大象传媒

Shibboleth you are in denial. The books of the Bible are the product of the most arbitrary processes of composition. The notion of canonicity is only necessary because so many books were produced in that fashion that later authorities needed to slected from amongst them those books which suited their purposes.

Excellent article Shibboleth!

Sceptics like Ehrman posit a view of the religious community which sees it as exceptionally authoritarian, self-deluding and without any mechanisms of self-criticism.

Ehrman's Wikipedia hypothesis (in the debate that he had with William Lane Craig) for the origin of the early resurrection accounts sees the early Christian Community engaging in an act of self-authenticating wish fulfillment. The problem with his hypothesis is that it lacks evidence, fails to take account of recent work on the psychology of religion (e.g. the work of Teasdale and Barnard) and seems to have projected the author's disillusionment with contemporary religious communities back onto the early Church.

Likewise Darwinius generalises without evidence - where are these early 2nd century works that the Church was disregarding, and what exactly was this textual anarchy onto which Church councils imposed a supposedly conservative, orthodox, establishment and alien canon?

Only answers citing primary sources rather than spurious hyperlinks should be accepted.

So shibboleth thinks the bible is not like wikipedia because the edits were all consistent with a tradition. doh. I'd call that an ideologically constrained wikipedia. come off it, shibboleth, how can you give moral authority to a text with that kind of compositional history?

Well, I did say people would not like what I had to say.

I was not engaging in any debate about authority or inspiration here. I was asked to comment on whether or not the bible was composed in the style of wikipedia. It is not, and to claim that is was is inaccurate.

However, if I am to drawn on the issue of canon and authority, I must say that Neil Glover is correct. The evidence for a period of textual chaos and canonical anarchy is lacking, and mostly the product of the febrile imagination of Dan Brown and his herd. This applies to both the OT and NT periods. The Hebrew canon was probably compiled primarily as a defence against the depredations of marauding invaders; the canon most probably being completed during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was attempting to destroy all of the Jewish writings. Indeed, to undermine the claim that only books that toed a certain party line were included, we should note that as late as AD90 the rabbis were discussing what to make of Ezekiel and Esther, since these books presented grave exegetical difficulties.

It is undoubtedly one of the most bizarre emanations of the post-modern mind to perceive a sinister conspiracy in the decision by the Christian Church to exclude non-christian material from the Christian canon. How can one concoct a cause celebre from the fact that the NT is full of Christian books? The NT is not a reader in comparative religion.

In the case of the NT canon, yes of course only the books that suited their purposes were included in the canon. Do you take them for fools? What would be the point of including books that were obviously pseudepigraphal and not in accordance with the beliefs of the church? Of course they excluded from the canon material that was fundamentally different from orthodox theology.

Texts from the gnostics and such like contained many mentions of Jesus and had superficial resemblances to the authentic gospels. But the church knew what it believed and could easily discern what was in accordance with that belief and what not. The church did this on its own - and contra Dan Brown - without the aid of Constantine.

Darwinius - How can I be in denial when the vast majority of extent proof supports what I have noted above? The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that "the books of the Bible are the product of the most arbitrary processes of composition." Says who? Let us have compelling evidence and examples.

David Devlin: another person who imagines that writing Doh or Duh is a crushing rhetorical rejoinder. You are mistaken.

Why should editing and a lengthy compositional history automatically preclude a text from being accurate and authoritative? Does this apply to secular texts as well?
Please enlighten us.

In fact you remind me greatly of those empty headed Christian fundamentalists who believe exactly the same thing, claiming that God dictated the bible letter by letter to human typewriters who jotted it all down letter by letter.Such people generally reject the idea of redaction because it fatally undermines their particular theory of the composition of the bible. You seem to feel likewise.

(David Wright and pb) However, it is perfectly possible to retain the idea of inspiration and redaction, if we allow that the redactors and tradents were providentially guided in their work. God can, after all, use whomsoever he wants, and employ whatever means he wants to achieve the ends that he wants.

David- You've nailed it: the bible is simply consistent with its own tradition and, while I agree with Shibboleth that it was never as 'open-source' as Wikipedia, it's not a surprise that it reads fairly consistently since it was selected, filtered and edited to accomplish precisely that goal! Why should the consistency of the canon be a point in the favour of those who want to read it as authoritative when it's perfectly possible that any collection of books subject to those processes would exhibit the same degree of consistency?

Shibboleth has a good point here, but there is a point that is missed - the post-resurrection stories are accretions onto a core story that ended with an empty tomb. The evidence for this is the divergence that they all take at this critical point. So, rather than a wikipedia-type approach, what this shows is that different communities of Christians had their "own" gospels & writings, which differed from those of the other groups. When an attempt was made to fuse the disparity into a unity, the four main Christian lobbies seem to have opposed any attempt to dilute *their* gospel by merging it with the others, and the compromise was to keep four. Smaller groups with less clout got kneed out, either intentionally, or they took up their scrolls and walked.

So we end up with a lovely fossilisation of the four gospels as we have them, each contradicting the others at certain historical points, with a secondary "doctrine" that has been superimposed to paper over the cracks, and a reflexive defence mechanism in the hands of the faithful that the very real contradictions do not affect key points of doctrine (which they can't, because the key points of doctrine have evolved to fit this contradictory landscape).

It's wonderful. It's wacky. But it's not Wiki.

