees with Paul's view on baptism. Paul clearly says that baptism is dying with Christ but the resurrection has not yet happened, 1 Corinthians is all about the future resurrection because the Christians there thought they had already experienced a kind of resurrection and were already ruling and reigning. Colossians specifically says though that "When you were buried with him in baptism you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (2:13)".

The pastoral epistles deal with a different structure of church than Paul describes in 1 and 2 Corinthians, one that seems to be closer to the 2nd century of church than the apostolic era of Paul.

There's mountains of books and scholarly works on the subject.. not a case of people trying to disprove belief in god, just people trying to better understand this piece of writing. This isn't meant to be exhaustive, it's just touching the surface.

[Beerfest]

Ive not really followed this thread, but the tags on this thread rule.

[Textcritic]

Damn.

Why am I always so late in coming to these parties?

I read about half of the posts in this thread; I simply do not have the time to slog through them all.

I find that when entering discussions about the Bible, what tends to complicate things is the wide ranging and varied opinions and misconceptions that lay people tend to hold with regards to what the Bible is, and what it ought to be. If anyone is all that keenly interested in the Bible, where it came from, how it developed, why it is such an influential book, and how and why religions have come to read and teach it the way that they do, allow me, first to make a book recommendation. James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-Guide-Scripture/dp/0743235878/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279809291&sr=8-1) (New York / London / Toronto / Sydney: Free Press, 2007), is my current favourite popular book on the subject. I also recommend that you check out Prof. Kugel's own webpage: www.jameskugel.com, which has some good additional resources. An especially good read there is the downloadable appendix that he wrote to the book, entitled: "Apologetics and 'Biblical Criticism Lite'" (http://www.jameskugel.com/apologetics.pdf), in which he launches into a very good critique of the current establishment of biblical scholarship.

So then, what is the Bible? Most would answer that question simply enough by pointing to the 66—plus or minus a couple dozen—books of their leather-bound Thompson Chain Reference that rests upon the shelf. When in actual fact—as photon and some others have already pointed out—there are several "Bibles" within Judaism and Christianity, and their presence along with the sensitive issues behind canonization renders the idea of THE BIBLE somewhat inert. The Bible is a collection of various "Scriptures"—which I would define simply as ancient, sacred writings—that have been arranged according to a foundation of pre-existing theological and philosophical premises. More often than not, the theological premises upon which the individual pieces of writing were collected, edited and preserved will supersede the original intent and content of that book.

For example, the common Christian conceptual framework applied to the story of Adam and Eve from the book of Genesis is founded upon two principles: first, the doctrine of original sin, and second, the initiation of the messianic promise. Both of these ideas are completely alien to the story itself, and both reside on a set of underlying principles and ideas that have been developed over hundreds—sometimes thousands—of years. This is why the common garden snake from the narrative is transformed into the personification of evil, and why the etiological point in Gen 3:15 is trumped up in Paul's writings, and mistranslated to refer to the victory of God in Christ, in Rom 16:20.

In defining what the Bible is, one can never stray too far from the very highly developed interpretive matrices that are imposed upon the texts. The Bible is an idea as much as it is a book, and this idea will change and nuance according to whatever interpretive community that happens to retain the Bible as "the Word of God". In recognizing this, one must also acknowledge the enormous flexibility in what the Bible has become, and what it will be in the future. Even within the past 20 or 30 years, large segments within my own Evangelical tradition have subconsciously adapted and altered their own understanding of much of what is in the Bible; hence changing what the book itself in effect actually is.

I'll give you another example: Last year, my pastor preached a series of messages on the book of Ephesians, which is a rather famous piece of writing (that was pseudonymously attributed to Paul, but actually penned some time in the early–mid second cent. C.E.) for its antiquarian ideas regarding women. It struck me as I listened to his sermon on this one sensative passage from Eph. 5:21–33 just how different his message today is from that which I commonly heard growing up, not 25 years ago. Now, in the spirit of equity, the commands of "Paul" for wives to be "subject to your husbands" (v. 22), and for husbands to "love your wives" (v. 33) is applied evenly to both sexes, where not so long ago this passage was read much more plainly.

*It is interesting, as an aside, that in this portion of Ephesians women are not EVER instructed to love their husbands, only they are required to pay them their due respect. This is a bit that is often missed by preachers and even some commentators, but I find it highly significant, and reflective of the culture within which this letter was written, in which women usually were not permitted to choose their own spouse, and were practically always under the power of a man; whether it be her father or her husband.

We tend to take for granted how we think, conceptualize and as a consequence, how we read all kinds of literature. The ways in which we read, understand, receive and interpret texts has in fact changed in the course of the last several hundred years, which in turn changed from how it was over the last several hundred and thousands of years before then. Because we live in a hyper-literate culture, because we have an absurd amount of access to information, and because we receive this information almost entirely visually has had an effect on how this information is processed. Where the inerrentists perhaps make their most glaring mistake is in assuming that the texts which they treat as Scripture, and in which they read and interpret as "plainly" and straight-forwardly as possible was always understood as such. Quite to the contrary, one of the common characteristics of Scripture in the ancient world and all the way until the Renaissance was to read Scripture symbolically and cryptically: most often, what the text says on the surface is secondary to what the text actually means, and usually it was that underlying "hidden" message that was of primary importance. It was through this method that the author of Daniel 9 (which was NOT written by Daniel!) came to conclude that the prophecy of Jer 25:11–12 and 29:10 was not for an actual physical exile of 70 years, but rather that this was a period of 70 weeks of years or 490 years! It was by the same approach that Paul quite legitimately applied the words of Deut 9 out of context and directly to Jesus in Rom 10:5–9.

