Decypher

What is so impressive about the Bible's "structure", "survival", and "integration"? Could you provide us with some explanation here? If the Bible is known to be historically accurate in some of its details, is that especially amazing? And with regard to, "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies", how about you prove this claim for us? I am very confident that you--Mr. critical thinker--aren't going to be able to back up this claim.

caleb_a_c

Excellent points by everyone who replied, though I've only had a chance to just now skim through them since I first made the post. And it's obvious that I wasn't all that clear about what I meant by textual criticism. I'll try to clarify that a little better later as I don't have time now. I'll also try to find a better example of what I mean by the double standard I've seen.

I don't remember who said it but I whole-heartedly agree with the point that a book that makes the claims which the Bible does should be analyzed and critiqued more strictly than other texts. What is written in it and the span of time over which it was written demands a LOT of evidence to back it all up.

I also agree that many many Christians, especially fundamentalists, hold their own double standard when considering other ancient religious writtings; and they are usually more fierce in their criticism. Most of them will completely disregard all that is said without actually reading those other writings or investigating the legitimacy of them and the context in which they were written.

I'll explain my question better in my next post in a little later today.


Thank you for the replies everyone, it's helping me understand things from the perspective I'm not familiar with. =]


[Caleb]

FatherMithras

I never get over seeing this. Creationists who really, really want to learn, are honest, and can take the kind of very harsh treatment we sometimes give them by virtue of being no nonsense. Thanks for that!

Amaleq13

That isn't really the same as demanding a "first-hand eyewitness account" which is the demand-in-question.

jakejonesiv

Hi caleb,

This is where we start to have divergance from agreement. Once you introduce "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies" you have left behind the world of historical veracity and entered the realm of faith. You have introduced the world of the supernatural into a discussion that you purport to be about historical authenticity. The two do not mix.

The fact that the texts deal with supernatural material and are written from religous motivation means that they come in for additional scrutiny beyond that given to purely secular texts. Faith is an inoptimal method of aquiring knowledge.

Nor is the Bible the only texts that are treated this way. Do you really believe that Zeus lived on the top of Mount Olympus, hurled thunderbolts around, and assumed various forms to procreate with human women?

Of course you don't. But you seem offended if any doubt the historical accuracy of "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies". And (tell me I if am wrong) you believe that Old Testament Saints rising from their graves and parading about Jerusalem, and Jesus wafting away into the sky is historical reporting.

Jake Jones IV

hatsoff

Oh, that's not a big deal. I'll often start off a post intending to discuss textual criticism, but I end up veering off into some other topic. We just needed to fix the thread title; that's all.

andrewcriddle

This may not be the sort of thing the OP meant; but IMO one example of applying unreasonable standards to texts dealing with early Christian history, is the claim that the two references to Jesus in Josephus, the reference in Tacitus to the persecution of Christians by Nero and the reference in Suetonius to the same, are all entirely Christian interpolations.

In most of these individual cases a real argument can be made for inauthenticity and IMVHO it is quite plausible that at least one is an interpolation.

However regarding them all as non-authentic does seem to involve a level of scepticism which if generally applied would make substantial parts of ancient history impossible.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

I agree. I would suggest that the problem is an excessive focus on elements of ancient history where matters of modern controversy are at stake. The correction must be to take a wider interest in ancient history, on subjects where we are enthusiasts, not sceptics. Otherwise we simply get narrower and narrower.

May I give an example of a text that has survived, but barely? Just imagine what sort of things people would say, if they found it inconvenient.

I am at the moment scanning the English translation of the Bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius, and trying to get materials together to be explicit about the manuscript tradition.

* The text only exists in a Syriac translation (the original Greek being long lost).

* The single manuscript was written in 1558, was destroyed in 1915, and was never examined by any scholar, but in 1900 was in the possession of a Kurdish chieftain (the Nestorian patriarch) who wouldn't let anyone copy it.

* It had been damaged by Turkish troops in the 1840's.

* A copy was nevertheless made by a scribe for the American missionary station at Urmiah. The scribe added notes about damage at various points. This copy was also destroyed in WW1 with the mission.

* Two copies of that copy were made and exist. Possibly a third exists also.

* The printed text was done based partly on these, partly on a modern copy of the original made at Van under odd circumstances.

Yet, it has survived all that. We may deplore what did not survive. But all of us can read it!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

But what if we are not looking at historical documents?

Paul talks of a Christ born of a virgin, dad a god - sounds like religious mythology to me.

The Gospels have all the hallmarks of literature, plays, teaching devices, with Jesus as the main character.

It is like arguing that Hamlet is historical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_%28legend%29

S.C.Carlson

Paul? virgin?

Stephen