1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

New Testament Discussions

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by No Worries, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    This is not a black and white question. When most liberal scholars mention that the bible is "unreliable" as historic documents, I suspect that they are implying that not all historic events are real. This does not mean that there is no real history in the bible.
     
  2. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    This is a load of rubbish. An axe is definitely being ground here.

    When it is said that Act is a second century composition, I suspect that most scholars are dating it at the very beginning of the second century. This date reflects when Acts was mostly completed. Since we have no document trail for Acts, it is uncertain if other documents were used as a source or how much oral tradition went into it or when the document was actually started. BTW I give you two links to articles which go into great depths about how stomped on Acts was in the second century by other authors for theological reasons. Drawing a reasonable counterpoint is thus easily done. Without a document trail, we will just do not know what the story for Acts is.

    The height of the rubbish is the line "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." Since Luke is credited with writing both his Gospel and Acts, this is a back handed way of establishing the historicity of the Gospel according to Luke, which we know with great authority that Luke has no first hand knowledge of.
     
  3. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    both are good points...i don't know the answer.
     
  4. KateBeckinsale7

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, thanks for starting this discussion. I'm learning a lot of new things by searching the internet. Regarding Acts, I'm not sure of your exact position. Do you think it's more likely or less likely that Luke wrote Acts? If less likely, then do you believe that the book was actually composed by one or more redactors? Do you believe that Acts is historically accurate? I found this paper that supports Luke's authorship of Acts. Here are just some excerpts from the introduction.


    The Book of Acts and Archaeology
    by Craig S. Hawkins


    The Critical Issue

    Since F.C. Baur proposed his thesis in the mid-nineteenth century and the corresponding rise of the infamous Tubingen school of radical higher critical thought of the New Testament, the book of Acts has fallen upon hard times concerning its value as a historical work. That is, Acts was no longer viewed by many as a theological-historical work composed in the latter part of the first century A.D., by Luke who was a friend, disciple, travelling companion of the apostle Paul, and an eye witness of much of what he wrote (from 16:11 onward).

    According to Baur and his disciples, reasoning under the influence of Hegelian, evolutionary, and anti-supernaturalistic a priori presuppositions, Acts was seen as a product of a highly skillful and imaginatively creative writer of the latter part of the second century A.D. The author was an artful and captivating story teller who weaved together tales of intrigue and suspense into a theological tapestry. In other words, the author was not writing history but "theology."

    This writer, whomever he might have been, was attempting to synthesis the Pauline (thesis) school of Christianity with the Petrine devotees (antithesis). Acts was the result of such an effort (synthesis). Thus, the work now known as Acts was not intended to be a historical account proper of the early church. Indeed, it is quite unhistorical in many accounts and details. Hence, we should not expect it to be a "history book" of earliest Christianity, as that was not the author's intention. Arising out of the speculations of the Tubingen school have come a multitude of radical higher critical views. Utilizing literary/source, form, and/or redaction criticism, these theories have proposed that a redactor or redactors composed the book of Acts out of numerous, more or less independent oral and/or written traditions or sources. From these traditions they patched together a theological quilt--the book of Acts.

    With either of the above schemes, and with all the views between these two extremes, is the common thread of Acts not being historically reliable. All these radical higher critical views have in common the notion that the book of Acts is a late second century work at best, and is unreliable, and therefore, untrustworthy as a historical source for the earliest years of the church, or for that matter most of the topics it touches upon.

    Therefore, obviously Acts can not be relied on for accurate data of the formation and history of the early church, let alone does this second century literary piece correctly convey geographical, topographical, societal, political, religious, etc., data. It was not meant to. Its primary purpose was to fulfill a didactic function; that is, to express the religious experiences, feelings, world view, and struggles of Christians (primarily from the 2nd century), and not to portray the first century church's development and interaction with the world. As such it is "theological" literature, and not an attempt at history proper. Thus, we should not be surprised at the many and often glaring historical inaccuracies of this book, since is was written at such a late date, and too far removed from the actual events, culture, and concerns of first century Christianity. It follows that Acts not only is not, but cannot, be read has reliable history, as for example, as one would read Herodotus, let alone Thucydides or Polybius.