One of the real powers inherent within the Bible was always its adaptability to these sorts of exegetical techniques that much of the Christian church now frowns upon. It was precisely because the Bible's meaning was always so flexible that it achieved its longevity. One of my fears, as a Christian, is that the excessively rationalistic programme of biblical literalists and inerrentists will render the Bible itself utterly inert. In their efforts to "conserve" what they consider to be the basic doctrines of the faith, they are playing a dangerous game of progressional cultural ignorance. If the Bible is to have any contemporary value, and if it is to remain an authoritative religious source, then this flexibility must be retained, and the doctrines of inerrency, infallibility, and literalist or plain approaches must be abandoned.

I have a fair bit more to say about this, but will leave you with that, for now.

[troutman]

What the text says on the surface is secondary to what the text actually means, and usually it was that underlying "hidden" message that was of primary importance.

+1

. . . the idea of a worship that is not of the symbol but of its reference, which is of a mystery of much greater age and of more immediate inward reality - Joseph Campbell

[Textcritic]

The second point that I should like to make is that the Bible is quite often read under a cloud of cultural ignorance that greatly affects its meaning and application.

What I mean by this is simply that the cultural and socioeconomic circumstances that governed Scripture production and transmission are quite foreign and contrary to the modern worldview. The vast majority of the biblical texts were composed and edited in the context of a sacrificial cultic environment, in which the Jewish second Temple and its institutions were THE primary element in religious observance, doctrine, and practice. As such, there are a great number of Scriptures that are subject to a "Temple theology" that has virtually disappeared. Even in the New Testament, nearly half of the Christian canon (Mark, Luke-Acts, Galatians, Philippians, I–II Corinthians, Romans, I Thessalonians, Philemon, and Hebrews) was likely composed before the Temple of Herod was finally destroyed by Roman legions in 67 C.E. I cannot underemphasize the importance that the Temple had in both Judaism and in the seminal roots of Christianity, and the fact that the very memory of the Temple is fragmented and idealized means that the writings produced in its shadow are also highly susceptible to misinterpretation. In the wake of its destruction, both Christianity and Judaism transformed themselves from religions of the "presence" (shekinah in Jewish ideology and parousia in the Christian concept) to religions of the book. Canonization itself was a product of the crisis that occured with the destruction of the Temple, albeit, it was a lengthy process.

Other places in which cultural ignorance tends to misconstrue biblical literature is in ancient social structure: the "biblical world" was agrarian, pre-scientific, pre-rational, and most certainly NOT gender neutral. The entire Jewish sacrificial system, and the Jewish calendars are structured around planting, harvest, and the breeding and slaughter of livestock. People of the ancient world were much more intimately connected with the earth and depended a great deal more upon the the natural environment that we are at all accustomed to. Because of this, religious practices and festivals were also thus closely connected with the observance of nature, which in many ways defined them.

Finally, the fact that the people of the ancient world were highly illiterate, and learned mostly through participation, practice, or spoken instruction, this made for a profoundly different experience in receiving “the Word of God” which was ALWAYS either spoken or read, but always a performative event. Studies of thoroughly oral cultures show that the way in which illiterate societies—that is people who have no ability to read or write—conceive and process information is cognitively quite different than in “textualized” societies. It tends to be much less abstract, and much more practical, and this will frequently lead to varied and frequent adaptations within oral traditions and stories to suit the contemporary needs of their audiences. As such, it becomes perfectly understandable to see what we perceive to be doctrinal, philosophical or logical inconsistencies in the Bible, which really was not constructed with preference for such an abstract idea as consistency.

But perhaps the greatest fallacy among both biblical critics and religious enthusiasts alike, is to domesticate the ancient world, and to soften or even attempt to eliminate the great number of these cultural and social differences. This is an especially popular procedure among Evangelical biblical critics, as they strain to show how much the present, modern world is like the biblical world, in an effort to rehabilitate the Bible and project it as an eternally relevant document. One area in particular in which this has received an inordinate amount of attention, is in the transformation of the ancient, Jewish polemics against idolatry into a much more pedestrian concept. A recurring theme in Christian apologetics is the idea that "idolatry" can be defined in a modern context as quite simply prioritizing something, anything ahead of God. It is quite common to consider not only the replacement of God by money, greed, material wealth or pleasure as akin to the cardinal sin of "idolatry", rather, one can even replace God with virtues such as family, charity or hard work. This is but one example of how for many, the present world may be read back into the biblical world and vice versa. And in my opinion, this practice remains a serious impediment to a clear understanding of not only the biblical world, but of the literature that became Scripture for the Church as well as for Judaism.

[Textcritic]

FYI, I have provided a link in this post to a blog belonging to a colleague and friend of mine here (http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/
). Beyond his fine collection of religious hilarity, I highly recommend reading his series of posts entitled: "Does Higher Criticism Attempt to 'Destroy the Bible'" (http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/does-higher-criticism-attempt-to-destroy-the-bible-part-v/)

I got busy yesterday, and was unable to finish my thoughts on this subject. As this is a field of professional expertise and a deep personal passion of mine, I have a lot to say. I think that I will probably continue to come back to this thread and post musings whenever they come up, just in case anyone is interested in such matters.

I have already discussed very briefly the problems of defining the Bible and its function, and the undeniable influence of changing culture and competing worldviews to the enterprise of reading and understanding the Bible. I should like to continue today with a third installment, which deals with the problem of history, and the Bible's own historiographic methods.

I'm sure a number of you are well aware that for hundreds of years, Scripture's presentation of the past was widely accepted as entirely accurate and divinely sanctioned. With the emergence of rationalism, empiricism, the birth of science, modernity and critical methods, it was not until around the 17th–18th century that scholars began to read the Bible according to a developing set of literary and historical theories. Where once the Bible was immune to scholarly probing, it gradually become more widely acceptable to treat the text as one would treat any ancient piece of literature, and in so doing, the totality of the Bible's historical claims came under prodigious scrutiny, and this resulted in a nearly wholesale rejection of the Bible's presentation of the past as accurate. Without going into great detail, the "historical critical method(s)" basically attempt to assume a position of non-confessional skepticism, and procede carefully through comparing the biblical text to contemporary pieces of ancient Near Eastern literature, to the archeological record, anthropological and sociological studies, and finally, these are considered together with textual matters such as manuscript evidence, linguistic evidence, and patterns within the various genres. These methods have met with a tremendous amount of success in both increasing our general knowledge of the religious and political history of ancient Israel and Palestine. Interestingly enough, what has been gleaned from the other disciplines does not accord with the Bible's own presentation of history.

