dog-on

Why do certain issues within NT criticism require the suspension of disbelief? I am not speaking of the supernatural, religious aspects, but am referring specifically to the idea, seemingly held within the current mainstream circles, that one must accept certain evidence or documents as a given. Why do we not hold this "evidence" to the same standard that we hold the claims of the religionists? As an example, it seems that the default position is that the early church fathers should be taken as giving an accurate representation of the subjects they discuss (Justin, Ireneaus, Tertullian). Nowhere is this more evident than when the issue of possible interpolation or redaction is brought up and especially when they are discussing documents from the black hole of the first two centuries of the common era.

Regarding the subject of interpolation of the Pauline epistles, the first view of these texts that we have (apart from some scant references, which themselves are suspect, even by mainstream scholarship), are by people who obviously have a theological axe to grind, in the form of apologies. Regardless of the position espoused by the writers, the text of the Marcionite Apostolicon becomes evident. Prior to these apologies, we have little (if any) evidence of the use of these epistles, much less an acknowledgment of the existence, of these writings by the proto-Orthodox (Justin mentions Paul, but not the epistles, though he alludes to certain passages that seem to indicate that he was aware of their existence. Based on the actual evidence available, Justin himself being the interpolator is just as likely as not).

Shouldn't the default position of the NT scholars be that the inerrantists, (and by this I do not mean religionists, I mean those who assume the default position of non-interpolation based on, I guess, something along the lines of divine revelation), need to prove that the Marcionite texts did not suffer later Catholic interpolation? This in the light of the fact that the first few centuries had more than a few "Christian" sects (churches) vying for authority. This was not just a theological battle, this was, in fact, political.

Haran

You guys should really step back and get a more global overview of what you are saying around here sometimes. Nearly every post in this forum seems to say that this or that isn't genuine or that this or that is an interpolation or a forgery!

Give me a break... Take a deep breath before you soak this next statement in...

There is no reason to assume that everything is forged, faked, interpolated, made-up, fiction, borrowed, trumped-up, blown out of proportion, exaggerated, etc.

Skepticism does not mean that you must disbelieve everything related to Christianity or religion. In fact, I would say that those are the marks of someone who thinks they are an intellectual while they are in fact not very well-learned and are caught up in dogmas of their own making. Skepticism simply means that you must be cautious about what you accept as "truth" and what you do not accept. And most of that is based upon a certain amount of "faith". Imagine that...faith...

dog-on

I can imagine faith, but that is irrelevant as to whether or not the proto-Orthodox had their way with the texts we are left with.

Toto

The Biblical Studies field seems to rely on the idea that a text must be accepted as accurate unless there is evidence to impeach it. But no other area of study follows a rule like that.

Certainly there is no reason to think that ancient authors or copyists were more accurate than current day internet posters.

Toto

Here is an old thread from the archives on this topic, started by Peter Kirby: Benefit of the Doubt.

In it Vinnie quotes Richard Carrier:

Haran

Not just biblical studies. Other medieval sources are accepted as the basis for much of our knowledge of ancient persons and events. If we deny them as well, then we deny the history of the world.

I believe that ancient texts must be accepted as accurate until one feels (obviously a subjective process, one built on faith in one's - usually faulty - knowledge and view of history) that the evidence says otherwise.

Biblical studies are particularly nasty because there are those (seemingly like many here) who do not wish anything in the Bible to be true, and there are those on the other end of the spectrum who wish everything to be literally true.

Solo

I think this is a more general problem of "studying" religion qua religion, not just Christianity or Judaism. Many students of religion are priest wannabes who approach the texts not as materials produced by other humans in other times seeking to define and transmit the function of the sacred, but as sacred relics themselves that are already in a perfect, supernaturally ordained, order that may be rendered ineffectual by profane analysis. Some of them produce immediately agonistic behaviours, should anyone materially question the nature of their belief. This, by the way, is not something that defines inferior intellect. C.S.Lewis, for example, was an intellectually brilliant individual - he just had a blind spot in his intellect - filled in by religious imagery seemlessly blending with ordinary reality. His reasoning, regards the factuality of the gospels, was that of a seven year old. He just could not see how totally wayward was his view of the historical accuracy of Jesus deeds and his passing.

JS

Haran

Funny to me how the religious folk are always the ones with the flaw...the "blind spot" in their intellect.... Well, I guess you know what they think about you.

jjramsey

I think you are being ambiguous here. When it comes to the issue of interpolations, there is a tendency to accept the text as being original unless there is evidence from the manuscripts to the contrary or the text doesn't make sense as something original to the author. This, though, has a lot to do with avoiding using interpolation as a "get out of jail free" card to explain away texts that don't fit with one's theory. When it comes to the issue of whether the texts reflect reality as it was, suspicious of the text is commonplace. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Jesus Seminar are exhibits A and B here.

Mythra

I agree. We can assume that there was a man named Jesus whose fame spread all throughout Judea by performing miraculous feats, walking on water, feeding thousands, giving sight to the blind, making paralytics walk again, turning water into wine and raising the dead back to life. We can assume that there were earthquakes and darkness at noon and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem. We can assume that all of the children under two years old were slaughtered in Bethlehem.

Then we find out that Philo, Justus, Pliny the Elder, and no other first century writer ever heard of any of these spectacular events.

And that is the point where the evidence says otherwise.