One of the key elements of a worldview involves the answers we assume in response to some key questions about the story of life. Where are we? Who are we? What is wrong? What is the solution? Where are we headed? There are direct and overt ways of answering these questions. But we also answer them with the stories we tell generation to generation. Whether answering these questions propositionally, through the telling of stories, or through the symbols we celebrate, we inform those paying attention about the way we see reality. The biblical story tells us about Creation (Where are we? Who are we?), the Fall (What is wrong?), Redemption (What is the solution?), and New Creation (Where are we going?).
The Jews, of course, lived life without the benefit of the New Testament, so we mustn’t anachronistically project the full scope of this biblical perspective back onto the Jews of the Second Temple Period. Though every element of my current understanding of Creation, the Fall, Redemption, and New Creation can be found in the Old Testament, the first thing I’ve found helpful to recognize is that the Jews were, for the most part, understandably a bit more nationalistic and Israel centered in their approach to scripture.
After his resurrection, Jesus was well able to show his disciples, from the scriptures, why he had to die and rise again, but let’s not pretend that that was an obvious option to readers of the Old Testament. Hindsight is 20/20. I’m admitting a violation by even calling it the Old Testament. It wasn’t the Old Testament then. It was just the Tanach, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
And they read these scriptures as Jews, from a Jewish perspective, with a concern about very Jewish things. Their concerns were deeply religious and deeply political. For them there was no distinction between these things. We tend to assume a distinction in our day. They did not. Religious influence and political power were deeply intertwined. Religious eschatological expectation was thus very political in nature.
Here’s my best understanding of how the Jews of Jesus’ day might have answered the big questions.
Where are we?
We are on the earth, which was created by and belongs to the God of Israel, the one and only god (Creational Monotheism). We are in the specific piece of land promised to us by God.
Who are we?
We are God’s chosen people (Election/Covenental Monotheism).
What is wrong?
• Sin.
But don’t think of Adam & Eve. This wouldn’t have been their first thought, though they certainly wouldn’t have been ignorant of these implications too. Remember, they were pretty Nationalistic. Adam wasn’t Jewish. Abraham was the first Jew. Adam’s sin is about all humanity and, though aware of this, this wasn’t their primary focus. They had failed to hold up their end of the covenant. As promised, God had allowed pagan nations to come and rule over them as a consequence of their covenant violation. Currently this was Rome. Before that it was back and forth between the Assyrians and the Egyptians (various Ptolemy-s). Before that they were actually geographically exiled in Persia. Before that Persia. Before that Babylon. Before that a divided Kingdom. Before that Solomon, David (a period of blessing). Before that the Judges (another season where they cycled through obedience/disobedience and freedom/oppression). The overarching narrative that gave identity to the Jewish people was the story of Moses and their deliverance from Pharaoh and slavery in Egypt. They understood their identity as a people in terms of Exile and Return. Exile happens when we sin. If we want to Return, then the sin problem must be addressed. Also, though they weren’t geographically in exile (they had returned a long time ago from Persia during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah), the time of exile was clearly not over. The next bullet points will explain why.
• The Temple is a mess.
It was quite a beautiful facility, and all kinds of very Jewish religious things were taking place their everyday. But – it had been built by Herod, who had no legitimacy to construct it. He was in cahoots with Rome and was only marginally Jewish himself. The Sadducees (the priesthood) was notoriously corrupt, especially at the higher levels.
• God is not with us.
In the past, they had more than a book, more than a theology of God. They had God. Behind the veil, in the Most Holy Place, God dwelt among his people in shekinah glory. Though they had returned from exile, God had not returned to Zion.
• Rome.
They were ruled by a puppet of Rome, paid taxes to Rome, and were occupied by Rome militarily.
• God’s people (his “true” people) must be vindicated.
Clearly we are in exile because as a people we have been unfaithful. Clearly the exile isn’t over because some remain unfaithful. By extension, when God comes back and fixes all this the faithful remnant will be vindicated.
What is the solution?
• Messiah.
But there was all kinds of language that served to pack up their messianic hopes: Kingdom of God and Resurrection being very popular among those.
• Sects.