Shibboleth - how do you explain the many contradictions in the Bible? Historical, factual contradictions? Or do you deny that there are any? E.g., the two accounts in te NT of Judas' suicide - they can't both be what happened. In one he hangs himself, in the other he throws himself off a hill.

A provocative topic always gets lots of hits Will, eh?

David Devlin et al.

It seems to me the real issue, here, as often is the case on W&T, is not whether the bible is a wikipedia (it aint) but whether it really is the word of God; if it is it would obviously put the cat among the pigeons for the radical athiests here, of whom there are many.

Therefore, I know it is obvious, but let me just put on the record that few people are coming to this debate with an open mind. Yes, believers have their own preconceptions, but as far as I can see, there are numerous mainstream academics over time who attest to the archeological preservation/continuity of the bible mss.

It is also well established that even liberal theologians generally accept the current canon without question.

So it appears to me it is only a small radical fringe of academics who would suggest it is a wikipedia, but hey, it generates hits.

I mean, if we look at the NT alone, there are over 2000 mss of the gospels and over 5000 of the bible as a whole.

Taken over the time they were made in different locales and languages, I see Shib's point repeated time and again by authorities; the differences between these mss over thousands of years is minute and could be expected by hand copying.

So if the changes between mss are minute over time, space and languages, then we can accept that no belief is challenged by these minute differences and the texts have been preserved, as the hard evidence demonstrates.

////

There was no canon early on because of the surviving apostlic witness and oral tradition, which is very accurate and in such societies, as Shib attests.

A corpus of Pauline epistles and the gospels was circulating by around the end of the first century, to preserve the apostolic witness. The Acts was originally part of Luke, so taken together there is evidence of an embryonic canon, ie gospels, acts and pauline espistles.

Yes, there was not initially full agreement on a canon.

Irenaneus (AD 130-200) said hebrews 2 Peter and 3 John were omitted from the canon in his time; around half a dozen epistles were in doubt by some.

But between 2nd and 4th centuries three criteria were used to formalise the canon. A key point is that IMU it was grassroots who decided what was inspired, not a cabal of leaders in other words popular consensus of the churches. So it was not the case of a conspiracy of a cabal who contrived to keep out or in certain books.

1) Authorship by apostles or apostolic men/witnesses (eg Mark is a written record of Peter's teaching), Hebrews was widely accepted to be the work of Paul (by the people who knew him and met him regularly).

2) Accepted by the majority of churches as inspired.

3) Congruence with sound doctrine eg from the four gospels/Pauline corpus/ Old Testament.

Can John Wright or any other sceptic present good reasons why these standards were inadequate and/or suggest any books that should have been omitted or included.

Put it another way, anyone know any other books 1) from apostolic witness, 2) Accepted by a majority of early churches 3) Congruent with uncontested books which should be in the canon?

Or does anyone want to make a serious case about any books in the canon which do not meet these standards?

Generally all I hear on this on this blog is a lot of whining with no specific suggestions as to how it should be changed. This comes across as a general athiestic/sceptic whine which has no intellectual basis, but I would be interested to see a hard case presented on it.

I saw once chancer of a previous thread suggest that because a new bible translation has a committee of editors it supported the idea that the bible is a wikipedia and is still being edited.

But if this person had ever tried to find a real difference between any English translation he would be a better man than me.

So my conclusion; I understand 5000 mss over thousands of years are hard evidence that the texts of the books have been preseserved, not edited every month/year with updated ideas.

PB

PS JW, Luther was an outstanding figure of history for what he achieved, but he this was not for his work or thoughts on the canon which was set many centuries before.

Galen,

Contradictions?

First, not being an obscurantist or fundamentalist, I don't get too worried with differences of detail. In most cases they don't amount to a hill of beans.

I would primarily explain the differences in texts through the transmission of different traditions, independant of one another, a bit like what Amenhotep is talking about. (Although he is too quick to write off the resurrection as a textual accretion. I could accept this as the case if the resurrection was only attested to by one or two traditions, but since it is attested by the NT in general and also found in defective form in non-canonical gospels, it cannot be so easily dismissed).

Individual books may have been edited together from various sources, but it does not follow that the different books have been edited by a single editor so as to iron out all differences (which may somewhat dilute the force of John Wright's comments, without entirely overturning the point he makes).

It sounds as though Shibboleth and I would not disagree over the facts as much as we would over the conclusions we draw from those facts. PB asks (again) if I know of any books that should be in the canon and why. He knows full well (because I've informed him on many occasions) that I don't contest the content of the canon but rather believe that the canon itself is unnecessary. If one wants to deal at all with ancient texts, one would do better to approach them without the baggage of church tradition dictating to them which are worthy of their study and which are not, going so far as to place them in order by chapter and verse and to slap a leather cover on either side lest someone challenge their choices. Walk into any evangelical church and ask the members if they've read the book of Tobit or heard of Lilith, observe the look upon their puzzled faces and come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Hi Shibboleth,

Let me clarify - I am not saying that the notion of a "resurrection" was a textual accretion (or several accretions) - the *stories* of the post-resurrection appearances, i.e. what happened *after* the empty tomb are, however add-ons that were (I would say) fabricated after the four main chruch branches went their separate ways.

The original conception of the resurrection was in all likelihood a purely spiritual one, but over the next couple of years, they never did find who took the body, and the rumour mill manufactured the various contradictory "appearance" stories which ended up willy nilly being appended to the gospels, and thus "fossilised" as I mentioned above.

