ynquirer

A single “source” - yet not a book - consisting of different “layers” - but not texts. That strikes me as a little too abstract. (Neither meaningless, nor false, nor uninteresting; just abstract.)

IndigoDad

I like this idea.

Maybe go over the different canons.

Which books are in the different canons.

A bit on the NT canonization process.

Go over one small passage in each of the apocryphal and heretical books that seems to have "conflicts" with what's is otherwise in the canon/accepted as doctrine.

Have some discussion on why they think something like that might have been omitted from the canon.

Then go over a few passages that are in the canon in books that almost didn't make the "short list" (Hebrews, Revelations, ...) and have a bit of discussion on the pros for putting something like that in the canon vs. cons for leaving it out.

Put them in the thinking role of of "what would you have done if you were involved in deciding the canon?"

I think that would be my topic.

douglas

Take one passage that's common among several different gospels. For example, Jesus' last moments on the cross. Break the teens into groups. Have each group discuss how the same scene could have been described in different ways. Have them speculate.

I did this a while back and the results were fun. Each group had wildly different explanations, we had a lively discussion, and everyone left scratching their heads with curiousity about learning more about the history behind the bible. All I did was ask questions to guide the discussion.

EverLastingGodStopper

Peter, maybe you can write to Dan Barker and ask if you can borrow his Easter Challenge for this.

Julian

I would suggest a quick look at textual criticism make up a part of your presenation, touching on some of the major points. For example, how many manuscripts there are and how no two are alike. Items missing in earliest MSS like the pericope de adultera and the trinity reference. Also maybe point out translation issues including 'from evil' in KJV as opposed to the correct 'from the evil one' in the lord's prayer. Maybe draw attention to the many gospels and other writings that were extremely popular in the early centuries but didn't make it into the canon.

Julian

dzim77

I agree with Julian. Keep in mind that they might not even understand what it means to approach the NT with a historical-critical method. Give them the basic idea of how to approach the NT from a historical-critical perspective and site some specific examples. Presenting a history of criticism (i.e. form 1800-present day) would be boring for them, so better to just explain the basic approach. Give some specific problems to make them think... including maybe an overview of the synoptic problem. Don't worry about presenting 'both sides' of the issues, I'm sure the teacher will be able to take care of that the next day

Also giving the class what they would perceive as a 'positive result' of text criticism such as the idea of Marcan priority would greatly encourage them to be more interested in the process in the future.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

I would just play for them the movie "Village of the Damned" and tell them to think about it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

lpetrich

I'd recommend talking about why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels, and why John does not qualify as one. And then you can get into the word-for-word copies in the Synoptics, how Mark and "Q" are inferred to be sources.

You could also talk about the different editorial slants of the Gospels, like Matthew being Jewish and Luke being Gentile. And how one infers this, like Matthew saying "Kingdom of Heaven" where the other Gospels would say "Kingdom of God".

And continue with how Acts seems to be written by the same author(s) as Luke.

And with discussing Paul's letters and how some of them look like they have different authors.


If you want something more general to talk about, you can talk about pseudepigraphy, the practice of falsely claiming that someone other than you had written your books. I like to call it inverse plagairsm.

Isaac Asimov once mentioned that in one of his essays; he noted that before the invention of printing, it was necessary to hand-copy books, and that giving some book an eminent authorship would be a good way to motivate scribes to copy it. Thus, instead of copying some obscure so-and-so's book, they would be copying some book written by Enoch or Solomon or Aristotle or whoever.