Bill O’Reilly: The Bible contradicts itself

WND ^ | 3/1/13 | Unknown

[TBP]

I disagree with their numbers and the percentage alone doesn’t make that much difference. Many of the problem passages are key ones that affect the meaning of an entire section or an entire book.

Their statements are simply blind faith.

[boatbums]

I think your experts are putting their faith ahead of tehir analysis.

I think your "experts" are putting their lack of faith ahead of their analysis. That's it after all, the Bible has ALWAYS been about faith. Without which, NO ONE can ever know God or please Him. There have always been skeptics who deny much of what the Bible states. They will come up with all kinds of excuses and reasons why it cannot be trusted and why what it represents is a myth. It is a primary tool of Satan to cast aspersions on the ONE and ONLY offensive weapon a Christian has in his armor - the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17).

You claimed earlier to be a Christian, what do you believe then about Christ? How can what you believe be confirmed? What is the evidence for your faith? Diamond had some very GOOD reference material that proves quite conclusively that we have every reason to be able to trust the Holy Scriptures we have. There are many, many more I could give as well. Something tells me, though, that you have made up your mind already and have been convinced that the Bible is untrustworthy. All I can say is that I know for a fact that it IS the truth. You, it seems, are going by the adage that "seeing is believing". But, with God, "believing is seeing". That's how He works. Without the Holy Spirit, the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, they are foolishness to him. That just may be the missing component in your search for what is true.

Here are a few resources that may help:

The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament

Are 1st and 2nd Peter NOT by Peter?

Fulfilled Prophecy Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

The Impossible Faith

Did Jesus Exist?

On the Formation of the New Testament Canon

Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability

Why not take a look at these few links and we can discuss the topic further?

[boatbums]

Here's another one that might help:

Why we cannot have inerrant copies of the Bible

[Diamond]

Here is a detailed analysis of some of the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions:

I cite for you the Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Stan Musial, et al. of critical scholarship and you respond with the Joe Garagiolas and Bob Bob Ueckers of the world.

Scott Bidstrup (b. 12 January 1949) is an anti-neoliberal political activist, a skeptic and a self-taught telecommunications engineer who has written essays on a range of topics. The youngest of four siblings, he is a gay rights activist. Bidstrup currently is retired and is living in Tobosi, El Guarco, Costa Rica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Bidstrup.

I looked that up after glancing though his list, which reminding me of a Geico Caveman commercials. Among his "direct contradictions" he cites John 10:30 "I and my father are one." John 14:28 "I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.

Dennis Bratcher, who you have quoted in a nearby post at least has a Masters in Theology, but he does not really delve into the DEGREE of uncertainty in the copies, the subject I thought we were discussing. I maintain that you are exaggerating the import of those differences that do exist in the thousands upon thousands of copies, difference which are trivial at best.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Earlier in the thread I posted that list for TPB, as well as a compendium of quotations of critical scholars on the subject and TPB is not impressed in the least by any of it.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

I disagree with their numbers...

Cite for me one of their numbers and your grounds for disagreement with it.

I would say that percentages can provide some overall context and scope to the extent of the problem.

Many of the problem passages are key ones that affect the meaning of an entire section or an entire book.

Pick an example of a problematic passage that affects the meaning of an entire section or an entire book.

Cordially,

[TBP]

“the Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Stan Musial, et al. of critical scholarship”

No, only to blind fundamentalists who think the height of scholarship is agreeing with them.

Ehrman is one of the best scholars, and he cites his mentors at Moody and the other seminaries, who are about the most respected scholars in the field.

[TBP]

No, you only posted a bunch of people trying to reason that the contradictions that everyone sees aren’t really there.

[boatbums]

No, you only posted a bunch of people trying to reason that the contradictions that everyone sees aren’t really there.

You haven't answer my questions. Are you a Christian?

It appears that more than a few of your respected "experts" are in the same league with the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens atheist types. They certainly have a vested interest in disproving the Bible. They think that by doing so, they can prove Christianity, and all religions, as false. So, what is YOUR motive for citing them?

I noticed one of your links boastfully dares anyone to prove his so-called contradictions are not. He even states he would humble himself and post whatever they say as their proof. BUT...he covers his rear by deciding for himself what is "real" proof. I noticed he has very little posted in those columns. If, on the other hand, you ARE honestly seeking for real answers, you should have no qualms about at least looking into the links I and Diamond have posted. Here are a few more that address some this Scott dude challenges on:

Resurrection Discrepancies

Who wrote Hebrews - a defense of Pauline Authorship

How we got the English Bible

The Authority of the Bible

A Scribal Error in 2Chronicles 22:2? NO

Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ

Science and the Bible

On the Reliability of Oral Transmission

Bible Contradictions Answered

[TBP]

It appears that more than a few of your respected "experts" are in the same league with the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens atheist types. They certainly have a vested interest in disproving the Bible.