Though they all (mostly) agreed on the problem (what is wrong?), they didn’t all agree on the solution. The problem: When will God come back to Zion, vindicate those who are truly faithful in Israel, restore the Temple and the priesthood, and defeat Rome? This wasn’t a problem at all. They pretty much agreed about this. But, they didn’t agree about what it meant to be faithful, to be the remnant. How can we, as Israel, be faithful and thereby be the ones who get vindicated when God comes back instead of the ones who get judged? Four primary sects will help us understand the various responses.
o Pharisees:
This group’s answer was radical obedience to God’s Law. Not just by them though. They were a very influential social pressure group, resorting to violence toward those who weren’t getting with the program. Saul (later Paul) was one of these before his conversion. If the problem was violating God’s Law, then the solution is following it with a vengeance. Now there were sub sects among the Pharisees and some exceptions to what I’m saying but that’s another discussion.
o Sadducees:
This group’s answer was compromise. They had entrenched political/religious power because they controlled the Temple and were linked up with Herod and his successors. Their agenda was maintaining the status quo. Terms like “resurrection” and “kingdom” represented a significant threat to their power base. So, they had theological/scriptural objections to these things. They conveniently “didn’t believe” in a coming resurrection.
o Essenes:
This group isn’t mentioned in the gospels but history reveals them as being fairly significant. The scrolls discovered at Qumran were likely written, copied, and/or preserved by them. Their answer to the problem was separatism (which explains their absence in the gospels). Whereas the Pharisees were still participating, albeit under protest, in the current Temple system, the Essenes disconnected from the Temple process and system altogether. They were going to be proven as “children of light” by not participating in the corruption of the broader Jewish world. John the Baptist, though likely not an Essene, certainly can be understood as offering an alternative way forward for Jews separate from the Temple as well. This all the more significant because he was, himself, from a family of priests and should have been a priest in the Temple system.
o Zealots.
This group thought they would help God out by taking up arms against their oppressors. Lots of would be Messiah figures with their band of zealots made their appearance during the 100 years before and after Jesus. The way you knew your messiah wasn’t the Messiah was when Rome crucified them.
More to come...
Note: Much of the above taken from N.T. Wright: The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. It's mostly my paraphrase and summary, but I made little attempt to adapt his material or hide that it's his. Those who've read him will recognize his language with little difficulty.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
#46 The Gospels as History Post #9
Alan,
I know you've been on the road and we all await your next point in the Gospels as history argument; that of the political and cultural environment in which the books were written.
But allow me, please, to answer a few comments that have been made thus far. Several people have queried about this:
"Jace, you question the historical veracity of the Gospels and the quality of the transcription of the books as they've passed through history. What about the transcription of Plato, Socrates, the Iliad, and other lionized works from antiquity? Why do you give them credence over the Gospels?"
(This is a compilation of three questions that all lead to the following answer).
I don't believe that ANY books from antiquity are error free. Hell, I don't think any books from this morning are error free. The difference between these other pieces of literature and the scripture of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simple: the believers of these scriptures generally ascribe to them the quality of being the Word of God. Therefore, they are necessarily REQUIRED to be powerfully scrutinized.
If Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare and Plato really believed in flying monkeys from space, it doesn't determine if the majority of the human race will burn in Hell for eternity. With the scripture, it does.
That is all...carry on.....
J
I know you've been on the road and we all await your next point in the Gospels as history argument; that of the political and cultural environment in which the books were written.
But allow me, please, to answer a few comments that have been made thus far. Several people have queried about this:
"Jace, you question the historical veracity of the Gospels and the quality of the transcription of the books as they've passed through history. What about the transcription of Plato, Socrates, the Iliad, and other lionized works from antiquity? Why do you give them credence over the Gospels?"
(This is a compilation of three questions that all lead to the following answer).
I don't believe that ANY books from antiquity are error free. Hell, I don't think any books from this morning are error free. The difference between these other pieces of literature and the scripture of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simple: the believers of these scriptures generally ascribe to them the quality of being the Word of God. Therefore, they are necessarily REQUIRED to be powerfully scrutinized.
If Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare and Plato really believed in flying monkeys from space, it doesn't determine if the majority of the human race will burn in Hell for eternity. With the scripture, it does.
That is all...carry on.....
