Steven Carr

In other words, if John puts the cleansing of the Temple at the start of Jesus career, while the other Gospels put it at the end, this makes no difference,as only a pedant would carp at that.


Just as only a pedant would carp if an ancient historian put the crossing of the Rubicon after Julius had become undisputed Emperor, or put Tiberius as having reigned before Augustus.

Witherington's logic means nothing. It is just words, which don't even bother to attempt explaining why the cleansing of the Temple is treated so differently in the Gospels.

razlyubleno

You're right, as far as I can see, in that he doesn't appear to suggest any explanation for the differences. He hints that theological concerns might have forced John to move the cleansing closer to the beginning:

... but that's infuriatingly vague, of course.

My point is that he raises plenty of good ideas, and mentions plenty of relevant data, even if he does end up misapplying them. I find that I can learn a thing or two from him, and I find him bearable enough to read (my head usually explodes when I read apologetics), so I think it's unfair to dismiss him completely. He's making an honest attempt at framing the facts within his own theological framework, and even if we cannot grant him the premises from which he reasons, this doesn't automatically make the reasoning itself uninteresting (IMHO, anyway).

razly

fatpie42

Good answer. Thanks.

Well we are in a thread on Ehrmann's new book. He points out that many Christians are not told about the ins and outs regarding the formation of the New Testament and he thinks he ought to fill in the blanks. You claimed that you didn't think much to the silly notion that the Bible was formed, but surely Ehrman is right to counter the claims that the Bible came straight from heaven in the form of the KJV (and I'm fairly sure there are people for whom that would not be an exaggeration). Why is it a silly notion to talk about how the Bible was formed? Surely the involvement of the ecumenical councils would be part of the answer?

I actually find myself second-guessing my original answer. Mark was originally believed to have been given his gospels stories by Peter, but many Christians have (for some odd reason) decided that he is referring to himself when he says that someone runs away from the arrest of Jesus naked. That would make him a follower (and therefore technically a 'disciple') even if he was not one of the main 12. Also, the presumption by many Christians that John was a relative does not rule out him being a follower and therefore, once again, a disciple outside of the main 12.

None of the gospel writers were believed to be part of the main 12 disciples, but many Christians still believe(d) them to be followers of Jesus. Naturally, Bible scholars have since recognised that none of them were contemporaries of Jesus and that they appear to have been compiling existing stories which did not yet exist in the form of a whole narrative from birth/bar-mitzvah to death.

So yeah, I would have to concede that point. Sorry about that.

I wasn't saying that the Bible was the divine word of God sent from heaven. I was just unsure about the specific theories that it was created by "charlatans duping people" or "a dictator controlling the population".

The only dictator who springs to mind would probably be Constantine. The thing is that Christianity was pretty well established by the time he appears and there is good reason to suppose that the gospels were already around long before he decides to convert. Up until then it is difficult to find anyone who could be considered a dictator using Christianity to control the population, not least when we consider that the Christians were a distrusted minority. (As I understand it, Nero's use of Christians as a scapegoat is quite firmly established as historical. I'd be interested to know if that is wrong.)

Nevertheless, Constantine's appearance does make some changes. The councils regarding what should be viewed as Orthodox belief come at this time and his mother Helena manages, over 200 years after the fact, to miraculously discover the site of Jesus' crucifixion and the 'true cross' amongst other things. Clearly some manipulation is being done at this stage, but this isn't the origin of the Bible. It is only the origin of its compilation. Nevertheless, another issue is that Constantine was probably fairly limited in his influence. When he took communion it was at the back with the priests because, as I understand, the Church leaders didn't want his still-present pagan beliefs to be recognised by the other believers.

So yes, the compilation of the New Testament, the choice of which Jewish texts to include with it in the final Bible and the establishment of Orthodox dogma was probably a matter of dictators (more than one, since the patriarchs would have played an important part and so would Constatine's mother). However, there are issues in the origins of the Bible prior to this for which a dictator does not seem to be such a good explanation.