No, most are theologians. None has any interest in "disproving the Bible." That is a positively crazy idea. But the idea that the Bible is the literally true, internally consistent, absolute Truth is one that these scholars' study of the Bible disproves.

When you assume that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must have some ulterior motive -- and a bad one, at that -- you argue like a liberal. Very revealing.

Your articles are by people who have taken it upon themselves to "defend the faith" by assumption and circular reasoning. They assume that the Bible MUST be inerrant, then use that assumption to prove that it IS, in fact, inerrant. I must give them credit -- the logical twists and turns they do in defense of that position are truly amazing feats.

[TBP]

The crucifixion accounts paint very different pictures of Jesus as he went to be crucified.

Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene.
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way.

Those are discrepancies you can’t reconcile. Either he carried it the whole way himself or he got help. One of these accounts must be an error. One of them must be wrong.

What about the two thieves who were crucified alongside Jesus?

Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation.
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus.
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection.
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves.

So which of these accounts is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?

What does Jesus drink on the cross?

Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink it.
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink it.
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks it.

What about the Romans who witness the crucifixion?

Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything.

Matthew and Mark are fairly consistent here, but they are in flat contradiction of John and different in a notable way from Luke.

What about the women?

Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar.
John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices.

So were they watching from afar or from nearby? It can’t be both.

When did the Crucifixion occur?

Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion.

All three cannot be correct.

What were Jesus’s last words?

Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”).
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”

So we get the portrayal of a Jesus who is abandoned (or feels abandones, anyway), or one who accepts his mission, or one who is simply resigned to the events. So again, which is it? It can’t be all of the above.

And these just deal with the crucifixion. This is just one of many subjects on which there are discrepancies. There are enough to fill a book — and they have. Several, in fact.

[TBP]

More on the Crucifixion:

Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18: Jesus announces that one of his Apostles will betray him at teh Last Supper.
Luke xxii, 20, 21; John iii, 2-21: He doesn’t do so until after supper. In fact, in John, he washes his disciples’ feet before he says this.

Matthew xxvi, 25: “Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said”
John: “Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot.”

Matt. xxvi, 48, 49; Mark xiv, 44, 45: “Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him” But according to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.

In Matthew xxvi, 50, Jesus says to Judas, “”Friend, wherefore art thou come?”
According to Luke xxii, 48, he says, “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”

What of the 30 pieces of silver Judas received?

Matthew tells us: “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed.”
But John tells us: “Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.”

So which is it?

What happened to Judas? Did he commit suicide or die by a rather grotesque accident?

Matthew xxvii, 5: He “went and hanged himself.”

Acts i, 18: “Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

Which is it? Both cannot be correct.

Was he questioned by Annas or Caiaphas? Teh writers disagree.

So many discrepancies.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

What happens when you leave a corpse out in the sun for a long time? “SPLURT!”

If you hang em and leave em they will burst.

[TBP]

As for the Epistles, most scholars agree that Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians were definitely written by Paul. There is disagreement among scholars on teh authorship of Ephesians, Colossians, 1& 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The latter three are generally regarded as pseudepigraphical works. Most scholars reject the idea that Paul is the author of Hebrews.

[TBP]

But he’s supposed to have been walking when he burst. (I wonder if that is the inspiration for the scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”.)

[TBP]

A good discussion from Wikipedia of the methods used by Biblical scholars to make determinations on these issues, similar to the methods described in Professor Ehrman’s books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Criteria used by scholars

Scholars use a number of methods of historiography and higher criticism to determine whether a text is properly attributed to its author. The primary methods used are the following:

[edit]Internal evidence

This consists of what the author tells us about himself in the letter, either explicitly — the author clearly identifies himself — or implicitly — provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author.

[edit]External evidence

This consists of references, again either explicit or implicit, to the text, especially during earliest times by those who had access to reliable sources now lost. Explicit references would be mentioning the text or letter by name, or a recognizable form of that text. Examples include a list of accepted biblical books, such as the Muratorian fragment, or the contents of an early manuscript, such as Papyrus 46. Unfortunately, these witnesses are often either damaged or too late in date to provide much help.

Implicit references are quotation from Paul, especially indirect or unattributed, or expressing ideas and phrases that appear in his works. This use or reference implies the material quoted was in existence at the time the external evidence was created. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is impossible for this letter to have been written after their time. On the other hand, lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date, an argument from silence. However, use of this line of reasoning is dangerous, because of the incompleteness of the historical record: many ancient texts are lost, damaged, or have been revised.