J
Saturday, February 12, 2011
#45 The Gospels as History #8
The Importance of the Historical/Cultural Context
Anachronism is a common trap we fall into when examining history. We look at the past through the lenses of our present day assumptions and biases and project those filters onto figures and events from the past. The gospels were written during a time now referred to as the Second Temple Period in Israel's history, described events from that period, and included assumptions and biases appropriate for that period. I believe a very brief examination of that period will help us in a couple of ways. First, it will hopefully help us to at least recognize our own biases and attempt to see past them, to, as much as we can, put ourselves into their story so that we can more fully understand their story. Secondly, I believe it will help us identify how the story of Jesus' life and death fits within that context and, as importantly, how
it is a significant departure from all they might have been expecting. The gospels can only be understood historically as a development within Second Temple Period Judaism. The connections and similarities are a part of their historical credibility. And yet they are, at the same time, a significant departure from contemporary Jewish thought, praxis, and expectation. The dissimilarity from that context is also relevant, for in the difference the historical becomes historic. Two events occurred: 1) Jesus and 2) the Church. The gospels provide us with the link that explains the historical narrative development.
Why did this group of Jews embrace something so familiar and linked with their history and expectation (a Messiah) while, at the same time, so altogether different from the way any Jew would have anticipated the Messiah coming? In other words: given the Jews, why the Church? The Church, initially Jewish, later Gentile, turned the known world on its head. This change demands a cause. What events were catalytic to this change? The gospels tell us this story. They are witnesses. At least that's what is claimed. My goal is to examine 1) the internal evidence, and 2) the external evidence for the reliability of their witness. As a preliminary step, however, I think it will be helpful to take a look at the Jewish context from which these documents emerged (right or wrong, inspired or not). I don't believe a valid evaluation of evidence can take place apart from this perspective.
I'm not a historian. So I need to just admit up front that N.T. Wright, who is a historian, has radically influenced my understanding of Second Temple Period Judaism. Most of my input on this will simply be my paraphrase of his conclusions, at times bordering on down right plagiarism. Hopefully this citation up front will save me from that charge.
My next post will be my attempt at summarizing this cultural/historical/religious/political context.
Anachronism is a common trap we fall into when examining history. We look at the past through the lenses of our present day assumptions and biases and project those filters onto figures and events from the past. The gospels were written during a time now referred to as the Second Temple Period in Israel's history, described events from that period, and included assumptions and biases appropriate for that period. I believe a very brief examination of that period will help us in a couple of ways. First, it will hopefully help us to at least recognize our own biases and attempt to see past them, to, as much as we can, put ourselves into their story so that we can more fully understand their story. Secondly, I believe it will help us identify how the story of Jesus' life and death fits within that context and, as importantly, how
it is a significant departure from all they might have been expecting. The gospels can only be understood historically as a development within Second Temple Period Judaism. The connections and similarities are a part of their historical credibility. And yet they are, at the same time, a significant departure from contemporary Jewish thought, praxis, and expectation. The dissimilarity from that context is also relevant, for in the difference the historical becomes historic. Two events occurred: 1) Jesus and 2) the Church. The gospels provide us with the link that explains the historical narrative development.
Why did this group of Jews embrace something so familiar and linked with their history and expectation (a Messiah) while, at the same time, so altogether different from the way any Jew would have anticipated the Messiah coming? In other words: given the Jews, why the Church? The Church, initially Jewish, later Gentile, turned the known world on its head. This change demands a cause. What events were catalytic to this change? The gospels tell us this story. They are witnesses. At least that's what is claimed. My goal is to examine 1) the internal evidence, and 2) the external evidence for the reliability of their witness. As a preliminary step, however, I think it will be helpful to take a look at the Jewish context from which these documents emerged (right or wrong, inspired or not). I don't believe a valid evaluation of evidence can take place apart from this perspective.
I'm not a historian. So I need to just admit up front that N.T. Wright, who is a historian, has radically influenced my understanding of Second Temple Period Judaism. Most of my input on this will simply be my paraphrase of his conclusions, at times bordering on down right plagiarism. Hopefully this citation up front will save me from that charge.
My next post will be my attempt at summarizing this cultural/historical/religious/political context.
Friday, February 11, 2011
#44 The Gospels as History Post #7.5
Alan,
I wasn't dismissing the "meat" of your argument. However, I was jumping the gun. Sorry, I'm eager to get to the "meat" of my personal issues with the Gospels!
I think we can both agree that delving into textual criticism would be secondary to our dialogue. For one thing, you know more about it than I do. That I will happily grant!
Rather than bore our readers and spend countless hours researching scholarly criticism of languages neither of us can read or write I will capitulate.
In what little research I have done, I will grant you the point that we have a great deal of evidence that whatever transcriptional errors may be in our current NT they are not worthy of throwing the books out in the cold. Furthermore, I agree that there is indeed a mountain of scraps, fragments, and pieces of these books that date to the first and second century. And, in general, they match up.
