Why should we believe the gospels?

[Ħ]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.

Textual critics don't take into account Satanic action and influence (and neither do most Christians, frankly).

[bosk1]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.
Whether or how much that affects Christology is a very different matter, but again, none of the respectable scholars go down that route anyway. They work on the historical Jesus, and what one wants to paste on on top of that historical Jesus is one's own business.

Yes, alterations happened, but you are missing the point that we know to a fairly high degree of certainty what the original and correct versions were.  So the implication that the manuscripts are untrustworthy really misses the point, and unfortunately, when people like Ehrman make the same mistake, people who don't know any better often fall for it simply because he wears the dubious title of "scholar."

[rumborak]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.

Textual critics don't take into account Satanic action and influence (and neither do most Christians, frankly).

That's not really a counter-argument. You still have the problem that what you are reading as your scriptural source might be littered with "satanic" changes.
The other option is to believe that every editorial decision concerning the Bible was divinely inspired, including the trash translations some previous editions of the Bible has seen.
The only way out is to essentially define what you read as the truth, no matter whether it is or not.

rumborak

[rumborak]

Yes, alterations happened, but you are missing the point that we know to a fairly high degree of certainty what the original and correct versions were.

Not really. Given the synoptic gospels' counter-copyying, it's very likely that none of the manuscripts we have are actually close to the source ones. You know about the Q theory, and this theory isn't just some brain fart; it comes from the realization that the gospels aren't independent documents.
Bosk, you need to stop asserting this stuff as absolute truth when it clearly isn't.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I think you both may be talking around each other more than discussing the same things from different perspectives.

[Ħ]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.

Textual critics don't take into account Satanic action and influence (and neither do most Christians, frankly).

That's not really a counter-argument. You still have the problem that what you are reading as your scriptural source might be littered with "satanic" changes.
The other option is to believe that every editorial decision concerning the Bible was divinely inspired, including the trash translations some previous editions of the Bible has seen.

I wanna be careful when using the word "inspired" because I have a very selective definition of it...but if you are asking if I think God superintended the process of passing down the Bible from generation to generation, then yeah, I don't see a problem with that from a theological point of view (that the Bible supports that notion, and I can trust the Bible because it is inspired and thus 100% true, b/c Jesus said so, and he rose from the dead so I oughta listen to him).

[bosk1]

Yes, alterations happened, but you are missing the point that we know to a fairly high degree of certainty what the original and correct versions were.

Not really. Given the synoptic gospels' counter-copyying, it's very likely that none of the manuscripts we have are actually close to the source ones. You know about the Q theory, and this theory isn't just some brain fart; it comes from the realization that the gospels aren't independent documents.
Bosk, you need to stop asserting this stuff as absolute truth when it clearly isn't.

rumborak

Yes, I know about the Q theory.  And I do not find it (or a lot of other modern "scholarly" theories about the origins of the gospels) to be a credible, reliable explanation.  It doesn't really matter much what you subjectively believe the origins of the gospels are.  There simply is not enough credible evidence to support the conclusion that they are anything but what they purport to be.  And that doesn't change no matter how may times you use the word "clearly" to make your post sound somehow more credible or authoritative.

[rumborak]

Bosk, you brush away things away a bit too easily for my taste. That doesn't just only apply to this current discussion about the gospels, but essentially everything that touches on any statement made in the Bible, be it geology, biology, cosmology. All the knowledge advances in those fields get relegated to "doesn't convince me" within a blink of an eye.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I don't think it's "concerted" as in a conspiracy. It's plain pragmatism really. The priest has nothing to gain from raising these issues during mass. It would sow discord, people would get uncertain about what to believe in etc.... People want it to be 100% true, they want their church to be an island of certainty, and the priests give them that. Even if it involves "bending" the truth by omitting issues like alterations, Paul's questionable claim as an apostle etc.
That's why I would love to peek into the mind of someone like the Pope, or any other high-ranking cleric. You can't tell me there isn't some kind of struggle going on inside their head.

rumborak

I don't know what the Catholic Church's stance on this issue is. But I maintain that in Christian churches the history of the NT gets little coverage due to ignorance. Pastors aren't trained to discuss it - so they don't. It probably doesn't help that a lot denominations have turned their churches into self help groups with crappy music. People come to sing some songs, learn that Jesus is their buddy and that they should love their neighbors a whole bunch, and that's where any kind of teaching stops.

