The Good Book

Hi Will,
Good books there are plenty of those, hooray.

May I recommend:

AC Grayling
"The Good Book: A Secular Bible, the philosopher sets out his manifesto for rational thought."

https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy

If your home country is to make progress then perhaps shirking off the influence of religious special interest groups, allowing young people to grow up free from being conditioned to hate the other and invite the snakes back on to the island. Snakes are environmentally beneficial while priests and sundry religion promoters are dangerous to the psyche of communities.

Absolutely the most beautiful English translation of the Bible.
Thank you!

LucyQ -

Hmmm. Interesting book.

Just a small question I have... what is 'rational thought', materialistically speaking?

Any ideas?

What size is it? Can it be measured? Seen? Heard? Does it have a colour? A shape perhaps? Does it give off a nice smell?

Can it be tested empirically?

Do let me know, because I am struggling to see what this 'rational thought' thingy is within your enlightened view of reality. Remember: "seeing is believing"!

LucyQ

You can listen to the alternative 10 Commandments here:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9446000/9446028.stm

Also, Melvyn Bragg has a book coming out in a couple of days (The Book of Books - The Radical Impact of the King James Bible).

I do have something of a query; one I have hinted at before, but one which still interests me, and has been brought to mind again by the publication of The Good Book: A Secular Bible by A C Graying.

The query is this:

The contemporary atheist movement (is it really all that ‘New’ anymore) bears more than a passing resemblance to the evangelical movement/movements with which I am familiar; indeed, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is, in part at least, modeled on aspects of the evangelical christian movement.

Contemporary atheism appears ‘evangelical’ in the sense of being zealous about its message (its ‘good news’) and its form of communication. I’m thinking of its organisations (providing community) which hold residentials (‘retreats’) and monthly meetings, of its publications (books and magazines and websites), of its advertising campaigns (wittnessing), its celebrity spokespersons (preachers), its kitsch (t-shirts and other tack, and, boy, does evangelical christianity have a lot of that), its alternative 10 commandments, and now this book, clearly modelled on the christian bible in terms of layout, font, language, ‘teaching’ and idiom (‘good book’); and I’m wondering why contemporary atheism appears so, well, religious?

And I'm wondering if there are any 'Dawkins Only' or 'A C Grayling Only' atheists out there?

peter2m,

Atheists, whilst we enjoy getting together and even identifying ourselves with other atheists, are not a coherant gathering. It's sweet that you think we're copying you, but the concept of get-togethers and wanting to be part of something predates the evangelical movement.

Unlike the christian evangelical movement (which I, in my youth, was a part of), atheists do not frown and tut when certain books are not read, or you fail to attend the voluntary (and somehow compulsory) 6am prayer meetings or that you, horror of horrors, express a point of view that contradicts that of the ruling elite. Quite the contrary, instead of being cast out and labelled a heretic (as I've seen before), if you put forwards an opposing idea, atheists are more likely to get you up on stage (even if it's to cut you to ribbons afterwards).

My favourite redaction in the KJV is the 'Johannine Comma', not just because it single-handedly demolishes the notion of 'Sola Scriptura', but because it does so in a way that is very illuminating' from a historical perspective, on how the theology of Christianity evolved over the first few centuries AD.

Just briefly, the passage (1 John 5:7-8) in the KJV reads:

"7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This passage was used for centuries as scriptural confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no other explicit reference to the Trinity in scripture; you have to draw together different verses in order to construct the idea. This passage from John makes it explicit. Or does it...

The problem is that the earliest and best Greek texts do 'not' contain the passage as written in the KJV. The oldest manuscript in existence, Codex Sinaiticus, instead says:

"7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one."

The references to 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost' are not found in any of the oldest manuscripts. They only start to appear in the Latin translations a couple of centuries later.

When Jerome came to publish his first New Testament in Greek he used Greek manuscripts that had preserved the older version, minus this explicit reference to the Triune nature of God, and there was uproar! A Greek copy that did contain these references was mysteriously 'produced' (to order!) and was used in the subsequent printings.

It was these later editions of the 'Greek translations' that were used in the construction of the KJV.

So this shows two important things in my view:

1. The integrity of the older version, the version naturally more likely to be closer to the original autograph manuscripts, was ignored for reasons of theological expediency

2. At some point in the late 4th century the text of 1 John was deliberately changed to reflect the new thinking within orthodox Christianity - the invention of the Trinity.

Above should read "When Jerome came to publish his first New Testament in Greek..."

Above should read "When *Erasmus* came to publish his first New Testament in Greek..."

It was Jerome who composed the first Latin texts. Sorry.

peterm2

A C Grayling talks about his latest book in tonight's edition of Nightwaves.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0103rb1

newdwr54 #7

If it wasn’t for your last leap, “the invention of the Trinity.” I probably wouldn’t bother commenting.

First of all though, we Christians a not a ‘mine of apologetics answers’, and I had to go and do a bit of reading about this, in fact I wasn’t altogether familiar with this ‘comma’ business.

My first stop was the 1 John 5 reference in the two bible versions I use, (1) the NIV, and (2) The Reformation Study Bible - in neither of these versions are the extra words included. (which may explain why I wasn’t much aware of it!)

Secondly I did a quick google (limited, I know) but what seemed clear is that in the ‘Reformed’ Christian world this is well known and there are those who argue that these extra words should not be included; in other words, as you describe it, they recognise “integrity of the older version”.

It tells me too that they do not base their understanding of the trinity on this verse (I never have assumed they would, on this or any other verse); as you also said, “you have to draw together different verses in order to construct the idea.”, and this is what theology often entails.

So, will you permit me to suggest that a later addition doesn’t actually, “demolish(es) the notion of 'Sola Scriptura'”, nor does it imply “the invention of the Trinity”?


newlach

Thank you for the link - if I don’t get to listen tonight, I shall try later on. (I’m assuming it’ll be on iplayer). Had I had an opportunity to contribute to the script, I would have written the introduction as following: "A C Grayling reads the lesson"!

*"My favourite redaction in the KJV is the 'Johannine Comma', not just because it single-handedly demolishes the notion of 'Sola Scriptura', but because it does so in a way that is very illuminating' from a historical perspective, on how the theology of Christianity evolved over the first few centuries AD."*

Care to explain how it single-handedly demolishes sola scriptura or should we just take your word for it?

Second, it's not like the Comma Johanneum issue is something you've just discovered and us sneaks have been trying to hiding it; the textual history of the New Testament, including the comma, has been debated and discussed within Christianity for quite some time.

*"The integrity of the older version, the version naturally more likely to be closer to the original autograph manuscripts, was ignored for reasons of theological expediency"*

Even accepting it was for theological expediency, although I wonder how you know this, what is the implication you want to draw?

*"2. At some point in the late 4th century the text of 1 John was deliberately changed to reflect the new thinking within orthodox Christianity - the invention of the Trinity."*

This is historically dubious to say the least. More importantly, the exegetical case for the Trinity does not rest on the Comma Johanneum.

10. Thanks peterm2:

I agree that a lot of the modern versions have reverted to the earlier Greek texts. I'm not disputing that. It's just the KJV, which many people regard as sacrosanct, that I was highlighting, since it is the topic of the thread. The KJV is demonstrably unreliable as a witness, in my view, since it includes this discredited redaction.

More interesting, I think, is that this shows how Christian theology changed over time. There is no firm indication of a Triune (hope that's the right term) God in the books of the NT if viewed in isolation to one another.

We know Jerome was translating the Greek texts into Latin around the time that various councils 'decided' on the Triune nature of God - many centuries after Jesus' death and the birth of Christianity. Could it be that the Latin texts were deliberately altered to reinforce this new theology?

This is not such a stretch, for me at least. I believe that the verse was deliberately interfered with in order to emphasise a (then) recent theological concept. In any case, it is clear that the scriptures are not immune to human interference, for whatever reason, so how can we rely on the autograph copies as divinely inspired texts?

I think we have to step back and ask - 'which' scriptures are we claiming as absolutely authoritative? The KJV? The ancient Greek texts? Because what these manuscripts have to say is very different in some very important ways, I believe.

Or should we, as many Catholics believe, accept that the Church Fathers have the authority to 'change', or at least 'reinterpret' scripture as new circumstances dictate? As new theology emerges? They have certainly done so in the past. What use is this doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura', when, if we're honest, we must admit that there is no real certainty about what the original 'scriptura' actually contained?

What's the use of it, if the powers that be, on their day, can change it whichever way suits them? I am not being facetious or sarcastic in any way. I am passionately interested in these things.

11., Andrew:

No, I don't claim to have discovered the 'Johannine Comma'; but as someone who was brought up in the Christian faith, specifically the Methodist faith in my case, it was not something that I was ever exposed to as a child.

It is food for thought, you must admit? And I ask now, as an adult, why these facts were never revealed to me when I was a child. All tey askedfor then was 'belief'.

Very scary.

newdwr54

My initial reaction to your comments is that (and I don’t mean to be ‘difficult’ here) you’re jumping about a bit on the basis of this ‘addition’ - from the issue of the KJV (Paul’s Bible as you will well know! ;-), to interpretations/inventions/changes as suited of/to theology, to relying on the autographs, to divine inspiration, to no real certainty about the original scriptures and so on, and I’m just not so sure that the whole caboodle is as uncertain or dubious as that.

Now, there’s quite a debate that could be had about the bible and its reliability and inerrancy and inspiration (and its been had on here many times before; a certain, and very likable, Heliopolitan and I have had many a ‘ding dong’ over this) but just how we might pursue this at the moment I’m not sure - here’s a starter though, and on the particular issue you raised - if, and it is the case, if Reformed Christians are aware of the Comma Johanneum issue, don’t see it as a problem, don’t build their understanding of the trinity on it, and don’t consider it to be something which affects what is called inerrancy, where is the problem?

It *sounds* like you’re saying, “Ah, well if this bit, this questionable addition, (and I could point to others, like the end of the gospel of Mark), wasn’t in the original, then the whole thing is ‘up the left’."

I just don’t see it that way. Does, for example, your #8 invalidate your #7?

As for your question to Andrew about what you were taught in Sunday School or wherever, the reason you weren’t taught wasn’t because of a conspiracy, the bottom line is people probably didn’t know. I take a keen interest in this stuff, and, as I said earlier, this was something that had missed me. As for the ‘just believe’ malarky (and it is a malarky) you are quite right ask the questions you do - just believism does nothing for no one!

Newdwr

Peter has already said a lot of what I would said, only better of course, so I'll not add much to it.

You're right that a lot of Christians don't know about the comma but then again lots of Christians don't know lots of things, and no one knows everything. Ignorance of textual history, however, is not a defeater for the sufficiency of Scripture or the doctrine of the Trinity.

I can see Newdwr's point; the inconsistencies in anything should be pointed out to people at the start of their learning in a field, not at the end when possibly faith shaking revelations can do serious damage to the psyche.

In science, the gaps in a theory are often covered quite well when being taught it, and those gaps are perceived as a challenge; something for new and inquiring minds to take on. In religion it seems that such gaps, like this comma and other discrepencies, are not advertised unless you take quite deep looks into more abstract parts of theology or bible study.

Surely such issues should be given to those first converted into the faith, or as soon as young students to a religion are old enough to understand it. I'm sure if your religion came across as 'look, these are our problems, can you help solve them' would come across much better than 'oh, you found that error? Well, have faith! (and don't mention it to anyone else)'

I'm think that part of the jaded opinion that most people have of religions is that they're quick to dimiss possible inconsistencies in their theology or histories instead of actively accepting and acknowledging them.

14. peterm2 and 15. Andrew:

Thanks for the responses.

peterm2 asks: "...if Reformed Christians are aware of the Comma Johanneum issue, don’t see it as a problem, don’t build their understanding of the trinity on it, and don’t consider it to be something which affects what is called inerrancy, where is the problem?"

I suppose 'my' problem with that is that it leaves the term 'inerrancy' up for interpretation. In common usage, the word 'inerent' means "Incapable of erring; infallible"; or "containing no errors". A 'King James Only' (KJO) fundamentalist might argue that 'Biblical Inerrancy" means the KJV Bible is accurate and totally free of error.

We can see, in several places, that there is broad disagreement about that among textual critics. In order to justify the KJO position it becomes necessary to argue that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God; therefore superseding all previous translations. Where this leaves non-English speaking people I don't know.

So use of the term 'inerrant' with reference to scripture among Reformed Christians seems to lack any certain definition. If they accept the redactions we've discussed, as well as others some of which take us beyond the scope of just the KJV (such as the non-appearance of the story now found in John of 'the woman taken in adultery' in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts), then it seems to me that the word 'inerrant' must have some meaning for them beyond its common usage.

Andrew wrote:

"Ignorance of textual history, however, is not a defeater for the sufficiency of Scripture or the doctrine of the Trinity."

Ignorance of textual history is a positive boon to religious faith in my view. Textual criticism has thrown up serious questions about the 'sufficiency of scripture', at least in as far as we can consider it 'inerrant'. As natman points out, the reasons these matters are not discussed in Bible groups, especially among young people, may be partly because of the fact that they often 'do' undermine the authority of scripture. They certainly did for me.

