Having watched numerous recordings of debates among New Testament scholars, it often strikes me how the believing scholars fight for the historical accuracy of the texts, but do not seem to acknowledge the logical shortcomings of their arguments. It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing that they seem to accept metaphorical or literary “license” or “truth” as on par with something having actually occurred. It seems obvious that the reason they do this is because their personal belief is in some way dependent upon the actuality of the biblical events that are otherwise not confirmable or “reliable” to a standard applied to other historical texts. Clearly, they understand the Gospels as something other than “history”. When did this occur generally? If the earliest Christians went about telling and retelling stories about Jesus, presumably based upon prior accounts of what Jesus did and said, when did the source of those stories become God or the Holy Spirit rather than the chain of people telling the stories all the way back to those who knew Jesus?
I appreciate the responses, but there must have actually been a historical time or explanation for the change in understanding. For example, I can understand it may have happened around the time the church leaders decided on the Canon. Perhaps a justification for selecting certain texts was that they were divinely inspired, or once they were included in the Canon, the explanation was that they were the Word of God. Maybe it wasn’t that clear a division. By the Middle Ages, it’s understandable that the text that came to justify the world order, access to which only God’s chosen representatives (who also happened to be very near, or one with, power) had itself become divine.
. . .but there must have actually been a historical time or explanation for the change in understanding. For example, I can understand it may have happened around the time the church leaders decided on the Canon.
I don’t know. I’ve just been reading out of one of E. Pagel’s books. One of her references is an oldie (1912). It’s called The Apostolic Fathers. The Amazon site gives the following description:
This book provides a comprehensive overview of the text of the New Testament, including discussions of its historical and cultural context, as well as its numerous translations and interpretations. Drawing on the latest scholarship in the field, author Kirsopp Lake offers readers an in-depth examination of this foundational text, as well as insights into its continuing relevance and significance. With engaging prose and rigorous analysis, this book is an excellent resource for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the Bible.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it.
This work is in the “public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Also one called The Nicene Fathers. The one that seems to be the standard carrying this title is edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson ; revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes, by A. Cleveland Coxe.
Maybe check these out?
I think there is a general tendency for texts of religious importance to be given ever more authority as times passes. Think about the story of the 70 translators of the LXX. The longer a text is used in a religion, the more important it becomes to that religion, and the more important it is that that book not be wrong.
I suspect what drives this is that in a religion of the book, your religion is only as good as the book. If the book is just some third-hand stories recorded by a guy who had a bad memory and liked to embellish, well . . . what does that say about your religion?
So you end up having to project authority back on the book to make your religion make sense. So if your access to the truths of your faith is only through the KJV–you don’t know Greek but your family has been reading the KJV for centuries–, well, you are going to want the KJV to be really really trustworthy. You might even argue that the translators were inspired by God, so that the KJV is as reliable a religious guide as the now-lost Greek autographs.
Pushing this back: Imagine that you are a Christian of the early third century arguing over the nature of Christ. The best source you have to argue from–the only really good source–is the NT. And if you are looking to answer those really difficult, divisive questions (which the NT doesn’t directly and simply answer) you have to read things into the the least detail of the NT account: every little word of the text has to be trustworthy and significant, because a lot of times the theological debates turned on the precise wording of mere obiter dicta.
Anyway, I suspect the process was gradual: At first, the gospels were just interesting, human documents, with uncertain authority. As they got more popular and more important, as the the principal connection to Jesus, they were associated with apostles or figures close to the apostles, endowing them with more authority. Finally, they were regarded as not just written by apostolic men, but written by apostolic men under the guidance of the HS.
You can see this tendency all over the place, but another example is in Trent’s decree on the Vulgate: “the same sacred and holy Synod, . . . ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”
The argument is transparent: this edition has been used for centuries; it would be unthinkable for it to be substantially wrong (unthinkable because it would undermine the faith). And there are Catholics who still defend that decree. They won’t say that the Vulgate is inspired by God, but they will say that it is at least guaranteed to be theologically sound, even if imperfect. I read a theologian (writing approximately a century ago) argue with a straight face, that, even though the Johannine comma was almost certainly spurious, it was still valid to use as a solid source in theological disputation since (following Trent’s logic) it had been used by the Church for so long and so couldn’t be substantially wrong.
