Many longtime students of the New Testament and many scholars of the New Testament, including some who began their educations at fundamentalist schools, take my position.
The fact is that the New Testament was put together after the fact. In the early days of Christianity, there were many Scriptures. What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea.
If you approach this from a position of “respect for the full authority of the sacred texts”, you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.
I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of. However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices (which reflect the worldview of the person making them and therefore may or may not be correct interpretations.)
You claim that scholars are “dismissive of what they deride as “literalistic fundamentalism” and are dedicated to “proving” that the Bible is not an inspired document.” I he never read one who fits that description. That is an assumption on your part, based on your already-held theological views, nothing more.
Furthermore, all the quotes attributed to Jesus may not be accurate. Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them. And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.
[[However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices]]
First off there are not many contradictions- not when the issues are examined in context taking into consideration history, culture, phrases of speech particular to the period etc-
Secondly, none of what you describe refutes and earlier writing of the gospel of the apostles- they are simply translation differences after the fact,
[[What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea]]
What has this got to do with anything? Did what was excluded prove the writers of the 4 gospels wrote what they did after 70AD? If not, why even ring this up? Do later translations mean that the original works could not have been before 70 AD? Of course not- why bring it up? Why bring up copies to cast doubt on when the originals were written?
The only real point you’ve brought up in your argument goes something like:
‘Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore John and the gospel writers could not have been eyewitnesses’- and then you just keep repeating that ‘highly credentialed scholars’ ‘have a myriad of information’ that refutes the idea that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses (Yet you fail to produce any of this ‘rock solid’ evidence)- You basically just ‘appeal to authority’ as though that’s enough to settle the matter
The only other point you make really is something along the lines of ‘The bible contains errors’ (apparently in an effort to suggest that none of it can be trusted, and insinuating that the gospels were just stories- and not actual eyewitness accounts)
[[I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of.]]
Well sure you do- when In the face of evidence that refutes the claims you choose to accept the claims over the evidence, you come at it with a perspective that it can’t be theologically true- you are in denial if you think that you are being objective.
Every point that is brought up to show that the bible gospels were written after 70 AD has counter points showing why they can’t be true. John’s gospel talks of a pool outside the present Temple- using the word is and not was-
Do you have some other point you’re trying to make? If so I’ve missed it
[[you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.]]
This isn’t true at all- IF there is evidence that proves otherwise- then it’s a no brainer that the bible is fallible and not trustworthy- Facts are facts, however, In regard to this issue, there is strong evidence the gospels were written before 70 AD contrary to the claims of the few who think otherwise
[[Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them.]]
Yep- and some scholars conclude that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God while other scholars do- so what’s your point?
[[And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.]]
Yeah not so much- again, context is your friend
That may well be. As I attempted to point out, there exists a sharp division among scholars as to the nature of the biblical texts. It is, however, by no means correct to imply that there is a "consensus" among scholars that the biblical texts are not historically reliable.
The fact is that the New Testament was put together after the fact. In the early days of Christianity, there were many Scriptures. What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea.
Your first sentence is self-evident. Your second sentence is unsubstantiated if you are implying that there were many gospels, out of which four were chosen. Yes, there were much later Gnostic gospels that surfaced in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Nicene Creed does not mention a specific list of canonical texts.
The New Testament books that composed the canon are amply represented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, several of whom compiled lists of books that were considered canonical. A careful examination of the lists finds a remarkable correlation with those which were later recognized by the Council of Hippo.
If you approach this from a position of “respect for the full authority of the sacred textsâ€, you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.
No argument here. I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of. However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices (which reflect the worldview of the person making them and therefore may or may not be correct interpretations.)
One must clarify that the doctrine of inspiration extends only to the original manuscripts. Of course slight differences will occur in later copies and translations. However, almost all of the differences are regarding slight differences in wording or phrasing. There are amazingly few changes that impinge upon a significant point of doctrine.
One common claim about alleged "contradictions" has to do with the variations in accounts of events found in the Gospels. However, one must not expect that all the Gospels be carbon copies of each other - if so, what would be the point of having four Gospels?
The point is to present four perspectives of the events of Jesus life that highlight different theological themes. If you can imagine four different accounts of an automobile accident provided by four people viewing it from different perspectives. Of course they will present unique details, they will use differing words and aspects of the events, but the main account will be consistent. This is part of the richness of the Gospels, and in no way is evidence that they are "contradictory."
You claim that scholars are “dismissive of what they deride as “literalistic fundamentalism†and are dedicated to “proving†that the Bible is not an inspired document.†I he never read one who fits that description. That is an assumption on your part, based on your already-held theological views, nothing more.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. As stated, I have spent years in the world of theological and biblical scholarship, and I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many scholars who are not at all open to the idea that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God.
Of course they will not broadcast the hidden intentions of their heart! It is death by a thousand cuts, and all the while, underlying everything they say, is the unspoken assumption that sacred Scripture was a human book written by men trying to convince others to join their particular religion.
Furthermore, all the quotes attributed to Jesus may not be accurate. Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them. And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.
I find this claim particularly specious. How could anyone know with any degree of certainty what other possible things Jesus may or may not have said? Of course the Apostle John himself says that Jesus spoke "many other things that were not written in this book." The Gospels do not claim to be exhaustive compilations of all the words of Jesus.
As for "differing versions of many key quotes," it must be recognized that during his three-year ministry Jesus doubtlessly repeated His teachings to different audiences. Slight variances in the accounts of these teachings are insignificant.
“scholars” = The Jesus Seminar, Brian Flemming, Peter Joseph, and the countless atheist websites that quote them.
TBP, I notice you have studiously avoided specificity, as I pointed out in my last reply to you.
Also, you have not addressed the premise of the original post, much less discredited it.