pharoah

What good would that do? This argument isn't really meant for skeptics. It's aimed at the faithful. The evil Bible scholar secularists under the control of Satan seek to undermine the Word of God. The proof is that they apply standards to it they don't apply to any other literary work of antiquity.

Steven Avery

Some of them yearn to breath free.

Kosh

Can I get a

<southern accent>
AMEN BRETHREN!
</southern accent>

from everybody here?


We need to add the "Argument from Good Works" fallacy to the logic FAQ....

Steven Avery

Two of the references I used from the thread in JesusMysteries end of May, 2004 (can't give you URL, they booted me off)

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1337
1 Timothy: Introduction, Argument, Outline - Daniel Wallace.
Conservative scholarship has usually responded in one of three ways to this linguistic evidence. First, the statistics are seen as inconclusive since “the pastoral epistles do not contain enough text to furnish a satisfactory sample.�
Second, “the main weakness of all attempts to calculate style statistically is that they cannot take sufficient account of differences of subject-matter, circumstances or addressees, all of which may be responsible for the introduction of new words.�... Third, there is the distinct possibility that Paul used an amanuensis to whom he gave great freedom in the writing of these letters. Longenecker (among several others) has shown that the nonliterary papyri display several different kinds of amanuenses at work—sometimes they wrote by dictation, other times, with greater freedom. His application to the Pauline epistles is illuminating:....

http://www.dabar.org/NewTestament/Berkhof/Pastepi.htm
The Pastoral Epistles - AUTHORSHIP - Louis Berkhof
The argument from style has often proved to be a very precarious one. If a persons vocabulary were a fixed quantity, he were limited to the use of certain set phrases and expressions, and his style, once acquired, were unchangeable and necessarily wanting in flexibility, a plausible case might be made out. But as a matter of fact such is not the usual condition of things, and certainly was not the case with Paul, who to a great extent moulded the language of the New Testament. We need not and cannot deny that the language of the Pastorals has many peculiarities, but in seeking to explain these we should not immediately take refuge in a supposed difference of authorship, but rather make allowance for the influence of Paul's advancing years, of the altered conditions of his life, of the situation in which his readers were placed. And of the subjects with which he was obliged to deal in these Epistles. And let us not forget what N. J. D. White says, Exp. Gk. Test. IV p. 63, that "the acknowledged peculiarities must not be allowed to obscure the equally undoubted fact that the Epistles present not only as many characteristic Pauline words as the writer had use for, but that, in the more significant matter of turns of expression, the style of the letters is fundamentally Pauline. Cf. also the judicious remarks of Reuss on the style of these letters.History of the New Testament, I p. 123.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ted Hoffman

I find these comments particularly inane. We have no problems with people who believe that the Bible is the word of God, heck, we rely on Crossan, Grant, Brown and others for insights. The problem we have is with people who allow that belief to umbrate, dictate, stifle, gag, blindfold and generally cripple their scholarship. These are the conservative scholars Vork has mentioned, whose wobbly feet have become soggy and their scholarly mettle benighted by standing still in stagnant hermeneutical waters, becalmed by their unfounded and infernal belief that unknown authors were inspired by an unknown God to write the Bible.
German scholars have immensely contributed to what was formerly Biblical theology. Herman Gunkel ended up being the father of form criticism, and other German scholars like Rudolf Bultmann, practically upgraded NT theology to NT scholarship. To claim that they "rejected" what constituted their legacies is to call black white and reveals a defective understanding of what Biblical scholarship is. It shows, to echo what someone noted in biblicalstudies, that praexus expects scholars to be exactly like sunday school teachers.
Scholars are supposed to study the composition, authorship, transmission and other issues related to the Bible, not necessarily believe the theological messages contained therein. That is not the work of scholarship.

