buckeyegrad;790197; said:
I wanted to jump on this one paragraph BKB because you raised the gnostics, which I will argue can never be considered Christian.
First, except for the Gospel of Thomas, scholars are essentially united in saying that those writings originate after the first century; hence it would be impossible for the people whose names they have been attributed to could have really written them. As for the Gospel of Thomas, there is division whether or not it was written in the first century or later, but I believe there is strong internal evidence in the writing to suggest a later date similar to the other gnostic writings.
My immediate observation, taken in the context of the point I was hoping to drive at when I brought up the Gnostics at all, is illustrated with your remark:
"...scholars are essentially united in saying that..."
So, what I'm really getting at, or at least trying to is... The Bible is "written" by scholars approval or decision to include... It is a book of man because the decisions on what should go in it were made by men. Educated men? Sure. Men who were able to give a rationale for exclusion? Sure. But still, just men.
On the issue of who wrote what.... I find it persuasive that the Gospels were likely not written at the hand of any of the people who's names they are attributed (the best example, it seems, being John - which your scholars can't seem to agree
who it was written by) and instead are examples of someone (or group of someones) deciding to write down what was being passed along orally.
What we do know, even assuming scholarship dating is correct, is that NONE of the Gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus' death. (About 60CE) I find that terribly odd. Certainly not odd enough to "prove" anything, but sufficiently odd for me to question.... One, why not write the "good news" sooner? My guess is because talking to people about it was the prefered meathod of dissemination (most the populace being unable to read). IE, support for my suggestion of "oral tradition" Likewise, 30 years is a
long time. While I have memories dating to 30 years ago, they are open to much error. Admittedly, my 30 year old memories make me 6 years old when the events occured (and no doubt the gospel writeres, if witnesses to Jesus were certainly older than 6....), but even highly signifigant events in my life, like the birth of my first child, my marriage, etc.... I do not enjoy
Perfect memory of these events either... and those things happend only a handful of years ago. What I'm saying is, even if we assume these writters were actual contemporaries of Christ.... the time frame involved between witnessing and transcription cuts against believability (to me). And, of course, this is to say nothing of how one's own ideas change over time... I certainly don't think of things the same today as I did when I was.. 18... 24.. 30.. I'm pretty sure by the time I'm 60, I'll view my beliefs of today as "immature" or "underdeveloped" in some sense. If I wrote a book of my religion today, it would not resemble the book I would have written 5 years ago... nor would it resemble the book I'd write 25 years from now.
Second, the problem with the gnostic writers is that they rejected the Old Testament to the point of calling YHWY an evil god. To reject the Old Testament and to call YHWY and evil god separate from the God that sent Jesus is to deny Christ's real identity, which beyond being divine, was that of a devout Jew who called for righteous living as defined by YHWY. Therefore, it was wise for the early Christians to reject the gnostic writings; and hence, it was not a political decision to not include gnostic heresy, but a spiritual and theological one that makes perfect sense.
I must confess, I have not read the Gnostic Gospels to any level of "expertiese" and I certainly have not set out to argue they
should be included in the Bible. My point isn't the Gnostics are "right." My point is, if we assume the Gnostics had "seized control" of the Papacy, the Bible would look very different. Rather than have a Christianity that is in accord with the OT, we'd have a Christianity that either A) was twisted in a manner to be looked upon as in accord with Christinaity (and idea that I'm sure you'd reject as even possible) or B) something completely apart from the OT... say... like Buddhism (meaning, it has no foundational basis on the OT).
I guess I don't see the impossibility of either result, but particularly the second. That Christianity was developed to accept the OT as amended by the NT is equally as unsurprising to me. While I must concede the the melding, if you will, of OT and NT ideas might lend credibility to the truth of the matter asserted, it is well short of
proof of the matter asserted. And, of course, we are all free to make our cedibility determinations on what we deem sufficient ourselves.
For me, I have to ask (along with those questions already noted), what evidence is there that John, Mark, Matthew, Luke were not writing their accounts with a preconcieved notion in mind? This is a critical issue, I think. That is to say, I would seriously doubt any of these authors was ignorant of the OT. In fact, I'd bet that these guys were well versed in what the OT predicted. Credibility deteriotion, in my mind, occurs where these men were
primed to write a history of Jesus which conformed to what was previously predicted. ... I mean, John, even makes the admission that he's interested in "Selling Jesus"
John 20:30-31
these [miralces] are written down so you will come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God — and by believing this have life in his name
So, why should I not believe he's trying to support his rationale with any view he can, including conforming Jesus the man to the Christ predicted in the OT?
I mean it like this... suppose you and I are witness to the same event, Troy Smith throwing a touchdown pass to Tedd Ginn, Jr. You and I set out to describe this event. You want to tell the tale as a journalist might (in theory).. just the facts and you write that the TD pass covered 61 yards. I, on the other hand, want to take the angle that this event was predicted by Nostradamus. Lets also assume I am able to identify a quatrain which "supports" the notion.... and for one reason or another, I say the pass was 71 yards. what are we to believe? You? You don't have the authority of a prior prediction backing you up. Me? While I have a prior prediction backing me up, I don't see any reason to accept that Nostradmus' prediction without analysis... maybe BKB is a Nostradamus affeciando... maybe BKB wants to show Nostradamus to be divine? Maybe BKB has an agenda? Maybe he doesnt.... but... it's a valid investigation, and it goes towards the heart of the problem... was the pass 61 or 71 yards? 2,000 years from now, no one will have any possibility of knowing.... and you and I are both eyewitnesses having written down our "honest" accounts of what we saw.... Which story are we to believe?
The answer is, there is no answer, as either could be right. What we CAN conclude is, something happened, and that Troy Smith, in all likelihood, threw a TD pass of some distance to Ted Ginn Jr.... I would readily concede that Jesus the man existed and preached a "new" religion. But, so what... that's not particularly uncommon.
I don't know if I've illustrated my point well enough, I hope I have.....
Third, the formation of the New Testament makes a really interesting topic and is one on which I have taught at my church during Wednesday night bible studies. If you are anyone is interested in hearing my lecture on it, PM me and I will send you a link to it. The key points however are that 1) the New Testament writings were already being used and the 27 books were essentially established before the church councils; 2) the evolution of the New Testament was a process of discovery/recognition rather than a process of judgment; 3) the two standards used in the discovery process were the authorship and coherence with the Old Testament.
That does sound interesting.