Scholars have come to realize that the Bible—very much like the vast majority of surviving "texts" from the ancient world—functioned largely as royal or religious propoganda: the production of literature in the period was both enourmously expensive and difficult, and as a result, literature was basically entirely a product of either the state or the cult, which was usually sanctioned by the state. The Bible appears to be no different: the texts that came to form the Old Testament for the most part betray fairly obvious signs of various, and often competing, forms of partisanship. Ancient myths were reshaped and reproduced in an effort to legitimize a ruling power, or to polemicize against opponents, and most often this was framed in supernatural terms under the guise of the foreboding formula: "Thus says the Lord!" Because of this, the bulk of Old Testament history now resides under a cloud of suspiscion; a number of reputable scholars even going so far as to doubt ENTIRELY virtually every story or legend or king or prophet from before the time of the Babylonian exile in 587 B.C.E.

The principle reason for the skepticism is that there really is only a scant amount of third-party verifiable information concerning the existence of "Israel", and even less for the shape of its history from the biblical period. The sensible approach has been to start with what we do know, however, this has also resulted in offending the sensibilities of a vast number of confessional Christians and Jews who consider their history according to a divinely sanctioned design, and this is really what is at stake here: History and its representation is the framework for both Judaism and Christianity. To put it another way, since the beginning of Judaism sometime in the fourth century B.C.E., the religion has ALWAYS been integrally tied to its understanding of God's activity in the history of Israel, and the same holds true for Christianity. The earliest evidence for "Scripture" that we have comes from around the third cent. B.C.E. (think Alexander of Macedonia), and virtually all of it seems to suggest that Scripture was always founded upon some sort of ideal concerning the past. Events and figures were deeply meaningful, and entire religious establishments rose and fell upon how one understood that history.

The problem this presents for the Bible is twofold: First, the Bible by its nature (see my first entry above) must conform to a given concept of history. The Bible that you have on your shelf, regardless of who translated, published or has sanctioned it, is DELIBERATELY ORGANIZED according to a deeply engrained idea about God and his activity in history. Because of this, the Bible is really nothing more than a construct: a sweeping idea about the past that depends upon a fairly specific set of presuppositions concerning the events it purports to retell.

The second problem is that from a scholarly point of view, this idea that eventually became the Bible is actually not nearly as ancient as was once presumed. Virtually every Christian or Jew will point to the Pentateuch, or the Torah—the first five "Books of Moses"—as the virtual heart, or foundation for all of Scripture. It is widely presumed to be the oldest part of the collection, and it is also generally considered to be the most authoritative.
*This last statement requires a caveat as far as Christianity is concerned: While Christians have long adopted the position that the New Testament has "trumped" the Old, this is only as far as certain elements of doctrine or theology are concerned. By and large all mainstream Churches adhere to the position that the Pentateuch remains the foundation of Scripture, and is properly interpreted through the matrix of the New Covenant.
Unfortunately, scholars now concede that there is NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A TORAH, OR EVEN OF A SINGLE, COMPLETE BOOK FROM THE TORAH PRIOR TO THE EARLY THIRD CENT. B.C.E. Lester L. Grabbe of the University of Hull has written one of the most comprehensive histories of Judaism in after the Babylonian exile, and in it, he has presented a very convincing case for the late origins of the Pentatuech, based on his reading of Ezra Nehemiah in conjunction with the material evidence from the Elephantine excavations. What these show is that while this Jewish community living in an Egyptian city had a fairly well developed concept of Jewish religious practice, there is no indication that they had any sort awareness of a “Torah” of any kind. So then, Scripture depends a great deal on both its understanding of history, and upon the perception of its own antiquity, and yet both of these ideals do not conform with an actual picture of how Scripture developed and was received.

[photon]

Definitely keep posting your thoughts, I for one enjoy reading them.

Also interested in how some of the inerrantists might respond.. I know there was a time when I would have made an appeal to consequences but I don't hold an inerrantists position anymore. I guess many would view such a radical departure from their view of their scripture as a threat to their very faith, or at least require some pretty radical changes to it.

[Hack&Lube]

Definitely keep posting your thoughts, I for one enjoy reading them.

Also interested in how some of the inerrantists might respond.. I know there was a time when I would have made an appeal to consequences but I don't hold an inerrantists position anymore. I guess many would view such a radical departure from their view of their scripture as a threat to their very faith, or at least require some pretty radical changes to it.

Are there any inerrantists actually in this thread? I think it's more the case of a few people giving it a go with apologetics trying to maintain the integrity of the scriptures as they see it in their eyes because it seems a contradiction to believe or hold a written word to such lofty heights when confronted with the possibility that it is a very manmade and often disingenuous (ie: does Ephesians carry any weight or authority with you anymore if you consider that it wasn't written by Paul?) work by commitee whose intepretation and authoritative power seems to bend so easily in the wind to the whims of whatever culture or period it exists within. Some people can reconcile that and some can't, but I don't see anyone taking the literal or inerrant view here.

[Textcritic]

...Also interested in how some of the inerrantists might respond.. I know there was a time when I would have made an appeal to consequences but I don't hold an inerrantists position anymore. I guess many would view such a radical departure from their view of their scripture as a threat to their very faith, or at least require some pretty radical changes to it.
This is precisely why I would expect that you will not get much of a response. There are certainly at least a handful of inerrantists on the board, but as you suggested, intellectually honest responses to the findings of biblical criticism requires almost a wholesale shift in one's religious worldview. This really becomes an intolerable proposition, as the inerrantist's entire system depends upon a philosophical structure that they have invented in order to make the most practical sense of the text. Once you challenge its validity, then there is no defense.