I, of course, am still cynical about this issue, but not to a degree that should stop us from moving on to your next points.
I know this isn't a very congenial surrender, but it's the best I can muster and were we keeping score (thank God were not!) I would award the point to Team Alan!!
Yours,
JE
I wasn't dismissing the "meat" of your argument. However, I was jumping the gun. Sorry, I'm eager to get to the "meat" of my personal issues with the Gospels!
I think we can both agree that delving into textual criticism would be secondary to our dialogue. For one thing, you know more about it than I do. That I will happily grant!
Rather than bore our readers and spend countless hours researching scholarly criticism of languages neither of us can read or write I will capitulate.
In what little research I have done, I will grant you the point that we have a great deal of evidence that whatever transcriptional errors may be in our current NT they are not worthy of throwing the books out in the cold. Furthermore, I agree that there is indeed a mountain of scraps, fragments, and pieces of these books that date to the first and second century. And, in general, they match up.
I, of course, am still cynical about this issue, but not to a degree that should stop us from moving on to your next points.
I know this isn't a very congenial surrender, but it's the best I can muster and were we keeping score (thank God were not!) I would award the point to Team Alan!!
Yours,
JE
#43 The Gospels as History Post #7
Interesting indeed.
First, your observation about my leap between the acknowledgement of multiple variants within the extant manuscripts and my claim that the texts are reliable fails to recognize the arguments and information I included in between. I didn't just make a leap. I talked about the process of textual criticism as applied to multiple manuscripts, multiple generations of manuscripts, spread out over a wide geographic area. It is possible to determine the content of the originals with reasonable certainty. A scholar doesn't have to have any faith whatsover to reach this conclusion.
Most of our earliest manuscripts are dated between 200-300AD. We do have fragments that are earlier which serve to support 1) the first century dating of originals and, 2) the accuracy of the early manuscripts where comparison is possible.
This means that events that took place between 36-39 AD (Jesus was likely born in 6 BC), were written about up to and before 60 years from their occurance and we have multiple manuscripts dating from within 100-200 years from that point. From the standpoint of historical investigation, this represents an overwhelmingly strong body of evidence to look at. Note the following comparison between the New Testament and other works of antiquity of historical and literary value.
http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Documents-of-Antiquity.png
You made the point that we are discussing writings that are presented as God's word, and thus they require a higher standard of evidence. Well, a higher level of evidence is in fact present. But let's not confuse what stage of argument we are currently at. I am arguing that the gospels are reliable as history. That they give us a reasonably accurate view into the events they describe. This is a historical discussion, not a theological discussion. Theology comes a bit later. N.T. Wright says "The gospels appeal to history, so to history we must go." The gospels describe events in history. This is either a reliable history or not. But the method of determination is standard historical process, for we have no other. And from this standpoint, we have more and better evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient work.
You also raised the issue that there are discrepancies in the gospels. This is worth discussing, but also a leap ahead of where we are in the discussion. We are talking about manuscripts. Do the gospels we now have match what was originally written. Once this is established, we will move on to the internal evidence regarding consistency and other issues. We will then examine external evidence. This is simply standard approach to evaluating any ancient document from a historical perspective. Talking about alleged inconsistencies in the New King James Version between Luke and John is essential, but if inserted during the point we are discussing variants between one extant manuscript of Luke and another, we will confuse the discrepancies we're discussing with each other. Besides, the discrepancies (if any) between Luke and John only matter once we're reasonably sure that the Luke and John we are reading match the Luke and John that were written. There's a logical process for us to follow.
Next, you claim that the variants that exist are more significant than I have indicated. I disagree factually. I would love to see you show one example of a variant within extant manuscripts that 1) isn't easily explained as a scribal error and corrected by comparing it to other manuscripts recovered from another geographic area and 2) has any bearing upon the historical content of the gospels.
This visual simply serves to further explain how the copying and geographic distribution process impacted things.
http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Geographic-Distribution.png
I really want to establish the issue of the reliability of the texts in providing us access to original content. No leap of faith is required here. This is a matter of fact and history. An unreasonable and strongly held assumption of falsehood going in is required to filter out this reality.
First, your observation about my leap between the acknowledgement of multiple variants within the extant manuscripts and my claim that the texts are reliable fails to recognize the arguments and information I included in between. I didn't just make a leap. I talked about the process of textual criticism as applied to multiple manuscripts, multiple generations of manuscripts, spread out over a wide geographic area. It is possible to determine the content of the originals with reasonable certainty. A scholar doesn't have to have any faith whatsover to reach this conclusion.