The history of the doctrine of the Trinity is very interesting and worth exploring on a more appropriate thread perhaps. As far as I know Tertullian was the first Latin theologian to use the term 'Trinity' with respect to God, so c. early 3rd century AD. He was promptly denounced as a heretic by many for his troubles!

Just got a chance to listen to the show. Very good WC.

However in a couple of places William and even the great Dr McGrath refer to how the KJV differed from "the original texts". I'm sure I'm being a pedant, but of course we don't actually 'have' any of the original texts. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from well into the 4th century.

The New Testament part of the KJV was mostly based on Erasmus' New Testament in Greek. This in turn was based on a single 12th century Greek manuscript, which itself is now known to have been a pretty patchy example (judging by differences found in older versions such as the Codex Sinaiticus).

It's ironic that David McIlveen's church is adorned with the KJV rendering of John 3:3 and 7; "Ye must be born again". Many scholars now agree that the Greek word here, 'anothen' should properly be translated as "from above", and not as "again". This makes more sense in the context of the passage, though the word itself can mean both things. You may need your Bible for this next bit....

In this passage, when Jesus says "Except a man be born 'anothen', he cannot see the kingdom of God." (3:3) Nicodemus initially takes him to mean born 'again'. Nicodemus is confused by this, and asks, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (3:4)

Jesus then corrects Nicodemus; "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God... Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 'anathon'". We can be pretty sure that what Jesus means here is 'from above' and not 'again', because he is making explicit reference to his own baptism with water, when the Spirit "descended" onto him [from above] (Jn. 1:32).

In fact this conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus could not actually have taken place, at least not as it is reported. Nicodemus's misunderstanding can only be explained if Jesus was speaking in Greek, because the Aramaic words for 'again' and 'from above' are completely different. Why would two Aramaic speaking Jews in 1st century Jerusalem be discussing theology in Greek?

It is another redaction to the text. You can actually see where the inserted text (the visit to Jerusalem and the conversation with Nicodemus) starts and ends. At Jn. 2:12 Jesus is placed in Capernaum in Galilee. Then the inserted text starts. This finishes at Jn. 3:21, with Jesus still in Jerusalem. We know this because at Jn. 3:22 "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea..."

But Jerusalem already is 'in' Judaea!

If you remove Jn. 3:13-21 then the text once again makes sense. Jesus is in Capernaum in Galilee for a few days (3:12), then goes from there into Judaea (3:22). This is further confirmed by the fact that the healing of the Official's son at Jn. 4:43-54 is described as his 'second miracle' (4:54), yet the inserted passage claims Jesus performed miracles in Jerusalem (3:23) after he had turned water into wine in Cana (his first miracle).

Sorry if that was a tangent away from the KJV issue, but one thing tends to lead to another in these things.

No doubt Rev McIlveen will immediately re-write the text of Jn. on the side of his church to what was actually intended:

"Ye must be born from above!"

And add the caveat "(According to a redacted passage of uncertain origin that has been added into the narrative part of John's gospel by persons unknown)".

@18:
There seems to be differing opinions among scholors re. which languages were more commonly in use in 1st century Palestine.Some argue Aramaic was less used by Jews from Gallilee & Greek was the common language of that part of the Roman Empire.
Interesting subject.

Newdwr54

I’d like to pick up the Nicodemus issue later, but for now, if a 'King James Only' (KJO) fundamentalist is going to argue that 'Biblical Inerrancy" means the KJV Bible is accurate and totally free of error, that would be wrong, ‘meowing down the wrong plughole’, if you see what I mean!!

As far as I’m concerned, inerrent simply means that the message the bible communicates about God and people is reliable. Others might put it more strongly than that; but one thing is for sure, the KJV is not the autographs; and if anyone is saying that the KJV supersedes all previous translations well, I don’t know, you might as well ‘just believe’!!

This may be of interest, dealing as it does with the reliable communication of information:

https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html

And more from Kenneth Bailey later.

Newdwr

*"I suppose 'my' problem with that is that it leaves the term 'inerrancy' up for interpretation. In common usage, the word 'inerent' means "Incapable of erring; infallible"; or "containing no errors". A 'King James Only' (KJO) fundamentalist might argue that 'Biblical Inerrancy" means the KJV Bible is accurate and totally free of error."*

Common usage is not theological usage. Inerrancy is an attribute of the original manuscripts. The texts we have are inspired in so far as they agree with the original manuscripts. This raises the issue of how we know what we have is the same as the original, in turn this requires attention to textual history.

But saying that there are variations in the textual record doesn't get you anywhere, Christians have been aware of this for a long time.

*"We can see, in several places, that there is broad disagreement about that among textual critics. In order to justify the KJO position it becomes necessary to argue that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God; therefore superseding all previous translations. Where this leaves non-English speaking people I don't know."*

KJV-O is pretty eclectic. There are different kinds of KJV-O. Some use only the King James because they argue the textual tradition is superior, that's debatable. As a corollary of this, some have a particular theory for the textual preservation of the byzantine text. Still others believe the King James translation is itself inspired.

Taking the last lot, theirs is a minority position, even with KJV-O churches. The Free Presbyterian church, for instance, does not hold that the KJV translation is inspired.

A couple of good books to consult would be by James R. White and Don Carson.

*"So use of the term 'inerrant' with reference to scripture among Reformed Christians seems to lack any certain definition. If they accept the redactions we've discussed, as well as others some of which take us beyond the scope of just the KJV (such as the non-appearance of the story now found in John of 'the woman taken in adultery' in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts), then it seems to me that the word 'inerrant' must have some meaning for them beyond its common usage."*

The best way to find out what the Reformed believe about Scripture is to read them. The classic treatment of recent vintage is B.B. Warfield's 'inspiration and authority' of Scripture. E. J. Young shortly after, and there has been a sleuth of books since. John Frame just released his Doctrine of the Word of God, this doesn't cover textual matters so much and is more theologically orientated. Other recent books include D.A. Carson's collected writings on Scripture; this contains entry to moderate level essays covering basic definitions, developments and challenges.

Besides these there are numerous books on systematic and biblical theology that deal with Scripture; Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, Bavinck, more recently Michael Horton has released a new systematic theology, again dealing with the doctrine of Scripture.

If you want an historical treatment, try volume 2 (from memory) of Richard Muller's magisterial Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.

Then you've got commentaries which very often deal with textual variations. There quite a number of Reformed and Calvinistic New Testament scholars writing commentaries dealing with these issues. A good place to start is a New Testament intro, say Carson & Moo's or Kostenberger et al.

*"Ignorance of textual history is a positive boon to religious faith in my view. Textual criticism has thrown up serious questions about the 'sufficiency of scripture', at least in as far as we can consider it 'inerrant'"*

This only follows if the textual history is a defeater of the authority of Scripture, something you have yet to show.

*"As natman points out, the reasons these matters are not discussed in Bible groups, especially among young people, may be partly because of the fact that they often 'do' undermine the authority of scripture. They certainly did for me."*

It's unfortunate they undermined your faith. Of course, undermining your faith in the authority of Scripture and undermining the authority of Scripture are two different propositions.

Part of the problem which allows these kind of objections to undermine faith is that many Christians tend to think that the bible fell from the sky, they hold to a very wooden view of Scripture. And when the critic attacks the bible with textual arguments, amongst other things, they flounder. In fact very often the critic used to think about the bible in the same way and were taken by the same arguments (Bart Erhman, please stand up) and it just so happens they are now playing the critic. Another in fact, it seems to me that this also applies to you. I think it's called the circle of life.

I'll try to comment again later on your next post.

Newdwr54

You'll notice that Andrew and I are using different words but we're not contradicting each other - that's pretty much what the Kenneth Bailey article I linked to is about, only more so.

Perhaps the Bailey article might help to explain what is meant by the 'authority of scripture', and it's implications. On the basis of what you have said so far I see no reason why scripture should have been undermined for you. Indeed the article about the oral traditions of the gospels is, for me, absolutely fascinating, and the way in which the stories of Jesus can be preserved in human communities actually strengthens my faith.

Let's put it another way, when we say "inerrancy", we don't mean "dictation".

Andrew

"Still others believe the King James translation is itself inspired."

I knew it was bad, but I didn't think it was *that* bad.

Great list of references BTW.

Natman #16

I'm going to come dangerously close to agreeing with you! :-)

Part of the trouble is that too many churches don't teach the bible; they teach a mix of 'how to believe', 'you have to believe', 'points of tradition', or 'particular idiosyncrasies'; and then anyone who's half interested has to go and find out by themselves, or they loose their faith (like Bart Inerrhman! sorry!); and honestly I can think of much better reasons for loosing faith than, "Flip, John said, 'Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark', and Matthew said, 'After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week'; gonny, was it dark or not? It must be made up."

Newdwr54 #18

A couple of comments and a couple of links on the Nicodemus incident.

(1) The text doesn’t have to be chronological. (It really is that straightforward)

(2) ”If you remove Jn. 3:13-21”. This is the middle of the Nicodemus conversation - are you sure you mean this?

To be honest I think you’re hanging too much on a word again, or a chronological reading of the text. And can I ask you where you are getting these concerns from, you’re not citing anyone, but perhaps they’re just your own.

This link is to another article by Kenneth Bailey:

https://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources/42-lenten-resources/6870.html

In light of your earlier comments about the 1 John redaction, you will find the first sentence interesting! ”The discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus focuses on the Trinity.”

and this link is to information about who Kenneth Bailey is:

https://www.shenango.org/Bailey/bio.htm

I give the links for two reasons, (1) because I don’t seem much point in rewriting someone else’s work, and (2) so you’ll know at least a little about some of the reading I do.

"E. J. Young shortly after, and there has been a sleuth of books since..."

that should read...'a slew of books since'. I wonder what that error means for the rest of my post.

Also, am I the only one missing HTML tags? It's a crying shame.

Peter

I've bookmarked the Bailey article, I hope to read it over the weekend.

Some of the King James Onlyists really do go off the deep end. I've only heard it reported by critics but apparently some of them actually argue that the KJV supersedes the textual history of the New Testament, in a sense the KJV could be used to correct the originals.

There are some intelligent defences of the text behind the KJV though, and it's a bit of shame they get caught up with the moniker 'King James Only'. The classic defence of the majority/byzantine text was given by John W. Burgon in the 19th Century.

Many KJV-O don't necessarily base their argument on the text, they're more upset by the translation or translation method. I remember hearing the NIV being referred to as the 'New Iniquitous Version', not because of the text used but because of a reliance on dynamic equivalence and, more importantly, the translation of certain words in such a way as to undermine certain doctrines. I don't use the NIV but this is going a bit far.

These days I'm mainly reading from the ESV (the wonders of a paragraph bible!). Something I have neglected to mention, in the ESV and other translations there is text formatting and footnotes informing the reader of disputed texts or alternative translations. The Comma Johanneum, for instance, is clearly marked.

Hi peterm2 and Andrew,

I'll hopefully get back to you tomorrow. Thanks for the responses once again.

19. mscracker wrote:

"There seems to be differing opinions among scholors re. which languages were more commonly in use in 1st century Palestine.Some argue Aramaic was less used by Jews from Gallilee & Greek was the common language of that part of the Roman Empire."

To be honest I wasn't aware of any serious scholarly debate about which language was generally spoken throughout Israel in the first century AD. In the Bible itself for instance, at five different places in John's gospel alone reference is made to Aramaic. When Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene at Jn. 20:16 she immediately addresses him in Aramaic.

At Acts 26:14 when Jesus addresses Saul on the road to Damascus he speaks in Aramaic. There are several other verses where Jesus speaks in Aramaic and the author has to provide a translation for his Greek-speaking audience (see Mk. 5:41; 15:34).

The 'criterion of Aramaisms' has also been used by scholars in the past to try to differentiate the words of the historical Jesus from those perhaps added by later authors (if it can be translated directly from Greek into Aramaic then it is more likely to be authentic, so the theory goes).

The vast majority of scholars, as far as I am aware, accept that Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples. For instance: "It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the first century AD. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem (Matt. 26:73)." [Allen C. Myers, ed (1987). "Aramaic". The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. p. 72.]

@ 27:
I wasn't aware of the language issues til i looked online & saw differing opinions.My guess might be that both Greek & Aramaic would be be understood & spoken by Jesus & His apostles & Hebrew as well for worship.
When Jesus spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus Saul heard Jesus speak in a language he understood, but that's rather like saying the Blessed Mother spoke a French/Spanish dialect because St. Bernadette heard her that way.I'm not sure how a mystical experience proves what language was spoken & it seems an odd reference to be used by one who does not profess belief in the Divine.

peterm2 :

You believe that 'inerrant' "simply means that the message the bible communicates about God and people is reliable". I'm not familiar enough with the theological arguments to discuss that aspect of it. But if the message the bible communicates is 'inerrant' then it should be consistent and obvious to all. I'd expect there to be more agreement among Christians than there actually is if that was really the case.