[photon]

I'm out of town at the moment but when I get back I'll try and find an article I read recently that I thought was interesting and is relevant to the notion of changing beliefs and why it's so difficult to do and link it.. not surprisingly it's rarely about reason, because we can have all the reason we want but we're still emotional and social creatures.

[photon]

Are there any inerrantists actually in this thread? I think it's more the case of a few people giving it a go with apologetics trying to maintain the integrity of the scriptures...

There are a few I think, but I was thinking about what you said ab out apologetics...

Is apologetics a big case of begging the question?

In the case of inerrancy the question is one to be answered by the source material and the definition of inerrant. To arrive at a conclusion you have to start from the source and work forwards.

If you have to go through all kinds of exegetical gymnastics, semantic trickery and historical handwaving though to maintain the illusion of inerrency, then really you're just begging the question.. assuming the conclusion and doing whatever it takes to fit the words into the conclusion.

[Calgaryborn]

There was no canon at that point, so to say Marion only accepted 11 of the 27 books is misleading. Marcion chose those 11 not out of 27, but out of many gospels, letters, and apocalypses.

The whole idea of a "canon" of Christian writings may have even originated with Marcion, certainly the earliest list of writings that the list's author thought were authoritative was from Marcion.

After that various lists circulated for hundreds of years before settling on the set used by many churches today (not all though, there's still disagreements about which NT books are canonical). Of course each person's list is going to reflect their outlook on various doctrinal questions, that's why there were generations of many different lists.

You are assuming that because their was no collectively published canon until the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. that a canon didn't exist. History doesn't work like that. When it comes to history more will always be unknown then known. The Synod of Laodicea(363 A.D.) forbade the reading of non-canonical books. They obviously believed that the canon was already extablished. The Council of Nicea(325 A.D.) refers to the canon. The Synod of Antioch(266 A.D.) denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Again niether council felt the need to declare a canon. It already existed and although not formally declared in a council of churches was spoken of as already extablished. The trail becomes more difficult in the second century because of extreme persecution and the lack of any organizational structure beyond the local church. The New Testament books were being copied and collected in the different regions of Christian influence. I don't know the date whenever one church finally collected all 27 books but, it more than likely belonged to the second century.

Of course because of geographical differences in distribution some books were received with reservations. Fortunately being within a hundred years of the source provided amply evidence to support the inclusion or exclusion of these epistles. We don't have the living testimony of the original churches or very many letters from the first century like they did. It should have been very easy in the second century to trace the transmission of and the distribution of all of the epistles.

The fact is the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written. IPet 3:15-16 supports this as well as the ealiest letters of the church Fathers who use them as their authority. IIThess 1:1-3 also gives evidence that the Apostles were aware of counterfeits and no doubt took measures to protect themselves from misrepresentation. Perhaps the New Testament habit of sending letters of recomendation with someone who travelled to unfamilar churches were part of this effort.

The origin of the Pastorial epistles weren't seriously disputed until the 19th century. All you've been able to present is two heretics-one in the second century and one in the third who rejected these epistles and both did so because they conflicted with their own personal teachings. Niether were excommunicated for questioning certain books of the Bible. They were both excommunicated by their own religious institutions for teaching things contrary to extablished doctrine. These doctrine's authority and source was the New Testament scriptures.

[photon]

You are assuming that because their was no collectively published canon until the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. that a canon didn't exist.

I didn't assume anything, and I didn't say that there was no canon at all until late 4th century, I said that when Marcion made his list there was no canon. Marcion started the whole idea of a canon in the first place, and by doing so started the ball rolling on other groups establishing their lists to combat Marcion.

History doesn't work like that. When it comes to history more will always be unknown then known.

But that's not to say nothing is known. This is just a convenient way of dismissing things that don't line up with a desired conclusion. Scholars work to determine what can and can't be known, what is lost, and what is actually recoverable.

I don't know the date whenever one church finally collected all 27 books but, it more than likely belonged to the second century.

There probably was no one date, the lists grow and develop over time, and we can see that; lots of lists by various church fathers as to which writings to consider authoritative have been found.

And a date of the 2nd century doesn't conflict with what I said earlier.

This is all an interesting sidebar though, not really relevant to the issue of the authorship of all the Pauline letters.

Of course because of geographical differences in distribution some books were received with reservations. Fortunately being within a hundred years of the source provided amply evidence to support the inclusion or exclusion of these epistles. We don't have the living testimony of the original churches or very many letters from the first century like they did. It should have been very easy in the second century to trace the transmission of and the distribution of all of the epistles.

Some church gets a letter claiming to be from Paul and they add it to their list of things they read to their followers. Other churches commission copies and it spreads.

You are saying that the inclusion and exclusion of writings was supported by evidence and tracing of transmission? I'd like to see some of that evidence.

The fact is the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written.

Evidence? And what does that have to do with the question of authorship? Just because a book was "elevated to scripture" doesn't mean it was authored by whom it was claimed.

What process did they use in the 1st century to "elevate to scripture" anyway? Who did this?

IPet 3:15-16 supports this

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

This says to be prepared and to give an answer, I don't see anything that supports "the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written."

as well as the ealiest letters of the church Fathers who use them as their authority.

Which letters? And again just because they used them as their authority doesn't establish their authorship.

IIThess 1:1-3 also gives evidence that the Apostles were aware of counterfeits and no doubt took measures to protect themselves from misrepresentation. Perhaps the New Testament habit of sending letters of recomendation with someone who travelled to unfamilar churches were part of this effort.

No doubt they were aware of counterfeits, I already established in my previous post that it was common and it's mentioned by a number of early Christian authors.