The other theory was "charlatans duping people". I honestly think the gospel writers were duping themselves. As I said before, why put down to malice what can be easily explained by typical human error?

Hey, that's mean.

You could at least give me a little more of a clue as to what you were trying to say. Who is trying to say that "does God exist" is an arcane question unrelated to religion? How does that relate to the 'who wrote the Bible?' question (which seems rather different from the 'how was the Bible formed?' question I thought we were asking).

show_no_mercy

Well Tacitus writes that Nero blamed the fire on Christians. But Seutonius, writing about the same fire, never mentions any Christians being blamed by Nero... just that he punished them.

Not sure if it's "firmly" historical, but it could be. There seems to be a debate over whether Tacitus wrote "Christians" or "Chrestians". If it's "Chrestians", then that would be translated as "good/useful ones" I think.

razlyubleno

I'll quote from Edwin Johnson, but please bare in mind that this is almost a paraphrase, since it's a heavily edited amalgamation that I've kept in my notes. He's talking about Tacitus' reference to Christians:

I managed to dig this up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=114548

... so much reading to do, so little time, damn it.

razly

Gospel

I'm new to the bible contradictions thing and found the book informative. Despite whether or not it received a negative review I enjoyed it. My wife is a evangelist Christian & doesn't know I purchased a copy yet. I wanted to make sure it didn't have a tabloid like analysis before I inconspicuously leave it laying about.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ehrman gives his first claimed contradiction in the Christian Bible on page 27 saying that "Mark" and "John" contradict each other as to when Jesus was crucified. Ehrman's key points:

1) "Mark's" Jesus eats the Passover meal. "John's" Jesus does not.

2) "Mark's" Jesus is crucified on Passover. "John's" Jesus is crucified the day before Passover.

3) "Mark's" Jesus is crucified at the 3rd hour. "John's" Jesus is crucified at the 6th hour

4) The explanation for "John's" deliberate contradiction of "Mark" here is that "John" is making a theological statement that Jesus was the lamb of God.

I've inventoried all this at ErrancyWiki:

Mark 15:25

Ehrman concludes by making the bold statement:

Traditionally Bible scholars have avoided concluding certain error out of respect to Christianity. Exxxcellent. Everything's falling into place (so to speak).



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

atimetorend

"It's probably even deeper than that. Yeah, these preachers need to make a livelihood... but think about it. They had to pay for their education. They might have entered seminary or biblical scholarship under the pretense that everything they learned in church (the simple stuff) was true: inerrancy, original autographs, consistency, etc. but halfway through their seminary discovered that this stuff wasn't as cut-and-dried as they naively thought prior to entering seminary."

I agree with the quote above, I'm sure that is true about motives and the biases they create. I think also a lot of these guys really believe they are doing God's work, so that becomes justification in their minds for their methods, bringing in money and bringing in souls for the kingdom. Not exactly the end justifies the means, but kind of, and kind of discerning God's will to be what fits with the circumstances, inerrant teaching to maintain the status quo that has worked for them.

atimetorend

Good thinking, it is very helpful to know about the book a bit before needing to defend it. Funny, I did exactly the same thing with Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" last year. It received a chilly reception from my wife. I put it aside and kind of read it on the sly for a while, not leaving it on the bedside table. It's out in the open now!

lpetrich

Yes, one does have to ask why so many of them present quasi-fundie if not outright fundie views that are grossly contrary to what they had learned in seminary. If excessive complexity is the problem, then why can't they work out simplified versions of what they learned there? Science popularizers do that all the time, though they sometimes come out with oversimplifications and misleading analogies.

I think that Ehrman could expand on his position by asking why it is supposed to be necessary to worship the Bible.

That's been my preferred approach. I do not want a fraudulent Bible that has been rewritten in the likeness of my beliefs. But it must be said that it would take a LOT of rewriting to make it that way. :devil1:
So they rewrite the Bible in our image to make it easier to worship that book.