I was interpreting the term 'inerrant' in its common usage, i.e. 'without error'. As you've agreed, the Bible certainly is not 'without error' as far as several of its claims go. And the KJV is probably a lot less reliable than the more modern texts that were able to use better and earlier manuscripts.

Andrew:

"Common usage is not theological usage."

You're not kidding! As I said above, in my naivety I assumed that the term 'inerrant' simply meant 'without error', but not when applied to theology, apparently. It's a pity theologians haven't come up with their own term, just to cut down on the potential for confusion (perhaps they have?).

"Inerrancy is an attribute of the original manuscripts."

I struggle with that one too. In what sense were the autograph copies 'inerrant'? Concentrating on the NT, we know pretty much that the gospels were written outside Palestine, and in a language that the main protagonists didn't speak, and several decades after the events. How can we expect them to be inerrant? If you're going to say that the original authors were 'inspired', then why weren't the subsequent copyists also inspired? Is there a limit to the amount of inspiration available? This just raises more questions than it answers for me.

"But saying that there are variations in the textual record doesn't get you anywhere, Christians have been aware of this for a long time."

I agree, and I also agree that textual variations do not detract from the central message of Christianity. But I know several churches less than a mile radius from where I live that would not entertain that notion.

Regarding the authority of Scripture: just for example, Luke tells us that Quirinius was the Roman Governor of Syria at the same time that Herod the Great was king in Judaea. Yet we know from several other sources that Quirinius became governor of Syria in AD 6, and that Herod died at least ten years earlier, c. 4 BC. There is a gap of at least 10 years between the two. You are no doubt familiar with this problem.

So why is Luke wrong? Was this a later addition to Luke by an author who was not under 'inspiration'? Does this scripture have 'authority' when we know it to be wrong? (I know there are various arguments to the contrary, but they all sound very contrived in my view.) More importantly, if Luke got this simple detail wrong, what else did he get wrong? I don't see how the Gospel of Luke has any 'authority'. That's just one example from many that you are probably already well aware of.

I'll end there as this post is already too long, I fear. I'll get back to the specific case of Jesus and Nicodemus shortly I hope.

28. mscracker:

It is indeed odd that these various 'seers of visions' and 'hearers of voices' more often see visions associated with the faiths they grew up with and hear voices in the languages they speak.

I understand that in India visions of the elephant-headed god Vishnu are not uncommon. Blessed virgins are a rare sight in those parts though. Likewise, Vishnu is seldom reported in Roman Catholic countries; whereas Blessed Virgins are fairly commonplace.

If you look closely you can see a pattern emerge.

newdwr54

Thanks for your comments, but we’re running into another problem. You say, “I'm not familiar enough with the theological arguments to discuss that aspect of it.” and then continue to give me a theological argument!!

What do you mean for example when you say “without error”? Or "consistent and obvious"? The 'obvious' bits are the bits most of us don't like!

Did you read the Kenneth Bailey article on the gospels, or google any of the names Andrew mentioned - they would be helpful to this discussion. The examples of the oral transmission of stories Bailey gave could be said to have ‘errors’, yet they were relaible. And it will be interesting to see what you think of Kenneth Bailey’s understanding of the Nicodemus conversation - Bailey is at pains to set New Testament events in a New Testament context - this is clear on his website and in other of his publications. He also has the advantage of a lifetime of the languages, study, teaching and living in the Middle East.

And what about the resurrection sequences I referenced to Natman? Is ‘early... still dark’ in one account, and ‘dawn’ in another, an ‘error’? I say no. My thinking is set in this context.

@30:
Thanks for your post.
I actually think it's reasonable that God would speak to us in a language we can understand.I just thought it odd to use that as a basis to establish what language Jesus might have addressed Saul in, considering it was a mystical experience.
Anyway, you all have a wonderful weekend & God bless!

Newdwr

*"You're not kidding! As I said above, in my naivety I assumed that the term 'inerrant' simply meant 'without error', but not when applied to theology, apparently. It's a pity theologians haven't come up with their own term, just to cut down on the potential for confusion (perhaps they have?)."*

It might mean without error but that doesn't tell you what an error is. Is hyperbole an error, for instance?

*"I struggle with that one too. In what sense were the autograph copies 'inerrant'? Concentrating on the NT, we know pretty much that the gospels were written outside Palestine, and in a language that the main protagonists didn't speak, and several decades after the events. How can we expect them to be inerrant?"*

Incredulity is not an argument. And as I've already said, variations in the manuscripts have been widely accepted for centuries, here's a quote from Francis Turretin writing in the 17th century;

'The question is not are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into many sacred manuscripts, either through waste of time, the malice of the copyists or the malice of the Jews or of the heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides [Protestants & Roman Catholics] and the various reading which Beza and Robert Stephanus have certainly observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness...that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied?...we deny it'

This states the issue rather nicely for there is no textual variation that we are aware of that, just as you say, significantly changes or alters the history and message of the bible.

*" If you're going to say that the original authors were 'inspired', then why weren't the subsequent copyists also inspired? Is there a limit to the amount of inspiration available? This just raises more questions than it answers for me."*

That the copyists were not inspired doesn't mean the authors were not. When it comes to the transmission of the text Christians talk about preservation.

*"I agree, and I also agree that textual variations do not detract from the central message of Christianity. But I know several churches less than a mile radius from where I live that would not entertain that notion."*

Sure, I've said something similar a couple of posts ago. But this is neither here nor there when it comes to debating inerrancy.

*"So why is Luke wrong? Was this a later addition to Luke by an author who was not under 'inspiration'? Does this scripture have 'authority' when we know it to be wrong? (I know there are various arguments to the contrary, but they all sound very contrived in my view.) "*

I'm sorry, but is Luke wrong?

Take the textual route, do you have any evidence that the census was an addition to the text of Luke?

Second, Luke is quite aware of contemporary social and political events. His placing of the birth narrative of Christ is quite specific within the final years of the reign of Herod the Great. Moreover, writing in Acts 5:37 Luke seems to be familiar with events surrounding the census, which brought to an end independent rule in Judea.

So by the same token the contrivance works both ways. If you want to claim the things you do then you must explain how someone who seems to be au fait with contemporaneous events within his milieu could make such an elementary blunder as placing the birth of Christ in time periods 10 years apart. Particularly when plausible explanations have been given.

One plausible explanation is the translation of 2:2 as referring to a census before the one of Quirinius. Commentators have noted that v2 in the original is difficult but the word protus can be translated as 'before'. This also is not new, the 17th century Baptist minster John Gill wrote in his commentary on this verse;

'Moreover, the words will bear to be rendered thus, "and this tax, or enrolment, was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria"' [cf. John 1v15 & 30].

Faith has it's reasons but so too does unbelief.

32. mscracker:

The Saul incident was only one of several pieces of evidence I cited. For instance in the passages in Mark where Jesus's exact words are quoted they are spoken in Aramaic and have to be translated into Greek by the book's author; Mary Magdalene addresses the risen Jesus in the garden in Aramaic (John); the consensus among modern historians, etc...

Have a nice weekend also.

31. peterm2 wrote:

"...and then continue to give me a theological argument!!"

Thanks peterm2. I'm not so sure that I did continue with a theological argument rather than an attempt at a logical one. If what the Bible communicates to us about God is inerrant, then why is there such widespread disagreement about it among Christians? Is it possible for something to be both inerrant and unclear? It might be, but then, we might wonder, what practical use is such a thing to us?

When I use terms like 'without error' I admit that I do so in a brutal, theologically illiterate way: if the Bible tells me in one place that Jesus was crucified in the afternoon on the day before Passover, and in another that he was crucified on the morning of the day of Passover itself, then I say that the Bible contains a factual error. Both versions can't be right (but both could be wrong).

Note that I am not dismissing the basis of Christianity on whether Jesus was crucified on one particular day or another; I'm just highlighting the fact that there is a dispute among Biblical authors as to the day on which Jesus was crucified. At least one of them got this particular, and perhaps rather insignificant, detail wrong. He 'erred'.

Nor am I so theologically challenged as not to realise that both authors may have had their own particular reason for telling us Jesus was crucified when they claim he was. John is equating Jesus with the sacrificial lambs, the Lamb of God, by having him executed on the afternoon on the day of preparation for Passover. He does this for theological effect, not necessarily because Jesus was actually crucified at that time (the other gospels agree that he wasn't).

So when I say that at least one author 'erred' I mean it in the modern sense of historical accuracy. I'm not suggesting any deliberate attempt to mislead. I have no arguments with people who understand these stories at a spiritual level, as I suspect you do. But I do have a problem with people who insist that every detail in the gospels is 'historically accurate' as we commonly understand that phrase today.

I will now read the Bailey article in detail and get back to you in a day or two.

In the meantime I'd like to ask you a question:

The story now found in John of the woman taken in adultery, 'Pericope Adulterae', does not appear in any manuscript before the early 5th century. When it first appeared it was placed in early manuscripts of Luke. It might well be the case that it is an apocryphal account, attributed to Jesus by later Christians in the way similar to which stories and legends were appended to the lives of other notable figures from the past.

If the story of 'Pericope Adulterae' turns out to be a spurious addition to the New Testament should we still regard it as inspired scripture?

33. Andrew wrote:

"Is hyperbole an error, for instance?"

Hi Andrew. As I mentioned in my last post to peterm2 I use the term 'error' to mean several things, including internal inconsistency, or lack of correspondence with other evidence, etc. I would not call the creation story in Genesis 'in error' for instance; not because I believe the world was formed in 6 days, but because I recognise it as poetic language, not to be taken literally, and therefore not 'wrong' per say.

But when specific claims are made that appear to contradict strong historical or scientific evidence, or when accounts of a single incident are given that do not agree with one another over specific details, then I think we are justified in calling those errors.

"Incredulity is not an argument."

Nor is faith. I've not disputed the relatively minor nature of the variations within the manuscripts; I've only pointed out that collectively they provide evidence that the Bible as a whole is not 'inerrant', at least not in terms of the common usage of that word. What 'inerrant' means theologically remains unclear to me.

"I'm sorry, but is Luke wrong?"

First of all, should it even be of any importance to us whether Luke is wrong or not, given that it makes no material difference to the central tenets of Christianity when or where Jesus was born? But to answer your question, I'm pretty sure that Luke is wrong.

I do not believe that the census was an addition to the text. The census of Quirinius occurred in 6 AD, according to Josephus, and caused quite a stir at the time. (According to the historian Robin Lane Fox 6 AD, when Judaea was brought under direct Roman rule, was as significant a year in Jewish history as 1972 was in Northern Ireland, when direct rule was imposed here).

Luke has used this well-remembered incident as a historical focal point in his birth narrative of Jesus (which is fundamentally different from that in Matthew, I digress). But he is mistaken in assuming that Quirinius and his census are contemporaries of Herod the Great. We are told that Herod the Great died soon after a lunar eclipse which is dated by astronomers to 12-13 March 4 BC [Lane Fox]. Herod the Great was dead for 10 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria.

Furthermore, if the Nativity took place when Herod the Great was king, then the Jews would still have been Herod's subjects, not Caesar's. Judaea was a 'client kingdom', not a Roman province under Herod the Great. The Romans had no authority to undertake a census of Judaea when Herod the Great was its king.

So although Luke is able to use the memorable and unpopular census of Quirinius as a lynchpin in his narrative, overall he actually shows a basic 'lack' of awareness of contemporary social and political events. This is consistent with the critical view that the author of Luke was removed from the events he is describing here both in space and also in time.

"But when specific claims are made that appear to contradict strong historical or scientific evidence, or when accounts of a single incident are given that do not agree with one another over specific details, then I think we are justified in calling those errors."

As Peter has already suggested much of what you're calling an 'error' or a 'contradiction' is based on expectations you are bringing to the text.

"Nor is faith."

I didn't appeal to 'faith'.

"I've not disputed the relatively minor nature of the variations within the manuscripts; I've only pointed out that collectively they provide evidence that the Bible as a whole is not 'inerrant', at least not in terms of the common usage of that word. "

Variations in the manuscripts do not show that the bible is not inerrant. When Christians speak of inerrancy they are talking primarily about the original autographs, the Word as given was perfect in it's intention and without error. So once again when you tell me that there are variations in the manuscripts you're not scoring any points. I accept that there are variations.

This raises the issue of transmission and preservation; given time and human error how can we know that what we have in the bible is an accurate copy of the original autographs?

Bart Erham loves this stuff, a large part of his argument is that we simply cannot know, with present information, what the original autographs said. The textual tradition is inherently corrupt. Saying we have the bible is whistling dixie.

The problem with Bart's argument is that we pretty much know what the variations are. Incidentally, one way of preserving a text is having it so pervasive that we can comparatively construct what the original said without actually having the original. So we can be reasonably sure that the census in Luke was in the original or that the woman taken in adultery was not in John.

"Luke has used this well-remembered incident as a historical focal point in his birth narrative of Jesus (which is fundamentally different from that in Matthew, I digress). But he is mistaken in assuming that Quirinius and his census are contemporaries of Herod the Great. "

This is the point at issue.