Most of our earliest manuscripts are dated between 200-300AD. We do have fragments that are earlier which serve to support 1) the first century dating of originals and, 2) the accuracy of the early manuscripts where comparison is possible.
This means that events that took place between 36-39 AD (Jesus was likely born in 6 BC), were written about up to and before 60 years from their occurance and we have multiple manuscripts dating from within 100-200 years from that point. From the standpoint of historical investigation, this represents an overwhelmingly strong body of evidence to look at. Note the following comparison between the New Testament and other works of antiquity of historical and literary value.
http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Documents-of-Antiquity.png
You made the point that we are discussing writings that are presented as God's word, and thus they require a higher standard of evidence. Well, a higher level of evidence is in fact present. But let's not confuse what stage of argument we are currently at. I am arguing that the gospels are reliable as history. That they give us a reasonably accurate view into the events they describe. This is a historical discussion, not a theological discussion. Theology comes a bit later. N.T. Wright says "The gospels appeal to history, so to history we must go." The gospels describe events in history. This is either a reliable history or not. But the method of determination is standard historical process, for we have no other. And from this standpoint, we have more and better evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient work.
You also raised the issue that there are discrepancies in the gospels. This is worth discussing, but also a leap ahead of where we are in the discussion. We are talking about manuscripts. Do the gospels we now have match what was originally written. Once this is established, we will move on to the internal evidence regarding consistency and other issues. We will then examine external evidence. This is simply standard approach to evaluating any ancient document from a historical perspective. Talking about alleged inconsistencies in the New King James Version between Luke and John is essential, but if inserted during the point we are discussing variants between one extant manuscript of Luke and another, we will confuse the discrepancies we're discussing with each other. Besides, the discrepancies (if any) between Luke and John only matter once we're reasonably sure that the Luke and John we are reading match the Luke and John that were written. There's a logical process for us to follow.
Next, you claim that the variants that exist are more significant than I have indicated. I disagree factually. I would love to see you show one example of a variant within extant manuscripts that 1) isn't easily explained as a scribal error and corrected by comparing it to other manuscripts recovered from another geographic area and 2) has any bearing upon the historical content of the gospels.
This visual simply serves to further explain how the copying and geographic distribution process impacted things.
http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Geographic-Distribution.png
I really want to establish the issue of the reliability of the texts in providing us access to original content. No leap of faith is required here. This is a matter of fact and history. An unreasonable and strongly held assumption of falsehood going in is required to filter out this reality.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
#42 The Gospels as History Post #6
Interesting. I will be very brief. I'd like you to finish your thought.
However, for you to explain how there are inaccuracies in the texts and then proclaim "the texts are reliable" is quite a leap. Would that we were playing "telephone" or simply discussing the veracity of a children's limerick I wouldn't quibble. Unfortunately, we're discussing a book known as "THE WORD OF GOD". These are words, sentences, and paragraphs that people kill over, die for, and hang there very life upon.
Your first post, which dated the manuscripts the NT is actually based upon, dates the "original copies" (for lack of a better description) in the 200-300 A.D. range. Well, that's a bit after the crucifixion. To think the only transcriptional errors or additions in almost 200 years would be semantic is indeed a generous orthodoxy. Especially considering who those scribes were. But I shan't jump ahead.
More than the linguistic errors (which are plentiful, obvious, and far more than mere pronouns and verb tense which you seem to limit them to) there are flat out discrepancies in the four Gospels. Not minor discrepancies either. These are factual "errors". Perhaps one of them is factually true. Unfortunately, that would mandate the others are factually not true.
I'd like to go more deeply into what I mean, but I fear I'm already being rude.... the floor is yours and I won't jump in again until invited.
JE
PS- I probably will jump in again, invited or not. I'm a terrible person!
However, for you to explain how there are inaccuracies in the texts and then proclaim "the texts are reliable" is quite a leap. Would that we were playing "telephone" or simply discussing the veracity of a children's limerick I wouldn't quibble. Unfortunately, we're discussing a book known as "THE WORD OF GOD". These are words, sentences, and paragraphs that people kill over, die for, and hang there very life upon.