Being aware of a problem means it exists, so the possibility of forgeries making it into the canon is very real. Efforts to combat it doesn't mean it was combated perfectly, especially when the evidence indicates they weren't.

The origin of the Pastorial epistles weren't seriously disputed until the 19th century. All you've been able to present is two heretics-one in the second century and one in the third who rejected these epistles and both did so because they conflicted with their own personal teachings. Niether were excommunicated for questioning certain books of the Bible. They were both excommunicated by their own religious institutions for teaching things contrary to extablished doctrine. These doctrine's authority and source was the New Testament scriptures.

I didn't even present those as evidence, I asked one small question as an aside and it's become this huge distraction. With respect to the authorship of Paul's letters, I don't care what Marcion or Origen have to say on the matter.

I went over the kinds of evidence, I don't know why you are so focused on Marcion and Origen when the authorship is doubted for other reasons. I'm not going to present all of it, you can read the scholarship on it as well as I can.

I think your view of the early church with respect to "established doctrine" and what was scripture is overly simplistic, and by necessity. Check out some of the resources that Textcritic has provided.

[Calgaryborn]

I didn't assume anything, and I didn't say that there was no canon at all until late 4th century, I said that when Marcion made his list there was no canon. Marcion started the whole idea of a canon in the first place, and by doing so started the ball rolling on other groups establishing their lists to combat Marcion.


No Marcion didn't start the idea of a canon. The word "canon" is just a transliteration of the greek word "kanon" which means "rule'. It conveys the idea of measure, a test, a straight edge, a critical standard. When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon. Just because Marcion was the earliest person to use the word "Kanon"(that we know of) doesn't mean that before him there was no concept of a canon.


But that's not to say nothing is known. This is just a convenient way of dismissing things that don't line up with a desired conclusion. Scholars work to determine what can and can't be known, what is lost, and what is actually recoverable.

Your the one who is trying to say that since the first known occurance of the word "canon" is Marcion that he is the origin of the idea. What I'm saying is that although history doesn't afford us an earlier record we should know by the way the books were treated and reverenced that they were recognized as inspired by God and therefore authoritive. People died upholding the doctrines of those letters. They cast people out of their churches who taught against the doctrines of those books. These books were the basis of their faith and practice. Yet you maintain that no person or congregation had formed an opinion on what particular writings would guide their lives.



There probably was no one date, the lists grow and develop over time, and we can see that; lots of lists by various church fathers as to which writings to consider authoritative have been found.


And a date of the 2nd century doesn't conflict with what I said earlier.

The canon was complete in about 90 A.D. when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What we don't know is when enough copies of that book and the others were around in order for a church to have collected a copy of all 27 of them.


This is all an interesting sidebar though, not really relevant to the issue of the authorship of all the Pauline letters.

It was the first wrong thing you said in your last post so I'm addressing it first.



Some church gets a letter claiming to be from Paul and they add it to their list of things they read to their followers. Other churches commission copies and it spreads.

No. Because churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.


You are saying that the inclusion and exclusion of writings was supported by evidence and tracing of transmission? I'd like to see some of that evidence.

I would like to see that evidence as well. The problem is that those churches who recieved the epistles don't exist today and almost all the writings from the first century are lost to time and Roman book burnings. We have one letter from Polycarp. The man lived 86 years and was a pupil of the Apostle John. Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?".

Certainly Polycarp wasn't the only one to have dealings with the Apostles who survived into the second century. Also we know most of the Jewish converts could read and write. There certainly would have been an abundance of letters testifying to what was occuring. Some of the Apostle's other writings no doubt were also lost.



Evidence? And what does that have to do with the question of authorship? Just because a book was "elevated to scripture" doesn't mean it was authored by whom it was claimed.

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.


What process did they use in the 1st century to "elevate to scripture" anyway? Who did this?

The how I've explained above. The who would include anyone or church who received a book and didn't know its source. These kinds of letters of inquiry would have no doubt begin in the first century when the scriptures began to be distributed.



But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

This says to be prepared and to give an answer, I don't see anything that supports "the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written."

Sorry wrong quote. I meant IIPet 3:15,16



Which letters? And again just because they used them as their authority doesn't establish their authorship.

Look at Polycarp's letter as an example: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/PolycarpToPhilippians-2010-01-05.pdf

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.



No doubt they were aware of counterfeits, I already established in my previous post that it was common and it's mentioned by a number of early Christian authors.

Being aware of a problem means it exists, so the possibility of forgeries making it into the canon is very real. Efforts to combat it doesn't mean it was combated perfectly, especially when the evidence indicates they weren't.

What could have happened and what did happen are two different things. There is also a thing called providence which tends to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.



I didn't even present those as evidence, I asked one small question as an aside and it's become this huge distraction. With respect to the authorship of Paul's letters, I don't care what Marcion or Origen have to say on the matter.

You brought up the canon and Marcion and Origen. I'm just responding to what you've said in order.


I went over the kinds of evidence, I don't know why you are so focused on Marcion and Origen when the authorship is doubted for other reasons. I'm not going to present all of it, you can read the scholarship on it as well as I can.

Again you and the link you provided brought up those two heretics as evidence. I was just responding.

Also, the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity. I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.

I will address your modern "evidence" in time. I simply was responding in order to your last post. I don't have time to address everything at once.


I think your view of the early church with respect to "established doctrine" and what was scripture is overly simplistic, and by necessity. Check out some of the resources that Textcritic has provided.

And I think you've been sold a load of goods. This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that. You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.

