Is the Bible 100% truth?

[heretic888]

Just a few points I'd like to make.

1) "Paul" didn't know about the life of Jesus because Jesus never existed in the first place. The "Jesus Christ" referred to in the core Pauline corpus (the six or seven letters largely believed to be "authentic") is largely a docetic being that exists in the heavenly spheres. Of course, set aside all that, we know "Paul" is ignorant of the Gospel traditions because he flatly contradicts them time and time again (example: Christ appearing before "the twelve", obviously demonstrating ignorance of the tale relating to Judas Iscariot's suicide).

2) The author of the Gospel of Mark (the oldest of the canonical gospels) had knowledge of the Pauline corpus. His theology is thoroughly Pauline and he uses just the parts of the Old Testament to construct his narrative storyboard as "Paul" did to demonstrate prophetic "proofs" for Jesus Christ.

3) The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke had knowledge of Mark, but not of Paul. Therefore they were only indirectly influenced by the Pauline corpus. The author of the Gospel of John probably had knowledge of both Mark and Paul, but it is difficult to say given his gospel is so radically different than the other three.

4) While it is cute that some bandy around the names attributed to the gospel authors as some sort of "proof" for their pedigree, the truth is that the gospels were all originally anonymous texts and did not acquire the names of their authors (with the notable exception of Luke) prior to Irenaeus in 190 CE.

5) Regardless of their authorship, none of the Gospel authors were natives of Israel nor did any speak Hebrew. These were almost certainly the work of Diaspora Jews at a time when "Jew" and "Christian" were at odds (thus placing them no earlier than around 95 CE or so).

6) The notion that the New Testament represents a singular oral tradition is naive and evinces an ignorance of form criticism. It is a conflation of numerous oral traditions that evolved parallel to one another, some originating in regions as disparate as Syria, Asia Minor, Rome, and Alexandria.


7) This has little to do with "faith" (which, quite frankly, is irrelevant in a discussion about history) and more to do about honest scholarship.

 

[jim777]

I'm always surprised by the number of people who say they believe in one God or another. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

jim

 

[tellner]

I heartily recommend "Misquoting Jesus". Anyone who can make textual criticism of early Church apologetics engrossing is a genius. And he raises excellent points about the "infallibility" of the Bible and the enormous amount of editing and changes in the texts over the centuries.

 

[cstanley]

This is sounding a lot like a sophomore college philosophy class. Read Timothy Luke Johnson's, "The Real Jesus," or Pope Benedict's, "Jesus of Nazareth." It is time to temper the Neo-Protestant stuff of the 19th and early 20th century. That tradition of theology is heavily influenced by German Idealism, historical positivism, and analytical philosophy.

If you only see the Bible as literature, I recommend Dickens or Shakespeare for a better read. If you have "faith seeking understanding," you will enjoy Benedict and Johnson.

 

[terryl965]

Is the Bible 100% sure it is if you believe it to be and then it is not to those that do not believe this way. All I know is I'm confused by everybody so I will go ask my Mother.

 

[heretic888]

I heartily recommend "Misquoting Jesus". Anyone who can make textual criticism of early Church apologetics engrossing is a genius. And he raises excellent points about the "infallibility" of the Bible and the enormous amount of editing and changes in the texts over the centuries.

QFT

This is sounding a lot like a sophomore college philosophy class. Read Timothy Luke Johnson's, "The Real Jesus," or Pope Benedict's, "Jesus of Nazareth."

Hey, if I wanted to read some Christian fiction, I'd at least pick up The Chronicles of Narnia. At least they're entertaining.

Seriously, it still cracks me up that there are people in this day and age pretending to be scholars that are pontificating about the "reliability" of the Synoptics and delusions of eyewitness accounts. Literary-form criticism has so thoroughly deconstructed such archaisms that it's almost not worth bringing up. Hell, Markan Priority and the evangelists' mangling of Israeli geography and custom has been so well-established that its almost beyond repute at this point.

But, then again, even Crossan poignantly pointed (rather ironically, give the content of his own works) out that Biblical "scholarship" is more often than not a platform for promoting theology in lieu of genuine academic work. So, color me unsurprised.