Your first post, which dated the manuscripts the NT is actually based upon, dates the "original copies" (for lack of a better description) in the 200-300 A.D. range. Well, that's a bit after the crucifixion. To think the only transcriptional errors or additions in almost 200 years would be semantic is indeed a generous orthodoxy. Especially considering who those scribes were. But I shan't jump ahead.
More than the linguistic errors (which are plentiful, obvious, and far more than mere pronouns and verb tense which you seem to limit them to) there are flat out discrepancies in the four Gospels. Not minor discrepancies either. These are factual "errors". Perhaps one of them is factually true. Unfortunately, that would mandate the others are factually not true.
I'd like to go more deeply into what I mean, but I fear I'm already being rude.... the floor is yours and I won't jump in again until invited.
JE
PS- I probably will jump in again, invited or not. I'm a terrible person!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
#41 The Gospels as History Post #5
Not so fast! I said I was going to begin with talking about the manuscript evidence before I moved on to the other issues. Your post demonstrates that you think the manuscript evidence is weak. In reality, there's more and better manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other work of antiquity. We have more copies, with more copies dated closer to the events described, than any other ancient work I'm aware of. In 1971 fragments were identified from Mark, Acts, and a few epistles that dated from between 70-90 AD! It follows from this that Luke is also early, since Luke pre-dates Acts.
Another issue is geographic distribution. Copies were made from the originals and distributed accross a broad geographic region. New generations of copies were made from these copies after distribution. A common objection to the reliability of these texts references the multitude of textual variants that exist in all these copies. While it is very true that such variants exist, many people fail to realize the significance that geographic distribution has on our ability to recognize and correct errors.
For example, let's say that an original author in 60AD wrote:
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
Let's say 10 copies of this were made.
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
Note that the 8th copy contains a variant.
Now suppose that these copies are distributed accross Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other parts of northern Africa. Once distributed other copies are made. Also suppose that the copy containing the error winds up in Egypt. The next generation of copies will very likely reproduce this error. But those copies containing this particular variant will be geographically centered around a particular region.
Years later, most of the manuscripts have been lost, but a few remain. Some are complete. Some are only fragments.
In Greece we find:
125 AD - MARY A LAMB WAS WHITE SNO
250 AD - MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB WHOSE FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW
In Italy we find:
90 AD - Mary had a lamb whose fleece was white like snow.
150 AD - Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white like snow.
In Egypt we find:
125 AD - had sheep fleece as
250 AD - Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow.
Now there are all kinds of variants in these extant manuscripts and fragments.
1) Sometimes lettering is all caps, sometimes not.
2) Sometimes we have "sheep" and sometimes "lamb".
3) Sometimes the adjective "little" is missing.
4) Sometimes there's punctuation, sometimes not.
5) Sometimes becuase we have only a fragment, words are missing entirely.
6) Sometimes "as" and "like" are exchanged.
But, by taking the various manuscripts and fragments we have from various regions and placing them side by side for comparison, Textual Criticism allows us to be reasonably certain what the original autographs contained. And we have more than 5,000 manuscripts and fragments to compare.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that the above examples are exactly the kinds of variants that actually exist in the extant New Testament manuscripts. No central Christian belief, assumption, or doctrine is in any way at risk due to the nature of these variants. The very end of Mark's gospel might seem an exception, for early manuscripts do not contain the final bit about handling snakes and such. While there are some very small segments of Pentacostalism in Tennessee and Kentucky that are bothered by this, nothing of orthodox faith hinges on it.
So, the reality is that we have enough copies and fragments dated early enough and spread over a wide enough geographic area to be very confident that the content we currently possess matches the content originally recorded. We know that what was written was presented as eye-witness testimony of events in history. We know we have an accurate record of that testimony. We must now determine whether we can believe that testimony or not. The texts are reliable. Are the writers? I will attempt to address that next.
Another issue is geographic distribution. Copies were made from the originals and distributed accross a broad geographic region. New generations of copies were made from these copies after distribution. A common objection to the reliability of these texts references the multitude of textual variants that exist in all these copies. While it is very true that such variants exist, many people fail to realize the significance that geographic distribution has on our ability to recognize and correct errors.
For example, let's say that an original author in 60AD wrote:
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
Let's say 10 copies of this were made.
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow."
Note that the 8th copy contains a variant.
Now suppose that these copies are distributed accross Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other parts of northern Africa. Once distributed other copies are made. Also suppose that the copy containing the error winds up in Egypt. The next generation of copies will very likely reproduce this error. But those copies containing this particular variant will be geographically centered around a particular region.