[Textcritic]

You are assuming that because their was no collectively published canon until the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. that a canon didn't exist. History doesn't work like that. When it comes to history more will always be unknown then known. The Synod of Laodicea(363 A.D.) forbade the reading of non-canonical books. They obviously believed that the canon was already extablished. The Council of Nicea(325 A.D.) refers to the canon. The Synod of Antioch(266 A.D.) denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Again niether council felt the need to declare a canon. It already existed and although not formally declared in a council of churches was spoken of as already extablished.
The problem with references to the "canon" prior to the fourth century is that for the most part, the clear definition of the function of the word κανων in any given context is fairly flexible, and almost certainly is NOT applied to delimiting a collection of writings. The more basic definition of this word is "rule" or "straight edge", which was then applied in early Christian circles to individual points of doctrine that were more fully outlined in the creeds. It was not until much later that "canon" was applied to the New Testament, and when this did occur, it caused a shift in the meaning of this word as it was re-applied in later generations. When evaluating the early discussions of "canon" as it is applied to Scripture, one must determine what is meant by the use of the word in its original context, and this is by no means a simple and straightforward task. On the one hand, does "canon" mean to imply a set of books by which the "rule of faith" was authoritatively communicated? Or does it on the other, refer to a fixed list of books which would later become "Scripture"?

The trail becomes more difficult in the second century because of extreme persecution and the lack of any organizational structure beyond the local church. The New Testament books were being copied and collected in the different regions of Christian influence. I don't know the date whenever one church finally collected all 27 books but, it more than likely belonged to the second century.
Based on what?
I have no doubt that all the books of the New Testament were completed by the end of the second cent., and I expect that it is plausible that they all existed together in a collection somewhere fairly shortly after this time, but honestly, so what? We have virtually no idea, nor any evidence to suggest that these 27-books specifically were accorded with a different sense of authority, or a higher level of "inspiration" than the dozens upon dozens of other pieces of Christian literature that were in circulation at the same time. The problem is not so much the existence or circulation of the New Testament books by the early third cent.; rather, the problem is that there seems to be little that distinguishes many of the NT books from other Christian writings from the same period.

Of course because of geographical differences in distribution some books were received with reservations. Fortunately being within a hundred years of the source provided amply evidence to support the inclusion or exclusion of these epistles. We don't have the living testimony of the original churches or very many letters from the first century like they did. It should have been very easy in the second century to trace the transmission of and the distribution of all of the epistles.
I find this to be a rather incredible suggestion. You are committing one of the fallacie I outlined in my post about the Bible and ancient cultures, in which you seem to be assuming that because it is a simple process in this day and age, it must have not been a problem in the second cent. Roman empire. If we assume that all the epistles attributed to Paul were actually composed by him, in his lifetime, then they all must have been completed before 65 C.E. People living even within forty years of this date would necessarily be considered a part of the next generation, especially given that the life expectancy in Roman civilization was MUCH shorter than now; some estimates suggest that most people did not live more than 35 years. This is then further complicated by the fact that this was a largely oral culture—the Church itself was founded upon and persisted through the PROCLAMATION of the TESTIMONY of Jesus—in which most people possessed only a very cursory ability to read and write. Also, there are the much more recent sociological studies which show that people who do not read and write process information according to different categories than we do in the modern world. The survival of information in the absence of large-scale printing is very much dependent upon the memory of a given social group, and this memory tends to be shaped by immediate circumstances and perceived needs.

In all of that, it really strikes me as very probable that a great deal of uncertainty or misinformation regarding the earliest Christian writings was quite likely.

[Textcritic]

...We have one letter from Polycarp. The man lived 86 years and was a pupil of the Apostle John. Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?"...
I very seriously doubt that ANYONE in the second cent. posed such a question. The fact of the matter is that "Scripture" was still a very loosely defined concept, and that the questions of what was "in" and what was "out" was not something that anyone took very seriously. These were later issues that didn't receive any attention in Polycarp's day.

[photon]

No Marcion didn't start the idea of a canon. The word "canon" is just a transliteration of the greek word "kanon" which means "rule'. It conveys the idea of measure, a test, a straight edge, a critical standard. When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon. Just because Marcion was the earliest person to use the word "Kanon"(that we know of) doesn't mean that before him there was no concept of a canon.

You missed the point, I don't know if Marcion even used the word canon, but he was the first to publish a list saying "these are authoritative". After he did so, others including church fathers followed suit. Before he did, no one else had. When you say "When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon" you are making a claim that doesn't have any support. Using certain writings as authoritative does not equate to set them in a canon.

Your the one who is trying to say that since the first known occurance of the word "canon" is Marcion that he is the origin of the idea.

That's not what I said, I said he was the first to make a list, the first to which the idea of making and circulating a list occurred to. I don't even know if he used the word canon.

What I'm saying is that although history doesn't afford us an earlier record we should know by the way the books were treated and reverenced that they were recognized as inspired by God and therefore authoritive.

So because something is reverenced and recognized as inspired by god it's inspired by god? Circular logic is circular.

The Qur'an is treated and reverenced and recognized as inspired by god, therefore it is authoritative. By this reasoning anyway.

People died upholding the doctrines of those letters. They cast people out of their churches who taught against the doctrines of those books. These books were the basis of their faith and practice.

So? That doesn't speak to the authorship of those books at all.

Yet you maintain that no person or congregation had formed an opinion on what particular writings would guide their lives.

Most people were not in a position though to be able to form an opinion.. They didn't have many copies of the books, those were expensive and most of the laity were illiterate anyway. And those in a position to form an opinion did so the same way we do, if it was wildly different than other of Paul's writings they'd question it. They don't have the resources or methodologies or thought processes we do though, so it was easier to fool them.

The canon was complete in about 90 A.D. when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What we don't know is when enough copies of that book and the others were around in order for a church to have collected a copy of all 27 of them.

Nonsense. The church what, had a list of 27 books to fill like a treasure hunt? "Hmm.. now we need a Revelations by John.. everyone go look for that one when someone finds it come back and our collection will be complete."

Please, provide the evidence that of 90 the entire church had decided exactly which writings circulating were the New Testament.


No. Because churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.

Pure speculation on your part, do you have any evidence? The evidence goes the other way, since Paul specifically addresses so much of his writing to specifically combat incorrect beliefs.. beliefs the churches got from other writings that were known to be circulating at the time.