Laytaz.

 

[cstanley]

QFT



Hey, if I wanted to read some Christian fiction, I'd at least pick up The Chronicles of Narnia. At least they're entertaining.

Seriously, it still cracks me up that there are people in this day and age pretending to be scholars that are pontificating about the "reliability" of the Synoptics and delusions of eyewitness accounts. Literary-form criticism has so thoroughly deconstructed such archaisms that it's almost not worth bringing up. Hell, Markan Priority and the evangelists' mangling of Israeli geography and custom has been so well-established that its almost beyond repute at this point.

But, then again, even Crossan poignantly pointed (rather ironically, give the content of his own works) out that Biblical "scholarship" is more often than not a platform for promoting theology in lieu of genuine academic work. So, color me unsurprised.

Laytaz.

You clearly have an axe to grind. The point of many of the newer generation of scholars is just that it is time to take Biblical study back from the heavily biased and de-constructionist Neo-Protestant tradition with all of its own pre-conceived ideas about Biblical history. These scholars have been the route of the analysts, form critics, redaction critics, and the myriad other "scholarly" traditions and believe that these are heavily colored by certain philosophical views that are inherently hostile to Christian belief.

Now, I'm really sorry your Mama drug you to Church against your will and made you read all that Bible stuff. Get over it.

 

[tellner]

The problem is that, well, he's right. The inerrant seamless Bible is a complete fiction, and the people who've taken a good hard look at it over the centuries know it aside from the terminal Kool Aid drinkers. The stories of how the Christians got their Book are legion. Consider the times that it nearly ended up as any number of things like a broad spectrum of holy books or Luke, Paul and three or four apocalypses. There were influences from this that and the other and plenty ofblood shed to decide the questions. The stories stagger the imagination. They could fill volumes. In fact, they have.

cstanley, you're saying "I don't like what you say, so you must be a stupid poopy head."

To quote your own words "Get over it."

The particular mythology you believe in is no better founded than anyone else's and rests on a lot shakier foundations than many.

 

[tellner]

QFT

QFT?

 

[shesulsa]

QFT?

QFT = Quoted For Truth

 

[cstanley]

The problem is that, well, he's right. The inerrant seamless Bible is a complete fiction, and the people who've taken a good hard look at it over the centuries know it aside from the terminal Kool Aid drinkers. The stories of how the Christians got their Book are legion. Consider the times that it nearly ended up as any number of things like a broad spectrum of holy books or Luke, Paul and three or four apocalypses. There were influences from this that and the other and plenty ofblood shed to decide the questions. The stories stagger the imagination. They could fill volumes. In fact, they have.

cstanley, you're saying "I don't like what you say, so you must be a stupid poopy head."

To quote your own words "Get over it."

The particular mythology you believe in is no better founded than anyone else's and rests on a lot shakier foundations than many.

I am not a literalist or an inerrancy freak. I have graduate degrees in literature and philosophy. I am not saying that I "do not like what he says so he is a poopy head," I am saying he clearly has an axe to grind. We all live by certain myths: the myth of Biblical inerrancy, the myth of de-constructionism, the myth of egalitarianism, the myriad myths of science, and the myth of Political Correctness...which, by the way, brings me to another point...Sukerkin seems to think I have made some rude remarks. I notice that mods on here make them all the time, and choose to overlook rude remarks made by popular members. There seems to be a myth of "moderator inerrancy," as well.

 

[heretic888]

Hi guys,

Seems as if I stepped on the toes of a self-appointed Cultural Warrior. Whoops. My bad.

Now I could go on a rant about the invoking of pseudo-intellectualism and the bandying about of one's education as some sort of litmus for validity. I could go on a rant about the projecting of psychosocial shortcomings on to others for no other reason that they hold a contrary opinion ("you disagree with me, so there *must* be something wrong with you!"). I could go on a rant about the pepper spraying of terms like Neo-Protestantism, German Idealism, and Logical Positivism as if you're the only one who knows what they mean.

But, I won't because, quite frankly, its beneath me.

