Stephen,
Regarding your post 319:
It’s one thing to tolerate blank spaces on a map, which we all ought to be willing to do, but quite another to act as if the mountain that sits in the middle of the terrain being mapped isn’t even being shown on the map.
I can live with the knowledge of how the sausage was made, but you and modern critical NT scholarship are acting as if there’s no such thing as sausage.
Humans evolved as pattern seeking creatures. Interestingly, pattern creating creatures as well. Mike, either your mountain exists and I just don’t see it or no mountain exists but you need the mountain to exist so you do. I wonder which it is? As a skeptic I can freely admit the possibility of being wrong. (True skepticism contains within it a method of self-critique.) Mike, can you admit the possibility that you are mistaken? How would you know if you were wrong?
Stephen,
I’ve described various slopes of this mountain – notably EH 3:25 by Eusebius, FL 39.5 by Athanasius, and CF 33.6 by Augustine. But perhaps the most glaring one of all is the table of contents for every New Testament you have in your house or office. What all these, plus many other sources I haven’t named here, have in common are authorship ascriptions for all 27 texts – most of which are implicit in the book titles, the rest are implied by other easily-accessible data points. Not only are authors assigned to texts, all these sources assign the same authors to the same texts. In other words there is agreement – that is, ancient agreement achieved by the 4th-5th centuries as to the authors of the 27 New Testament texts.
In terms of flexing my skeptical muscles, I’ve tried every way I can think of ways that all those people could have gotten these authorship ascriptions wrong, and just can’t get come up with a way. Moreover, I can find neither motive nor means for them to have fabricated their agreement. I do concede that they were more sure about 20 of them than they were 7. But even on the 7, by all accounts the organizationally-independent and geographically dispersed custodians of the texts eventually came to agreement without having to take a vote.
The mountain I’ve just outlined for you is one of recorded testimony from the past about the past. How can I say I don’t see this mountain? I didn’t put it there; I’m just trying to deal with it. Why aren’t you?
Mike the problem is that under any rigorous critical analysis your mountain begins to resemble a molehill. It’s unnecessary to imagine some deception. These ancient sources passed on traditions they considered authoritative but had no real way to substantiate. And their approach was fundamentally circular. Only texts with apostolic authority were acceptable so the accepted texts must have had apostolic authority.
Stephen,
1. I’m pleased to see your agreement that the perception of apostolic authority was the sine qua non for inclusion in the NT. Finding any common ground at all is helpful in a discussion like this.
2. Please elaborate on what you mean by “rigorous critical analysis.”
3. On your thesis, how did the ancient sources distinguish what they considered authentic apostolic texts (e.g. 1 and 2 Corinthians) from inauthentic apostolic texts (e.g. 3 Corinthians and the Epistle of Barnabas)?
4. On your thesis, how were the ancient sources able to come to agreement about the 27 NT texts across the Roman Empire at a time when the only authority binding them was conciliar and yet no empire-wide council dealt with the issue and no empire-wide canon was published?
Notice to all:
I plan to cancel my subscription to this blog sometime before December 20 so that it will not auto-renew. This is consistent with my intention when I signed up; that is, I always intended for my participation here to be temporary. While I didn’t have a precise time period in mind, a couple of months feels about right – especially now that I’ve experienced it. As a point of comparison, a few years ago I spent a couple of months on BioLogos.org (the site started by Francis Collins, much like Bart Ehrman started this one) discussing with those present and interested the question of whether or not the Bible and evolution could be reconciled.
Porphyry, Robert, and Stephen,
I’m writing to you three because you are the ones who’ve interacted with me most on this thread. I assume that “Porphyry” is a pen name and that “Robert” and “Stephen” are not. Nevertheless, for the sake of being sure, I’m asking the following questions of all three of you. Before I start, let me make this much clear: if any or all of you are using pen names, I am not going to criticize you for doing so, nor am I interested in learning your true name(s).