[edit]Historical setting
An independently written narrative of Paul’s life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea,[6] while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome,[7] while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul’s historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul’s death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul’s. However, as A.N. Sherwin-White has noted, in travel romance literature of this period, it was a normal literary convention to use the first-person plural while characters were on a shipboard voyage, and “we” passages in Acts coincide with such voyages.[citation needed]

[edit]Language and style

Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author’s other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, whilst a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the 1st century.[8] Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not.[9] Of course, style and language can vary for reasons other than differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, or simply maturation on the part of the author.

[edit]Contents and theology

Similar to internal evidence, doctrinal consistency and development are examined against the author’s other known works. Theological themes like the eschaton or the Mosaic Law could reappear in different works, but in a similar manner. A consistent point of view implies a common author; contradictory or unrelated teachings imply multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis saw the Christological likeness between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul’s undisputed works, and argued in favor of Pauline authorship.[10] A problem with this method is analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is seen in the disagreement between scholars. For example, with the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued their theological notions disagreed with other Pauline works, and rejected Pauline authorship.[11] G. Lohfink argued the theology of the Pastoral epistles agreed with Paul’s, but took this as proof someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.[12]

[boatbums]

I guess you didn't bother to look at that link I gave you? From Bible Contradictions Answered:

Why wouldn't different people give different viewpoints about the same incidences? None of the verses you gave contradict what Jesus did at the Last Supper WRT Judas, do they? One mentioned the foot washing, another left it out. So what? Did it still happen? Jesus still reveals that he would be betrayed. This, remember, is not a deposition like would be needed for a court of law where affidavits have to be notarized and signed. Even if it were, when several people give an exact word-for-word description of what happened, it usually means they all got together to agree on a story - collusion, it is called. Such testimonies don't give the impression of it being true. The books that were written down came about after several decades after the fact yet the words Jesus said and the truths he taught were being passed on orally all during that time. And whatever they told about Jesus didn't change once it was committed to the written word. So, not only were these letters given to the churches under the authority of the Apostles, they matched up with the truth as it had been preached before.

What of the 30 pieces of silver Judas received? Matthew tells us: “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed.” But John tells us: “Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.” So which is it?

From the above link, it is covered in #80:

80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas [Acts 1:18] The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests [Matt 27:6,7] Perhaps here, the following maxim holds -- "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton.

What happened to Judas? Did he commit suicide or die by a rather grotesque accident? Matthew xxvii, 5: He “went and hanged himself.” Acts i, 18: “Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Which is it? Both cannot be correct. Was he questioned by Annas or Caiaphas? Teh writers disagree.

Covered in point #79. I'll not take up space here repeating what is explained at the link.

So many discrepancies.

No, not really. Unless that's what you want to find. Be brave, go to the site and see if your "concern" is covered. The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.

It gets back to the question of faith, does it not? I spent five and a half years in a Bible College and graduated with a B.A. in Biblical Education and a minor in Theology. NOTHING that you are bringing up that you say is devastating to the authority of the Bible is either new or unresolved. I've studied ALL of these so-called contradictions and it only made my faith in the Word of God STRONGER. You place a lot of trust in "scholars" that lean towards the view you favor. Why not at least listen to what the other side has to say for a change?

[Diamond]

No, only to blind fundamentalists who think the height of scholarship is agreeing with them.

Excerpts from biographies of the authorities I cited:

Frederick Fyvie Bruce (12 October 1910 – 11 September 1990) was a Biblical scholar and one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible. His first book, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals".^[1]

F. F. Bruce
Born	(1910-10-12)October 12, 1910 Elgin, Moray
Died	September 11, 1990(1990-09-11) (aged 79) Buxton, Derbyshire
Occupation	Professor, writer

Frederick Fyvie Bruce (12 October 1910 – 11 September 1990) was a Biblical scholar and one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible. His first book, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals".^[1]

Bruce was born in Elgin, Moray, in Scotland and educated at the University of Aberdeen, the University of Cambridge and the University of Vienna. After teaching Greek for several years, first at the University of Edinburgh and then at the University of Leeds, he became head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947. Aberdeen University bestowed an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree on him in 1957.^[2] In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote over 40 books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly. He retired from teaching in 1978.