Years later, most of the manuscripts have been lost, but a few remain. Some are complete. Some are only fragments.
In Greece we find:
125 AD - MARY A LAMB WAS WHITE SNO
250 AD - MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB WHOSE FLEECE WAS WHITE AS SNOW
In Italy we find:
90 AD - Mary had a lamb whose fleece was white like snow.
150 AD - Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white like snow.
In Egypt we find:
125 AD - had sheep fleece as
250 AD - Mary had a little sheep whose fleece was white as snow.
Now there are all kinds of variants in these extant manuscripts and fragments.
1) Sometimes lettering is all caps, sometimes not.
2) Sometimes we have "sheep" and sometimes "lamb".
3) Sometimes the adjective "little" is missing.
4) Sometimes there's punctuation, sometimes not.
5) Sometimes becuase we have only a fragment, words are missing entirely.
6) Sometimes "as" and "like" are exchanged.
But, by taking the various manuscripts and fragments we have from various regions and placing them side by side for comparison, Textual Criticism allows us to be reasonably certain what the original autographs contained. And we have more than 5,000 manuscripts and fragments to compare.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that the above examples are exactly the kinds of variants that actually exist in the extant New Testament manuscripts. No central Christian belief, assumption, or doctrine is in any way at risk due to the nature of these variants. The very end of Mark's gospel might seem an exception, for early manuscripts do not contain the final bit about handling snakes and such. While there are some very small segments of Pentacostalism in Tennessee and Kentucky that are bothered by this, nothing of orthodox faith hinges on it.
So, the reality is that we have enough copies and fragments dated early enough and spread over a wide enough geographic area to be very confident that the content we currently possess matches the content originally recorded. We know that what was written was presented as eye-witness testimony of events in history. We know we have an accurate record of that testimony. We must now determine whether we can believe that testimony or not. The texts are reliable. Are the writers? I will attempt to address that next.
Monday, February 7, 2011
#40 The Gospels as History Post #4
I know you're not "looking" for a response, so I will keep it brief. Or not. Brevity isn't my strong suit!
Your link was a good read. Succinct and as reliable as anything else I've read on the subject. It didn't reveal anything I wasn't aware of, however. How true is that of your congregation, I wonder?
The oldest "original" documents we have of the Gospels were written (according to your own research) in the area of 200-250 A.D..
Having just watched a fascinating documentary on Reagan (HBO, ya gotta love it) it reminds me of the basis of my skepticism.
In the 20 plus years since Reagan has left office a cult of personality built upon his burgeoning legend has promulgated to such a level that he would likely win the Republican nomination in 2012 with a broomstick propping him up. Why is this germaine to the topic at hand?
Well, the documents we read as "gospel" are based on documents, that are based on documents, that are based on documents...... I fear vertigo encroaching. (Though it may be the Irish Whiskey).
My same criticism of Genesis will ably apply to the Gospels.
Is it quite possible that the words we study as the Gospel, weren't at all the words of Jesus of Nazareth? Are they in fact the "traditions" held by the followers of Jesus and more accurately the traditions followed by the followers, of the followers, of the followers of Jesus? Add a "follower" for every 10-15 years between 33 A.D. and the date of an existing fragment. This is an interesting discussion. The various "red-letter" moments in the Gospels reveal several different sides of Jesus of Nazareth.
I don't say this to be a smart-mouth. Nor to diminish the spiritual validity of any given line of Scripture. Let me be very clear on this point: the historical veracity of an event does not intrinsically diminish it's value as a spiritual lesson or even a "TRUTH".
That's a really important point for me to make as clearly as possible. When I doubt, with great agitation and mountains of evidence, the "inerrancy" of the Bible, I do so as it is posited as a historical document. The debate on the validity of the spiritual and metaphysical concepts broached in the Bible are NOT what I am attacking.
I will attack those from a different angle......
Now, we discussed you "starting the argument" for once. You're not very good at it though.
It seems you follow the Nazarene rather closely, at least in his more docile moments, and are more likely to turn the cheek than raze the temple. So allow this to be a shot across the bow, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors and wretched grammar:
1. Do you believe the Gospels to be the literal words of Christ/God, where attributed as such?
2. If so, why? (knowing the historical nature of the books before us).
My friend, this is a lot of fun, and I'm ever grateful for your indulgence. For me, this is an important conversation. But not a dangerous one. For you, it is your life's work and dangerous indeed. I respect you, I love you, and I am honored to call you my brother.