    Our Critical View and Method

    To scrutinize these theories pertaining to the historicity of Acts and see if they fit the facts, we want to examine them in the light of archaeology. Ergo, we shall examine some of the archaeological data as it pertains to the book of Acts. Our primary sources will include literature from private and public correspondence, records, civil law codes and proclamations. Also, we shall consider epigraphical data, obtained from the study of diverse types of inscriptions, found on various kinds of objects, such as buildings, monuments, steles, etc., from the time around the period in question that relates directly or indirectly to our topic.

    It logically follows that by comparing and contrasting the internal details (from within the book of Acts itself) with the information derived from external and independent sources (e.g., the archaeological sources listed above), we should be able to reasonably conclude if he book of Acts is historically reliable or not. To the point, if the radical higher critical views of Acts being basically unreliable and their framework for dating Acts in the latter part of the second century is correct, then the preponderance of evidence should bear this out with collaborating testimony from archaeology. On the other hand, if Acts is historically reliable, and thus probably having been written within the perimeters of the orthodox view, sometime in the latter part of the first century, the archaeological evidence should support this thesis. Either way our understanding can and should be expanded by the insights archaeology has to offer.

    It is my contention that when the archaeological evidence is consulted, it clearly decides in the favor of the orthodox view of Acts, and that it is extremely reliable, not only on things theological, but "secular" history as well! In other words, although the book of Acts is not primarily concerned with history qua history, or in and of itself, it is nonetheless accurate when it comments upon historical events or issues that lay within its purview.

    Accordingly, I will argue, and hope to show that because radical higher critical views of Acts cannot withstand the cross-examination of archaeology, these views are deserving of radical skepticism themselves. Yea, to be rejected and banished from the halls of higher learning in particular and the kingdom of academia and truth universally. The cold hard facts refute the speculations of the radical higher critics In short, it's the classic case of a gang of brute facts beating up a nice theory.

    To accomplish our task we shall examine the findings from archaeology in five major areas of study. We will compare and contrast what is stated in the book of Acts with what we presently know to actually be the case in the areas of knowledge under discussion. This will be conducted in a thematic manner, and chronologically within each individual category according to the chapters in the book of Acts. These topics are (1) cultural milieus, (2) nautical concerns, (3) judicial knowledge, (4) geopolitical statements, and lastly (5) titles of governmental officials.

    Ironically, as we shall presently see, there has been so much information gathered from archaeology to confirm the accuracy and historicity of Acts, that the radical higher critic are the ones who ought to be doubted, not the text! The evidence decidedly does not warrant the historical berating Acts has received. In fact, it demands just the opposite! That is, the document is at least a reliable work of theological and historical literature.


    http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/actsarcheology.html
     
    #24 KateBeckinsale7, Feb 26, 2004
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2004
  5. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    I do not have an exact position. I have found credible authors who have made a good case that Acts was written by the same author as The Gospel According to Luke (in fact the original author had written one book containing his Gospel and Acts, which was later divided into two books) and that Acts was heavily redacted later by one or more editors This of course does not prove the point, anymore than the article you posted.

    I think the only thing that I am currently sure of is that most of the books of the NT were redacted to conform to the changing theology during 60 to 150 CE. This does not necessarily imply that the NT as we now know it is in any way unworthy.
     
  6. KateBeckinsale7

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the New Testament to you? To me, it's the Word of God. If it's not, then it's not worth much.
     
  7. KateBeckinsale7

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." - 1 Corinthians 15:14

    There's nothing wrong with a non-Christian challenging Christianity and/or the Bible, but it's sad when a professed Christian denies the fundamental doctrines of Christianity and then writes books that completely misrepresent the faith. One of my regrets in life is once having spent money to buy one of his books. Below are excerpts from a description of him and his beliefs.



    Bishop Spong's View of Scripture

    We will begin by considering Bishop Spong's view of revelation and the Bible. Spong rejects the notion that God supernaturally used the Bible to reveal information about Himself, the human condition, or our need for salvation. In fact, Spong doubts that any objective information can be found in the Bible.


    Who Is Jesus?

