Dean Anderson

Well, I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the archeaological evidence would indicate that the population of Israel was still centred in tribal villages and towns and that the sort of trappings of statehood that you would see in an organised kingdom were absent from the archaeological record.

So I wasn't talking about it not being a kingdom for a great length of time, I was talking about it not being particularly organised, socially.

However, we have reached the limit of my knowledge on the subject, so one of the experts will have to either confirm or correct this.

Pendaric

The Bible Unearthed - how well are the theories it expounds accepted generally?

I'm half way though it, and it would seem to make sense to me, but I have no basis for comparison. Looking on the shelves of my local bookshops there would seem to be quite a few books that would assert different theories, and I'm sure if I read them they could probably convince me of their view point as well by giving different emphasis to different evidences and drawing different conclusions.

I know it's popular on here, but is that because we are in the main atheists and it is to a certain extent telling us what we want to hear? Or is it generally accepted as being accurate by the wide audience?

Chris Weimer

If only spin would post again... The Bible Unearthed is rather in the middle - it's not maximalist, but it's a far cry from minimalist. spin would take on several of their interpretations of tradition, placing everything written for after the exile. I've not been totally convinced of that yet.

TomboyMom

Mwahahaha.
I'm actually Julian's sock puppet.

No seriously, I look into this forum all the time, and never understand a word. I've been whining about it for weeks, interrupting other people's threads where they're having a great time comparing the original Greek versions of scraps of parchment to complain about not understanding a word. Julian suggested that instead of continuing to whine unproductively, I start a thread to ask some of these basic questions.

I am an atheist, and since I live in a predominantly Christian environment aka the U.S.A., I would like to understand enough about the New Testament to be able to have a conversation with Christians about their religion and the evidence for and against it. Also, if I'm not Christian, and most of the people around me are and think I'm crazy or evil, I feel like I should give it a fair shake and investigate its claims. One of their central claims is that the New Testament is a credible source of history, and that we should believe what it says about Jesus. So I'm trying to objectively explore the strength of that claim. On the other hand, I'm deeply lazy and skeptical that it's worth huge amounts of my time, so I'm using all of you to do it for me. Thanks! :wave:

Now, to continue to exploit your wisdom, can anyone briefly summarize the controversy around the issues of assembling the works we've talked about so far into what we now call the bible? Thanks again :grin:

Amaleq13

As far as the New Testament is concerned, Richard Carrier's article is a standard summary reference here:

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

I don't know if it could be simplified any more without losing necessary information.

RUmike

Yes, definitely check the above link. But here is some info in very general terms:

Basically, in the earliest Christian communities there was no "canon" of scripture. The four gospels and Paul's letters in the NT today, as well as the many many other gospels and writings that never made it into the NT, all originated and circulated independantly at first. Some communities had maybe 1 or 2 of the gospels, others had 1 or 2 different gospels. But few, if any, early communities had all four canonical gospels at the same time.

At some relatively early time, people started declaring certain writings as "scripture". Whether it was considered "inspired" by God at such an early date is unknown to me, but at the least these writings were considered authoritative and proper teaching ("orthodoxy"). The first things that seem to be collected were writings of Paul. Marcion is a notable example, who circa 140 C.E. collected 10 of Paul's letters and a modified version of the Gospel of Luke into what he considered sacred scripture. Marcion, however, was a docetist (that is, believed Jesus was not a real human but instead purely divine). This may or may not have been the catalyst for the "proto-orthodox" to collect their own canon to counter Marcion. Communities certainly had their own writings they were beginning to consider scripture, but perhaps Marcion was the catalyst for the church to have a centralized canon.

After this it gets way more confusing and I know very little. Basically the different factions had their own "sacred" writings, and it took centuries for something resembling a consensus. But basically it was never unaminous which writings should be authoritative and which were spurious.

Julian

I just wanted to point out something that may not be obvious from the above descriptions of docetism. Although a docetic would, indeed, consider Jesus completely divine it is important to note that Jesus would appear to be human. The word docetic comes from a Greek word which means 'to seem,' i.e. to seem human but being divine.

Julian

TomboyMom

Thanks again, very interesting reading. (Lazy, but not too lazy to click a link.) Who is Richard Carrier?
Most interesting how much oral history is involved, especially in the century following Jesus' death. Again, reminds me of Mohammed.
Again, don't believing Christians find it disturbing that what they think of as the bible evolved in such an organic and chaotic way, and then again stopped evolving because of the actions of really 2 main guys? Or do they think those 4th century church leaders were themselves inspired by God? Or do they even know or think about these things?
Do they study this stuff at theology schools? Like, do ministers know this stuff? Or only historians of Christianity?

Amaleq13

Brief Biography of Richard Carrier

yalla

2cents worth from a lurker.
The answers to the above are political in nature.

Political at the time in that the early church[es] were struggling against each other for orthodoxy and control of the developing dogma.
Political in that questions of power, status, prestige and authority were submerged but evident in their writings and opinions and policies [eg who is going to run this show and how].

Political in that from the time of Constantine roughly the church/religion was a central part of the government of the Roman Empire and thus needs to be considered also from a purely political view [eg Constantine telling the bishops what to say cos it suited the Empire's/his purpose].

Political in the following era as the catholic Church became at least significantly a political power subordinating everything to political control and acting like a political party with religion being a device to control populations, hence warfare and propaganda and schools and orthodoxy etc. Let's not forget who ran Europe for centuries/the Crusades.

Political in the modern era in that the vast and powerful bureaucracies of the various organized Christian instititions have political aims as well as apparent religious ones. Some aims are blatant eg Christian parties in government, some less so eg anti-abortion etc..
And getting the sheep to believe without questioning is nice for a political party.
Robert Funk [I think] comments that there are gaps between what is known by academics, what is taught in the seminaries and what is taught to the sheep.

And "political' on the personal level in that we have absorbed Christian beliefs and "facts" with our mother's milk in our Christianity-saturated societies and thus find it difficult to separate fact from fiction even when we intellectually know the difference.
So imagine how much harder it is for a believing Christian to "think outside the circle".
Denial.
Cognitave dissonance.
My political rave is almost over.
I seriously consider the question of Christianity to be significantly a political matter.