Many people think that the last chapter of Mark was ditched and rewritten with the clumsy postscript that we have today. It would be very interesting to see what that chapter would have contained, although it must have been lost very early, since the earliest copies do not have it.

But, good post. I enjoyed it, and agree with much of what you say :-)

JW

I didnt mean to deliberately ignore what you have said previously about the canon, perhaps quite honestly I havent quite grasped it fully.

I mean, you as a 21st century layman and observer may say you believe the canon is unncessary, as you have every right to do.

However the testimony of the early grassroots church (who were within living memory of the NT events) is exactly the opposite, it was in effect quite a democratic process, as I understand it.

In other words, the majority of early Christians effectively chose and agreed the canon over time as being the agreed texts which were true, inspired and necessary for the church.

So while you have your opinion, in a sense it is at odds with the desires and views of the church it is widest sense over time.

But whose view is more valid on whether the canon is necessary, a 21st century lay man and sceptic or the testimony of the majority of church members through history?

I'm not trying to be provocative BTW, a serious question.

Perhaps it could be argued that you as a sceptic of orthodox (supernatural) christianity are trying to undermine it by attacking the credibility of the texts on which it bases its beliefs and testimony.

I also ask of Amenhotep, if after wwii someone had promoted wholly innaccurate histories of what had happened who would have believed it? Surely such histories would have been scorned and there may well have been good records of their rebuttal.

But the opposite happened with the gospels, and they were widely believed and trusted.

Why would Peter and co have risked the same fate as Christ (crucifixtion) if they had not acutally witnessed the resurrection? And what would account for their boldness in doing so, bearing in mind their broken morale after Christ's death?

PB

PS Shib, if - as a minority of scholars do - you take the majority/traditional text as authentic and set aside the critical text sources as not, wouldnt that make the wikipedia accusation even less tenable?

PB, the problem is that we *do* know that there were widely variant forms of "Christianity" practiced, with texts to boot, in the early centuries after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. People can do the strangest things, and the fervour with which people hold a belief (e.g. if Simon Peter & co really did believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus, rather than a simple disappearance of his body) is no indicator of the veracity of that belief. Quite the reverse, in fact. No-one was in a position to do anything about this; as many people on this blog will appreciate, there are some people who are immune to rational argument.

-A

pb wrote - PS Shib, if - as a minority of scholars do - you take the majority/traditional text as authentic and set aside the critical text sources as not, wouldnt that make the wikipedia accusation even less tenable?

pb, I am not sure quite what you mean, can you unpack this point further? Sorry. I am unsure as to what you mean by critical text sources.

S

Shib / Galen / Amen

Thanks Shib

(BTW John Wright and I are ok again, I had misunderstood him and apologised).

What I mean is that in my understanding the majority/traditional/byzantine NT text was that used by the majority of the early greek speaking churches and also by the church at large down through most of history.

This text IMU was challenged with the development of modern criticism which instead placed primary trust in a very few alternative texts ie Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrian which I understand have given rise to the compilation modern critical texts, care of Westcott and Hort in no small part.

As I understand it, the paradox here is the vast majority of mss which exist are majority/traditional/byzantine with overhwhelming agreement, and which have been trusted by the vast majority of churches through most of history.

In contrast, as I understand it, the vast majority of modern scholars put their trust primarily in the modern critical "compilation" text(s) which only really came on the scene in the last 200 years or so.

The problem with the sources for these texts ( three main ones named above), IMU, though, is that the many, variant readings in them appear to be edited in/out c/o obvious heresies of one type or another from that time, eg downplaying the divinity and work of Christ and miracles etc.

But these variant readings were clearly rejected by the early greek speaking church, as by the 4th century anyway the consistency of the many (hand made) copies of the Byzantine text used by the majority of greek speaking churches demonstrates.

The critical text sources (ie Vat/Sin/Alex) used for modern critical texts also invariably contain non-canonical books with no distinction made, so again, this would also underline how out of step they were with orthodoxy when they were made.

I am building up to the hunch that perhaps the criticisms of editing and composition being levelled at scripture here may be in large part aimed at non traditional/majority/byzantine mss which have also been traditionally rejected by most churches through history.

In other words (and this is where I am speculating) the majority of churches down through history may well agree with much of the strongest criticism leveled at some mss, but in their case most churches may argue those mss were poor quality and corrupted anyway and history would confirm they were never widely accepted - until now!

Having said that, I agree that there seems to be a modern consensus that the differences between the traditional and modern critical texts are dwarfed by the agreement between them.

BTW, I am curious about your use of the term fundamentalist; how do you define it?

I am often accused of looking back to American theology of last century but I would see myself more looking back first of all to the NT writers, who obviously majored in accepting the plain/literal reading of the OT.

Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, John Colet, Martin Luther and John Calvin (to name but a handful) also leant heavility on the primacy of "the plain reading" as did the founder(s) of every current denomination I can think of, except arguably the RCC and even then only in part.

Why do you think this outlook is now normally stereotyped in terms of modern, seperatist, reactionary and often anti-intellectual US "theology"?

Galen - ref Judas - the traditional view is that he hung himself but the rope broke and he fell, rupturing himself. So both points of view could be correct. Incidentally, it seems that the greek for "hung" here actually bears no actual suggestion or denial of "hanging" but instead says that he choked himself completely. It would appear it is assumed he hung himself, which may or may not be correct.