"Furthermore, if the Nativity took place when Herod the Great was king, then the Jews would still have been Herod's subjects, not Caesar's. Judaea was a 'client kingdom', not a Roman province under Herod the Great. The Romans had no authority to undertake a census of Judaea when Herod the Great was its king."

There are extant examples of a Roman census in client kingdoms (see https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/16/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx )

"So although Luke is able to use the memorable and unpopular census of Quirinius as a lynchpin in his narrative, overall he actually shows a basic 'lack' of awareness of contemporary social and political events."

Setting aside whether Luke is always correct the overall accuracy of Luke-Acts is well attested.

Of course, if you're taking Luke as suggesting that Christ was born during the reign of Herod the Great and at the census in 6AD then that is a glaring contradiction. But that is what I, and others, am denying. Indeed in my previous post my argument was that given the accuracy of Luke-Acts elsewhere (including the reference to the uprising precipitated by the 6AD census in Acts) the idea that he would make such a blunder is implausible.

Some recognising this say that Luke was being deliberate here; the Old Testament required that Christ was born in Bethlehem and Luke needed some way for them to up sticks and go. So he took the census and used it for this purpose.

And *this* is good stuff. And William worries about the quality of debate on another thread. Maybe I'll stick around. I'm learning again. I love New!

About Face

What is it you're learning? Don't keep it to yourself, man; share the love!

Let me guess. You don't believe in God, fairyology isn't high on your agenda, but you like a bit of religious vaudeville now and then.

I'm kinda thinking:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Character_comedian_charles_e_grapewin.gif


How'd I do?

No, I'm just watching Andrew, who is unusually well clued up for a believer *doffs hat* and New, who is assiduous, patient and bright, and when he says he's passionately interested in this, I have no reason to doubt it at all. So I think the exchange between the two of them will be edifying and I look forward to it. I;ve watched this person almost turn a fundamentalist and emerge unscathed from what became a fairly esoteric exchange with a theologian. And he is unswervingly fair and will not be diverted by pettiness. Watch and learn.

About Face

If that's what you are thinking, and I'm sort of miffed that I was wrong, because I really liked the picture of Charlie Grapewin, then I'd be interested to know what you make of the like of the Kenneth Bailey article posted earlier (the one in #20). I'd also be interested to know in what way such exchanges are 'edifying' to you - in what way (if any) do they change your thinking?

Newdwr54

”...and then continue to give me a theological argument!!”

I hope that didn’t come across as sarcasm, I wasn’t intending that; I was simply thinking that in defining ‘inerrant’ in a particular way and applying that to the bible, there is a theological position.

You’ve raised a number of issues/’errors’ now, from Nicodemus through 1 John, Luke and the crucifixion accounts, and I’m worried that we’re not going to make much more progress if we keep going from one to the other. For me the key is interpretation, and I don’t just mean how we understand the story, I also mean how we approach the text.

For example on the crucifixion issue and the day in question, this could be understood to be the Thursday before Passover and if so would appear to conflict with the record of the three Synoptic gospels where Jesus is crucified on a Friday. But the reference could also be to the Friday as the Preparation Day before the weekly Sabbath. Are we ever going to know exactly which?

This leads us to the idea that the reading of the bible allows for flexibility while maintaining reliability (it’s why I think Bailey is important), and that’s something I can live with. Here’s another example - in the book of Luke, Luke 4, we have the story of the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry. There we have the account of Jesus reading from the scroll and being chased from the village. Now, concerning that reading, beginning at verse 18 in Luke 4, that reading is actually a reading and an editing of Isaiah 61: 1-2 with a bit from Isaiah 58:6 added in. Why? Who did the editing? Luke? Jesus? Interestingly there were rules recorded in the Mishnah, about how the bible could/should be read. If the reading was from the book of the Prophets, the reader was allowed to leave verses out as long as the flow of reading and interpretation wasn’t interrupted. So it is possible to see that the culture allowed a flexibility or freedom in the reading of scripture (or at least parts of it). Incidentally understanding this practice means that we might better understand what Jesus was doing, and why he was driven out of the village.

Why do I say this? Well, put together with the cultural rules governing the oral transmission of stories (Bailey’s article) I think we have to live with the idea that the original writers might at times have been saying something to their audience which was nuanced in a way which we might never know, or don’t know yet. The original writers were writing/speaking within their cultural context and we have to begin where they begin, live with that context and go from there.

As for your last question: ”If the story of 'Pericope Adulterae' turns out to be a spurious addition to the New Testament should we still regard it as inspired scripture?”

First of all in the bibles I use this is clearly marked as not being in the earliest manuscripts and it seems that early church Fathers made no mention of it. If however it “turns out to be a spurious addition” as in ‘fake’, ‘counterfeit’, then no, I would not consider it scripture.

If you ask me why it might have been added in - I don't know, your suggestions are as good as any. If you ask me why God might allow something to be added to a copy, something not originally there, obviously I'm not going to know that either, but, in the context of the checks and balances of a community, we still have reliability.

Italics, huh? I think you might be favoured, Peter.

37. Andrew wrote:

"... much of what you're calling an 'error' or a 'contradiction' is based on expectations you are bringing to the text."

That's probably true; but my expectations are based on my modern and secular understanding of the term 'inerrant'. In the case of the gospel accounts of the crucifixion story for instance, the differences between John's and (say) Mark's accounts can't really be explained as 'transmission/preservation' issues in my view. They must have been there in the autograph copies.

There are fundamental differences between them that probably have theological motives behind them. I realise that I am bringing 21st century western attitudes to bear here, and that this isn't fair on either author. But the fact is they don't agree with each other either about the time or even the day of Jesus's crucifixion. My 21st century mindset can't overlook that.

Theologically both accounts get their message across. Internally the accounts are consistent. But taken together, as witnesses allegedly to the same incident, they simply contradict one another. I can't think of any other way of putting it. Jesus can't have been crucified both in the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover 'and' on the morning of the day of Passover itself.

At least one of these accounts must be 'wrong', i.e. factually incorrect, as far as I can see. Therefore the Bible cannot be 'inerrant' by my understanding of the word (which we've established may differ from the more refined theological understanding). I stress again, it makes no difference to the central theological concept shared by both gospels - Jesus was a sacrifice for human sin.

Regarding the Nativity: we are still left with a raft of historical evidence that tells us Herod the Great was dead 10 years before Quirinius was legate of Syria. You appear to accept that.

Even ignoring Luke's mention of Herod the Great (1:5), we still have the witness of Matthew for whom Herod is a central part of the Nativity story. Matthew explicitly tells us that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was king of Judea (2:1), so pre 4 BC. And we have Luke telling us that Jesus was born around the time of Quirinius's census, so around 6 AD.

Again we are confronted with something that seems to be more than just 'transmission/preservation' issues.

"... my expectations are based on my modern and secular understanding of the term 'inerrant'."

I'm afraid that sentence is just froth. There is no modern or secular understanding of the word inerrant. The word is simply the negation of errant. Any true statement is inerrant.

Errors are contradictions, factual inaccuracies, misstatements, deception. But what counts as an error is a different question. When it comes to interpreting Scripture there are various things to consider, authorial intent, word usage, literary device, genre, socio-cultural milieu; in short the grammatico-historical method.

You've mentioned the crucifixion problem between John and the Synoptic gospels. Craig Keener in his commentary on John says this;

"Some have used Passovers to reconstruct John's chronology and have claimed conflicts with the Synoptics, but it seems better to read John's final Passover chronology symbolically...Whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is executed on the day of the Passover sacrifice preceding the evening meal (18:28, 19:14), the Synoptics present the Last Supper as a Passover meal, presupposing that the lamb has already been offered in the temple. Both traditions - a paschal Last Supper and a paschal crucifixion - are theologically pregnant, but we suspect that Jesus followed by the earliest tradition, may have intended the symbolism for the Last Supper whereas John has applied the symbolism more directly to the referent to which the Last Supper itself symbolically pointed" The Gospel of John: A Commentary vol.2 pg 1100, Craig S. Keener

I don't actually agree with this, I think D.A. Carson in his commentary (more of which below) has a better argument for the compatibility of the two accounts, but I quote it since you have made reference to a paschal crucifixion for theological reasons; if it was not John's intention to give an accurate play by play account of the events leading up to the crucifixion then there is no contradiction between his account and Mark's simply because John employs a high degree of symbolism in constructing a 'theologically pregnant' narrative whereas the Synoptics play it straight.

As it goes, I don't have a problem with this interpretation because it conflicts with inerrancy. I disagree with the interpretation but it is consistent with inerrancy.

" In the case of the gospel accounts of the crucifixion story for instance, the differences between John's and (say) Mark's accounts can't really be explained as 'transmission/preservation' issues in my view. They must have been there in the autograph copies."

I never attempted to explain them as transmission errors.

Peter's comments on when Jesus was crucified are helpful so I'll not retread that ground except to add that not only does the day of preparation refer to the day before the Sabbath but the word Passover has several possible meanings, and these must be considered when exegeting the relevant texts in John and the Synoptics.

"Therefore the Bible cannot be 'inerrant' by my understanding of the word (which we've established may differ from the more refined theological understanding). "

By my understanding of the word, I'm excellent at golf. More often than not, I score the highest.

"Even ignoring Luke's mention of Herod the Great (1:5), we still have the witness of Matthew for whom Herod is a central part of the Nativity story. Matthew explicitly tells us that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was king of Judea (2:1), so pre 4 BC. And we have Luke telling us that Jesus was born around the time of Quirinius's census, so around 6 AD."

Luke, in agreement with Matthew, dates the birth of Christ during the reign of Herod the Great. If the census Luke refers to is the census in 6AD then he also dates the birth of Christ to then. This would clearly be an internal contradiction.

It is disputable, however, what exactly Luke 2:2 means. The verse is grammatically difficult, at least so say Greek scholars, giving rise to several plausible translations. Earlier I suggested that it could be translated to mean a census before the one of Quirinius. In fact, the traditional translation of that verse as given in the AV is based on a textual variant which includes the definite article. Most of the older manuscripts do not contain this inclusion.

I'm going to repeat myself again; Luke is aware of the census of Quirinius, in Acts 5:37 he simply refers to it as the census. Luke is also aware of the difference between Herod the Great and Herod the Tetrarch. It is therefore implausible to suggest that, despite knowing the dates, Luke would have made such a glaring mistake as placing the birth of Christ at 6-4BC and 6AD.

Coupled with the possibility of translating the verse differently, the likelihood that Luke has made an historical error at this point seems to me to be largely reduced.

"Again we are confronted with something that seems to be more than just 'transmission/preservation' issues."

At no point have I argued that the Lucan census was a transmission issue.

You seem to think that since I said the original autographs were inerrant, and that you have shown that there are 'errors' in the bibles we have today, then I must be saying that these 'errors' arose through transmission.

Not only this is a rather gratuitous reading of your own achievements on this thread it also fails to take note of the elementary distinction between a textual variant and a translation of the bible which relies upon thousands of manuscripts.

Now then, back to the golf.

42. peterm2 wrote:

"....the crucifixion issue and the day in question, this could be understood to be the Thursday before Passover and if so would appear to conflict with the record of the three Synoptic gospels where Jesus is crucified on a Friday. But the reference could also be to the Friday as the Preparation Day before the weekly Sabbath. Are we ever going to know exactly which?"

Hello peterm2, sorry for the delayed response.

Re the above: John's discrepancy with the synoptic gospels can be concentrated down to own key difference - the synoptics say the Last Supper was the Passover Supper; John says Jesus was dead and in his tomb before the Passover Supper is served.

The Last Supper according to John took place on the day before the Passover festival (John 13:1). Since the Jewish day starts at nightfall this supper must necessarily have been eaten at nightfall at the start of the day of Preparation for Passover.

This is confirmed at three different places in the subsequent text: at 18:25 Jesus is brought before Pilate at daybreak on the day of preparation for Passover. The Jews can't enter the palace as it would make them ritually unclean to eat the "Passover meal". So the Passover meal had not yet been eaten.

Then at 19:14 Jesus is placed at Pilate's palace in Jerusalem at noon on "the day of Preparation for Passover". That's quite clear. Finally at 19:31 Jesus's body is removed from the cross before nightfall when the Sabbath commenced. It was a 'an especially holy Sabbath' since, as John explained twice earlier, it was also Passover.

So John says Jesus was crucified on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover. It just so happened that Passover fell on a Sabbath that particular year. This is not unusual; it happens as often as Christmas Day falling on a Sunday in the Christian calendar.

But the vital thing for John is that Jesus was 'sacrificed', like the Passover lambs, on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover. This is a theologically vital part of John's narrative - Jesus is the 'Lamb of God'. The fact that it disagrees with the other gospels, all of which say Jesus ate the Passover supper with his disciples, may require one of those 'special' interpretations of the word 'inerrant' that is unique to theologians.

45. 9th Apr 2011, Andrew wrote:

"There is no modern or secular understanding of the word inerrant."

Hello Andrew. Well according to peterm2 there is an interpretation of the term 'inerrant' that is unique to theology. I felt I should differentiate mine from whatever that might be (it remains undefined), by stating that my interpretation is, like yours, "without error", i.e. without "contradictions, factual inaccuracies, misstatements, deception."