1. Is ____________ your real name?
2. If you are using a pen name, why are you doing so? (I’d rather know your motive than be relegated to guessing it.)
3. Are you male? (I ask this because sometimes I’ve wanted to write “guys” or “fellows” but I’d stop short and ask myself, “How do you know they’re guys or fellows?)
1) “Porphyry” is a pseudonym. (If I recall, I mentioned this when it came up upthread.)
2) My family is very Catholic, and in a very conservative sort of way. I was a very conservative Catholic until a few years ago when I went through a fairly sudden deconversion. It was sort of a road to Damascus moment, where the scales fell and I found it impossible to give intellectual assent to what I had previously believed, while retaining intellectual honesty. I was also a professor of Catholic theology (though, to be clear, my work was not in Biblical or Patristic theology). My parents were very proud of me for that–they got excited every time I had an article come out. I was not famous or especially important, but enough people know who I am that once the secret is out, it will spread. My parents are in their twilight years, and there is no good way for that conversation to end. On the one hand, I couldn’t possibly explain to them why I find it impossible to believe; the only way I could explain it so they could begin to understand would require me precipitating their own crisis of faith; I wouldn’t do that to them even if I could shake their faith, because their faith is what gives their life meaning, and, at this point in their lives, they need that meaning now more than ever. On the other hand, without me successfully drawing their own faith into question, they would be profoundly disappointed and worried sick about me. So it seems simply cruel not to keep it from them. And keeping it from them requires making sure it isn’t public knowledge. So in order to be able to discuss things freely here–and to be free to express views and ask questions that betray my lack of faith–I keep my identity secret.
3) I am a man.
I don’t really question the traditional authorship. I question that Jesus and Paul are two different persons, and I question the dates of authorship. I don’t agree that John was the last written. John was actually the first. John 3 is what they’re looking for as the “Q, sayings of Jesus”.
Paul’s letters were first.
Mark and John were first.
Then Matthew.
Then Luke and Acts.
All these were written by Paul:Jesus and his posse.
Peter, James, and John wrote some too. Wahlah. Nero had executed everyone before the fire and war at Jerusalem.
1. Stephen is my real name. My parents informed me that I was labelled after the first Christian martyr. Never known quite what to make of that. My mother was fiercely insistent on the “ph” spelling and would openly correct folks who erred. I like it but don’t make an issue over it. I have a close friend of thirty years who spells it in texts with a “v”. Never known what to make of that either.
2. My first name is common enough to use online. However I have a quite unusual last name. That’s the one it seems reasonable to suppress. There are some unreasonable people out there.
3. At birth I was assigned the male gender. I accepted this uncritically up until a few years ago when such discussions became widespread. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and decided it seemed like a good call. I do self-identify as charming and brilliant and find it rather illiberal when others demur.
Mike, your future relationship with this here blog is up to you of course but I for one will be sorry to see you go. There are always conversations to be had.
For example, do you think the Bible and evolution can be reconciled? Just curious. Obviously the good folks who run Biologos think they can, and I think they cannot.
Porphyry I appreciate your comments about your parents. Mine are gone now and in the last years of their lives there were conversations we seemed to mutually though unconsciously agree not to have. I am not militant and try not to be hurtful.
Mike I’m not ignoring #325. Consider this a placeholder.
I do envy those who apostatized in their youth. It still would have caused them enduring pain, but it would have been the sort of dull pain you grow used to and learn to live with.
But at this point in my life, they could not dismiss it as some youthful dalliance that I will outgrow. And it isn’t simply a matter of invicible (thus pardonable) ignorance; no, this would be deliberate and inexcusable. I do think they would still love me, but it is precisely that they care for me so deeply that would make it so painful for them.
I am not militant and try not to be hurtful.
I think this is something that makes this forum special. The skeptics aren’t out to be hurtful. Direct, forthright, unapologetic? Yes. But not militant. “If you ask me, I’ll tell you that and why I think you are mistaken, but I’m not out to take from you what you hold dear.”
That’s easy to answer: The Blog!