    Let's turn our focus to Spong's view of the person of Jesus Christ.
    Bishop Spong denies virtually everything about Jesus that orthodox Christianity has believed for the last two millennia. The virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the atoning death on the cross, the resurrection, the miracles, everything that would verify the biblical claims of Christ's authority and uniqueness are discounted, and yet Spong refers to Jesus as Lord and God's only Son. How can this be? Spong argues that "the essence of Christ was confused with the form in which that essence was communicated."{10} All the biblical writers got it wrong. The first century mentality that they brought to the subject became universalized in the text of the Bible and eventually entered into the creeds of Christianity. According to Spong, Mark would never have understood or accepted the idea of an incarnation and Paul "quite obviously was not a trinitarian."{11} Christ is "the hero of a thousand faces" and "many things to many people."{12} "All of them are Christ and none of them is Christ."{13} He adds that, "A Christianity that is not changing is a Christianity that is dying."{14}


    http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/spong.html
     
  8. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    Doesn't that one kid's show totally make fun of him?

    Whooooooooooo lives in a Bible down under the sea?!

    Spong Bob, Square Pants!
     
  9. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    As a corollary, I find much of the NT analysis I have read to be exercises in futility. Using a set of NT verses to prove one point or another is specious. (This is a practice I myself have engaged in other posts :eek: ) Without a clear history of the NT documents, it is impossible to reach any meaningful conclusions.

    For example, suppose a verse in one of Paul's letters has been 3 or 4 times redacted. Mining out what is and is not Paul's word in untenable.
     
  10. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    A NT scriptural conundrum:

    At the beginning of Mathew and Luke, a genealogy of Jesus (differing between the two) is given that demonstrates a lineage between Jesus and King David. The lineage in both accounts runs those Joseph. BTW, this lineage fulfills OT prophesy for the messiah.

    The obvious problem is that Joseph was not Jesus's blood father.

    One can guess that the conflict between the immaculate conception and the King David lineage prophesy reflects theolofical evolution in the Christian faith. The evolution may go something like this. The early Christians may have believed that Jesus became divine when he died and was ressurected. Later Christians adopted the idea that Jesus was divine at birth, which necessitates that God was his father and Mary's virgin birth. Thus, the earliest versions of Mathew and Luke contained the King David lineage and the immaculate conception story was a later addition.

    A similar albeit weaker argument could be made that reverses the order in which these two stories were added to the Gospels. A third argument could be made that Mathew/Luke included both stories in their originals just to cover the theological bases.

    Who is say which is right (or if this really matter in the big picture). Without the document history, we will never know for sure.
     
  11. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    No Worries --

    if i'm not mistaken, one genalogy runs through Mary...and one runs through Joseph. But what's wrong with running the genalogy through Joseph??...he was certainly Jesus' earthly father. If I adopted a son, you can be damn sure he'll have a place in my family tree.
     
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    If Jesus was not Joseph's biological son, then he would not be in the blood lineage to King David.

    BTW, I wasn't looking for an answer to the conundrum. I was making a point how "difficult" NT passages lend themselves to various interpretations, but without a better document history we can never be sure what the correct answer is.
     
  13. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    i'm not sure why blood lineage is all that important.

    but i understand your bigger point.
     
  14. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    i'm not sure why blood lineage is all that important.

    I think the blood lineage was important to the early Jew-Christians, since it would fulfill OT prophesy wrt the messiah. BTW, I think it was blasphemous to the Jews to say that Jesus was The Son Of God.
     
  15. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    yeah..it absolutely was.

    i guess what i'm saying is that from his earthly father, he is absolutely of the lineage of David...he would have taken his father's name here on earth. i suppose that amplifies joseph's role (who, by the way, i've read some really interesting stuff on recently). he would be called Joseph's son...of that family. just as an adopted son.

    i think lineage was important...i don't know that it had to be blood lineage.
     
  16. TraJ

    TraJ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 1999
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    2
    Of course, I believe the Scriptures are inspired, so I believe that's a sufficient answer. But just for the sake of argument, why couldn't Mary have contributed this information. After recounting the story of the shepherds who came to see Jesus after his birth, Luke says, "But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19).

    I think the same thing could be said about what happened when he was 12 at the Passover in Jerusalem. Luke again says, "And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart" (Luke 2:51).