Porphyry I almost let your post here slip by me but I’m glad I didn’t. Interesting comments.
The argument is transparent…
Ok, speaking as someone not raised as a Roman Catholic and so, viewing it strictly from the outside, the pov you describe has a certain logic to it. If you privilege tradition and the authority of the Magisterium, then even the Johannine Comma is not beyond the pale. For precisely the reasons you illustrated. My Protestant brothers and sisters can scarcely realize how innovative in their time of origin were the ideas that came to be encapsulated in the concept of Sola Scriptura. Nobody in the ancient world thought that way, much less the early Christians. (Of course one of the delusions of the Reformers was that they were “getting back” to the way the early Christians lived and practiced. Most innovators in the Church have used this template.)
I have close friends who are orthodox Hindus. Now what makes you an orthodox Hindu, whatever your sect or status, is an acceptance of the authority of the Vedas, the ancient Hindu scriptures. The Vedas are collections of liturgical rites, hymns, prayers and commentaries on all those. The average Hindu measures piety and devotion by their practice of the liturgies and defers to the Brahmins in theological matters. The texts are not pored over by the laity. They simply assume they’re not qualified. Sound familiar? Sola Scriptura would be meaningless in this context. The important part is continuity of tradition and practice.
Look at the poor Protestants. Having to argue that all the doctrines developed in the Church subsequent to the codification of the NT (like the Trinity!) were in fact present in the NT right from the start. RCs and Hindus would just say that over time our understanding of spiritual matters changes and our understanding deepens. A much saner view.
So, What I’m reading is that the understanding of the Gospels as “The Word of God” developed organically over time. There is no historical event or bright line that decreed the Gospels to be divine or divinely inspired. That seems significant – at least in terms of any attempt to support belief with historical analysis. As a thought experiment, I assume it had to do with the association of the religion with power – first with the Roman Empire and subsequently with the development of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. Perhaps as much a political consequence as (or at least contemporaneous with) a religious development?
I, too, was raised Roman Catholic. I cannot recall any significant mention of actual history ever discussed in Mass, but if I recall correctly, the congregation actually says in unison, after the reading of the daily gospel, “the Word of God”, before sitting down for the 17th time in the service. Not long after I stopped going to Mass, my father and I attended a presentation at the local church in support of a new book. I don’t recall the name of the author or the exact focus of the book, but I recall clearly the author’s argument for the “truth” of the Church. He stated that the Church must be the truth because it has lasted, unbroken, since the time of Christ. Of course, no one challenged that assertion. I don’t know whether anyone else in attendance found the assertion that duration equals truth to be absurd or even troubling.
if I recall correctly, the congregation actually says in unison, after the reading of the daily gospel, “the Word of God”, before sitting down
In the new order of the mass (1969 on), the lector says “the word of the Lord” after reading each of the (non-gospel) readings; the people respond “thanks be to God.” After the gospel reading, the minister says, “The Gospel of the Lord” and the people respond, “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.
Prior to 1969, the person reading would have said nothing audible at the end of the readings. The people (i.e., servers) would say “Deo gratias” (after the epistle) and “Laus tibi Christe” (after the gospel).
There is no historical event or bright line that decreed the Gospels to be divine or divinely inspired. . . . As a thought experiment, I assume it had to do with the association of the religion with power – first with the Roman Empire and subsequently with the development of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings.
I’m not sure off-hand the first time “Word God” was used to describe the NT, but I think the general idea is very early. I’m also not so cynical about how it developed. Power is certainly tied up in religion, but I think the people pushing the development of this theology were true believers.
The idea that the OT was inspired by God was already current in first century Judaism. Clearly by the time of Origen, the NT was seen as at least as authoritative as the OT. Indeed the struggle to define a specific canon already attests to the idea that some Christian writings were different in kind and had a unique authority. Also clear, the idea that both testaments form a single inerrant Word of God is well established by the time of Augustine–after Constantine, but long before James I.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)