[bosk1]

Bosk, you brush away things away a bit too easily for my taste. That doesn't just only apply to this current discussion about the gospels, but essentially everything that touches on any statement made in the Bible, be it geology, biology, cosmology. All the knowledge advances in those fields get relegated to "doesn't convince me" within a blink of an eye.

rumborak

My bad.  I thought we were discussing cosmetology all this time.  There have definitely been points in the past where I felt like we weren't talking about the same thing.  Good to know I've finally discovered the reason.

[rumborak]

I don't know what the Catholic Church's stance on this issue is. But I maintain that in Christian churches the history of the NT gets little coverage due to ignorance. Pastors aren't trained to discuss it - so they don't. It probably doesn't help that a lot denominations have turned their churches into self help groups with crappy music. People come to sing some songs, learn that Jesus is their buddy and that they should love their neighbors a whole bunch, and that's where any kind of teaching stops.

Well, I don't think there really was any time in history where this was substantially different. For 1500 years the Bible was read in Latin, so people didn't know what was going on anyway. Their main motivation to go to church was to not end up in hell.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I don't know what the Catholic Church's stance on this issue is. But I maintain that in Christian churches the history of the NT gets little coverage due to ignorance. Pastors aren't trained to discuss it - so they don't. It probably doesn't help that a lot denominations have turned their churches into self help groups with crappy music. People come to sing some songs, learn that Jesus is their buddy and that they should love their neighbors a whole bunch, and that's where any kind of teaching stops.

Well, I don't think there really was any time in history where this was substantially different. For 1500 years the Bible was read in Latin, so people didn't know what was going on anyway. Their main motivation to go to church was to not end up in hell.

rumborak

That's the general rule, but there are exceptions. I've found a few churches that do a better job of educating people. But I think where we differ is on intent. I don't think the alterations are hidden because they're devastating to people's faith. I haven't seen any evidence that warrants such a conclusion.

[Voyage 34]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.

Textual critics don't take into account Satanic action and influence (and neither do most Christians, frankly).

That's not really a counter-argument. You still have the problem that what you are reading as your scriptural source might be littered with "satanic" changes.
The other option is to believe that every editorial decision concerning the Bible was divinely inspired, including the trash translations some previous editions of the Bible has seen.

I wanna be careful when using the word "inspired" because I have a very selective definition of it...but if you are asking if I think God superintended the process of passing down the Bible from generation to generation, then yeah, I don't see a problem with that from a theological point of view (that the Bible supports that notion, and I can trust the Bible because it is inspired and thus 100% true, b/c Jesus said so, and he rose from the dead so I oughta listen to him).

When did he say that exactly? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously asking. Even when I was a Christian quoting the Bible was never my specialty.

[rumborak]

How could he attest the validity of documents that weren't going to be written for another 40 years? If anything he cautioned people against false messages they might be presented with.

rumborak

[Ħ]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.

Textual critics don't take into account Satanic action and influence (and neither do most Christians, frankly).

That's not really a counter-argument. You still have the problem that what you are reading as your scriptural source might be littered with "satanic" changes.
The other option is to believe that every editorial decision concerning the Bible was divinely inspired, including the trash translations some previous editions of the Bible has seen.

I wanna be careful when using the word "inspired" because I have a very selective definition of it...but if you are asking if I think God superintended the process of passing down the Bible from generation to generation, then yeah, I don't see a problem with that from a theological point of view (that the Bible supports that notion, and I can trust the Bible because it is inspired and thus 100% true, b/c Jesus said so, and he rose from the dead so I oughta listen to him).

When did he say that exactly? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously asking. Even when I was a Christian quoting the Bible was never my specialty.

Regarding the Old Testament, he quotes it constantly.  And he always quotes to endorse what it says, and never acts against it.   Plus, the "stamp of approval" I keep referring to is Luke 24:44.  The Hebrew Bible was broken up into the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.

Regarding the New Testament, it's a little more complicated since it's definitely a bit of theology mixed with history.  The passage I use is John 16:12-15, which says the Holy Spirit will bring truth.  So, just as the Holy Spirit brought truth in the past, it will bring truth in the future.  Revelation leads to inspiration, so you draw the line and realize that Jesus was talking about the New Testament.

[contest_sanity]

That's why I would love to peek into the mind of someone like the Pope, or any other high-ranking cleric. You can't tell me there isn't some kind of struggle going on inside their head.

I think there's a struggle in the mind of any Christian who is a critical thinker.  I mean, our main claim is that our dude rose from the dead.  It's engaging this struggle critically and with all the scholastic tools available that I wish more churches did.

[Voyage 34]

What is there "to buy into", BH? The alterations happened, as evidenced by the differing manuscripts that exist.