Gunther Bornkamm, a respected German scholar, in Paul , regarded the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) as Deutero-Pauline (i.e. composed under Paul’s name) alongside Collosians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians (he finds the expression “forgeries� too derogatory an expression to use in describing these latter texts).
He provides the reasons for rejecting the Deutero-Pauline letters as authentic. Pastoral epistles, he argues, provide events in Paul’s life that “cannot be verified from the rest of the (undisputed) letters: post-apostolic ordering of the Church; the characteristics of the heresy; vocabulary and theological evidence� (p.242)
Ephesians is dropped because the name is not attested by textual evidence and it lacks a relationship to any Church. In addition, it is not a letter but more of a theological treatise (and writing theological treatises was not Paul’s style). There are theological conflicts with Paul, for example, the portrayal of the Church as a cosmic body with Christ as the “head� - an idea Bornkamm’ argues was influenced by Gnosticism.
Colossians, he argues, possesses differences in conceptions of Christology, of the Church, of baptism, the apostolic office and eschatology. With respect to 2 Thessalonians, (which is supposed to be dependent on 1 Thessalonians) Bornkamm argues:

(p.243)
He enumerates problems with 1 and 2 Corinthian’s authenticity, Phillipians and Romans. Notable are his reasons for regarding Romans 1:13 as pre-Pauline credo. He argues that the passage uses participles, which is characteristic of propositions in primitive Christian confessions, and the synthetic parallelism. Another reason is the “according to the flesh – according to the spirit� Christological scheme which is found in non-Pauline sources like 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet. 3:18, Eph. 18:2; Ign. Try. 9, Sm.1:1. An additionaal reason is the motif of Jesus as son of David, which is found nowhere else in Paul. Bornkamm also adds in this list the un-Pauline turns of phrase like “designated as…�; “Son of God in power�; “spirit of holiness�. “Since [his] resurrection from the dead�
In support of this last argument, Bornkamm writes:
(p. 248)

Steven Avery

Ted, what you miss is that the modern realms of scholarship in a clear sense must have an errant non-authoritative text. The various scholarship criticisms, redaction, higher and lower, textual, form, whatever, lose much of their function and purpose if the scriptures are in fact true.

As an example, "scholarship" that looks for authorship of the epistles is somewhat hamstrung if Luke, Peter and Paul are actually truthful in their first-person announcements. So one way or another, under the guise of "scholarship", these claims will be viewed as deceptions, fabrications, lies, forgeries (even if given fancier names).

Similarly modern textcrit runs under virtually unquestionable postulates of an errant text, and then attempts to 'reconstruct' their presumed original errors that have been supposedly corrupted (yes, it is this absurd). The unquestioned and required precept -- there is no original true manuscripts that are truthful and inerrant.

So these types of "scholarship" that you are promoting, (and dissing views that don't start with their presumptions) are simply blowing smoke if they claim to be "neutral". And that is putting it mildly.

And that is why your blandisments to "come onboard the modern scholarship train" will find me passing through the night on the track in the other direction. Tis a nicer ride, and beautiful scenery, on the train bound for glory

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

gregor

But does the little engine (that could) for the train heading to inerrant glory keep repeating "I know it's true, I know it's true, I know it's true. . . "

Amaleq13

You have made it abundantly clear that your position is founded on your faith in the magical nature of the texts but do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion? This forum is based on considering the Bible in the same way all ancient texts are critically examined so your faith-based approach of special pleading is entirely inappropriate here unless you are able and willing to share what evidence supports identification of the author.

Doug Shaver

Reviewing the thread, I see it began with your response to Vorkosigan in post #16. I included a snippet with my response to that post, but let me take it from the top with a larger excerpt.
What I really picked up on, though I did not address it directly, was your sneer about presuppositions. I will happily admit to having a few, considering that it is quite impossible to do any serious thinking without them. But for Christian apologists of all people to berate anyone for having presuppositions is, I suggest, the very ultimate in pots calling kettles black.

If you want to try denying having any presuppositions, go for it. Otherwise, we can proceed to compare our respective arguments and, when we reach a point where we must confront a particular presupposition, we can talk about whether that particular presupposition is reasonable.

Now, I do not presuppose that the gospels are fiction. I infer it as the best explanation to the totality of evidence pertaining to Christianity's origins. Obviously, without that inference, mythicism would be incoherent. However, doubt about the gospels' historical reliability is hardly unique to mythicists. The academic world is full of scholars who think the gospels are mostly fiction but are nonetheless quite convinced of Jesus' historicity. So, I am hardly driven by mythicism to question the gospels' accuracy.