Amen - you often give the impression that current orthodox christianity was itself just a minority group amongst many "christian" sects.

This runs contrary to everything I am reading about the development of the church and canon. If this is indeed what you are suggesting can you substantiate it with sources?

Shib - can you drop us a brief line on your views on this?

thats all for tonight folks,

rgds
PB

PB

Well, there is a great deal of things you want me to comment on here. I will, tomorrow or Friday perhaps.

On what is a fundamentalist - there is no agreed definition of what a fundamentalist is. I would tend to view as a fundamentalist anyone who distains any kind of sophistication in hermeneutics and rejects all the efforts of biblical criticism to better understand the text.

I am quite certain that the NT writers did not major in a plain / literal reading of the OT.

If you read Ps 110, you will certainly not, from a literal reading, get much sense that this is a psalm alluding to Jesus. Christians accept that it is about Jesus because the NT writers used it in this way. It is only on the strength of the NT interpretation of this psalm that application to Jesus is made, because on a plain or literal reading this is a psalm about David or any one of the Davidides.

Don't get me wrong; I am not saying that the NT misinterprets the OT; but I am saying that it interprets the OT.

Another example. The OT says do not muzzle the ox. Literally, this means do not muzzle your ox, so he can feed as he works. Paul uses the same verse to illustrate that full time pastors should be remunerated. Is this not interpretation and adaptation? Is is certainly not literal.

More when I am less busy.

S

PB- The problem is that you arrive at this discussion with a horse in the race! You wish to retain evangelical orthodoxy. That's certainly not the same as coming to this with an entirely open mind and not having an investment in any particular outcome, if you see my point. In other words, your investment in that outcome (and the many complex factors involved in that, not least your being a component in an evangelical community wherein you have established your primary social network) is a factor in your defensiveness of this particular and very specific understanding of the bible and the Way Things Are.

To what you said:

"...the testimony of the early grassroots church (who were within living memory of the NT events) is exactly the opposite, it was in effect quite a democratic process, as I understand it."

I'm rather surprised you think that the democracy rather than theocracy of early church decisions is something that would help your position! You're right, to a point: the decisions of Christians about establishing universal doctrine and the canon etc. was quite democratic in later years (the various councils that took place over a period of hundreds of years being the most important example). A strange way to establish belief, if 'revealed truth' is the concept at the heart of the whole endeavour. Establishing what to believe by democracy is about as prudent an idea as establishing a government by theocracy! (By the way, most of the books of the NT were not written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe; rather they were written by people who were recording verbal traditions from maybe 60 years beforehand, in most cases before they were born.)

"So while you have your opinion, in a sense it is at odds with the desires and views of the church it is widest sense over time."

And?

"But whose view is more valid on whether the canon is necessary, a 21st century lay man and sceptic or the testimony of the majority of church members through history?"

Who's view is more valid for me? Mine. Obviously if you feel democracy is a good way to form theological beliefs then a majority vote is more valid for you. Good luck with that.

"What I mean is that in my understanding the majority/traditional/byzantine NT text was that used by the majority of the early greek speaking churches and also by the church at large down through most of history."

What is the oldest NT manuscript we have? The Codex Sinaiticus. What formulation (canon) is it comprised of? The Gospels, Acts, Paul, Revelation, the Epistle of Barnabus (the what?) and the Shepherd of Hermas. Of course there are other manuscripts, particularly of the OT, that date earlier than the Sinaiticus. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, which one cannot derive the idea of a canon from because they were so wonderfully diverse. But with what frequency did the books appear among the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Psalms appeared most, 39 times. Deuteronomy, an important book in Judaism, appeared second most, 33 times. And, lo and behold, the third most frequent book among the Dead Sea Scrolls: the book of 1st Enoch... 25 times. Such an important book to the people who copied these manuscripts (found more frequently than Genesis): how many modern-day evangelicals do you think have read the books of Enoch?

Thus I challenge your contention that the canon has remained consistent from the beginning, and I challenge your assertion that evangelical orthodoxy is right to regard early decisions of the church (democratic or, as in many cases, not) as infallible and authoritative.

Shib, John

Thanks Shib - you did ask me to expand my comments on the mss, though to be fair I did go further than that! I dont for a second claim any expertise on mss, BTW.

I think that is a pretty fair description of fundamentalism from a bible critics POV, cheers.

I fully aceept your point about the psalm and muzzling the ox.

I think to qualify my question, I was suggesting the NT writers primarily took a plain reading of the OT even before they adapted it.

I appreciate that prophecies are interpreted but to explain where I was coming from... I think that where some people now would suggest certain people and events in the OT were allegorical, the NT writers always seem to take the opposite approach in this sphere.

I have come fresh from discussions with thought provoking chaps like John Wright here on Genesis, so that informed my comment specifically I guess.

I was thinking specifically for example about how Peter regarded Noah and his flood as literal, as did Christ.

The NT refs to Adam appear as a rule to take him as a literal person also, for example.

John, thanks for your thoughts

I think it would only be fair to say we all have horses in the race, if we are honest and I dont deny that for a second, I wouldnt try.

I think the race should be decided on a balanced examination of the facts, but of course even then we all pick and choose! but that is our right.

But I would reject outright any suggestion that I retain a dogmatic belief on any matter if "the facts" contradict it. I also reserve the right to remain a sceptical "open verdict" on matters too, for example evolution.