    I can't think of a better person to fill in the disciples on these events than Mary, and I find it hard to believe that no one talked to her about her son after his death.


    Again, I have to ask: Why do you believe this? What
    proof is there that any of the books of the NT have been redacted? Certainly there must be some finding that lends support to this, if it's true. The only argument I've ever heard for a redacted NT is that what we have now can't possibly be what was written. But that looks to me like nothing more than starting with a conclusion, searching for facts to support it, finding none, and yet making the claim anyway.

    In your third post, you quoted from a Web site that said, "The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible." In my thinking, that would have been a good time to elaborate on this clear evidence and scholarly findings. Don't you agree? If the evidence is so clear and compelling, why can't liberal New Testament scholars just tell what it is rather than allude to it?

    There's a far better explanation for the "numerous variations" than redaction. The vast majority of these alterations can be explained by scribal error, and usually only minor errors at that -- often nothing more than transposing letters or words. At other times errors seem to have crept in to certain manuscripts when copied by dictation rather than looking at one manuscript and copying the words onto another piece of papyrus. In some places, the variations consist of words that sound alike, which would have been an easy mistake to make if you were copying what someone else was saying rather than what you were reading. I can go on if you want me to.

    But nowhere is there any evidence of wholesale changes being made to the text of the NT. The evidence just isn't there. Despite the evidence not being there, liberal scholars still believe it. It has to be true, because, as the liberal scholar I quoted in an earlier post said, "As historical documents and testimony, the Gospels, as every scholar knows, are notoriously unreliable." They just can't be right.

    These scholars know that the picture painted in the gospels can't be true. They also know that 20-70 years isn't long enough for significant mythological elements to creep into a narritive. So the NT documents had to be significantly altered. It's the only logical conclusion. Nothing more than assumptions based on assumptions.

    The same Web site also mentioned the fact that "there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark." Q is a hypothesis, and nothing more. Some people assume that Mark wrote his gospel first. Why? Because it's shorter? (Writing to a different audience with a slightly different purpose would also account for this.) It is then assumed that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, just because they cover some of the same material. It is also assumed that Matthew and Luke must have also used another source, since they both have material in common that isn't found in Mark. Thus you have the birth of "a lost source-text called Q." As far as I know, that's the only "proof" that the text called Q (short for Quelle = source) ever existed. Does that sound like "good arguments" to you? Again, it sounds like assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions to me.
     
  17. TraJ

    TraJ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 1999
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    2
    I really can spell narrative, and I can also misspell many others. :)
     
  18. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    Mary tells Disiples that she immaculately conceived Jesus and was a virgin when she later gave birth. The disiple (Matthew) writes a second hand account in his Gospel. One of the disiples tells Paul the immaculate conception story. If Luke was in Paul's company at that time he would write that thrid hand account into his Gospel. If Luke hears the story from Paul, Luke would write a fourth hand account of the story.

    The first hand account of the story would be from Mary but she did not write her own Goospel.

    Thus, the writer credentials of the virgin birth story suffer from a lack of a first hand account. An argument could be made that the more a story is miraculous the more a first hand account is needed to support it.
     
  19. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    almost all of the great historians were anything but first hand figures in the accounts the give.
     
  20. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,894
    Likes Received:
    20,670
    What proof is there that any of the books of the NT have been redacted?

    What proof is there that the Gosples were not redacted? The point here is that one can neither prove or disprove the assertion. The document history/trail is lacking until ~200 CE.

    I can think of two cases where redaction had serious theological consequences.

    The last twelve versus of Mark were added later. The "original" Mark ended when the women finding the tomb empty. The added twelve versus made Mark more like Matthew and Luke in its ending. The proof that this was an addition is that there extant copies of Mark which ar emissing these versus. The Ante-Nicene Fathers also mentioned this in their writings.

    The second case is 1 John 5:7 where

    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Spirit, the water and the blood: and these three are one.
    (see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1077915768-5215.html#8 and http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm)

    was changed to

    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

    When Erasmus of Rotterdam published Europe's first Greek New Testament in 1516 he omitted the Trinitarian proof-text, 1 John 5:7, since he could was unable to find a single Greek MS that contained it.

    These two redactions are serious edits for theological reasons, not be confused with scribe errors.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now