Bruce was a distinguished scholar on the life and ministry of Paul the Apostle and wrote several studies, the best known of which is Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (published in the United States as Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free). He also wrote commentaries on several biblical books including Romans, Acts of the Apostles, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, the Gospel and Epistles of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Bruce was in Christian fellowship at various places during his life, though his primary commitment was to the Open Brethren among whom he grew up.^[3] He enjoyed the fellowship and acceptance of this group, though he was very much a maverick in relation to his own personal beliefs. He never accepted the dispensationalism^[4] and pretribulationism^{[citation needed]} usually associated with the Brethren, and he was also an advocate of the public ministry of women^[5] – something that Plymouth Brethren would still disapprove of today.^[6]

Most of Bruce's works were scholarly, but he also wrote several popular works on the Bible. He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hinging on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to considerable confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.

Bruce was honoured with two scholarly works by his colleagues and former students, one to mark his sixtieth and the other to mark his seventieth birthday. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, and served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study. He is one of a handful of scholars thus recognised by his peers in both fields.

____________________________________

Bruce Manning Metzger (9 February 1914 – 13 February 2007) was an American biblical scholar and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger is widely-considered to be one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.^[1][2]

_______________________________

Daniel Baird Wallace (born 1952) is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, the purpose of which is to is digitizing all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament via digital photographs.

Wallace was born June 5, 1952, in California. He earned his B.A.(1975) from Biola University, and his Th.M.(1979) and Ph.D.(1995) in New Testament studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He also pursued postdoctoral studies in a variety of places, including in Cambridge at Tyndale House, Christ's College, Clare College, and Westminster College, and in Germany at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, University of Tübingen, and the Bavarian State Library.

Wallace began his academic career teaching at Dallas Seminary from 1979 until 1981 and then at Grace Theological Seminary from 1981 until 1983, before returning to Dallas where he has been tenured since 1995. He published his first edition of Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics in 1996. It has since become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook.^[1] He also served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible and has founded the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

________________________________

Norman L. Geisler (born 1932) is a Christian apologist and the co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary outside Charlotte, North Carolina, where he formerly taught. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. Geisler is well known for his scholarly contributions to the subjects of Christian apologetics, philosophy, and moderate Calvinism and is the author, coauthor, or editor of over 60 books and hundreds of articles.

Geisler's education includes a diploma (1955) and Th.B. (1964) from William Tyndale College, B.A. in philosophy (1958) and M.A. in theology (1960) from Wheaton College, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He had additional graduate work at Wayne State University, the University of Detroit, and Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.^[4]

_________________________________

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield was born at “Grasmere,” near Lexington, Kentucky, November 5th, 1851. He was graduated with the highest honors from Princeton College with the Class of ’71. After two years spent in foreign travel and in literary work in this country, he entered Princeton Theological Seminary, graduating with the Class of ’76. He was then for a short time stated supply of the First Presbyterian Church of Dayton, Ohio. After a year spent in study at the University of Leipzig and in travel, he served as assistant to the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore for about a year, and was ordained by the Presbytery of Ebenezer on April 26th, 1879. In 1878 he was appointed Instructor, and in the following year was installed as Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Literature, in Western Theological Seminary. In 1887 he accepted the call to Princeton Theological Seminary to succeed Professor A. A. Hodge as Charles Hodge Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology.

Dr. Warfield was a prolific writer along theological lines. From 1880, when his first article appeared in The Presbyterian Review, to the time of his death when three series of articles on “Perfectionism” had begun to appear in as many different theological quarterlies, his pen was incessantly busy. In 1889 he succeeded Dr. Francis L. Patton on the editorial staff of The Presbyterian Review. A year later he became the chief editor of its successor, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review; and continued to edit it until 1903, when it was succeeded in its turn by The Princeton Theological Review. To this latter he was also a frequent contributor. In addition to his contributions to these and other theological publications, Dr. Warfield was the author of a number of books. His Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament appeared in 1886 and passed through a number of editions. His more recent publications are, The Lord of Glory, Faith and Life, The Plan of Salvation, and Counterfeit Miracles. A number of his sermons have been published and also a collection of hymns and religious verses.

Dr. Warfield’s scholarship was early and widely recognized, and he was the recipient of honors and degrees from learned institutions in this country and abroad. He received the degree of D.D. from Princeton College in 1880, of LL.D. from Davidson College and Princeton College in 1892, of Litt.D. from Lafayette College in 1911, and of S. T. D. from the University of Utrecht, Holland, in 1913. He was the lecturer on the Smith Foundation at the Columbia, S. C., Theological Seminary in 1917 and 1918.