I would have to reject any suggestion my primary social network is in the church though, remember I am a bit of a closet post-evangelical, as you well know!

IMO you have still not understood the "democratic process" of the early church.

The democracy did not occur at the councils, from the reference books I have read the councils reflected the democratic consensus of the church.

Of course it was not truly a formal democratic process, simply that the majority of churches agreed which NT books were by apostles, "apostolic men" and of true doctrine. (for exmaple the Epistle of Barnabus you referred to was strongly anti-Jewish and only a small minority of churches concidered it authorship certain enough to use it, and then only for a brief time. Hence it was rejected on those two grounds by the church at large.

BTW, this "democratic" process is not as stupid as you might think considering the lives of Christ and the apostles would still have been very close in living memory to those making judgements about which written records were accurate.

Surely if there was propaganda introduced to the church at large you would have expected some form of written record of a widespread backlash against writings which the dogs in the street knew were lies?

It is not my place to judge how approriate this "democracy" was, I am just relating what happened.

You asked "and?"

Well to be more direct, the above being correct, it would mean that your opinion (to which you are fully entitled) that the canon should not exist has no real significance or standing according to the history and beliefs of orthodox Christianity.

Its a perfectly valid opinion, it is just that the early church in what was a widespread consenual process, rejected it.

I am not saying for a second I have perfect understanding of all the above, but I think I have a broad grasp and certainly welcome you testing any weaknesses in it.

Again, your adherence to Siniaticus seems to reflect your misunderstanding IMO. As I understand it the church organic had already agreed the canon before this mss was written, so this would confirm it as "non-mainstream" at best and at worst corrupt, regarding its many variations form the mainstream Byzantine text(s) of that epoch.

I have certainly read Enoch and it is very interesting and was apparently quoted in part by Jude in the NT. Possibly only a fundamentalist would suggest non-canonical books should not be read at all.

Just because something is not in the canon does not mean it has no accuracy or value for study. But it does mark it as of a different quality altogether.

As I understand it it would have been normal for OT writers to research written histories while writing OT books. This is no way need challenge any belief in the inspiration of Scripture and of course doesnt for many leading scholars today.

I understand the Shperherd of Hermas is nowdays considered as an early Pilgrim's Progress.

An important question is, was it written by a witness of the life of Christ or based on accounts of such witnesses? This seems a pretty fair standard by which to set the bar for the NT in my mind, and certainly it was so for the early church in the broadest sense.

I never said the canon was constant from the beginning, on the contrary.
However as I understand it the organic process continued to build consensus which was recognised officially by councils at the end of the 4th century.

Certainly by around the end of the first century the gospels and pauline epistles were two seperate collections in wide circulation (with acts having been originally one with Luke).

Why do you think books written by people who did not witness Christ or based on the testimony of non-witnesses of Christ should be considered on a par with those that do?

And why should they be considered on a par if they blatantly contradict doctrines in said writings?

While even today there are some differences between Christian churches in the broadest sense worldwide, if I may steal a phrase from Shib, do these differences amount to a hill of beans?

This seems to be the logical conclusion of what you are driving at; if there is a hill of beans what is it and if there isnt then why does it matter a jot?

catch u later

PB

PB- I know this is difficult, but you are in utter denial!

What version of the canon did Jesus read? It was the Septuagint. Google 'Septuagint' and you'll find it differs greatly from the OT you read in church. If I did a poll among church members today, what percentage do you think would have heard of the Septuagint or even be aware that there were other formulations of their bible, indeed, one that Christ himself read from?

This really is very simple: churches disagreed over which books were canonical, and over what to believe, and over what Jesus did exactly, and over whether Jesus was equally God, and many many many other things for a very very very very long time. The fact that you believe certain things at this point in time is due to arbitrary decisions made by various characters and councils throughout church history, rather than thinking for yourself from the ground up (as they had to do).

There would have been no need for the ecumenical councils at all if Christians did not differ widely over what books they should regard as sacred (let alone inspired, infallible, inerrant) among much else.

I'm glad you've read Enoch. You are in the small, small minority. As an evangelical you are well aware that the way the bible is used in churches today is to believe that what falls between their two leather covers is the 'Word of God' (a claim whose upshot is that all other books are not). Far from asserting the usefulness of other ancient texts, churches ignore their very existence: that is the practical reality.

Yet even the facts to which evangelicals allude to shore up their position sometimes don't make sense. Melito of Sardis is sometimes called upon to prove that early Christians knew of the Hebrew bible (the OT as we know it today). Yet even Melito's canon was different:

"Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books."

The last time I made reference to an apocryphal book you came up with various ways to try and defend the decisions of the Christians who chose to exclude it from the canon. Do you intend to do that with every book? In that case, do you still intend, at the end of the process, to claim that the books between the leather covers of your Protestant bible constitute the 'Word of God' and that those arbitrarily excluded in the mess that was the cut and thrust of Christian history are not?

Of course there are also those books which remain IN (are currently regarded as authoritative, holy, infallible, inerrant, the 'Word of God' by many Christians) and yet were challenged many times by many people. Eusebius said:

""Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognised by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."

The authorship of Hebrews, in particular, is disputed, yet you told me earlier that you don't accept the conclusions of scholars that the NT contains psuedopigraphs (preferring to believe that all books are apostolic and therefore authoritative).