Sorry to disappoint, but I danced the sophistry dance with Dr. Robertson on these forums quite a few years ago and I have no intention of reliving that experience. As such, I'm just gonna stick to the secular historiography side of the discussion here. Because, that's what we're really talking about here. As much as you and others may like to make this about theology, its not. We're talking about historiography and critical methodologies regarding the interpretation of certain faux-historical texts.

Markan Priority is well established. The textual evidence for it is copious and the refutations of it are weak. The Markan evangelist's knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem (circa 70 CE), his blatant errors concerning period Judean geography, un-fluent handling of the Hebrew language, and ignorance concerning first century Jewish divorce laws are also well attested and generally accepted in the academic community.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark was not a native of Judea, did not fluently speak Hebrew, and was clearly writing *no earlier* than 80 CE. Of course, this all belies the fairly obvious recognition that Mark's gospel has the same narratical structure of a *play*, which is almost assuredly how it was understood and interpreted by its original audience (i.e., as the script for a mystery play practiced by initiates of the early Christ cult). That this "play" makes repeated use of conventions of popular Greek fiction of the time (such as "riding on an ***" and "empty tomb" motifs) and its storyboard is culled *almost word for word* from (mistranslated) Old Testament stories is just icing on the cake.

And, of course, if there is no genuine history in Mark, there is no genuine history in *any* of the Gospels. Matthew and Luke are heavily dependent on Mark (especially Matthew) and John wrote far too late to be anything remotely resembling an eyewitness. Don't bother looking to "Paul", either, as he flatly contradicts Gospel narrative and doctrine time after time (for good reason, as they hadn't been invented yet).

Sorry, but this has less to do with me "having an axe to grind" and more to do with the fact that I'm not retroactively projecting my religious beliefs onto history.

Laterz.

 

[tellner]

Heretic888, a few choice quote from Ambrose Bierce which may variously apply:

CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

 

[Sukerkin]

"Well said!" to both of the above gentlemen :rei:.

 

[Ray]

We're talking about historiography and critical methodologies regarding the interpretation of certain faux-historical texts.

Why didn't you just say "swag?" That's all it really is.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am not trying to get into this but I have 1 question; Outside of say the dictionary is any book, particularly those about history and/or religion 100% true?

My thought is no... and I have my doubts about the dictionary too

 

[thardey]

Well, I’ve avoided the meat of this argument, for reasons which may become clearer as I write, but Heretic’s post is just such a perfect starting point for what I would like to say, that I just couldn’t pass it up.

This may surprise a lot of you, coming from a Christian, but a lot of what Heretic said is actually true. That is, as I hope to demonstrate, the basic data he is working from appears to be the same data I am. For instance, Mark was not a native of Judea, he was a Greek-speaker, not Hebrew, the narrative of Mark is incredibly simplistic, and it has long been remarked in Christian literature that it reads like a story, or an “Action-movie.” It is very easy to envision it actually intended to be in a Play format. “Markian Priority,” meaning that the Gospel of Mark was probably the first Gospel written, is widely accepted in Christian Churches. Paul was teaching a radically different religion than what was taught in the Gospels, and his theology was almost certainly formed apart from reading them. (Jesus was teaching a new perspective on Judaism, Paul was teaching a new religion, Christianity.) And so on. I recently read a Christian review on an Atheistic book, where the reviewer gives kudos for clearly and accurately portraying the facts about what we know about the compilation of the New Testament.

Well then, some of you may be wondering why I am a Christian, if all the above is true? Simple - the answer is in the interpretation of those basic facts. Not to ignore, or “explain away” or “justify” the facts, but in taking these relatively abstract bits of data and combining them into a whole lump of belief. Depending on what “rules” of interpretation you set at the beginning, you’ll be required to organize and weigh the facts according to those rules. The heart of the debate will always lie here:

What rules are appropriate for the interpretation of data?

What I am going to try to do, is to provide some of the basic facts that I believe are accepted in general, not all of them, but some of the more pertinent ones, (according to my bias, of course.) It will be very difficult to avoid a straw man argument here, so I will need help from guys like Tellner and Heretic to keep me honest. If I over-simplify your views, please post a correction.