Textual critics don't take into account Satanic action and influence (and neither do most Christians, frankly).

That's not really a counter-argument. You still have the problem that what you are reading as your scriptural source might be littered with "satanic" changes.
The other option is to believe that every editorial decision concerning the Bible was divinely inspired, including the trash translations some previous editions of the Bible has seen.

I wanna be careful when using the word "inspired" because I have a very selective definition of it...but if you are asking if I think God superintended the process of passing down the Bible from generation to generation, then yeah, I don't see a problem with that from a theological point of view (that the Bible supports that notion, and I can trust the Bible because it is inspired and thus 100% true, b/c Jesus said so, and he rose from the dead so I oughta listen to him).

When did he say that exactly? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously asking. Even when I was a Christian quoting the Bible was never my specialty.

Regarding the Old Testament, he quotes it constantly.  And he always quotes to endorse what it says, and never acts against it.   Plus, the "stamp of approval" I keep referring to is Luke 24:44.  The Hebrew Bible was broken up into the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.

Regarding the New Testament, it's a little more complicated since it's definitely a bit of theology mixed with history.  The passage I use is John 16:12-15, which says the Holy Spirit will bring truth.  So, just as the Holy Spirit brought truth in the past, it will bring truth in the future.  Revelation leads to inspiration, so you draw the line and realize that Jesus was talking about the New Testament.

Right, I know of the endorsement of the old testament by Jesus, Paul, and others. However, the validity of the new testament relies on the subjectivity of what is inspired and what is not.

[William Wallace]

I personally don't think so, partly because it's Christianity we're talking about, meaning Ehrman and the like are surrounded by Christians who look very discerningly at their conclusions. In fact, when reading Ehrman's book I thought it was quite remarkable that he complelely stayed away from bashing the gospels. He pointed out the issues there were with the gospels, but whether or not this meant they can be trusted (religiously) he left up to the reader

I'm re-reading Misquoting Jesus, thanks to this discussion. As I make my way through it, I can't help but call foul (again) on comments like the one above. Ehrman may avoid taking swings at the Gospels, but he controls the discussion by very selectively presenting information. The book essentially frames the debate and then nudges the reader toward a certain conclusion.

[rumborak]

I take that argument, yes, there is certainly a good amount of one-sidedness in the book, but mostly in the sense that it doesn't delve into mystical explanations.
But yes, the point of Ehrman's book is probably a little bit "activist", but I understand that motivation because he is arguing against a giant monolith of belief system that asserts a lot of things about the history and validity of scripture that simply aren't true.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I take that argument, yes, there is certainly a good amount of one-sidedness in the book, but mostly in the sense that it doesn't delve into mystical explanations.

What does that mean? When you're talking about preservation of ancient texts, authorship, dates, etc. there's little that's mystical about the conversation, whatever side of the debate you fall on. I never heard a traditional biblical scholar say, "Ehrman's got it all wrong because God inspired the Bible." They actually respond to his arguments.

But yes, the point of Ehrman's book is probably a little bit "activist", but I understand that motivation because he is arguing against a giant monolith of belief system that asserts a lot of things about the history and validity of scripture that simply aren't true.

rumborak

Activism is lovely, unless it causes you to distort history; And Ehrman, unfortunately, does it all too often in his books.

[rumborak]

What does that mean? When you're talking about preservation of ancient texts, authorship, dates, etc. there's little that's mystical about the conversation, whatever side of the debate you fall on. I never heard a traditional biblical scholar say, "Ehrman's got it all wrong because God inspired the Bible." They actually respond to his arguments.

Well, the "facts" are out there, i.e. alterations, unclear authorship etc. The question is then one of interpretation, i.e. how much of this undermines the Bible's message and its validity. Ehrman, as someone who has "fallen from grace", obviously draws the conclusion that a substantial part of the Bible can not be trusted.

Activism is lovely, unless it causes you to distort history; And Ehrman, unfortunately, does it all too often in his books.

I don't think he distorts history. One's history is a viewpoint of existing evidence's interpretation; you just interpret the data differently. You feel the points Ehrman raises are not enough to render the Bible as untrustworthy; but that's your personal interpretation. I for one feel that, the more one reads about the circumstances of the Bible's writing, the less convincing it becomes.

rumborak

[rumborak]

BTW, here's a completely different thing: Who the hell decided on the name "James" in English? I was sitting there today, thinking "What is the German version of James? I can't think of anything even remotely close". So I looked it up, and James in German is called "Jakobus", which is also what the guy was called originally (Iάκωβος). So, err, why didn't they just call the guy Jacob?

