Freethought & Rationalism Archive

OAO · 04-07-2010, 01:14 PM

Who gives a shit? Why does anyone think Christianity is committed to inerrancy? It's a peripheral doctrine at best; we aren't Muslims.

Toto · 04-07-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

... Why does anyone think Christianity is committed to inerrancy? ....

Why? Because of the number of people who have died handling snakes, because of the people who insist in the face of evidence that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and the people who insist that homosexual acts deserve the death penalty (some of these people are Christian.)

Johnny Skeptic · 04-08-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

Why does anyone think Christianity is committed to inerrancy?

Do you mean "why does anyone think that the vast majority of Christians are committed to inerrancy?" If that is what you mean, I am not aware that anyone says that.

In the U.S., millions of people believe that the earth is young, and that a global flood occured. Some leading conservative Christian organizations that promote the young earth theory and the global flood theory are the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Some inerrantists claim that if you cannot trust all of the Bible, you cannot trust any of it. That is ridiculous, but that is what they believe.

show_no_mercy · 04-09-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

Who gives a shit? Why does anyone think Christianity is committed to inerrancy? It's a peripheral doctrine at best; we aren't Muslims.

Inerrancy is the natural result of rejecting Catholicism and relying on sola scripture. Are you implying that Protestants aren't Christians?

rhutchin · 04-09-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAO

... Why does anyone think Christianity is committed to inerrancy? ....

Why? Because of the number of people who have died handling snakes, because of the people who insist in the face of evidence that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and the people who insist that homosexual acts deserve the death penalty (some of these people are Christian.)

Wikipedia says that snake handling is practiced by about 40 churches (pentecostal) mostly in the Appalachia region and basically began to be practiced only in the 20th century. It listed four people who had died.

I would not see snake handling as a strong argument for inerrancy. I doubt that there are many who are calling for the death penalty for homosexual acts. I see some people advocating the death penalty for perverts who become Catholic priests in order to get access to children.

My suspicion is that inerrancy came about in reaction to the advance of liberalism in the churches in which many things contained in the Bible were being denied. Conservative Christians generally believe in the truthfulness of the Scriptures (that they are inerrant in what is said) and liberal church people do not (and are therefore free to change or outright reject what the Bible says).

rhutchin · 04-09-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If the material at the end of Mark is consistent with everything else we find in the Bible and does not contradict what we read elsewhere in the Bible, then its addition (even if at a later time) says nothing about God. Why exactly is the addition called "meddling" as the presence of the material can be taken as a priori evidence of its acceptability to God? I think the argument that is being used relies on assumptions that are not necessarily true.

How many people have died trying to handle poisonous snakes? Drinking harmful liquids? The forged ending of Mark is the only reason why people were foolish enough to do so.

Foolish people. They should read what Mark actually wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

There's nothing in the bible that says that you'll be able to get bitten by poisonous snakes and live if you have enough faith.

The Bible never associates this with faith. It does record the event where Paul was bitten.

Acts 28
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

rhutchin · 04-09-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If the material at the end of Mark is consistent with everything else we find in the Bible and does not contradict what we read elsewhere in the Bible, then its addition (even if at a later time) says nothing about God. Why exactly is the addition called "meddling" as the presence of the material can be taken as a priori evidence of its acceptability to God? I think the argument that is being used relies on assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Wilbur Pickering sees no other alternative. What does that mean other than that old Wilbur is not the smartest guy who ever lived? I think you need more than Wilbur backing you up.

You need to make sure that there is "...evidence [that] proves [God] didn’t want it to be...," but absent a specific revelation from God, that evidence would seem hard to come by.

JW:
I see Dr. Carrier as largely a Philosopher, a big picture guy. His approach to the ending of "Mark" is a big picture approach. Which theory regarding the endings provides the best explanation. I think his debates show this. Here his point is that if an ending by someone else was added to the original than "Mark" as a whole is not perfect.

Deuteronomy 34 tells us:

5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

Obviously Moses, the writer/editor of Deuteronomy could not have written this part. Can we conclude that this book is not perfect because of this? I don't see why. Given that Joshua was his right-hand man and succeeded Moses as leader of the Israelites, he is likely the one who added the information.

Even if someone other than Mark added the ending to the book, that would not be sufficient to conclude that this was a problem. It would depend on who added the material. Given that Mark does not appear to have been an eyewitness to the original events but is said to have gotten his information from Peter, it may be that he relied on some other eyewitness for this information. Regardless, there are possible scenarios to explain how the ending of Mark came to be added, none of which necessarily make the book imperfect.

rhutchin · 04-09-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If the material at the end of Mark is consistent with everything else we find in the Bible and does not contradict what we read elsewhere in the Bible, then its addition (even if at a later time) says nothing about God. Why exactly is the addition called "meddling" as the presence of the material can be taken as a priori evidence of its acceptability to God? I think the argument that is being used relies on assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Wilbur Pickering sees no other alternative. What does that mean other than that old Wilbur is not the smartest guy who ever lived? I think you need more than Wilbur backing you up.

You need to make sure that there is "...evidence [that] proves [God] didn’t want it to be...," but absent a specific revelation from God, that evidence would seem hard to come by.