Basic Facts will be in Brown, Critical Interpretations that I’ve heard will be in Green, and my interpretations, as a Christian, will be in Blue. Make sense?

First the basic starting points:
Critics: Starting from a skeptical standpoint, because of the supernatural material, the New Testament should be first regarded as a book of myth, subject to the same basic interpretation and belief as any book of religious myths of any other religion, such as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, The Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. The compilation was obviously intended to promote a certain agenda, and is not reliable as an independent source of history or fact. Any recorded “Miracles” cannot be taken at face value, and should first be attempted to be explained by natural, as opposed to super-natural means. Basically, the natural reading is one of fiction, and the burden of proof lies on anyone attempting to claim otherwise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism for more information. (This is in my own words, so please feel free to post your thoughts on this to make it clearer, or correct any misunderstandings I may have put here.)


Myself: Starting from a perspective of belief, I am looking for proof of what not to accept. That is, starting from a basic desire, I want there to be a God, particularly one who is different from humans, and one who has the potential to be involved in my personal life. Any god, no matter how interesting, is nothing more than academic if it is not interacting with my life in any way. The deified passions of the Greek and Latin gods are nothing more than humanity boiled down, distilled, and given power. Any god created in “man’s” image holds no draw for me. However, the God that is “introduced” in the Tanach, (commonly known as the “Old Testament”) and revealed more clearly in the New Testament fits that desire. Having found what I was desiring, I am now examining the basis for belief in this God, that is, are there any obvious reasons not to pursue this God. So then, being honest enough to admit that I am starting from a desire (as many Theologians do, including men like C.S. Lewis, who often used the phrase “A God-shaped hole in our hearts”) I now have to guard against the tendency of stopping there, but should push on and test to see whether I am a fool for not for allowing myself to follow these desires. Therefore, while admitting that not everybody is starting from this same desire, the burden of proof is on those wanting to prove the impossibility of supernatural intervention as depicted in the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

You can see, if the argument is framed this way, why the debate rages on. I can not simply “erase” this desire, for to remove it would be to completely change my reason for existing. Perhaps something will happen someday that will remove this belief, but I cannot make it go away on my own, nor do I desire that. On the other hand, no amount of arguing is going to “awaken” this desire in the skeptic. Again, something could occur to change his/her mind, but it’s not something to just “decide.” (In fact, this desire could be the basis for what many consider “faith.”) Because of this, each perspective places the burden of proof, and logically so, on the others. The weight of this burden must be agreed on before any resolution can be achieved. However, the very foundations of each perspective require the burden of proof be on the other, so we have an eternal dilemma.

Now that this is settled, On to the data! (This is by no means comprehensive, but is intended to review some of the facts brought up here, and use them as an example of how they could be interpreted differently based on one’s own perspective.)

In no particular order:

Basic Facts: Paul, born as Saul, of Tarsus traveled throughout the Roman Empire in the latter half of the 1st Century, preaching a radical off-shoot of Judaism. He recorded a large part of his new theology in the form of letters to the churches he established and others. The most reliable of these letters (sometimes called the “Undisputed Epistles” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_Epistles#The_undisputed_epistles) are known today as: Romans, I, II, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. These are listed, among other New Testament books by 170 C.E. Paul’s teaching are the foundation of theology for the Christian Church.

Critics: There is no basis that Paul learned directly from Jesus. Paul himself claims that his theological training came from a supernatural source, and that his conversion to being a follower of Jesus occurs in a miraculous event. Moreover, Paul’s basic theology is not found in Jesus’ teachings. Paul’s theology is radically different from the Judaism he claims as his background, and is hostile to the Jewish religion in his writings. After removing any “supernatural insight,” his theology appears to be designed by his own thinking, and that he inserted spiritual elements to provide a basis for this new religion.

