Toto

Shermer wrote Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (or via: amazon.co.uk)

and

How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (or via: amazon.co.uk) or a second edition on Kindle: How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (or via: amazon.co.uk)

His publisher would not let him title the second book "Why People Believe in God" because the public might connect believing in God with believing in weird things.

I'm not sure which of these books you meant to recommend.

angelo

All are great reads. I have two of them here. How we believe, and why. By the way, I realise it's off topic, but it was a surprise to me to learn Michael is agnostic. :huh:

Duvduv

There is so much discussion about the addition of the of the words "James, the brother of the Lord," and yet one cannot help to wonder WHY the same epistle to the Galatians did not refer even once to the name of the alleged writer himself, SAUL.

The simplest explanation would be that the author of Galatians himself never knew about the name Saul, but if other words could be interpolated by later scribes then why could a writer not just as easily smooth a major discrepancy in Galatians with one or two words after the appearance of Acts whether or not Acts preceded Galatians? Did the first two biographical chapters of Galatians not exist when Acts was written? That would still not preclude anyone from adding Saul to Galatians later, for example in the very confused group of sentences including Galatians 1:13:

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism [when I was known as Saul], how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

So the question of "Saul" is relevant whether it appears that Acts preceded Galatians or vice versa. The lack of mention of Saul itself is reason to believe that the author of the epistles didn't know about Saul. On the other hand, the way the name Paul is introduced is very strange, as merely a parenthetical phrase in Acts 13:9 with no explanation, with the name Paul replacing Saul from then on. Why?!

Galatians 1:16 also states that Paul's mission to the gentiles was instructed from Christ, and yet in Galatians 2:9 it is stated that the pillars in Jerusalem *agreed* that Paul and Barnabas should go to the gentiles while Peter should go to the Jews. This makes it sound as if it were a subject of discussion and negotiation, not based on the acceptance of the truth of his revelation from the risen Christ, since Paul was the only person to have had such an experience.

Of course this narrative in Acts makes it more confusing since the reader is left to wonder whether Paul's mission was to preach to monotheistic (Judeophile) gentiles who liked to go to synagogues or to ordinary pagan gentiles?

Acts 13 and tells us that Paul was spending all his time visiting and preaching to the Jews and Judeophile gentiles in synagogues and not directly to the gentiles while Peter et al focus on the Jews. This is apparently AFTER Acts 9:15 when Ananias has a revelation about Paul having to preach to EVERYONE including apparently PAGAN gentiles which is repeated again in Acts 22:21.

Sheshbazzar

Other than -someone- attempting to mark out some claimed to be exclusive Territorial Rights, it wouldn't matter in the least who preached the Good News of Salvation to ALL of the World, anywhere.
And if The Great Commission given to the APOSTLES is valid, ALL were placed under an equal obligation and commission to " Go ye onto ALL the world, and preach the gospel to ALL creation." (Mk 16:15)

And with no 'Paul' or divisive 'Pauline faction' being present, Speaking directly and in the flesh (allegedly) to the Jerusalem APOSTLES; "But YOU shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon YOU: and YOU shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)

'Paul's' late claim to be granted possession of some exclusive Territorial Rights to preach to the gentiles, (and to limit the Jerusalem APOSTLES to only preaching to Jews) is flatly contrary to the words, and to that Commission which was given to ALL Apostles (and by extension, to every disciple that would ever live) by The Boss Man himself.

Duvduv

Right, but the Great Commission must have been added later after the paulines.
But no one bothered to reconcile the GC with Galatians or even Acts.

Sheshbazzar

Looks like there was a veritable ping-pong game of these opposing factions taking turns at 'adding on latter' material that would counteract the former writing, and appear to favor their latter devised particular claims.
What is left is this mongrel beastie fashioned out of latter additions and having no remaining discernible pedigree.
Of course that is to be expected with a Chinese whispers fairy-tale fashioned and employed to boost sectarian political religious power and ability to fleece the sheeple.

Nothing new under the sun, Politics and religion alike being inherently compromised and dishonest human pursuits.
'Vanity and vexation' 'amar ha'Qoheleth.

Duvduv

But at some time the additions to the texts had to stop, but since there no copies of texts have assorted variations on a theme, it suggests that the scribal activity became rather centralized early on. Otherwise we might have seen, or apologists might have quoted, two, three, four or more versions of a given text even given the fact that scribal arts were a rather elite type of occupation and probably only existed in two or three locations.

Sheshbazzar

I suspect that the evolved orthodoxy became meticulous about searching out and destroying texts with any significant 'heretical' variations.
Any apologetic references to these variants could have also been easily 'edited' out of these non-scriptural, non-canonical 'Early Christian apologetic' writings. Eusebius included.

Regarding these apologists, we do not possess any of their original works, and of what we do possess, it is often debatable if it actually originated with the alleged author, and within that time frame which 'church history' ascribes it to.
It wasn't only the Epistles and Gospels that underwent editorial revisions and 'corrections'. There is hardly an 'christian' writing from the first four centuries that has not suffered from pious sectarian meddling.

Hell, it still goes on today under the guise of producing 'better', or more 'accurate' 'translations', with each sect still subtly 'cooking the books' to make them conform better to their particular slant
How many 'Versions' in English alone? And for all that there are hundreds of sects right this moment busy cooking up their own latest flavors.
(...says the man that was indoctrinated by 'The Holy Name Bible' produced by A.B Traina )

Duvduv

Interesting observations, Shesh. Eliminating alternative versions could only occur successfully under a centralized hierarchical system.

One observation I haven't made before is that when carefully reading Acts 9 and 13 in comparison to Galatians 1 and 2 or even the writings of Apologists, one gets the impression that the writer was IN A RUSH to get his story finished and "off to the publisher." The writing often makes no sense and narratives don't follow one from the other, with contradictions bumping into each other like bumper cars.
Then add to that the anachronisms, such as references to all the churches all over the place at a time which was allegedly barely 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion, and references to "anathema."

In a world that depended on scribes, one can assume that any given little community in the fourth or fifth century was alloted one or two copies of the NT texts, but the "final" copy could only have been provided by the centralized hierarchy, and I don't mean "the Vatican", but rather the central Byzantine regime supported by the major clergy of bishops.

This must have also had a bearing on the apologetic writing. If doctrines changed, so elements had to change there too, whether in Justin, Irenaeus or Tertullian, etc.

aa5874

Again, why do you constantly use your IMAGINATION instead of the Written statements of the "WITNESSES"???

You present NOTHING to support your claims.

A Pauline writer claimed he PREACHED the Gospel from round about Jerusalem to Illyricum and that he was the LAST to be visited by the resurrected Jesus.

The Great Commission by the Resurrected Jesus was given FIRST to the disciples NOT the Pauline writers and there is NO Great Commision in the short-ending gMark.

No one preached that Jesus was raised from the dead BEFORE the short-ending gMark was written.

No-one preached Jesus Christ was raised from the dead in the 1st century--NOT Paul--NO-ONE.

The Gospel was preached NO earlier than the 2nd century based on Paleography and C 14 and Apologetic sources that are compatible with the DATED NT manuscripts.

INTERPOLATED gMark16.15
Romans 15.19