At a Bible study among friends, I dared to ask why Jesus’ mother and brothers thought because Jesus was going around speaking of God, He
was crazy. Wasn’t this the same Jesus Mary and Joseph were visited by angels to inform of the birth, the same Jesus the star led the wisemen to Jesus, the very same angels who announced Jesus’ birth to the shepherds in the field, the same Jesus all those babies two and under were killed to prevent the king from being displaced, the same Jesus who at twelve were able to teach those wisest of priests in the temple??? THAT did not go over. The others looked down as though I’d said something embarrassing. Our rector who was teaching the class moved on without replying. It was a turning point for me. I went on line and discovered Christopher Hitchens who was shocking but made his points so effectively. Eventually, the search led to Professor Ehrman and the blog. I’m still a believer but not as I once was.
The virgin Birth tale was invented after John 3:16 as Jesus and John the Baptist devised theology that the messiah would be God and they were Elijah and Messiah. Then they had to debate amongst themselves who was the messiah; Jesus or John. John says, it ain’t him when he’s arrested. It’s that other guy Jesus, oh look here he comes now, the lamb of God, and run away. Jesus disappeared into the wilderness for 40 days until the trial of John the Baptist was over. Then he gets a letter from King Herod and the Sanhedrin (John 1) after John was executed, delivered by some loyal disciples of John. (Matthew 14) And next the Sanhedrin is warning that they’re coming after Jesus next but they can’t arrest him as easily as John because Jesus:Paul was a Roman Citizen. They need more serious accusations other than well this guy is not teaching our traditions of the temple sacrifices. King Herod can’t do anything to a Roman citizen which is why he has to be on trial before Pontius Pilate who also doesn’t care about anything and let’s him go under parole to imprison and stop his own disciples, which the Sanhedrin knows nothing about until they break into the tomb to do an autopsy to double check. Surprise, it was Barabbas the insurrectionist and the Sanhedrin loses their minds because Jesus is still on the loose somewhere. So they bury Barabbas in a field somewhere. The “women” go to the tomb and find Jesus there and he tells them to keep quiet about it. They don’t.
Blah blah
Porphyry,
Regarding your explanation in post 328, thank you.
By the way, I too was raised “very Catholic.” My emancipation came with matriculation into public school at 7th grade, at which point I fully embraced the secularism of broader society, adopting agnosticism as my worldview. Fifteen years later I was provoked by a business associate to read the New Testament for myself. That changed everything for me, and I’ve been what people call “a Jesus freak” ever since, but I’ve never considered going back to Catholicism. I consider it a perversion of, rather than an expression of, biblical faith. Nevertheless, I recognize that there are some sincere people with genuine faith, like your parents, who remain affiliated with it.
Stephen,
Thanks for your post 331.
I appreciate the implicit invitation to stay. And I agree that I’ll probably be depriving myself of some good conversations. However, I’m on a mission in life and I’m 73. I’m glad for the time I’ve spent here, but I’d become derelict if I stayed longer than what I’ve said.
By my lights, your assessment of the Biologos folks is correct. I went there in July 2017 with the hope of finding a reconciliation between evolution and the Bible. At least at that time, they had many, many more people involved in their discussion forum than I have seen involved in this one. I worked hard and drew a lot of attention – my point being only that if there had been someone there who could reconcile the two, I would have encountered that person. Instead, all I found were a few individuals who sincerely thought they could reconcile the two until they were confronted with specific irreconcilable differences. I would have preferred it if the two could be reconciled because it would eliminate what is an obstacle to faith in Christ for many people.
How to reconcile evolution and Bible creation? Read the Quran and you notice it says that Allah created the heavens and Earth. But, We (the angels) created mankind. Remember the Quran is written in the perspective that Muhammad is reciting verbatim the words the angel spoke to him. When you read it, it’s as though the angel is speaking to you. Therefore you possibly have different races of people created by the angels, possibly from the animals, birds, and fish created by Allah. Apply that to Genesis 1 and the Elohim (as a plural sense) without the nonsense Jewish Christian YHWH white supremacy interpretation. Also, the YHWH who created the heavens and earth isn’t mentioned in the Genesis book until chapter 2 and isn’t mentioned at all in chapter 1 because those are not the same authors. YHWH is an angel of the Elohim that the Law of Moses era Israelites later describe as being both Allah and the angels. They’re trying to linguistically create a monotheistic religion from the pagan polytheism.