No doubt a symbolic reading of John's version of the crucifixion story is called for. But in our agreed usage of the word 'inerrant', John's account is irreconcilable with the synoptics, which plainly state that Jesus ate the Passover supper with his disciples. Therefore the stories taken together present a contradiction, which you have agreed is an 'error'. Therefore, if read together as a single witness to events, the gospels are not inerrant.

Re Luke: if the author of Luke was writing c. 70 AD in Greek and outside Palestine, as most textual critics now agree, then it is by no means 'implausible' that he would conflate the controversial reign of Herod the Great with Quirinius's census. These events took place around 70 years previously, in a foreign land, and in an age when written historical records would have been very hard to come by.

It could be reasonably argued that it is much more 'likely' that someone writing under these circumstance would make such a glaring mistake.

46. 9th Apr 2011, Andrew:

You previously stated your belief that many of the errors that had slipped into the copies of the original manuscripts were transmission/preservation issues.

I was merely arguing that, for instance, since John's theological theme is so dependent on Jesus being 'sacrificed' like the Passover lambs on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover, then it is unlikely that this discrepancy (with the other accounts) arose because of simple copy errors, etc.

I did not intend to imply that I had proved any particular point.

Newdwr54

No problem about the delay.

But!

Hold on a minute!

I don’t wish to be awkward, but, you do seem to be being unnecessarily pedantic. Had someone asked me last December if I had eaten and enjoyed my ‘Christmas Dinner’ and I had replied, “Yes”, and then I’d said to someone else that I’d been so sick on Christmas Day that I wasn’t able to eat anything, would that be a contradiction?

My overall point has been that biblical inerrancy refers to the reliability of what we are told about God, #20 ”As far as I’m concerned, inerrant simply means that the message the bible communicates about God and people is reliable.” Within that framework, and within the framework of the Christian idea of a God who speaks in the cut and thrust of daily life (incarnation), I’m more than happy to accept that there were local traditions, references, idioms and so on that made perfect sense to the readers then, that we might miss now. That doesn’t invalidate the message.

To be honest I can’t be much clearer. I given quite a substantial number of quotes, explanations, links, articles and so on which indicate my position; but we’re just going from one ‘issue’ to another. And I could raise some of my own; most of these objections are well known. Don’t get me wrong, please, I understand that these issues can be of concern, and I’m not saying they are easy to pin down, but given context, genre, purpose, oral traditions, cultural traditions and so on I just don’t think there’s much of an issue.

The resurrection sequence is another case in point - one angel or two? young man or angel? how many women at the tomb? dawn or dark? You know what I mean.

But I’ve mentioned all this before, and quite specifically towards the end of #42.

Maybe it boils down to this. Some people seem to want the bible to be exactly the same at every point, as if then it would be more believable, would it? I don’t think so. Christians don’t claim that the bible was dropped from heaven written on golden plates, that isn’t the view of either inspiration or inerrancy. Isn’t the bigger question, ‘can God communicate reliably through something called life?’ Life with all it’s mess and uncertainty, with people struggling coming to terms with the story they thought they were witnessing. For me there is greater reality in this. Why ever would we think that, ‘God with us’, would be straightforward?

And I do think the Bailey article is important. What did you think?

Anyway, here’s another way of thinking about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK_NinOmFWw

And can I just say this too, #48 ”Hello Andrew. Well according to peterm2 there is an interpretation of the term 'inerrant' that is unique to theology.”

Well, there are interpretations of many words which are unique to particular circumstances. And I did define it; as mentioned in this post, it was in #20.

Newdwr

I felt I should differentiate mine from whatever that might be (it remains undefined), by stating that my interpretation is, like yours, "without error", i.e. without "contradictions, factual inaccuracies, misstatements, deception."

And whether something is contradictory, inaccurate, a misstatement or deception is something that must be argued for and not asserted.

No doubt a symbolic reading of John's version of the crucifixion story is called for.

There is doubt whether a symbolic reading here is called for. I gave Keener as an example, suggesting that if John did not intend his crucifixion account to be a point by point historical narrative then he is not contradicting the synoptics *if* they are to be read as a straight retelling.

And, as I said in my previous post, I believe that John's account is *historically* compatible with the synoptic gospels.

But in our agreed usage of the word 'inerrant', John's account is irreconcilable with the synoptics, which plainly state that Jesus ate the Passover supper with his disciples.

Only if you're tone deaf.

All you've done is read Passover in John and Passover in the synoptics and assumed. You've done no exegesis at all. For instance on John 19:14;

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.  He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”

A better way of reading the passage turns on recognizing that paraskeue (Preparation) regularly refers to Friday - i.e. The Preparation of the Sabbath if Friday. Despite the fact that Barrett confidently insists paraskeue tou pascha must refer to the Preparation day of (i.e. Before) the Passover, he does not offer any evidence of a single instance where paraskeue refers to the day before any feast day other than Sabbath. If this latter identification is correct then tou pascha must be taken to mean, not 'of the Passover week', but 'of the Passover feast' or 'of the Passover week'. This is a perfectly acceptable rendering, since 'Passover' can refer to the Passover meal, the day of the Passover meal, or (as in this case) the entire Passover week (i.e. Passover day plus the immediately ensuing Feast of Unleavened Bread)...Hence paraskeue tou pascha probably means 'Friday' of Passover week The Gospel According to John: The Pillar New Testament Commentary, pg 603-604, D.A. Carson

Therefore the stories taken together present a contradiction, which you have agreed is an 'error'. Therefore, if read together as a single witness to events, the gospels are not inerrant.

I never said it was an error.

Re Luke: if the author of Luke was writing c. 70 AD in Greek and outside Palestine, as most textual critics now agree, then it is by no means 'implausible' that he would conflate the controversial reign of Herod the Great with Quirinius's census.

I'm going to set to one side the debate over the dating and authorship of Luke-Acts (they are a literary unit), it isn't important to what I have argued.

Second, the author does not conflate the rule of Herod the Great and Herod the Tetrarch. He is aware of the famous rebellion that arose because of the census. So why should we believe he would conflate the rule of Herod the Great with the census of Quirinius?

The possible retranslation of this verse seems to answer the difficulty (not that it answers every issue in the first 7 verses of this chapter).

These events took place around 70 years previously, in a foreign land, and in an age when written historical records would have been very hard to come by.

The internal evidence I have cited from Luke-Acts renders this moot. The author was well informed about the events he was describing.

You previously stated your belief that many of the errors that had slipped into the copies of the original manuscripts were transmission/preservation issues.

There are variations in the manuscripts, and the textual history of the text generally, most of these variations are utterly inconsequential, there are a number which would give a different reading to a verse and there are none that would falsify any major doctrine of the Christian faith.

The differences that do exist, and which are known, are the result of the copying process over time.

I was merely arguing that, for instance, since John's theological theme is so dependent on Jesus being 'sacrificed' like the Passover lambs on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover, then it is unlikely that this discrepancy (with the other accounts) arose because of simple copy errors, etc.

Where did I say it was?

Peters comments are very helpful;

Maybe it boils down to this. Some people seem to want the bible to be exactly the same at every point, as if then it would be more believable, would it? I don’t think so. Christians don’t claim that the bible was dropped from heaven written on golden plates, that isn’t the view of either inspiration or inerrancy.

I've heard the same idea expressed in another way, the bible was written for us and not to us.

Just noticed. The Carson quote should read:

If this latter identification is correct then tou pascha must be taken to mean, not 'of the Passover', but 'of the Passover feast' or 'of the Passover week'.

49. Peterm2 wrote:

“I don’t wish to be awkward, but, you do seem to be being unnecessarily pedantic.”

I’m known for it.

“Had someone asked me last December if I had eaten and enjoyed my ‘Christmas Dinner’ and I had replied, “Yes”, and then I’d said to someone else that I’d been so sick on Christmas Day that I wasn’t able to eat anything, would that be a contradiction?”

No, but if you said that someone had died on Christmas Eve after feeling sick on Christmas Day it would be.

“I’m more than happy to accept that there were local traditions, references, idioms and so on that made perfect sense to the readers then, that we might miss now. That doesn’t invalidate the message.”

I agree with this, as I’ve said several times. All the gospels are internally coherent both theologically and chronologically about the crucifixion and the reason for it. However if they are read ‘together’ as absolute witnesses to an event, then most secular textual critics that I’m aware of believe they disagree with one another over the chronology. That is the point I was making. This would only be a problem for someone who views the gospels in the same light as, say; modern police witness statements, etc rather than as devotional works describing primarily theological ideas.

So I agree with your comments regarding context, purpose and cultural traditions, etc, but it’s the term ‘inerrant’ which is slightly confusing to me, given the rather precise definition you apply to ‘Biblical inerrancy’, i.e. that it applies only to what the Bible tells us about God. This term has confused not only me, but also a large number of Christians. Many believe that the original manuscripts of the gospels were inerrant in what I would call the ‘modern’ sense (free from all error, including internal contradiction and historical inaccuracy). Others believe that certain translations are inerrant in this sense also.

There does not seem to be clear agreement among Christians about what ‘Biblical inerrancy’ actually means.

“[Re] the Bailey article ... What did you think?”

I read his article about oral tradition, which was very interesting and instructive. One problem that struck me is that even accepting the view that the stories about Jesus in the synoptic gospels were preserved by repetition, and perhaps some written notes, within confined early Christian communities, we are still faced with the fact that the autograph copies of the gospels were all composed in Greek. This required both translation and transliteration and we cannot be sure what was ‘lost in translation’.

Also, despite his well argued case that Middle Eastern oral tradition is somehow better at preserving the accuracy of historical events than those of other cultures, it's simply human nature the world over that a tale about a remarkable event rarely loses any of its ‘remarkableness’ in the re-telling. People are prone to ‘gilding the lily’, even in the Middle East; otherwise we should also be bound to accept as reliable the marvellous tales about Mohammed’s deeds as retold in the Qur’an, for example.

50. Andrew:

In the instances where I have argued that there is contradiction (the chronology of the crucifixion) or inaccuracy (Luke linking Herod the Great and Quirinius as contemporaries) I have stated the evidence for my views with appropriate references. These are two of the most commonly cited examples raised by textual criticism.

I don't argue that John contradicts the synoptic gospels theologically, just chronologically. At several verses, not just one, John indicates that Jesus was crucified on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover, i.e. ‘before’ the Passover meal is served. The other gospels state that Jesus ate the Passover meal before he was crucified. I have argued that it is central to John's theology that Jesus is sacrificed before the Seder meal. Like the sacrificial lambs, Jesus arrives in Jerusalem on 10 Nisan (Ex. 12:3); like the lambs he is killed on the afternoon of 14 Nisan (Ex. 12:6). If John's Last Supper scene was a Passover meal, then his carefully made theological point is lost.

John says Jesus is in Pilate’s palace at noon on “the day of Preparation of the Passover.” “Paraskeue tou pascha” is specific. The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for a full week, but there is only one Passover Seder. If John had simply said “the day of preparation” then you might have a point. Your rendering also ignores the passage at Jn. 18:28 which takes place earlier that morning. The Jews cannot enter Pilate’s palace as it would make them ritually unclean for the “pascha”, not the "sabbaton": https://biblos.com/john/18-28.htm.

Re the Nativity stories: If Luke was written in a remote location 70-80 years after historical events, elsewhere in the Mediterranean, and in an age when accurate historical data was hard if not impossible to come by, then it is reasonable that the author might use well-remembered monarchs or notorious historical events like Quirinius’s census, as rough historical ‘markers’. We might ‘expect’ an author in these circumstances to make slight factual mistakes similar to those seemingly made by Luke.

But let's say that Luke 2.2 'is' a translation issue, and that he is actually referring to a Roman census of Judea that took place before 6 BC. Why would Luke even mention Quirinius here if he was talking about a census that took place before 6 BC? Also, before 6 BC the Romans simply did not have authority to conduct a census in Judea, and there is no historical record whatsoever of there being one. Surely a historian as thorough as Josephus would have mentioned an illegal Roman census in Judea at 6 BC if one had occurred?

Instead Josephus tells us that Quirinius became legate of Syria in 6 AD and immediately called a census in Judea, to the consternation of the Jews. The life of Quirinius is quite well documented historically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius and he was legate of Syria only once, being appointed in 6 AD.

That Luke links Herod the Great and Quirinius as contemporaries shows a poor grasp of the historical situation he was describing. This is entirely consistent with the view that Luke was writing remotely and decades after the events.

It is not the case that all the redactions in the Bible arise from copy errors. We have already touched on the Johannine Coma. This was a deliberate attempt to underline the no doubt sincerely held doctrine of the Trinity by adding a significant passage of text to 1st Jn. 5:7-8. It is a clear example of a pious fraud, and one that remains in the KJV of the Bible. There are numerous other examples of deliberate redactions, some of which still survive in modern texts, that can't just be written off as simple copy errors.