Of course, after Eusebius, everyone agreed on the canon, right? Not exactly. Eusibius was circa 325.... Martin Luther (your theological forefather) also disputed the authority of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

(As another question on the side, at what point in the Alpha course would you introduce new Christians to the knowledge that there are books other than those in their shiny new bible that many Christians held should be equally worthy of their study? Or that many Christians thought they should be wary of?!)

PB, just to clarify - I am not saying that the Matthean, Marcan, Lucan and Johannine branches of Christianity were in the *minority* - quite the reverse - they probably were in the strongest positions, which is why each of them retained *their* pretty little gospel in the final pool.

What I *am* saying quite clearly is that all of them were wrong, and the stories of resurrections were themselves written long after Jesus was dead, and probably after any of the (unreliable) potential witnesses were dead (c.f. the finale of John and the faked ending of Mark).

What we do know about human psychology is that odd and untrue stories can take on a life of their own and become irrefutable, even in the face of concrete evidence. Never ever underestimate the power of a nutter, and the credulity of those who want to believe.

Incidentally, Will, get that chap David Shayler (MI5 spy-and-tell) on your blog some time - the dude believes he's the Messiah now, if the Daily Mail is to be believed (and I think I'd sooner believe the gospel of Matthew!). Should make for some entertaining chat, and haul in a wider audience than the regulars.

-A

-A

JW & Amen

Thanks for the posts guys, will get back to you in next few days.

BTW John, i dont go in for labels like evangelical personally. I know they have their uses but I dont take that label myself.

As you know, when we got down to it I found I have more post-evangelical qualifications than you, even though that is the label you choose.

Maybe I would be tempted to use "Berean" but I dont think it is a serious issue.

kind regards

PB

PS John, have you any suggestion as to what credibility there is that Lillith was a real person? Also, I think I asked a few questions of you in my last post or two, if you have a minute or three spare.

PB- Yup I have to agree that I'm more liberal than postevangelical.

With regard to Lilith being a real person. There's just as much evidence for Adam and Eve. These are all Hebrew myths, often several myths weaved together, and there's plenty of evidence for that. (Just compare the creation stories of neighbouring cultures with the two in Genesis.) This is where it's useful listening to the scholars, who have fascinating insights to the way the authors have have borrowed from popular mythology and integrated various elements into their stories: the fact is that there's no significant factor separating the Genesis narrative from any other Hebrew myth.

Regarding the other questions you had. Sorry I didn't get to these earlier:

"Why do you think books written by people who did not witness Christ or based on the testimony of non-witnesses of Christ should be considered on a par with those that do?"

Well books like Hebrews, for example, are disputed for reasons of authorship. There are good reasons to believe that Hebrews is not apostolic, and of course even Paul did not witness Christ either (except in his vision) or even meet him for that matter. It seems as though if you want to keep Hebrews then on the same basis you should be keeping some other stuff too.

"And why should they be considered on a par if they blatantly contradict doctrines in said writings?"

Well now you get to the tricky matter of exegesis, which could have us here debating it for many years. But, as I've said before, it seems arbitrary to decide that if a text contradicts another, we'll just get rid of it. Perhaps all of the texts that were thrown away could be compiled into a self-cohesive canon of its own? Bottom line: I don't think the idea of a canon would have been devised by modern-day critical englightened man.

"While even today there are some differences between Christian churches in the broadest sense worldwide, if I may steal a phrase from Shib, do these differences amount to a hill of beans?"

If they didn't, we wouldn't have such a thing as denominations. Clearly most Christians have felt that those differences are substantial. And I ask you: would you feel just as home in a congregation of Episcopalian, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witness, etc.? Of course not. The differences are huge.

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

The canon of the BIBLE has been settled forever on earth as it is in heaven.

John

Not so sure about Lilith, from my understanding she has zero credibility in mainstream scholarship.

As for creation myths, perhaps a better question is why is there so much agreement with genesis around the world?

As for the biblical account, this following quote supports the idea of a common source for the story, and raises questions about how this happened. How the uniformity?

Any thoughts?

Enc Brit;-

"Though the precise nature and characteristics of the supreme creator deity may differ from culture to culture, a specific and pervasive structure of this type of deity can be discerned. The following characteristics tend to be common:

"(1) he is all wise and all powerful. The world comes into being because of his wisdom, and he is able to actualize the world because of his power.

"(2) The deity exists alone prior to the creation of the world. There is no being or thing prior to his existence. No explanation can therefore be given of his existence, before which one confronts the ultimate mystery.

"(3) The mode of creation is conscious, deliberate, and orderly. This again is an aspect of the creator's wisdom and power. The creation comes about because the deity seems to have a definite plan in mind and does not create on a trial-and-error basis. In Genesis, for example, particular parts of the world are created seriatim; in an Egyptian myth, Kheper, the creator deity, says, 鈥淚 planned in my heart,鈥� and in a Maori myth the creator deity proceeds from inactivity to increasing stages of activity.

"(4) The creation of the world is simultaneously an expression of the freedom and purpose of the deity. His mode of creation defines the pattern and purpose of all aspects of the creation, though the deity is not bound by his creation. His relationship to the created order after the creation is again an aspect of his freedom.

"(5) In several creation myths of this type, the creator deity removes himself from the world after it has been created. After the creation the deity goes away and only appears again when a catastrophe threatens the created order.

"(6) The supreme creator deity is often a sky god, and the deity in this form is an instance of the religious valuation of the symbolism of the sky.

