Freethought & Rationalism Archive

2-J · 05-14-2008, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It's a nice story, but the fact that it was added to a work that is touted to be "actual history", can be nothing less than deceitful.

Unless the person who added it believed that it too was actual history. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=241430 is an interesting thread on that passage and its origin. Some Christians claim the passage is a "genuine anecdote of Jesus, originating from the apostolic circle" (to quote Roger Pearse on there).

dog-on · 05-14-2008, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It's a nice story, but the fact that it was added to a work that is touted to be "actual history", can be nothing less than deceitful.

Unless the person who added it believed that it too was actual history. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=241430 is an interesting thread on that passage and its origin. Some Christians claim the passage is a "genuine anecdote of Jesus, originating from the apostolic circle" (to quote Roger Pearse on there).

Regardless, adding to a text and not specifically saying that the addition has been done, is deceitful.

Now, if you want to change the common meaning of the word deceitful...

2-J · 05-14-2008, 02:27 AM

In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

dog-on · 05-14-2008, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

simongc · 05-14-2008, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistVirus

Where can I find a list of solidly proven forgeries and additions in the bible?

By additions I mean intentional deceit by scribers/translaters to fit the story or certain elements of the context.

If over 4500 years some smart aleck street cred couldn't fudge the books then old Fagan would have a coronary

-Jay- · 05-14-2008, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

You sometimes see the term "pious fraud" used in situations like this - i.e. deceptions by well-intentioned individuals. (Of course, this requires us to attempt to discern the intentions of writers that may only have given us a handful of words to work with...)

To the OP - googling the term "biblical contradictions" will get you all sorts of information with as much or as little interpretation as you want.

regards,

NinJay

2-J · 05-14-2008, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

The person who inserted the text took part in a deception only if the intended audience assumed the text was the product of one person. It's not controversial to assume that the scholarly standards of the time with respect to a text like this were not high in the first place. Maybe in the very early days there was no legitimate expectation that the written christian works were composed by one author (the fact that the gospels don't include the names, don't include any citations, and that (probably) Matthew and Luke plaigarise Mark, might support this).

Pious fraud is, of course, another option.

dog-on · 05-14-2008, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

The person who inserted the text took part in a deception only if the intended audience assumed the text was the product of one person. It's not controversial to assume that the scholarly standards of the time with respect to a text like this were not high in the first place. Maybe in the very early days there was no legitimate expectation that the written christian works were composed by one author (the fact that the gospels don't include the names, don't include any citations, and that (probably) Matthew and Luke plaigarise Mark, might support this).

Pious fraud is, of course, another option.

Not sure that Ireneaus would support you in this...

Quote:

Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast [John 13:25;21:20], himself produced his gospel, when he was living in Ephesus in Asia.

aa5874 · 05-14-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?

The parable of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus tells the mob that is about to stone her to let him who has so sin cast the first stone, is generally considered to not be original to the text. But I wouldn't call the person who added it "deceitful." I think his or her motives were generally good.

You have not established that the parable was added undoubtedly in good faith. You just gave an opinion based on your imagination.

Once you have established that the parable was added later, then deception should be an obvious reason, since whoever added it most likely wanted the reader to think that Jesus did really say the things in the parable.

It is deceptive to claim Jesus spoke a parable when he did not.

2-J · 05-14-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Not sure that Ireneaus would support you in this...

Yes, well, I prefer to be supported by modern scholarship than Irenaeus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2008, 02:27 AM	#13
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.