Hooray, stories.
Paul explains that the body of Christ is the Church. The body of the Church is the people. Jesus is the head of the Church. For so long as the Church and all its schisms and congregations exist is the logos(reason) that Jesus Christ had resurrected from the dead.
Paul is only safe within the protection and concealment of his Church out there outside of Judea. Because, Paul was literally the Jesus Christ myth he’s writing about. Emperor Nero executed Paul and left Rome to find Tiberius Julius Alexander (a successor of King Herod) to search the archives from 30 years ago. By then, everyone who was personally involved with the so called trial and crucifixion of Jesus was long dead. This becomes part of the beginning of the Jewish Roman Wars. Paul confessed to Nero that he was Jesus. 300 years later the Roman Emperors make it illegal to publicly debate anything about it with the Church and priesthood. The public forums were no longer open for debate on the matters that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate as stated in the Nicene Creed.
There’s no need to change and update any of the authorship.
Re: #325
1. I’m pleased to see your agreement that the perception of apostolic authority was the sine qua non for inclusion in the NT. Finding any common ground at all is helpful in a discussion like this.
Agreed but with the proviso that this particular sword has two sides. Texts were valued because they were perceived to have apostolic authority. But there were also valued texts that were then claimed to have apostolic authority. Examples of the latter? Epistle of James. It is almost impossible that this text came from the brother of Jesus for reasons that I would be happy to describe. it was disputed until the fourth century. It survived because enough Christians were willing to agree that it had apostolic authority. Book of Hebrews. This text only survived because it was associated with Paul.
2. Please elaborate on what you mean by “rigorous critical analysis.”
Well I don’t have space to describe the history of critical theory in general or historical/critical method in particular. But there are some general principles at work.
One begins the analysis of a text from within a framework of methodological agnosticism. A highfalutin’ way of saying that any claims about the text must be derived and not assumed. Basically you analyze the Biblical texts the way you would any other ancient text. Like Homer, like Isaiah. If you begin with the assumption that the Bible is inspired and inerrant scripture you are not doing historical/critical method. On the other hand, if you arrive at that as a conclusion, then I dearly long to see your reasoning.
Each text must be appreciated on its own terms. Univocality must not be assumed.
3. On your thesis, how did the ancient sources distinguish what they considered authentic apostolic texts (e.g. 1 and 2 Corinthians) from inauthentic apostolic texts (e.g. 3 Corinthians and the Epistle of Barnabas)?
4. On your thesis, how were the ancient sources able to come to agreement about the 27 NT texts across the Roman Empire at a time when the only authority binding them was conciliar and yet no empire-wide council dealt with the issue and no empire-wide canon was published?
Ok, questions #3 & #4 are interrelated so I will deal with them together.
From our admittedly limited sources it appears the process of canonization took place ‘bottom-up’ rather than ‘top-down’. There were texts that were popular within specific communities and whose popularity then spread to other communities. There were also texts that remained popular only within specific communities. It was only certain marginal texts that were subject to dispute and required some authority to litigate. And this only after a long process of the development of general doctrine. The scholarly conclusion is that the “official” canon was both the cause and the result of the long process of general community formation, the establishment of boundaries, who is “in”, who is “out”. Simply put, the canon created the church and the church created the canon.
We can tell from the way that Matthew and Luke used Mark that they viewed it as authoritative but also found some limitations they wished to correct. But we have no evidence that Matthew was ever disputed although it clearly differs in theology from Paul. As the church developed, different communities, some with major disputes, came together and many of the “rough spots” were occluded. Of course we have to remember that for centuries most believers never read the texts even if they had access to them because they couldn’t read.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)