Myself: Paul never received any physical “benefits” from this new religion. He received no wealth or profit from his teaching. On the contrary, he was constantly beaten, often poor, and eventually killed for his teachings. This was not a short era of Paul’s life. He chose to enter into, and to continue with this teaching. Whether right or wrong, Paul appeared to believe what he taught. Also, if he did create this system out of “thin air,” so to speak, it is a remarkable system, that is able to be studied and dissected on a multitude of levels. Paul showed amazing insight into humanity, and constructed a systematic theology that has intrigued scholars for centuries. However, Paul’s writings require (self-admittedly) a specific miracle to have occurred, the resurrection from the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Without the acceptance of this miracle, all of his other teachings have no basis.

Basic Facts: Mark, and his Gospel. While the Church traditionally dated the Gospel of Mark as the second to be written, and so placed after Matthew, modern scholarship believes that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source for some of the material in Matthew and Luke, and so was probably the first Gospel to be written. Mark was written in Greek, and probably not written in the area of Judea, but probably written somewhere within the Roman Empire, perhaps Rome, itself. Traditionally it was attributed to Mark, sometimes called John-Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, according to Eusibius of Cesarea, Irenaus, Origen, and Tertullian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship)

Critics: Since the first gospel was written by a non-eyewitness, and other gospels appeared to copy from it, the whole story is suspect. Furthermore, since it describes the destruction of Jerusalem, which didn’t happen until 70 C.E., the book couldn’t have been written until after that event. Since Paul died around 64 C.E., the Gospel of Mark would have been clearly influenced by Paul’s writings, and could have been written as “proof” of the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection, to give weight to Paul’s religion.

Myself: The key passage for the dating of Mark, according to the critics, is the description of the destruction of Jerusalem. (Most believe post 70 C.E., some after 135 C.E.) However, this description is in the form of a prophecy. Since my beliefs allow for the existence of prophecy and supernatural communication, this is not a requirement for dating Mark. Instead, drawing from the “Markian Priority” the dating of Mark is connected to the dating of the other two synoptic Gospels. Since Luke was written before the book of Acts (Acts is part II to the book of Luke, beginning where Luke left off, and apparently written by the same author.) It follows that Mark must have been written before either. The history of the Book of Acts ends about 60 C.E., before the death of Paul. It stands to reason, then, if prophecy is indeed possible, that the Gospel of Mark could well have been written several years before 60 C.E. Since the Church would have started in c.33 C.E., and didn’t gain momentum in the Roman Empire until Paul began his Second and Third missionary journeys around 50 C.E. this would have been an appropriate time to record the Gospels.


That’s about all I have time for today. So far this discussion has been involving “Higher Criticsm.” I would like to deal with the idea of the Bible being “edited” over the centuries, and the textual accuracies (A.K.A. “Lower Criticism), but to be honest, while I’m familiar with the sources for “Modern Translations” and the debates held there, most of it is in reference to the “My Translation in Divine, yours is crap” kind of arguments, so I’ll let them be for now. Maybe another thread for that, someday.

So, I did my best to present the critical view in a fair manner, but I realize that I am biased, and so I may have misrepresented you guys. If you can help me to clarify the critical point of view, I would appreciate it.

 

[Sukerkin]

That was very well compiled and presented, Thardey :tup:. As has been said elsewhere, it is refreshing to have the Christian viewpoint put across with calmness and rationality.

 

[thardey]

That was very well compiled and presented, Thardey :tup:. As has been said elsewhere, it is refreshing to have the Christian viewpoint put across with calmness and rationality.

Thanks, I'm slowly getting bolder.

BTW, I've seen you write "tup" and "rei" as though I should be seeing smileys. Is it just my computer, or do they mean something specific?

 

[Sukerkin]

You are not the first to ask that question, my friend. One should show up as a smiley but it depends upon the particular board software whether it does or not. The other (and it's variation) are my own invention and will only be immediately obvious to Japanese speakers or Japanese martial arts practitioners:

:tup: is the standard code for "Thumbs up"

:rei: is the Japanese word for Bow and I use it to show I respect what a person has just posted or to show gratitude for a compliment

:sensei rei: is an even more respectful sign and I use it when I think someone has shown either commendable insight or has dealt with a matter in a manner befitting someone worthy of high regard.

I'm considering using a few others (such as :reigi: ) but I reckon I'm causing enough confusion as it is :lol:.