"In creation myths of the above type, the creation itself or the intent of the creator deity is to create a perfect world, paradise. Before the end of the creative act or sometime soon after the end of creation, the created order or the intent of the creator deity is thwarted by some fault of one of the creatures. There is thus a rupture in the creation myth. In some myths this rupture is the cause of the departure of the deity from creation."

The dominant view in the early church was that Hebrews was written by Paul and I suppose we cant ignore the fact that many of them would have had a chance to discuss it with him!

Paul claimed to be writing commandments from God in his epistles and met Christ on the RTD, BTW.
Peter also explicitly referred to Paul's epistles as scripture.

One view was that Paul kept his name and self referential points out of Hebrews because he was historically a persecutor of the Jews and thought it would be a barrier to their understanding. It has been suggested that Luke wrote it for Paul. Was it written by Paul? God knows.

You certainly cant say it wasnt Paul and so it appears to stand on the view of the early church, who formed the canon.

Having said that, can you point to one thing in the letter that clashes with anything else in the NT - of course not it is is perfect harmony, explicitly I would say. (Think of Peter's blanket dream of unclean food, also the relation to the law in Romans and Galations).

But take Hebrews out and then try and add another book to the NT, which one? would it fit? I dont see how, already discounted Barnabus.

Ref the Septugaint, not sure why you are defending it, I never attacked it.

It was quoted in the NT, but by the 3rd century it is widely held to have been corrupted.

It was a greek translation of the OT and I dont see any problem with that at all.

Regarding unity in the early church my understanding is that there was certainly diversity on secondary issues but universal agreement on the resurrection, which was and is seen as the key point of the gospel.

There are several places in the NT where the resurrection is referred to as the gospel, and these are like early forms of the so-called apostles creed;-

EARLY CREEDS

ROMANS 10:9-10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1CORINTHIANS 15:4
1 露 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time鈥�.

1TIM3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Acts10
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Good questions John...

later

PB

PS Amen, as normal you fail to demonstrate the evidence to back up your absolute certainty that the four gospels are wrong.

As I understand it the ending of Mark was accepted by the early church, as evidenced in the Byzantine text, so your criticism here would appear to be in agreement with my views that the most popular texts today ( which dispute the end og Mark) were the ones rejected by the early church.

You have also totally rejected Shib's assertions that the oral tradition of pservation of the gospels was very strong, a generally accepted point, I beleive.

Also, in my undertstanding we cant say for sure when the gospels were first committed to paper, only when the earliest copies we have date from.

There are certainly earlier texts referred to by patristic fathers which have never been found.

take care

PB

PB- Hi. I know a lot of people have been having problems posting comments, including Michael - these problems are ongoing and have not been resolved - so I'm glad you could post.

You say: "Not so sure about Lilith, from my understanding she has zero credibility in mainstream scholarship."

Scholarship is not concerned with looking at creation stories to determine whether or not they actually occurred: it's largely assumed that they did not. They're looking at them therefore not to establish 'credibility' but to study them for information about the culture and belief systems wherein they were written.

You ask what explains the solidarity between the various creation myths. Are you suggesting that they're all attempting to explain the same actual event? (In which case, what makes us sure Genesis got it right? In other words, what establishes facthood in Genesis distinct from myth in any other creation story?) Or are you suggesting that they all copied Genesis? (Reconcile this with the agreement of many scholars that Genesis is itself the product of the sources of various creation myths)? My answer is that this proves the exact opposite of what you wish it to: it proves that Genesis is just like many other myths, many of which went on to make claims that you could not support in the slightest (like, as explained in the EB excerpt you provided, God being disgusted with the way his creation turned out and leaving it!).

"The dominant view in the early church was that Hebrews was written by Paul and I suppose we cant ignore the fact that many of them would have had a chance to discuss it with him!"

The formulation of the NT canon came many years after Paul had died.

"Paul claimed to be writing commandments from God in his epistles and met Christ on the RTD, BTW. Peter also explicitly referred to Paul's epistles as scripture."

How do you explain Paul expressly stating that part of his letter to the Corinthians is NOT to be read as the 'word of God'? Anyway, we're still no closer to establishing Hebrews as Pauline, and therefore apostolic, and therefore meeting the criteria by which you say you are establishing books as canonical.

"But take Hebrews out and then try and add another book to the NT, which one? would it fit? I dont see how, already discounted Barnabus."

If we removed Hebrews (as Martin Luther wanted), why would we be obliged to add another book? Do we have a quota to fill? Remember I am challenging the very idea of a canon in today's world. I don't want to add or take away anything; I want people to deal properly with all relevant ancient texts when deciding what to believe.

"Ref the Septugaint, not sure why you are defending it, I never attacked it."

I'm not defending it; I'm pointing out that Jesus and his disciples read a different bible than you do, yet you claim yours is correct!

"[The Septuagint] was quoted in the NT, but by the 3rd century it is widely held to have been corrupted."

Please provide proof that the content of the Septuagint changed between the 1st and 3rd centuries.

"It was a greek translation of the OT and I dont see any problem with that at all."

It did not only translate but altered, added, changed, amended, omitted and much more besides. The Greek versions of the Hebrew were significantly different, yet Jesus relied upon them while you call them non-canonical! Please justify this.

I hope everyone manages to post comments eventually.... it's proving difficult for a great many people.