I would like to see that evidence as well.

Lol what?? You are the one making the claim, you would be the one that (presumably) formed the position based on evidence. So you have no evidence?

Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?".

Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what can be supported. Speculation isn't evidence.

Certainly Polycarp wasn't the only one to have dealings with the Apostles who survived into the second century. Also we know most of the Jewish converts could read and write. There certainly would have been an abundance of letters testifying to what was occuring. Some of the Apostle's other writings no doubt were also lost.

Speculation isn't evidence. What evidence do you have that most Jewish converts could read and write? What evidence do you have that everyone was writing letters about what was occurring? The Apostles didn't have any writings, they were fishermen and such, such people didn't have either the money or the leisure time to learn to read and write in their own language let alone learn to speak Greek, learn to read and write in Greek, and become educated enough to be able to write a coherent narrative in Greek. You can't just claim they were literate.

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.

So your evidence basically boils down to "the letters were authentic because if they weren't they wouldn't have been quoted and would have been rejected"?

That's not evidence.

The how I've explained above. The who would include anyone or church who received a book and didn't know its source. These kinds of letters of inquiry would have no doubt begin in the first century when the scriptures began to be distributed.

The only explanations I've seen are speculative, based on what you think is common sense, which wasn't back then.

Sorry wrong quote. I meant IIPet 3:15,16

That makes more sense. No doubt that many churches (especially those that Paul planted) would view Paul's writings as authoritative. 2 Peter is difficult to date and is often dated into the late 1st or even 2nd century, at which time even more people would view Paul's writings as authoritative.


Look at Polycarp's letter as an example: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/PolycarpToPhilippians-2010-01-05.pdf

Polycarp's letter quotes passages that are from some books that became the NT, but he doesn't name them, and doesn't call them scripture. Polycarp's letter is long after the epistles were penned.

And again that doesn't do anything to establish the authorship.

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.

They were excommunicated because they left the doctrine of the group that excommunicated them. Gnostics and probably every other group excommunicated people too, so? Everyone in early Christianity had writings to support their diverse views, it's not at all shocking that the group that "won" and became orthodox preferred writings that supported their views.

What could have happened and what did happen are two different things.

Of course, the difference is the evidence indicates that the authorship of many of the books in the Bible is other than what is claimed (by the book itself, or by tradition).

And we really haven't discussed that part, other than a basic claim by you that the early church would have known and prevented it.

There is also a thing called providence which tends to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

Why? If someone tries to author a letter under Paul's name will something stop them? No, of course not. Will something stop that letter from being delivered? No. Will something stop the receiver from accepting the letter as authentic? No. What actions can providence take that don't violate someone's free will?


You brought up the canon and Marcion and Origen. I'm just responding to what you've said in order.

Fair enough, lets try to move on to the actual evidence.

[photon]

Also, the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity.

Kind of like how there was no significant opposition to the sun going around the earth weighs in favour of the idea's authenticity?

I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.

Which scholarship? Which men asked the same questions?

And I think you've been sold a load of goods.

I could say the same thing, that you've been sold a load of goods.

You say it to me expecting it to be meaningful in some way, but if I say it to you, is it meaningful to you? Or do you just discount it? That should tell you something about the merit of that kind of statement.

I haven't been sold anything, I've arrived at a conclusion based on examining the evidence as best as I can.. if I get different evidence I may change my conclusion.

This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that.

You don't know that they were. You don't know that Christianity and Jesus and Paul weren't fabricated out of whole cloth by Constantine.

So either we can unproductively sit around talking about what no one knows or we can talk about what there's evidence to support.

What evidence would convince you that some of the canonical epistles were not authored by Paul?

You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.

Ah now we get down to the bottom line.. it's so inconceivable that someone would examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion than you would, so clearly it must be a case of not examining the evidence, or not having a critical eye, or some other excuse.

But you are wrong, because I used to believe the Bible was inerrant, I used to think all the books were authored by Paul, and it was only the evidence combined with a (presumably) god given trait of intellectual honesty that compelled me to change my mind.

[Textcritic]

...churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.
You are correct on the bolded part: that individual pieces of writing were accepted or rejected almost primarily upon the basis of how well they accorded with official church "doctrine." However, this was NO guarantee at all that all the writings that eventually came to form the NT canon were in fact written by those who were purported to have been their authors. One method to ensure the viability of one's ideas was to locate them within a "school" of one of the known prophets or apostles. We have in our possession hundreds of such know examples of this pseudonymous writing, and a considerable amount of it tends to be in close keeping with what would have been considered "sound doctrine". Their existence is one of the reasons why there is a considerable amount of skepticism towards the authorial claims of a number of the NT epistles.

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.
How is this obvious?! Pauline authorship was attached to the Epistle to the Hebrews and is now universally rejected. As I mentioned earlier, if the claims of a given piece of writing were doctrinally sound, highly useful and presented no problems for the cardinal position of a given church community, then there was never any reason at all to raise questions regarding its authorship.

The reasons that scholars tend to doubt the authorial claims of the Pastoral Epistles stem from literary and sociological evidence, as well as from history and from technical studies of manuscripts. This is far different than the sort of investigation that would have taken place in the post-first century Church, whose concerns were entirely theological. The disputed epistles would not have raised any questions concerning their authenticity, simply because there was nothing within them that presented much in the way of any serious contraventions of church doctrine.

...Polycarp...

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.
I think that this is actually very supportive of my point, which is that doctrine proceeded Scripture. The two heretics in Polycarp are not censured for having accepted some anathema piece of writing as "Scripture", nor are they charged with having doubted the authenticity of one of Paul's letters or such. They are charged with denying specific doctrines that have been established by the Church. There is a sharp difference between "Scripture" and "doctrine" that I believe you have overlooked.

...the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity. I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.
The theory of a flat earth and a closed universe received no significant opposition for thousands of years as well. Do you discount the scholarship of the men who supported this position? One wonders why in light of the benefit of doubt that you so willingly have extended to the proponents of disputed authorship.