Re peterm2: I may be wrong but I took it from his comments that he does not necessarily agree with your view that the original manuscripts were given 'without error', i.e. that they did not contain contradictory chronologies, or historical inaccuracies, etc. His view, as far as I can see, is that they may well have done, but that this is immaterial to the 'inerrant' picture they paint of God's nature. I stand to be corrected.

Newdwr (apologies for the length, I know you're responding to two of us)

#52

”No, but if you said that someone had died on Christmas Eve after feeling sick on Christmas Day it would be.”

However the point is established that there is such a thing as a ‘Christmas Season’, and quite possibly, and acceptably, a ‘Passover Season’.

”I agree with this, as I’ve said several times. All the gospels are internally coherent both theologically and chronologically about the crucifixion and the reason for it.”

Then we’re agreed on “local traditions, references, idioms and so on”.

”However if they are read ‘together’ as absolute witnesses to an event, then most secular textual critics that I’m aware of believe they disagree with one another over the chronology. That is the point I was making.”

And we’ve also seen that chronology need not be pressed for the story to make perfect sense.

”modern police witness statements,”

But the gospels, and letters and Old Testament books: poems, prophecy, songs etc aren’t ‘modern’ anything. That’s big point right there.

”There does not seem to be clear agreement among Christians about what ‘Biblical inerrancy’ actually means.”

That certainly seems to be the case, and to be absolutely frank, I don’t think that the word ‘inerrancy’ is helpful. ‘Reliable communication’ might be better way of referring to it, especially when some Christians want to press every genre in to a literalistic mould.

It may muddy the waters even more but here is Paul Helm quoting B B Warfield, in an article about inerrancy,”The human agency, both in the histories out of which the Scriptures sprang, and in their immediate composition and inscription, is everywhere apparent, and gives substance and form to the entire collection of writings. It is not merely in the matter of verbal expression or literary composition that the personal idiosyncrasies of each author are freely manifested by the untrammelled play of all his faculties, but the very substance of what they write is evidently for the most part the product of their own mental and spiritual activities.”

”I read his article about oral tradition, which was very interesting and instructive.”

Indeed!

”This required both translation and transliteration and we cannot be sure what was ‘lost in translation’.”

Well, ‘lost in translation’ is always going to be a danger, but again, that doesn’t mean unreliable. ‘Lost in translation’ can also mean coming to the wrong conclusions about an apparent contradiction e.g Passover.

”People are prone to ‘gilding the lily’”

Of course! But that was part of Bailey’s point when he specifically spoke about the ‘brakes’ in the story-telling culture.

#53 ”I may be wrong but I took it from his comments that he does not necessarily agree with your view that the original manuscripts were given 'without error'”

You may well be right, I don’t know.

#52 ”otherwise we should also be bound to accept as reliable...”

Why? However, this does bring us to something of a crux, or crisis point. Is there sufficient reliability to accept the story? Let’s face it, however well argued the points about ‘idiom’ or ‘local traditions’ are (and I’m not saying I’ve done it all that well), we still end up with a story which speaks of - ...”the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

Part of accepting the story is considering what the story says.

Newdwr

In the instances where I have argued that there is contradiction (the chronology of the crucifixion) or inaccuracy (Luke linking Herod the Great and Quirinius as contemporaries) I have stated the evidence for my views with appropriate references.

Not exactly, you have been doing some rather predictable proof-texting though.

These are two of the most commonly cited examples raised by textual criticism.

The two problems you've cited are not text critical issues; they're exegetical.

...if they are read ‘together’ as absolute witnesses to an event, then most secular textual critics that I’m aware of believe they disagree with one another over the chronology

Again, textual critics are not exegetes. And whether or not the person is a Christian or not has precisely zip to do with the quality of their arguments.

I don't argue that John contradicts the synoptic gospels theologically, just chronologically.

If John's chronology is to be taken 'theologically', as you say, then it does not contradict a chronology intended to be strictly historical. The problem is answered by authorial intent and literary device.

At several verses, not just one, John indicates that Jesus was crucified on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover, i.e. ‘before’ the Passover meal is served.

As I've said, there are different ways to understand what 'passover' means simply repeating that it refers to the passover meal will not establish your case.

I gave 19:14 as an example. Clearly, this would have to be consistent with the other relevant verses.

John says Jesus is in Pilate’s palace at noon on “the day of Preparation of the Passover.” “Paraskeue tou pascha” is specific.

Is it? Can you show from the extant literature that the 'day of preparation' was predicated of the Passover meal? It routinely refers to the day before the Sabbath.

Then there's John 19:31;

Since it was the day of preparation, and so that bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)... (cf. 15:42)

The Sabbath as a high day referring to the second paschal day of the sheaf offering.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for a full week, but there is only one Passover Seder.

It doesn't say Passover Seder it says Passover. So this is something you're assuming.

There's also intertextual evidence to consider;

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. Luke 22:1

Here we have the entire week referred to as the Passover.

If John had simply said “the day of preparation” then you might have a point.

I still have a point. John 19:14 can easily refer to the Sabbath of the Passover week.

Your rendering also ignores the passage at Jn. 18:28 which takes place earlier that morning. The Jews cannot enter Pilate’s palace as it would make them ritually unclean for the “pascha”, not the "sabbaton"

Since the Jews would have likely maintained ritual cleanliness for the feast week - Passover - this point has little traction.

I have argued that it is central to John's theology that Jesus is sacrificed before the Seder meal. Like the sacrificial lambs, Jesus arrives in Jerusalem on 10 Nisan (Ex. 12:3); like the lambs he is killed on the afternoon of 14 Nisan (Ex. 12:6). If John's Last Supper scene was a Passover meal, then his carefully made theological point is lost.

The theological point is suggestive but it is not compelling. It is telling that nowhere in the crucifixion narrative does John use the parallel between a sacrificed Christ and the sacrificed lambs at passover, if it is, as you say, central to John's theology.

Newdwr

Re the Nativity stories: If Luke was written in a remote location 70-80 years after historical events, elsewhere in the Mediterranean, and in an age when accurate historical data was hard if not impossible to come by, then it is reasonable that the author might use well-remembered monarchs or notorious historical events like Quirinius’s census, as rough historical ‘markers’.

Except that the evidence I have cited speaks against 'rough, give or take 10 years, markers.'

It might well be true that historical records were poor and the author was writing 70-80 years after the historical events. This does not detract from evidence which *is* available within Luke-Acts and without.

He gets Herod the Great's dates right, gets the Tetrarch right, gets the Quirinius census rebellion right and then manages to date the census itself wrongly. That borders on incredulous. If the author was such a dunderhead I'll pack up now and go home.

We might ‘expect’ an author in these circumstances to make slight factual mistakes similar to those seemingly made by Luke.

We don't expect, you expect.

But let's say that Luke 2.2 'is' a translation issue, and that he is actually referring to a Roman census of Judea that took place before 6 BC. Why would Luke even mention Quirinius here if he was talking about a census that took place before 6 BC?

Any answer here is somewhat speculative; in one sense because the 6AD census was notorious it does provide a time marker that the readership would have been aware of. Christ was born before this.

Also, before 6 BC the Romans simply did not have authority to conduct a census in Judea, and there is no historical record whatsoever of there being one.

I've already referred you to evidence of Roman census' taking place in client kingdoms.

Surely a historian as thorough as Josephus would have mentioned an illegal Roman census in Judea at 6 BC if one had occurred?

He might have, then again he might not. Josephus is certainly not beyond reproach.

Instead Josephus tells us that Quirinius became legate of Syria in 6 AD and immediately called a census in Judea, to the consternation of the Jews. The life of Quirinius is quite well documented historically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius and he was legate of Syria only once, being appointed in 6 AD.

All very interesting but does nothing to establish your case.

That Luke links Herod the Great and Quirinius as contemporaries shows a poor grasp of the historical situation he was describing.

This is the point in dispute and you've yet to establish that Luke does make them contemporaries.

It is not the case that all the redactions in the Bible arise from copy errors. We have already touched on the Johannine Coma...There are numerous other examples of deliberate redactions, some of which still survive in modern texts, that can't just be written off as simple copy errors.

I didn't say they were copying errors. I said they were variants that arose through the copying process.

Re peterm2: I may be wrong but I took it from his comments that he does not necessarily agree with your view that the original manuscripts were given 'without error'

Peter can speak for himself but from what I can tell we agree well enough, perhaps using different language and perhaps with slightly different emphasis. At any rate, on the crucifixion chronology we seem to be saying much the same thing. And he hasn't addressed the Lucan census.

Newdwr

#53

This part again

"Re peterm2: I may be wrong but I took it from his comments that he does not necessarily agree with your view that the original manuscripts were given 'without error', i.e. that they did not contain contradictory chronologies, or historical inaccuracies, etc. His view, as far as I can see, is that they may well have done, but that this is immaterial to the 'inerrant' picture they paint of God's nature. I stand to be corrected."

My apologies, I seem to have misread this. I initially took you to be referring back to the Kenneth Bailey article, when you were addressing Andrew. It's what comes of reading only the bits with your own name attached!

I haven't actually accepted the 'chronology' issue as an 'error'!

Andrew's is right, "what I can tell we agree well enough, perhaps using different language and perhaps with slightly different emphasis."

54. peterm2 wrote:

"... the point is established that there is such a thing as a ‘Christmas Season’, and quite possibly, and acceptably, a ‘Passover Season’."

But there is also such a thing as a Passover meal (Seder); which is every bit as much of an event (if not more so) in Jewish culture as Christmas Dinner on Christmas Day is in Christian culture. The Passover meal is strongly ritualised and quite distinct from the rest of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. It is the 'main event' that kicks the entire festival off. It is eaten at a very precise time – at nightfall marking the start of 14 Nisan.

There are not a series of Passover Seders. There is only one, and every Jew knows exactly when it is served and its religious and cultural significance. When the writers of the gospels mention the Passover meal they know that their audiences will understand exactly what they are talking about.

I know that Ehrman for example argues that each gospel needs to be respected as a separate witness to events; that if you set one beside another you will soon start to see little discrepancies. It is not a problem for me that the synoptics disagree with John on this particular point, since I understand that the theological themes of each author are more important than describing the exact sequence of events as they actually unfolded.

So I am agreeing with you (and Ehrman) that the gospels should 'not' be read as 'modern police witness statements'; they are primarily devotional works and were not written with attention to that sort of factual rigour in mind.

Re Bailey - I still don't see how we can differentiate between the reliability of oral tradition in Christian and Muslim traditions. Bailey actually uses Muslim oral repetition techniques as an example of how Middle Eastern cultures preserve traditional stories with a high degree of accuracy. It follows that if Christian stories retain a high degree of accuracy in the re-telling, then so must Muslim ones. Yet we have no difficulty rejecting many of the claims made in the Muslim stories (at least I don't). So what are Bailey’s special reasons for accepting the claims made in the Christian ones?

Thanks for the responses btw.

55. Andrew wrote:


"The two problems you've cited are not text critical issues; they're exegetical."

Peterm2 previously suggested that I might be a little pedantic. Since exegesis is the critical interpretation of a text, and since textual criticism, including historical criticism, is usually included in this definition, I'm afraid he may now have to also include you the circle of pedantry.

"Whether or not the person is a Christian or not has precisely zip to do with the quality of their arguments."

This is not always the case. Christian fundamentalists, in my experience of several doorstep encounters, are not always armed with enough historical, scientific and sometimes even textual knowledge to meaningfully contest these and other arguments. Often they are unaware that such arguments exist. No doubt the same is often true of atheist fundamentalists. I agree that each argument needs to be judged on its merits, regardless of its source.

"If John's chronology is to be taken 'theologically', as you say, then it does not contradict a chronology intended to be strictly historical. The problem is answered by authorial intent and literary device."

I agree. The contradiction here is illusory; arising from our modern predilection for reading the texts as if they were always intended to be read in tandem, instead of as individual accounts each with its own theological story to tell. It is an illusion that trips up non-believers and believers in equal measure.

"...there are different ways to understand what 'passover' means simply repeating that it refers to the passover meal will not establish your case".

I argue that all the indications from John, including its theological theme, strongly indicate that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover meal, or Seder. John 19:14 says Jesus is under arrest around noon on the day of 'preparation for Passover": https://biblos.com/john/19-14.htm . If it is the day of preparation for Passover, even if 'Pashca' here 'is' intended as a reference to the entire festival of Unleavened Bread, then the next meal eaten has 'got' to be the main Passover Seder anyway, since it is always the first meal of the weeklong festival in any case.

The other gospels strongly indicate that Jesus spent the day of preparation for Passover having his disciples make preparation for the Seder. I agree that Luke 22:1 does mean that the 'Passover week' is approaching. But at Luke 22:7 the precise day is *specified*. This verse places us in the day on which the lambs are 'killed for the Passover' meal: https://biblos.com/luke/22-7.htm. This is 'always' 13 Nisan - the day of preparation for the start of Passover, which always starts with the main Passover meal.

Instead of being presented to Pilate, scourged and killed (like the lambs) as John insists, Luke says Jesus spends this day making plans for the Passover meal (Lk. 22:8). This has 'got' to mean the Seder, since this is always the first meal eaten when Passover itself begins, after nightfall when the day becomes 14 Nisan - the day of Passover itself. When darkness falls ("when the hour came"), Jesus duly sits down and eats the first Passover meal with his disciples (Lk. 22:15).