Dr. Warfield was taken suddenly ill on Christmas Eve. His condition was serious for a time; but it improved very greatly and on the 16th of February he felt able to resume his teaching in part and met one of his classes in the afternoon. He apparently suffered no immediate ill effects from the exertion but died that evening at about 10 o’clock of an acute attack of angina pectoris. Until the Christmas vacation, Dr. Warfield had been actively at work and had met all his classes as usual.

“Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield.” Princeton Theological Review 19:2 (April 1921), 329–30. [Princeton | PDF]

____________________________

Philip Schaff  -  German-American theologian and church historian

Works by Philip Schaff

____________________

Fenton John Anthony Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) was an Irish theologian and editor, with Brooke Westcott of a critical edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek.

He was born in Dublin, the great-grandson of Josiah Hort, Archbishop of Tuam in the eighteenth century. In 1846 he passed from Rugby School to Trinity College, Cambridge,^[1] where he was the contemporary of EW Benson, BF Westcott and JB Lightfoot. The four men became lifelong friends and fellow-workers. In 1850 Hort took his degree, being third in the classical tripos. In 1851 he also took the recently established triposes in moral science and natural science,^[2] and in 1852 he became fellow of his college. In 1854, in conjunction with J. E. B .Mayor and Lightfoot, he established the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, and plunged eagerly into theological and patristic study. He had been brought up in the strictest principles of the Evangelical school, but at Rugby he fell under the influence of Thomas Arnold and Archibald Campbell Tait, and his acquaintance with John Frederick Denison Maurice and Charles Kingsley finally gave his opinions a direction towards Liberalism.

__________________

Sir Frederic George Kenyon, GBE, KCB, TD, FBA, FSA (15 January 1863 – 23 August 1952) was a British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar. He occupied from 1889 to 1931 a series of posts at the British Museum. He was also the president of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921, and from 1918 to 1952 he was Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod.

Kenyon was a noted scholar of ancient languages, and made a lifelong study of the Bible, especially the New Testament as an historical text. His book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1895) shows one way that Egyptian papyri and other evidence from archeology can corroborate the narrative of historical events in the Gospels. He was convinced of the historical reality of the events described in the New Testament: “the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”^[1]

Works

This section requires expansion. (July 2010)

• 1891: Aristotelous Ἀθηναιων Πολιτεια. Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens; edited by F. G. Kenyon. London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum
• 1891: Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum: Including the Newly Discovered Poems of Herodas, with Autotype Facsimiles of MSS; edited by F. G. Kenyon. London: British Museum.
• 1895: Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1896
• 1897: The Letters of Elizabeth Barrett Browning; edited with biographical additions by Frederic G. Kenyon. 2 vol. London: John Murray. Gutenberg fulltext

• 1899: The Palaeography of Greek papyri: With Twenty Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets
• 1900: Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum Printed by Order of the Trustees. London.
• 1901: Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1st ed.)
• 1912: Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (2nd ed.)
• 1914: Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution; translated by Frederic G. Kenyon. London: G. Bell Gutenberg fulltext Wikisource fulltext
• 1915: Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsimile. London: British Museum. http://www.archive.org/stream/codexalexandrin02unknuoft#page/n5/mode/2up.
• 1932: Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome Oxford: Clarendon Press. (2nd ed. 1951)
• 1933: Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible (Schweich Lectures for 1932) London: Oxford University Press
• 1933-41: The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible. London: Emery Walker. (See Chester Beatty Papyri)
• 1936: The Story of the Bible: A Popular Account of How It Came to Us London: J. Murray
• 1940: The Bible and Archaeology. London: G. Harrap / New York: Harper & Row
• 1948: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (Ethel M. Wood Lecture) London: J. Murray.

Cordially,

[boatbums]

There is disagreement among scholars on teh authorship of Ephesians, Colossians, 1& 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The latter three are generally regarded as pseudepigraphical works.

Do me a favor...open your Bible (you have one, right?) and read the first few verses of the first chapter of each of those books. They ALL start out identifying Paul, himself, as the writer. As to your "generally regarded" statement, I'd have to ask, by whom?, as it really is generally regarded as Paul being the author since he identifies himself at the start. Whether or not an associate of Paul maybe being the secretary writing down what Paul says, is a possibility, but the autograph IS from Paul...every one. Another point is that the early churches would have known what letters they got and from whom they came as the Apostles had emissaries as well as personally delivering some of the epistles. From the start, the Christians knew and accepted the authority of the Apostles and received their writings AS Scripture. Any suggestion that an author was unknown is preposterous as the believers would NOT have received letters from anonymous writers. Didn't happen.

[boatbums]

Thanks for those bios. I accept the credentials of these men far more than some Internet dude's blog with a personal grudge against Christians.