JE
Your link was a good read. Succinct and as reliable as anything else I've read on the subject. It didn't reveal anything I wasn't aware of, however. How true is that of your congregation, I wonder?
The oldest "original" documents we have of the Gospels were written (according to your own research) in the area of 200-250 A.D..
Having just watched a fascinating documentary on Reagan (HBO, ya gotta love it) it reminds me of the basis of my skepticism.
In the 20 plus years since Reagan has left office a cult of personality built upon his burgeoning legend has promulgated to such a level that he would likely win the Republican nomination in 2012 with a broomstick propping him up. Why is this germaine to the topic at hand?
Well, the documents we read as "gospel" are based on documents, that are based on documents, that are based on documents...... I fear vertigo encroaching. (Though it may be the Irish Whiskey).
My same criticism of Genesis will ably apply to the Gospels.
Is it quite possible that the words we study as the Gospel, weren't at all the words of Jesus of Nazareth? Are they in fact the "traditions" held by the followers of Jesus and more accurately the traditions followed by the followers, of the followers, of the followers of Jesus? Add a "follower" for every 10-15 years between 33 A.D. and the date of an existing fragment. This is an interesting discussion. The various "red-letter" moments in the Gospels reveal several different sides of Jesus of Nazareth.
I don't say this to be a smart-mouth. Nor to diminish the spiritual validity of any given line of Scripture. Let me be very clear on this point: the historical veracity of an event does not intrinsically diminish it's value as a spiritual lesson or even a "TRUTH".
That's a really important point for me to make as clearly as possible. When I doubt, with great agitation and mountains of evidence, the "inerrancy" of the Bible, I do so as it is posited as a historical document. The debate on the validity of the spiritual and metaphysical concepts broached in the Bible are NOT what I am attacking.
I will attack those from a different angle......
Now, we discussed you "starting the argument" for once. You're not very good at it though.
It seems you follow the Nazarene rather closely, at least in his more docile moments, and are more likely to turn the cheek than raze the temple. So allow this to be a shot across the bow, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors and wretched grammar:
1. Do you believe the Gospels to be the literal words of Christ/God, where attributed as such?
2. If so, why? (knowing the historical nature of the books before us).
My friend, this is a lot of fun, and I'm ever grateful for your indulgence. For me, this is an important conversation. But not a dangerous one. For you, it is your life's work and dangerous indeed. I respect you, I love you, and I am honored to call you my brother.
JE
#39 The Gospels as History Post #3
What Extant Canonical Manuscripts or Fragments are Available?
I begin by not beginning at all, but rather by borrowing someone else's beginning. Too much work otherwise.
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
Check this out. I'm not really looking for a response to this, but simply for you to read it. It's a good scholarly summary (from Duke) that introduces some of the textual issues. What kinds of textual copies and fragments do we have? When are they dated? How are they dated? That kind of thing.
I begin by not beginning at all, but rather by borrowing someone else's beginning. Too much work otherwise.
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
Check this out. I'm not really looking for a response to this, but simply for you to read it. It's a good scholarly summary (from Duke) that introduces some of the textual issues. What kinds of textual copies and fragments do we have? When are they dated? How are they dated? That kind of thing.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
#38 The Gospels as History Post #2
So - you're asking me to drive this part of the discussion, which has actually slowed me down a bit. It's surprisingly easier to respond to you. Interesting.
Anyway, I want to talk about the gospels. For me, this is really the starting place for any evidentiary approach to a Christian apologetic. 1) Do the texts, as we now have them, match what was originally written? If yes, 2) Do the texts represent a reliable record of the events they describe? 3) If yes, is Jesus the Lord of Heaven and Earth?
Here's how I would like to approach things in the first section. This ok with you?
1) Do the gospels, as we now have them, match what was originally written?
Anyway, I want to talk about the gospels. For me, this is really the starting place for any evidentiary approach to a Christian apologetic. 1) Do the texts, as we now have them, match what was originally written? If yes, 2) Do the texts represent a reliable record of the events they describe? 3) If yes, is Jesus the Lord of Heaven and Earth?
Here's how I would like to approach things in the first section. This ok with you?
1) Do the gospels, as we now have them, match what was originally written?
- What extant canonical manuscripts or fragments are available?
- What is their date?
- What variants exist and what is their relevance?
- Does textual criticism give us accurate access to the original autographs?
- What about translation issues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)