Furthermore, why does the longevity of a given position "weigh in its favour"? If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of how long it was believed to be right.

And I think you've been sold a load of goods. This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that. You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.
With this statement, I very seriously wonder how carefully you have yourself looked at the evidence. The argument for pseudonymity in the Pauline corpus is quite strong on the basis of literary as well as sociological grounds. Of course, all of this is not provable one way or the other, but for you to merely dismiss the position is a "bill of goods" is both preposterous and disingenuous.

[Textcritic]

I will be submitting another post in my ongoing series in this thread, but before I do so, I thought I would share something I stumbled upon today.

Rev. Michael Dowd has written a book entitled Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Transform Your Life and Our World (http://thankgodforevolution.com/book) (Viking / Plume, 2009). He and his wife travel the US under the guise of "evolutionary evangelists", delivering a message how how our religions must be transformed to reflect the maturation of our scientific worldview, which now provides the most accurate and "spiritually" gratifying experience of the real world.

There are some very good sermons and podcasts in the "Media" section, as well as at their blog: http://evolutionaryevangelists.libsyn.com/

More later. Enjoy this for now.

[Hack&Lube]

I will be submitting another post in my ongoing series in this thread, but before I do so, I thought I would share something I stumbled upon today.

Rev. Michael Dowd has written a book entitled Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Transform Your Life and Our World (http://thankgodforevolution.com/book) (Viking / Plume, 2009). He and his wife travel the US under the guise of "evolutionary evangelists", delivering a message how how our religions must be transformed to reflect the maturation of our scientific worldview, which now provides the most accurate and "spiritually" gratifying experience of the real world.

There are some very good sermons and podcasts in the "Media" section, as well as at their blog: http://evolutionaryevangelists.libsyn.com/

More later. Enjoy this for now.

While in my youth, I favored intelligent design focused reconciliation between evolution and faith but I can't say that I believe that any longer. I totally understand why reconciling the two opposing viewpoints can erase a lot of cognitive dissonance in someone's mind however. This movement is yet another way by which faith adapts and changes rapidly to the forces and momentum of the society around it as it always has for millenia.

[Textcritic]

...This movement is yet another way by which faith adapts and changes rapidly to the forces and momentum of the society around it as it always has for millenia.
In many respects, yes it is. However, based on the bits that I have read and listened to, it seems to me to be a much more progressive and productive "movement" than previous ones which have sought a compromise between supernaturalism and naturalism. I am personally very impressed with how Dowd is doing so through what I feel is the most compelling part of his over all message (and something that I have been promoting for some time now): that is the rejection of the category of "supernatural":

Everything shifts when we move from a worldview given by tradition and authority to one based on facts and empirical evidence. For example, evidence suggests that the only place that the so-called supernatural realm has ever existed has been in the minds and hearts (and speech) of human beings—and only quite recently.

As Benson Salem demonstrated in a 1977 issue of the American Anthropological Association journal Ethos, the notion of supernatural—in opposition to natural—is a Western invention. The 'supernatural realm' only came into being as a thought form after we began to understand things in a natural, scientific way. Only when the concept of ‘the natural’ emerged was it deemed necessary by some to speak of ‘the supernatural’: that which was imagined to be above or outside of nature. Previously, people everywhere used a blend of descriptive and metaphorical (dreamlike) language when speaking about matters of importance...

As we have collectively learned ever more about the natural, the supernatural has become ever less. After all, supernatural and unnatural are synonyms. Anything supposedly supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. And most people find unnatural relatively uninspiring when they really stop and think about it. It should not surprise us that young people en masse are turning their backs on religion and that atheists are riding bestseller lists when “the gospel,” God’s great news for humanity, is imagined as this…

"An unnatural king who occasionally engages in unnatural acts sends his unnatural son to Earth in an unnatural way. He’s born an unnatural birth, lives an unnatural life, performs unnatural deeds, and is killed and unnaturally rises from the dead in order to redeem humanity from an unnatural curse brought about by an unnaturally talking snake. After 40 days of unnatural appearances he unnaturally zooms off to heaven to return to his unnatural father, sit on an unnatural throne, and unnaturally judge the living and the dead. If you profess to believe in all this unnatural activity, you and your fellow believers get to spend an unnaturally long time in an unnaturally boring paradise while everyone else suffers an unnatural, torturous hell forever." [Excerpt from my sermon, “Thank God for the New Atheists!”]

[Charcot]

Damn.

Why am I always so late in coming to these parties?

I read about half of the posts in this thread; I simply do not have the time to slog through them all.

I find that when entering discussions about the Bible, what tends to complicate things is the wide ranging and varied opinions and misconceptions that lay people tend to hold with regards to what the Bible is, and what it ought to be. If anyone is all that keenly interested in the Bible, where it came from, how it developed, why it is such an influential book, and how and why religions have come to read and teach it the way that they do, allow me, first to make a book recommendation. James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-Guide-Scripture/dp/0743235878/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279809291&sr=8-1) (New York / London / Toronto / Sydney: Free Press, 2007), is my current favourite popular book on the subject. I also recommend that you check out Prof. Kugel's own webpage: www.jameskugel.com, which has some good additional resources. An especially good read there is the downloadable appendix that he wrote to the book, entitled: "Apologetics and 'Biblical Criticism Lite'" (http://www.jameskugel.com/apologetics.pdf), in which he launches into a very good critique of the current establishment of biblical scholarship.



Just wanted to thank you for the recommendation. Having just finished it I found it excellent and readable. Are you aware of anything of this calibre and as readable for the New Testament?

[Blaster86]

Just wanted to thank you for the recommendation. Having just finished it I found it excellent and readable. Are you aware of anything of this calibre and as readable for the New Testament?


May I suggest trying our brand new private message system we just had installed at the board's inception ten(plus) years ago?