I used to be a fundamentalist, a long time ago, until I became convinced that scriptural inerrancy was intellectually untenable. But I did not stop believing in God when I stopped believing in the Bible. I moved to the liberal side of Christianity and stayed there for several more years, until I realized that I could no longer defend my belief in God. But I did not then stop believing that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth once lived in Galilee, acquired a band of disciples, and made a profound impression on them and many other people who heard his moral teachings. Once in a while over the next 30 years or so, I heard about people who doubted his existence. I thought that they were mostly crackpots, and that the ones who were not crackpots were just foolish.

I did not go through all these transitions because I was picking up new suppositions. I went through them because I letting go of presuppositions. When I stopped presupposing scriptural inerrancy, I found it indefensible in terms of evidence. When I stopped presupposing God's existence, I found it indefensible in terms of evidence. When I stopped presupposing Jesus' historical existence, I found it indefensible in terms of evidence.

But I do not think I am omniscient or infallible. There could be some relevant evidence that I have not yet become aware of. Or, I could be applying faulty reasoning in my analysis of the evidence that I am aware of. If either is the case, then someone ought to bring it to my attention. It is possible, of course, that even if they did, I would be too pigheaded to change my mind, but anyone who would like to set me straight will just have to take that chance. They would surely have little to lose, and the cause of Christianity would have much to gain.

In your quote that I reproduced above, you were responding to some of Vorkosigan's remarks about authorship of Colossians and II Timothy. You and he were exchanging remarks about which scholars ought to be considered more authoritative on the issue and the relevance, if any, of their being in our out of the academic mainstream.

You appeared to me to be suggesting that there was scarcely any, if any at all, justification for questioning the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles. You appeared to be suggesting that anyone who did raise any question could only be motivated by a positive desire to discredit them as sources of reliable information about Christianity's origins. And so, while having in mind your comment about presuppositions, I put this question to you:
I am new here, but not new to forums like this. You are not the first Christian to whom I have put that sort of question. Usually, I have gotten no response at all. When I have gotten a response, it amounts to: "The author said he was Paul." I then note the fallacy in such an argument and then I get no further response.

Now, some skeptics are indeed woefully ignorant, but most of us actually are aware that the pastoral epistles were written by someone identifying himself as Paul. The question, it ought to be obvious, is why we should take the author's word for it that he was in fact Paul.

It is hardly only the mythicists who doubt that Paul wrote the pastorals. I have never read one work by a historicist supporting Pauline authorship of all the epistles attributed to him, save only the works of inerrantists. I suppose there are some, but I haven't come across them yet.

If your point is that you have no hope of changing any mythicist's mind, so what? Not everybody here is a mythicist. Who knows what you might convince a historicist skeptic of if you show them a good argument.

And just by the way, your implication that no mythicist can have an open mind is very wrong. However, I suspect that it fits certain of your presuppositions very well to believe such things.

Doug Shaver

I was still an inerrantist when I began looking into biblical scholarship well over four decades ago. I don't think I've missed a whole lot over the years since then.

I am not about to deny that some scholars have approached the Bible with an attitude of "It must be wrong," but cannot see where all of them, or even most of them, have done so. What I have seen is a rejection of any presupposition that the Bible must be what any religious orthodoxy says it must be. What I have seen is a rejection of the presupposition that it has any authority beyond that of whoever its authors were.

You assume your conclusion when you call the authors Luke, Peter, and Paul. An intellectually honest search for authorship does not simply assume that any document was written by whoever the writer claims to be. And by the way, *no* NT author claimed to be anybody named Luke. The author of Acts implied -- did not assert but implied -- that he sometimes traveled with Paul, but he *does not* say *or imply* anything otherwise about who he was. Church tradition starting in the late second century said he was Luke. The tradition could have been based on fact, but we have no reason to assume that it must have been.

If the totality of evidence suggests that they were deceptions, fabrications, etc., then your scare quotes won't change the evidence. We can discuss whether the evidence really does suggest that, or we can discuss whether scholars who disagree with your dogma are capable of engaging in real scholarship. That's up to you.

No, it does not. It runs under the virtually unquestionable postulate that inerrancy should not be assumed but must, if it happens to be the case, be proved in light of *all* relevant evidence.

That there are no original manuscripts, true or otherwise, is not a precept. It is a fact. Whether they were true and inerrant is to be proved, not presumed.