But these arguments are now redundant in the context of our having agreed that theological considerations are a perfectly acceptable reason for introducing literary device, even if this means changing certain basic facts about the actual events being described. I don't understand the need to persist in attempting to square circles, when you appear to agree that these sorts of minor disagreements among the stories don't actually matter anyway.

56. Andrew wrote:

"...the evidence I have cited speaks against 'rough, give or take 10 years, markers'. He gets Herod the Great's dates right, gets the Tetrarch right, gets the Quirinius census rebellion right and then manages to date the census itself wrongly. That borders on incredulous. If the author was such a dunderhead I'll pack up now and go home."

No need for that. Luke was not a dunderhead, he just wasn't a very accurate historian. He gets his characters right but not his dates. At Lk. 1:5 he begins the birth narratives of both John the Baptist and Jesus with a time-stamp: "In the days of king Herod of Judea..." There then follows a narrative spanning a 15 month period in which both John the Baptist and Jesus are born. At 2.2 Luke adds Quirinius to this contemporary scene. We know from Josephus and other contemporary records that a period of 10 years, not 15 months, spans the reign of Herod the Great as king of Judea and Quirinius as legate of Syria. Luke simply makes a factual mistake in assuming that Herod the Great and Quirinius were contemporaries.

You have in no way explained why Luke would suddenly introduce the character of Quirinius at 2:2 if he was referring to a census that took place 12 years previous. We know about Quirinius's census of Judea at 6 AD and we know that it was a notorious event. We do not know of any Roman census in Judea around 6 BC, which would have been illegal in any case. You dismiss Josephus's silence on this missing event, which would have caused a massive stir, by suggesting Josephus wasn't perfect. That is a poor response in my view.

"I didn't say they were copying errors. I said they were variants that arose through the copying process."

But the 'copying process' is just that: the process whereby one text is faithfully copied from another. Adding or removing sections for theological or other reasons is not part of the copying process; it is part of a process of deliberate redaction.

Newdwr

With regard to the specifics of the Passover, Andrew has already responded to this in more detail than I have, so I’ll not rehearse it again, other than to say that the source I have used, “The Reformation Study Bible”, general editor R C Sproul, highlights the possibilities of different a reading.

What interests me now, given the conversation to date, and the general acceptance (I think!) that the stories have been communicated reliably (or at least sufficiently reliably), is where you go from here.

The Bailey article, for example, was highlighting the reliability of the oral culture, it wasn’t (at least I didn’t read it this way) saying, ‘therefore, Jesus is the Son of God’; indeed the article concludes, “Needing to account for both event and interpretation, continuity and discontinuity, fixity and fluidity, it is our suggestion that the informal yet controlled oral tradition of the settled Middle Eastern village can provide a methodological framework within which to perceive and interpret the bulk of the materials before us.”

His point was that the community could reliably preserve and communicate stories - any kind of story, so on that specific point we don’t need to differentiate. Having decided, however, that the gospels are reliable, in the sense of communicating what it was the Apostolic community thought of Jesus, we then continue to consider what they say and form our own response.

Ehrman seems to be saying (he is saying) something different: that the gospels, because of the variations (and he seems not to think then "little"), are not reliable accounts of the stories of that early Christian community, therefore Jesus cannot be the Son of God. Although from what I've read he seems to generally dismiss the possibility of miracles too.

Here is a quote from a transcript of a debate between B Ehrman and W L Craig from the web:

Ehrman

”The way it works is this: I'm a businessman in Ephesus, and somebody comes to town and tells me stories about Jesus, and on the basis of these stories I hear, I convert. I tell my wife these stories. She converts. She tells the next-door neighbor the stories. She converts. She tells her husband the stories. He converts. He goes on a business trip to Rome, and he tells people there the stories. They convert. Those people who've heard the stories in Rome, where did they hear them from? They heard them from the guy who lived next door to me. Well, was he there to see these things happen? No. Where'd he hear them from? He heard them from his wife. Where did his wife hear them from? Was she there? No. She heard them from my wife. Where did my wife hear them from? She heard them from me. Well, where did I hear them from? I wasn't there either.

Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed. How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another.”

Ehrman’s position is ‘Chinese Whispers’; Bailey’s article demonstrates that this is not the case.

So when you ask, "So what are Bailey’s special reasons for accepting the claims made in the Christian ones?"

My answer is that accepting the reliable communication of the story and accepting the claims made in the story are two different things.

Maybe I could ask, if you think that the stories have been communicated reliably enough, why do you not accept the claims of the story?

57. peterm2:

"Andrew's is right, "what I can tell we agree well enough, perhaps using different language and perhaps with slightly different emphasis.""

On the one hand you both seem to agree that factual errors in minor details like chronology, etc are subsidiary to the literary or theological merit of the texts; on the other you both appear to be very reluctant to accept that any such factual errors exist.

I don't understand the reluctance to admit to these errors, given their relatively insignificant nature.

I will be away for a few days btw. Will try to respond after that if the thread is still open.

Christopher Hitchens writes in the current Vanity Fair on translation, nuance, fidelity and beauty of the King James Bible.

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105?currentPage=2

Peterm2 previously suggested that I might be a little pedantic. Since exegesis is the critical interpretation of a text, and since textual criticism, including historical criticism, is usually included in this definition, I'm afraid he may now have to also include you the circle of pedantry.

Exegesis and textual criticism are two distinct disciplines.

Just admit you made a small factual error, what difference does it make?

I agree. The contradiction here is illusory

Recall that this discussion started over the alleged difficulty of the Johannine crucifixion chronology next to the one offered by the synopticsin defending the doctrine of inerrancy. Should it now be understood that you no longer believe this is a problem for inerrancy?

...; arising from our modern predilection for reading the texts as if they were always intended to be read in tandem, instead of as individual accounts each with its own theological story to tell. It is an illusion that trips up non-believers and believers in equal measure.

On the reason for four gospels I'd recommend reading, Belfast based Biblical Theology Prof, T.Desmond Alexander's book the subject.

"...there are different ways to understand what 'passover' means simply repeating that it refers to the passover meal will not establish your case".

I argue that all the indications from John, including its theological theme, strongly indicate that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover meal, or Seder.

Picking up on a point made in response to Peter, cleanly separating Passover from the feast of unleavened bread is unwarranted. It suits your purposes to cleanly separate the two but from the bible and secondary literature it's quite legitimate to say that the Passover and the feast of the unleavened bread were used interchangeably.

If it is the day of preparation for Passover, even if 'Pashca' here 'is' intended as a reference to the entire festival of Unleavened Bread, then the next meal eaten has 'got' to be the main Passover Seder anyway, since it is always the first meal of the weeklong festival in any case.

You've misunderstood. The day of preparation routinely refers to Friday, the day before Sabbath (cf. Mark 15:42). I'm not suggesting that John is talking about a day of preparation for the weeklong festival. Rather, John here refers to the day of preparation (Friday) of the Passover week.

I agree that Luke 22:1 does mean that the 'Passover week' is approaching.

The only point I am making from Luke 22:1 is that Passover can be used interchangeably with Festival of the Unleavened Bread.

I don't understand the need to persist in attempting to square circles, when you appear to agree that these sorts of minor disagreements among the stories don't actually matter anyway.

I don't accept that they are disagreements. And if they were disagreements, then, yes, they would matter a great deal.

If John is saying that Christ *actually* died on Thursday and the synoptics say Christ *actually* died on Friday, that is a big deal. But since the accounts are compatible I can rest easy.

No need for that. Luke was not a dunderhead, he just wasn't a very accurate historian. He gets his characters right but not his dates.

He gets Herod the Great and Herod the Tetrarch in the right periods. He knew about the rebellion that arose in 6AD following the census of Quirinius. And clearly he knew who Quirinius was. If this is true then the likelihood of such a blunder seems remote.

Luke adds Quirinius to this contemporary scene.

This only follows if the verse has been translated correctly but at the very least there must be doubt that it has been, given the apparent difficulty in its grammatical construction.

We know from Josephus and other contemporary records that a period of 10 years, not 15 months, spans the reign of Herod the Great as king of Judea and Quirinius as legate of Syria. Luke simply makes a factual mistake in assuming that Herod the Great and Quirinius were contemporaries.

Yes, Herod the Great and Quirinius as legate of Syria were not contemporaries. We know that. This is what we've been debating.

You have in no way explained why Luke would suddenly introduce the character of Quirinius at 2:2 if he was referring to a census that took place 12 years previous.

I may not have explained it to your satisfaction but it's interesting nevertheless that you can say;

...it is reasonable that the author might use well-remembered monarchs or notorious historical events like Quirinius’s census, as rough historical ‘markers’.

Why should it be reasonable to use 'rough historical markers' when, as you say, Luke makes Herod the Great and Qurinius contemporaries but not when he doesn't? The same principle applies.

We know about Quirinius's census of Judea at 6 AD and we know that it was a notorious event. We do not know of any Roman census in Judea around 6 BC, which would have been illegal in any case.

I've cited evidence where a Roman census took place in client kingdoms.

You dismiss Josephus's silence on this missing event, which would have caused a massive stir, by suggesting Josephus wasn't perfect. That is a poor response in my view.

That's as maybe but it's a poorer response to offer an argument from silence when the internal evidence provides a solution to the problem. The interpretation I have given does not require that we know which census Luke is referring to only that he is not referring to the one in 6AD, which is what you require him to mean to press the inconsistency.

But the 'copying process' is just that: the process whereby one text is faithfully copied from another.

Are you kidding me? Did I say anything about faithfully copying the text?

If only I was using the words you're putting in my mouth, then you'd have a point.

Adding or removing sections for theological or other reasons is not part of the copying process; it is part of a process of deliberate redaction.

The copying process gave opportunity to make changes to the text.

I don't understand the reluctance to admit to these errors, given their relatively insignificant nature.

Yes, yes, we're in the denial. We know they are errors but we can't just bring ourselves to admit it. Through private communications I've warned Peter that if I so much as detect a lip quivering I'm going to report him to the Bureau of Biblical Consistency. Over the course of a week they will use mind altering drugs and repression techniques. Not only will he come out refreshed in his belief the bible is consistent but he will also think Christ died on Thursday and died again on Friday.

Theologians are dubbing this the Doctrine of the Double Dip Death of Christ. Biblical Theologians have suggested this is a foretelling of when the world will be renewed. Millenarians in Central Banks, as we speak, are hard at it leveraging private debts by creating government bonds hoping that after the first recession they can bring about another.

I think they call it tough love but he'll thank me at the parousia when he get's his mansion. You on the other hand, well, as old Rob Bell says, Jesus will get you a mansion but you'll hate it.

Newdwr #62

” On the one hand you both seem to agree that factual errors in minor details like chronology"

At what point did I accept factual errors? I don’t recall doing so.


”are subsidiary to the literary or theological merit of the texts;”

If it’s a literary device, it’s not an error, it’s a literary device.

If it’s a theological point (analogy for example), it’s not an error, it’s a theological point.

If there’s a possible alternative reading (I have suggested there is and Andrew has explained that there is) then it’s not an error, it’s an alternative reading.

If it’s written in a context of a cultural understanding, as noted in the account of the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Luke, then it’s not an error, it’s written in the context of a cultural understanding.

If it’s in the context of an ‘informal controlled’ culture of communication, then it’s not an error, it’s in the context of an ‘informal controlled’ culture of communication.


”you both appear to be very reluctant to accept that any such factual errors exist”

Having said all I have said on this thread about the context of the writing, I don’t need to be ‘very reluctant’.

I can’t, though, make the point any better than Andrew did at the end of #64 ”If John is saying that Christ *actually* died on Thursday and the synoptics say Christ *actually* died on Friday, that is a big deal. But since the accounts are compatible I can rest easy.”

Have a good few days away.


Andrew

Not a flicker! ;-)

Doctrine of the Double Dip... well I never!

Andrew, you start very strongly in #64, but trail off, in #65 the wheels come off and in #66 you're off your cart and in the muck. It's a bit telling that you needed three times as much space as New to respond to him. It appears you are relying on contingency and inconclusiveness to defend the claim that the Bible is inerrant. Uncertainty is a strange place to be taking refuge in defending the integrity of God's word.

61. Peterm2:

Starting from your question: "if you think that the stories have been communicated reliably enough, why do you not accept the claims of the story?"

While I agreed that Bailey's account of the transmission of oral tradition within Middle Eastern communities was impressive, I don't think I went so far as to say that it ensured reliability. In fact I cited the example of the Muslim traditions, some of which were initially preserved in the same way. Yet neither you nor I regard these stories as 'reliable'.

For the details of an event to be preserved reliably, the most important thing is that they are passed on accurately by first party eye witnesses, and written down as soon as possible thereafter. Even if we assume (and it is still a big assumption) that Middle Eastern culture somehow preserves oral traditions with absolute accuracy, we still cannot be sure about the reliability of the original witness to the events. How much of what was preserved orally was hearsay? We just don't know.