You regulars might be interested in a related debate over at Jesus Creed -

see here:

Peace.

William

Hi again JW

Youre keeping my brain cells ticking over alright.

I have to challenge your view that scholarship generally assumes creation "myths" did not occur.

Without fear of contradiction I can say that the vast majority of conservative scholarship treats Adam and Eve as real people, even if only some of it takes a firm stance for or against evolution, which is not uncommon.

Forget about genesis and ask why these six points are common to so many disparate cultures? Have asked this question several times on this blog but got no direct answers. Anyone?

The canon was formed long after Paul but Hebrews was still largely recognised as authored by Paul in the church before the canon was formed. One further point is that Peter (apostle to the Jews) recognised in his epistles that Paul (epistle to the gentiles) were both addressing the same audience, at least in the broadest sense.

Paul also defended his apostleship at length.

If you quote the entire passage you mean in corinthians I think a bigger picture will appear.

You have ignored the fact that the modern church had a dominant view that Paul wrote Hebrews.

You dont appear to provide a consistent logic as to why the canon is a non starter.

The traditional view is books that were apostolic, or by apostolic men, and of consistent true doctrine.

The Septuagint was not a different bible, by my authorities, not at all. By the third century there were widely varying versions of it around though. My reference is the IVP New Bible Dictionary, which I think is pretty well respected.

Oh Will you are naughty! Was that hyperlink your idea or a team effort from the production team?

;-)

ref the Jesus creeds link you gave, from what I have read the phases of development mentioned there are widely accepted but the conclusion is another matter.

The bottom of this whole debate in my mind seems to be this;-

Can we really be sure that Jesus Christ, man and God, was crucified and rose again?

IMO opinion the sceptics want to raise every possible objection to the validity of the historic written witness to this event.

The conservatives have good reason to defend the texts of course.

However your link Will suggests one cannot accept any canon without signing up to the creeds that approved it.

I just think you are running counter to the general consensus affirmed by Shib that any differences are minute and dwarfed by the overall agreement.

In Enc Brit's view of the development of the early church there was genuine diversity of views on secondary issues but unanimity on the fact that the resurrection was the key and central belief.

In my last post I illustrated from the NT how this was also the core belief in many NT docs and also developed into the Apostles Creed, so called.

The point is, the real debate IMO is the validty of testimony to the resurrection - not points that "dont amount to a hill of beans" as Shib puts it.

He is a genuine bible critic, where the rest of us are not, BTW.

The NT docs and modern secular history and every canon you can find from what every church still in existence agrees with this, sa i understand it.

From what I can see it would appear that ultimately the sceptics are simply trying to infer that queries over minutiae cast doubt on the testimony of the resurrection itself and the nt as a whole..

Personally I dont think this stands up to scrutiny, and I think it runs counter to the view of our resident bible critic, but that is just my opinion.

Lets hear from the other guys, hope you can post by now!

shalom

PB

PB- Cheers.

"You dont appear to provide a consistent logic as to why the canon is a non starter."

I suppose I would take less issue if a 'canon' meant in practical terms that Christians would devour all relevant texts available but assign perhaps special importance to this collection, maybe with an emphasis on an idea I wrote about myself about 7 years ago: that there are varying degrees of inspiration evident in the texts. In practical terms, though, this idea of a canon has almost entirely precluded most evangelical Christians from ever hearing that there exist books other than those picked out for them as canonical. That's unforgivable, tantamount to brainwashing.

I take a more 'scientific' view of these issues. If these things had happened in the post-Enlightenment era, there would never be a 'canon' as evangelicals know it. Filtering, editing, omitting, changing during translation would not be seen as a valid way to decide for the community what to believe. The very goal of coming to a universal collective comprehension would never have been held. I'm simply approaching this as a modern-day thinker.

"The traditional view is books that were apostolic, or by apostolic men, and of consistent true doctrine."

But one man's heresy was another man's orthodoxy. What one community of Christians believed, the others held as heretical, and what another community held to be heresy the others believed. Not all NT books are apostolic; likewise, there are books not in the NT which could be. We simply don't know well enough to assume the 'canon', and certainly not well enough to use it as evangelicals do.

"Oh Will you are naughty! Was that hyperlink your idea or a team effort from the production team?"

The link was fair and accurate. So good that I'll repeat it again: -thanks William. (By the way, I don't think this commenter is William Crawley.) PB, there are no statements within this lead article that affirm anything contrary to the facts agreed upon by a majority of scholars.

About Shibboleth: "He is a genuine bible critic, where the rest of us are not, BTW."

Would you be mentioning this if it were not for the fact that you believe Shibboleth's position agrees with your own? I'm quite sure that you wouldn't be drawing upon the authority of "a bible critic" (aren't we all?) if he was showing you that you were wrong! You certainly haven't responded to the authority of other experts in previous posts on evolution, for example, or even the many scholars who disagree with Shibboleth on this topic. Anyhoo.

PB, John,

just to clarify - it was plain old boring "William" who provided the link to Jesuscreed. Not as exciting as the almighty Will Crawley!

(mind you I went to the same school and I'm the same age but there the similarity ends because I have less hair, more weight but I am probably better looking...)

Love the debate. Keep on keeping on.

Just in case there is anyone still reading this thread.... here's a funny piece about that has virtually nothing to do with the subject.

Have fun.

William- Thanks for the link. I'm waiting patiently for PB's response, but he hasn't been around lately.