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

There's something to do with English I think.  The supporters of James for the Crown of England after it was awarded to the Hasburgs were called the Jacobites, for example.

[rumborak]

I just looked up the etymology of James. Comes from Jacomos, and that from Jacobos. So, I guess James is the old version that got slurred over the centuries, whereas Jacob is maybe newer and thus hasn't changed much.

rumborak

[bosk1]

What does that mean? When you're talking about preservation of ancient texts, authorship, dates, etc. there's little that's mystical about the conversation, whatever side of the debate you fall on. I never heard a traditional biblical scholar say, "Ehrman's got it all wrong because God inspired the Bible." They actually respond to his arguments.

Well, the "facts" are out there, i.e. alterations, unclear authorship etc. The question is then one of interpretation, i.e. how much of this undermines the Bible's message and its validity. Ehrman, as someone who has "fallen from grace", obviously draws the conclusion that a substantial part of the Bible can not be trusted.

Activism is lovely, unless it causes you to distort history; And Ehrman, unfortunately, does it all too often in his books.

I don't think he distorts history. One's history is a viewpoint of existing evidence's interpretation; you just interpret the data differently. You feel the points Ehrman raises are not enough to render the Bible as untrustworthy; but that's your personal interpretation. I for one feel that, the more one reads about the circumstances of the Bible's writing, the less convincing it becomes.

rumborak

I know this comes as no shock to you, but I agree with WW.  Let me rephrase slightly differently why:

1.  Ehrman exaggerates the issues you mention and exaggerates their import.  Yes, the issues exist.  But they are far less significant than he suggests.  I agree with you that, ultimately, we are just drawing different conclusions from the evidence.  However, his exaggerations in both what the evidence says and the conclusions that should be drawn from it ignore things like, for example, the identical issues exist (often times in much greater degree) with other historical texts that historians take as gospel (pun somewhat intended).
2.  Ehrman frams the arguments in such a way as to suggest what the conclusion ought to be.  I don't overlyf fault him for this because (1) we all have our biases, and (2) to a degree, he admits his bias.  But the fact that that particular bias exists should presumptively raise skepticism in viewing his arguments.  It's very similar to the reason "leading questions" are objectionable in a legal context.  The flaw in the leading question is that it suggests and answer rather than giving the witness the freedom to answer a less-biased question on their own terms.  In this context, it doesn't mean he's wrong.  But it means we should be skeptical of what he says and be extra careful in drawing our conclusions about what he says.  The average reader is not so careful. 

[William Wallace]

What does that mean? When you're talking about preservation of ancient texts, authorship, dates, etc. there's little that's mystical about the conversation, whatever side of the debate you fall on. I never heard a traditional biblical scholar say, "Ehrman's got it all wrong because God inspired the Bible." They actually respond to his arguments.

Well, the "facts" are out there, i.e. alterations, unclear authorship etc. The question is then one of interpretation, i.e. how much of this undermines the Bible's message and its validity. Ehrman, as someone who has "fallen from grace", obviously draws the conclusion that a substantial part of the Bible can not be trusted.

I'm not willing to put it down to difference of interpretation. A lot of Ehrman's arguments rest on silly assumptions. He calls variants between gospel accounts contradictions, when in reality they're easily answered by providing proper context.

I don't think he distorts history. One's history is a viewpoint of existing evidence's interpretation; you just interpret the data differently. You feel the points Ehrman raises are not enough to render the Bible as untrustworthy; but that's your personal interpretation. I for one feel that, the more one reads about the circumstances of the Bible's writing, the less convincing it becomes.

rumborak

He does, indeed, distort history. Multiple times throughout the book he adjudicates an ancient text's validity by imposing modern literary standards on it. For example, he insists that the Gospels should all agree chronologically. Since they don't, they're unreliable. But writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today. He knows that but decides not to disclose it.

[rumborak]

I'm not willing to put it down to difference of interpretation. A lot of Ehrman's arguments rest on silly assumptions. He calls variants between gospel accounts contradictions, when in reality they're easily answered by providing proper context.

Ach, come on, WW, as much as you crusade on Ehrman to making sweeping statements, you're doing the same here. Isn't the different order of sequences between John and the other gospels problematic? Isn't the different genealogy of Jesus problematic?
Ehrman makes the point that writers inserted information they deemed necessary, for various reasons. That is the overall point of the book, and to brush away those often striking differences is disingenuous to the purpose.

