shalak

Hey guys I have had a re-kindling of interest in examining/criticizing the historical validity of scripture... That may not be the best way to word it but I am looking for some good reading recommendations into the history of the Bible. I have already read some of Ehrman but I am looking for more and if possible with some more research to back it up as well.

Would a good place to start my investigation actually be reading some of the early church fathers? I know that reading Justin Martyr and Origen may be a good idea but I haven't dug into this as deeply before. Oh, and I would also be interested in reading both sides of the fence too. But by other sides of the fence I don't mean people like Lee Strobbel .

I am planning on checking my library at the school out here + potentially purchasing off of amazon.

Toto

You can check out the stickied thread at the top of the forum - Recommended Reading which will take you to a thread in the archives on New Testament criticism that was put together by Peter Kirby. It hasn't been updated in a while, but it is still valuable.

outhouse

not if you want to learn about the validity of scripture. waist of time learning ancients imagination on a subject that cannot shine a light on the historicity. beyond Gmark, luke and Matthew your waisting time in the NT



but your question is weak and vague.


which scripture?, which book?, from which period?



you have thousands of books to choose from being this vague.

sotto voce

There are basically two very different views of this history. One is that there is an apostolic 'succession' of men who have interpreted and safeguarded the Bible for two millennia, and that only those who accept the authority of these successors have valid Christian faith. The other view is that there is no such succession, that the Bible needs no interpretation, and anyone who reads and follows its teaching has valid Christian faith. It of course discounts the validity of the authority of all who have claimed succession, though of course it recognises the historical existence of these men.

The former view can be found in Catechism of the Catholic Church, though note should be taken that this volume contains recent modification of some of the historic views of the authorial organisation concerned. It is, though, comprehensive in scope, and it does provide abundant reference to historic decisions by those who have claimed succession from the apostles. These references can be easily looked up online.

The latter view can be found in The Catholic Faith by W. H. Griffith Thomas. This is a conservative view in comparison to those of many others, who believed that the author's church did not distance itself enough from the polity (church organisation) of those who favoured the 'succession' concept, so this should be borne in mind. It is, however, well set out by a renowned teacher of the subject, and contains a fairly thorough view of the history of early ecclesiastical claims.

Adam

For once, sv,
You gave a straight answer to an issue. Unfortunately, the issue was establishing (or not) the historicity of Scripture, not merely assuming it is true as both your suggestions do. Not to mention that your answers are wrong. Catholics do not say that no one else is a Christian. And do all illiterate people go to Hell according to the other view?

seyorni

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...eligion/watch/
Scriptural history and analysis in part two.

sotto voce

It's not so unusual here, surely.

Or the claimed historicity of Scripture. One thing is for certain, both historic points of view cannot be scriptural. If one chooses one, one must rationally reject the other.

Show me where, so that I can amend.

Some still do, and their views can be read on the 'net. Some even say that Protestants should be burned at the stake! All said that no one else is a Christian, often with considerable sincerity or feeling, within living memory; and for centuries, historically, before Vatican II. Various official statements made this abundantly clear to any who dared think otherwise.

Not today, of course. That is the most important of the modifications that I made reference to; though the official canons have not altered one whit, and a new catechism could revert to the original, historic view. But the current version, arguably for transient popular consumption, is a highly significant modification for any wanting a proper historical perspective.

What is the Protestant view? Have we even heard of Protestantism, here?

Adam

So rational discourse with sv is possible after all? Thank you for your reply.
But you contend that only sola scriptura can be scriptural? Where does scripture say that? And does scripture include the NT? How many books are in the OT canon, and where does either the OT or the NT say that?

sotto voce

Has that been suggested?

'Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."' 1 Co 4:6 NIV

That depends on individual judgment.

That number depends on individual judgment.

It's also rather off topic, yet may be of considerable use to the OP.

mountainman

Start with Eusebius's "Church History". Eusebius is the only source for the "early church fathers" which I define as those "fathers" who pre-existed the Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicaean Church Fathers.


When you dig deeply you will find that all roads lead to the desk of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea. We know of Justin and Origen and the entire host of "early church fathers" only via the thesis in ancient history submitted by Eusebius c.324 CE (with revisions until 337 CE).



Do you mean the Gnostic heretics?