jbernier

I think that the process was a bit more complicated than simply holding a vote to decide the canon. For instance, long before any councils we have Irenaeus in the late 2nd century arguing that the four (now canonical) gospels were the only true gospels of the church. By this point we already have traditions which list "authoritative books" that bear some passing resemblance to the canon in its final form. I think that the councils that finally set the canon were, more than anything, ratifying and clarifying longstanding practices.

jbernier

Exactly! And I would thus argue that to judge these texts with the inerrantist assumption in mind is to fundamentally misread the text (whether one is trying to prove the Bible inerrant and thus prove Christianity correct or if one is trying to prove the Bible not inerrant with the intention of disproving Christianity).

gregor

1. Who says that even more systemic problems were not corrected.

2. Who thinks that 3rd Century compilers focused so much on inerrancy (Crossan certainly doubts they care about contradictions)

3. (Contra item 1) Maybe the first writings were sufficiently circulated that changes would be noted.

I tend to think item 2 is most compelling.

Amaleq13

And such a wonderful "argument" it is :

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh." (3.11.8)

Dr_Paine

Is not inerrancy an integral part of the argument for divine authorship of the Bible? How do you acknowledge error, yet retain respect for scriptural authority? What is erroneous? What is accurate? At this point it becomes a little subjective doesn't it? (I say this as an agnostic; I have no delusions regarding the divine authority of the Bible) I choose to reject certain distasteful aspects of the Bible, while my fellow Biblicist embraces these same verses. It sounds a bit like a buffet - "Cut and paste Christianity." It may retain value as a work of literature or poetry, but loses all authority.

Dr_Paine

There have been attempts at harmonization of the gospels anyway from the beginning. Tatian's Diatessaron (c.173 AD) is an example of this rather automatic natural human tendency to eliminate dissonanace and find patterns and consistency. The Diatessaron, literally "according to four" is an interesting conflation of the four gospels into one unified story.

Justin Martyr constructed a harmony prior to that of Tatian ("The Apologist").

The English translation can be linked from: http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/diatess.html

More info at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tian-wace.html

Weltall

So please tell me, do the words magically rearrange themselves so that the inconsistiencies in the Easter narrative dissapear when you read the accounts? I'd love to know how four different perspectives of the same event could attribute three different last words to your oh so holy savior, or why one gospel doesn't mention the event at all (or a whole lot of things for that matter). Sorry for the short derail, you may resume your regularly scheduled thread.

Chili

No they don't rearrange themselves but when I read the Gospels (that was about 20 years ago) I soon learned that it was a metaphysical event that happened in the mind of one person and that the apparent inconsistencies were there to help us understand this.

Of course, I had an advantage over most people because I had never read any of it and did not know that they were supposed to be synoptic (good Catholics don't know these kind of things, and further, good Catholics don't need a holy savior.).

A good example here is the beginning of Mark which according to me is the non religious view and therefore he would not know anything about the birth of John or Jesus. He just begins with what he can see coming down the road and here is this guy called John trying to baptize people.

So yes, enough derailment and carry on, please.

Dr_Paine

Mark did not "see" anything or anyone "coming down the road." No biblical scholar (except for maybe the ones who also promote such things as flat earth "science") actually believes Mark's account was that of an eyewitness.

Sensei Meela

I see Dr Paine has beaten me to it, but I'd also mention Celsus, writing in the late 2nd Century:

"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters...are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/celsus.html