JW:
...
I have more of a micro approach. If it is determined that the LE is not original than "Mark" with a LE (without qualification) is error because the presentation in Christian Bibles Implies a whole narrative by the named author. For me, the key to demonstrating error here is to demonstrate that the Christian Bibles have this implication. I think they do for the following reasons:

1) Standard literary convention implies that the named author wrote the entire work.

2) The average Christian (audience) assumes that "Mark" wrote the entire work.

Neither of these demonstrates error. I assume that you are kidding with your point 2. Point 1 is not much different. Why should it matter what standard literary convention implies. We know that there are two text types that people use; one contains the ending and the other does not. People who do translations do not get into issues of textual criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Therefore I conclude that the Christian Bible has properly qualified that the evidence indicates 16:9-20 is not original so there is no error here based on the implication of the title of the Gospel. Another possible defense is that 16:9-20 has been included because of tradition.

So, if all your sources are wrong, you are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

To me the most importance significance of the forged/fabricated ending is what it means from an evidential standpoint. The single most important Christian Assertian is that Jesus was resurrected and the related most important Christian Assertian of evidence is that historical witnesses witnessed the resurrection. But here we have the original Gospel narrative whose Passion was used as a base for all the Canonical Gospels that originally had no historical witness witness the resurrection but subsequently had such witness forged/fabricated to it.

Of course for those who live in the real world, this is exactly what we would expect. Resurrections are impossible so there could not possibly be historical witness to one. Any such witness would have to be forged/fabricated and this is exactly what we see here.

If you step into the Christian world where resurrections are possible you are still left with the conclusion that the original report had no resurrection sighting by historical witness. This was subsequently forged/fabricated. So there is no quality evidence that Jesus was resurrected. You have to believe based on faith. Exactly what the author ("Mark"/Paul) wanted, hence the ending at 16:8.

Even in the Christian world, resurrections are not possible and are miraculous events that only God could bring about.

rhutchin · 04-09-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
What follows is Part 3 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

Quote:

3. The Principal Scholarship

The literature on the ending of Mark is vast. But certain works are required reading and centrally establish the fact that the current ending of Mark was not written by Mark. They cite much of the remaining scholarship and evidence, and often go into more precise detail than I will here. So to pursue the issues further, consult the following (here in reverse chronological order):

David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (2008). Hereafter PEM.

Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (2007): pp. 797-818. Hereafter MAC.

Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (2005): pp. 322-27. Hereafter TNT.

Joel Marcus, Mark 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2000): pp. 1088-96. Hereafter MNT.

James Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000). Hereafter MAM.

John Christopher Thomas, “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26.4 (1983): 407-19. Hereafter JETS.

Bruce Metzger, New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic (1980): pp. 127-47. Hereafter NTS.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (1971): pp. 122-28. Hereafter TCG.

There are also a few online resources worth consulting (with due critical judgment). Most worthwhile is Wieland Willker’s extensive discussion of the evidence and scholarship.[11] Though Willker is only (as far as I can tell) a professor of chemistry, and biblically conservative, he did a thorough job of marshaling the evidence. Much briefer but still adding points of note is the treatment of the problem at Wikipedia.[12] Other threads can be explored but will only end up with the same results that all the above scholars document.[13]

JW:
Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

I don't see how you can leave out:

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean John W. Burgon

This is the ultimate examination that advocates for the validity of the last twelve verses.

Of this book, F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, fourth ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), volume 2, pp. 337-344, writes:

"In Vol. I. Chap. 1, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgivings (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verse of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book miscome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51)."

Burgon goes into great detail and I am not heard of anyone who has done a similar effort for the other side.

rlogan · 04-09-2010, 08:01 PM

The original ending makes perfect sense when you make up a Jesus story initially.

The original ending has to explain to its target audience why the news of Jesus arising from the dead had not been heard of.

Well, because they told nobody and were afraid.

It's a cover story, but not a very good one. If they told no-one, then who tells Mark?

The first line of Mark explains:

Quote:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The author is not identifying himself as an inheritor of a text or tradition. The beginning of the telling is with Mark. Or rather, it claims to be. And it ends with explaining why Mark is the beginning of the gospel story.

Of course, logically you have to ask then how is the person writing this gospel aware, if they told no-one.

That's no problem. The main alternative Jesus from the gospel tale is Paul's Jesus, who was completely by "revelation" too.

The shorter ending (But an add-on) obviously is to lay claim to a central church authority via the fictional Peter (evolving to "pope"). There could very well have been someone named Peter claiming to follow a Christ. But nobody named Peter around for the absurd "trials" before the Sanhedrin and Pilate or the fictional "tradition" of releasing a murderer at passover, etc.

The case for an errant bible is in my view a lot stronger with a brief list of some of the huge red flags: Two sets of ten commandments, both very different but professing to be the same. Three different lineages leading to Jesus.

The science. No Exodus. No people coming back to life. Hello? Anybody inside that cranium?

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

04-07-2010, 01:14 PM	#41
OAO Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Southeast Posts: 841	Who gives a shit? Why does anyone think Christianity is committed to inerrancy? It's a peripheral doctrine at best; we aren't Muslims.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.