He does, indeed, distort history. Multiple times throughout the book he adjudicates an ancient text's validity by imposing modern literary standards on it. For example, he insists that the Gospels should all agree chronologically. Since they don't, they're unreliable. But writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today. He knows that but decides not to disclose it.

"Writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today". That's a pretty hefty statement, right there. What did they care about then? That is, what can be assumed to be correct? Was the message important? Was the persuasion of the recipient deemed most important?
From the literal analysis it seems that the factual accuracy often took the backseat behind the proselytization potential. John went all balls out and re-interpreted everything under a new grand theological scheme. And Paul too completely re-invented the theology around Jesus, away from the imminent coming of the Kingdom that defined earliest Christianity. All that is clearly reflected in the different accounts of Jesus' ministry, and the later writings. Every writer re-interpreted the existing stories and texts into what they deemed was best for the cause.
And that's what Ehrman claims.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Ach, come on, WW, as much as you crusade on Ehrman to making sweeping statements, you're doing the same here. Isn't the different order of sequences between John and the other gospels problematic? Isn't the different genealogy of Jesus problematic?

No.  Ehrman is taking stylistic differences and trying to make them into conflicts where no conflict exists. 

"Writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today". That's a pretty hefty statement, right there.

What are you talking about?  Nothing in any of the gospels indicates all events are described in strictly chronological sequence.  Nothing.  And writing in any era, including today, frequently presents a timeline of events, and then goes back and explains an earlier event, and then jumps forward and describes something later.  I'm currently in the middle of writing a large, comlicated motion at my job.  Part of it is presenting a list of approximately 100 relevant facts.  I can tell you that one of the biggest challenges I have been having is the sequence of those facts.  I want to keep them strictly chronological, but am having to abandon that approach because some facts that do not occur in chronological order make sense to be grouped together by topic or other grouping.  Authors do that all the time, and have done so for as long as writing has existed.  The different sequences is just one huge red herring (more like a red...halibut, actually).

From the literal analysis it seems that the factual accuracy often took the backseat behind the proselytization potential. John went all balls out and re-interpreted everything under a new grand theological scheme. And Paul too completely re-invented the theology around Jesus, away from the imminent coming of the Kingdom that defined earliest Christianity. All that is clearly reflected in the different accounts of Jesus' ministry, and the later writings. Every writer re-interpreted the existing stories and texts into what they deemed was best for the cause.
And that's what Ehrman claims.

Wow, I'm not sure whether your interpretations of John and Paul are Ehrman's or your own, but they are WAY off the mark.

[rumborak]

bosk, nothing in John suggests that he's doing "flashbacks" in his account of Jesus' ministry. It's an untenable hypothesis that was invented solely for the purpose of resolving the obvious conflict between the accounts.
I'm not gonna discuss Paul (or John) with you. You have very extreme views on those matters.

rumborak

[bosk1]

 Well, then don't make erroneous claims if you aren't willing to discuss them when you're called out.

[rumborak]

Eh. There is a reason why John is considered apocryphal by many denominations, and it's not part of the synoptic gospels.
And Paul overrode numerous of Jesus' teachings, e.g. whereas Jesus openly invited sinners, Paul says people should not deal with them etc etc. The web is full of lists of where Paul simply changed or "re-interpreted" Jesus' teachings.
Not to mention the fact that Jesus taught the kingdom was at hand. Which is of course another can of worms.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Not to mention the fact that Jesus taught the kingdom was at hand. Which is of course another can of worms

*takes deep breath*

I won't do it.  Temptation to comment and derail the thread is high...this is very difficult.

On the other hand...there is a lot wrong with the idea that Paul reinterpreted Jesus.  Remember...one of the central themes in the Bible is "progressive revelation."  There's a reason why the gospels aren't the end-all books in the Bible--there's new information being revealed.  I don't see a problem with that.

[rumborak]

Is it? I mean, is Paul considered to be of such high stature that he can override the teachings of the key prophet, Jesus?

I don't know, at least in my book, Paul has "issues". He announces himself to be an apostle (something only Jesus did), and then he negates teachings of Jesus afterward. I read somewhere that Paul essentially never says "Jesus taught", but instead "I, Paul, say".

rumborak

[Ħ]

Is it? I mean, is Paul considered to be of such high stature that he can override the teachings of the key prophet, Jesus?

rumborak

Theologically speaking, yes.  Paul's words are just as inspired and perfect as Jesus's.  (confined to Paul's canonical letters, of course)

Paul's stature means nothing if he is writing the inspired words of God.

[rumborak]

That is news to me. I was not aware that Paul has the status of prophet.

rumborak