Then we have the problems of translation into Greek. How much was lost in translation? After that there are the problems of copyists. The early Christian copyists were notoriously unreliable. It was only after the introduction of scriptoriums that anything like a professional standard was attained. So how much was lost when crude copies of the autograph manuscripts were being turned out in the decades before scriptoriums emerged?

You can of course claim that the Holy Spirit had a hand in preserving the core of the autograph copies, as he had a hand in inspiring them. But it would be hard to distinguish such a claim from 'special pleading'.

I 'am' going away at the weekend btw. I just found 40 mins tonight to answer your post. I'll check back hopefully Sunday night.

AB

Thanks for the C. Hitchens link, enjoyed it. Put me in mind to buy his memoir.

The Lucan census is a difficult issue. There is no one position that does complete justice to the extant evidence. As far as possible then, an informed judgement must be made. On verse 2:2 the approach I have adopted on this thread has been twofold, the general historical reliability of Luke-Acts (I have cited two different lines of reliability which are related to this verse) and the difficulty in translating the Greek. These are good reasons to believe that Luke was referring to a previous census. And there is indirect evidence (such as Roman censuses in client kingdoms) which answers some of the difficulties an earlier census would raise. The possibility of alternate readings make the charge of inconsistency premature.

The bible makes many historical claims that cannot be corroborated or falsified from other sources. A census which is at present attested only in the gospel of Luke is not problematic because it is attested only in Luke. Maybe problematic for other reasons but not this reason.

As far as response length goes, excluding quotations I've used less words in my previous three posts than the two posts from Newdwr to which I was responding. Is that telling, too?

And since New has on more than one occasion now decided for me, and Peter also, what I have said I'm not inclined to regret 66. I'm not hopeful that anything more can be achieved on this thread.

Peter's #67 aptly sums things up.

It's still couched in uncertainty. Peter's "apt" response is a list of ifs. Let's not forget people kill and be killed over these matters.

This depends on what is meant by uncertainty or its cognates; are we talking about epistemic certainty or psychological certainty, or something else?

Peter, and I, have been making a, more or less, similar case for historico-grammatical exegesis in resolving the alleged 'contradictions' in the gospel narratives. His list of ifs are apt because they highlight the unreasonable assumption that if a statement is not literally true (ignoring genre, device, intent etc.) then it must be erroneous.

Early on in this discussion I highlighted the tendency of Christian apostates reared with a wooden view of Scripture to carry this over and continue then to criticise the bible, reading it exactly the same way as the days they were singing 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam'.

New hasn't done this exactly, but then it doesn't seem to have left him completely. The only bible that would satisfy is the one that falls from the sky.

AboutFace #71

Andrew has pretty much summed up what I was going to say, but, anyway...

First up, the Hitchens’ article was worth the read, very enjoyable; thanks for posting it. I particularly liked his paragraph about Hananiah Azariah and Mishael - there’s something disconcerting about an atheist who can wring the meaning from a text better than a christian.

My “list of ifs” was a response to Newdwr’s continued (perhaps I should say indefatigable) insistence on using the word error. At no point have I suggested, and I don’t think I have ever done so on this blog, that the high probability of an alternative reading provides certainty with regard to the existence of God. What I have tried to do is respond to the Bart Ehrman/Penelope Pitstop, hands thrown up in horror, “He-y-alp! He-y-apl! It’s an error! It’s an error!” tizzy which has infected certain aspects of evangelicalism. As far as I’m concerned, that is what the conversation on this thread has been about.

I could rewrite them all without the ‘if’. :-)

Another reply to Newdwr’s #69 follows, but (again) as Andrew said, ”I'm not hopeful that anything more can be achieved on this thread.”

Well, much as I enjoy and am fascinated by this, I'm not about to add Bart Erhman to my already teetering pile of as yet unread books, and neither am I about to start comparing the Gospels (oh for the time!). But I can't quite get my head around how the popular line that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God can entertain of caveats like, well, God was a literary fellow, and he used allegory and allusion and metaphor, so really, make of it what you will. Which is what Christians have merrily done since the Good Book has been about. Does anyone even know how many sects there are these days?

Incidentally, and not for the first time, someone very close to me, who had a schizophrenic episode and breakdown just over a year ago, told me today that he is being baptised into the Adventists at the end of this month. For what it's worth I said very little indeed, even when he began pressing me about my own beliefs or lack of them. I told no lies and spoke plainly. But I can't quite express how upsetting it was (is) to hear this very bright person all of a sudden insisting that we're in the End Times, that he believes the world will end within his lifetime, that he is fully set on indoctrinating the cheerful, chirpy 4-year-old son who was playing with my dog at the time into this belief that he must realise the sky will fall - for the child's own good, you see. It was gutting.

I told him I didn't doubt him when he said God had helped him through a very tough time, but I couldn't help but saying he had no right to foist his new-found belief on the of a child mind unable to discern for himself. But of course, that would be to him to abandon his child to some horrible doom I didn't ask about.

The situation with this individual is delicate. He is recovering from a dreadful experience, and he is caught hook, line and sinker. One of my favourite people. I can't help but see him as diminished and lost. It's upsetting. In light of that I find hairsplitting over absurdities - call it exegesis if you will, but I am bullet proof against Christianity and the whole shebang is absurd, ludicrous, to me - just pretty revolting. I mean no personal offence but I just do. What is he about to put in that child's head? It would be one thing if it was good enough for him, God had helped him out, and he had his new relationship with God and that was that. But it never stops there with religion does it? I curse the lot of it to be honest with you.

AboutFace

There are a number of things I like about your posts, not everything (but then were would we all be if we all liked everything about one another?), and one of them is your honesty.

You curse the lot of it. Well, fair enough, at least I know what I'm getting into when I write a reply.

It's late though, and I hadn't planned to be awake at this time, so a fuller reply will have to wait until the morning, or the afternoon, or whenever; but I'll say this for now, odd as it may seem, I can understand your disquiet (perhaps you'd prefer a stronger term?).

And I don't take any offence, none at all.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What are you people doing? Moderators? Are you having a laugh? You're definitely having a laugh. Server space costs money. Save money. Is that your brief?

I have to wonder what national secrets or fatally expensive libellous stuff Oor Wully expects on his blog that it has to be premoderated anyway.

Away awn, as we say.

Newdwr

I seem to be having trouble posting my comments. If this one works, I'm not quite sure what is wrong. I try again later.

OK, that's odd!

Plan B

Looks like copy/paste is playing up. I'll have to type the whole thing again.


About Face #76

I'll assume that 'disquiet' was a touch anemic :-)

Oh, and #74

"But I can't quite get my head around how the popular line that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God can entertain of caveats like, well, God was a literary fellow, and he used allegory and allusion and metaphor..."

Och, away on wi' ye indeed! Course ye can!

newdwr #69

Let's see if I can post my comments this time.

You will have noticed the exchange between About Face, Andrew and myself, and will, therefore, be aware of some of my concerns. The following, however, is where I fear things might grind to a halt:

"Even if we assume (and it is still a big assumption) that Middle Eastern culture somehow preserves oral traditions with absolute accuracy, we still cannot be sure about the reliability of the original witness to the events. How much of what was preserved orally was hearsay? We just don't know."

But I haven't suggested that the reliability of the oral transmission was a guarantee of the 'truth' of the original story. Indeed in my comments to you in #61, I have already responded to this concern, which you expressed in a different way.

In #58 you asked, "So what are Bailey's special reasons for accepting the claims made in the Christian ones?"

And in #61 I replied, "My answer is that accepting the reliable communication of the story and accepting the claims made in the story are two different things."


Anyhow here's a couple of links which you may find interesting:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/apr/17/last-supper-scientist-maundy-thursday

and N T wright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPJD9fp_lM

Peter

Thanks for the Wright link, very helpful.

Oh, one thing more.

Here's a link to a D.A. Carson's (lengthy) review of the book Wright mentions (along with two others); https://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/three-books-on-the-bible-a-critical-review.php

And thank you for the R21 link too, Andrew! (I'm not finished it yet.)

Andrew and peterm2

Apologies for the delayed response. Regarding the Quirinius and Passover disputes; clearly no agreement is about to be reached.

I am of the view, shared by every secular historian I know of, as well as by many clerically-orientated historians such, as Raymond E Brown, that Luke just made a mistake in assuming Quirinius and Herod the Great were contemporaries.

It strikes me as by far the most economical explanation for why Luke explicitly mentions Quirinius and his first census in Judea in 6 AD (Lk. 2:2). To suggest that in that passage Luke was actually referring to a census from 12 years previous; one that had nothing to do with Quirinius, that was illegal, and that is not mentioned 'at all' by any other contemporary historical source, despite its remarkable nature, just stretches credulity way beyond breaking point in my view. You have your own views.

As for the crucifixion day: we have four explicit reference in John placing Jesus's arrest and crucifixion on the day 'before' the Passover festival began (13:1; 18:28; 19:14 and 19:31); yet we have explicit references in all the other gospels that Jesus was alive on the day the Passover festival began, and even ate the Passover supper (the first event of that festival) with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-26; Mk. 14:12-22; Lk. 13:21-30).

Added to that we have disagreement between Mark and John about the time of the crucifixion ('the third hour' (9am) [Mk:15:25]; after 'the 6th hour' (noon) [Jn. 19:14]).

None of the explanations you have provided for these discrepancies is compelling in my view. They range from attempts to conflate the Passover supper with the Passover festival, which fails because the Passover supper is the first event of the Passover festival anyway; to attempts to relate the day of preparation to the Sabbath rather than the Passover, which fails because all accounts make explicit reference to the Passover supper. The Passover supper is the linchpin; either Jesus ate it or he didn't.

Again I know of no secular historian who doesn't take the view that the accounts blatantly differ, and that John's account in particular has been tailored to suit the theological idea of Jesus as the Lamb of God, sacrificed like the lambs in preparation for Passover. This is also the view of several theologically trained historians, such as Ehrman and Brown (again).

So you've stated your views and I mine on that subject and I think I can say we agree to differ.

Finally on the subject of the KJV: we know that for all its beauty and inspiring language the New Testament part at least is based ultimately on poor quality Greek translations that were altered to suit Latin Vulgate translations by Erasmus. We know that it therefore contains verses that were deliberately altered for theological reasons, and entire passages that were added to the text centuries after the autograph manuscripts were composed.

It is still possible to gain inspiration from something while remaining realistic as to its provenance.

It is still possible to gain inspiration from something while remaining realistic as to its provenance

Newdwr, agree there- the key difference is the freedom individuals have as to where they put emphasis, & the freedom people have to interpret & decide whether it's holy or reverential to them or not. That freedom is a good thing, what matters is how the individual perceives the Bible. It seems to be as open & reflective of the wide diversity of personalities & cultures it's applied to, rather than anything rigid.

I liked this quote from Peter # 49

Maybe it boils down to this. Some people seem to want the bible to be exactly the same at every point, as if then it would be more believable, would it? I don’t think so. Christians don’t claim that the bible was dropped from heaven written on golden plates, that isn’t the view of either inspiration or inerrancy. Isn’t the bigger question, ‘can God communicate reliably through something called life?’ Life with all it’s mess and uncertainty, with people struggling coming to terms with the story they thought they were witnessing. For me there is greater reality in this. Why ever would we think that, ‘God with us’, would be straightforward?

I have posted comments on this blog before and stopped because I concluded that one could argue their point forever without influencing anyone else. My main premise is that the Church that Jesus established when He was on the earth does not exist anymore. Im not sure when the Church ceased to exist but it was surely after the demise of the the last Apostle and before the 4th Century. It is my argument that those who entered the authentic 'Kingdom of God', through baptism and receiving the 'gift of the Holy Ghost', did so at the hands of those whom God gave authority to act in His name on such things. If the Church had continue to exist then there would have been no need to 'reform' it, there would have been no need for personal interpretation, the scriptures would have been easily understood, and there would be need for much of the discussion that exist today on blogs such as this.
The Bible, therefore, is a book that has been compiled, translated and influenced by people who did not have the authority to do so and who have unwittingly or blatantly rendered it the work of man and not of God. No wonder there is so much debate about it's relevance and validity. No wonder there is so much debate about the true nature of God. No wonder people are turning away from these false churches in increasing numbers.
All the evidence shows that God does not communicate with the so-called 'christian churches'. If He did, there would be uniformity in Christianity, not fracture and schism. Recently, I watched Ann Widdicome's programme about the falling attendances in church. Although numbers are falling rapidly, she pointed to some areas of growth. They included the Pentecostal movement with it's 'roots' musical entertainment, the growth in cathedral attendance with it's classical music entertainment, programmes like the 'Alpha' course and 'curry house' meetings. None of the leaders of this supposed growth stated that God was directing them, leaving me with the conclusion that they are mans response to what Christianity should entail rather than what God's response would be. So, just more false churches.
All the varieties of christianity as we know it are false. Until we realise this we will continue to debate the different aspects of Christianity without agreement and continue to provide reasons for the atheists to remain so.

87. puretruthseeker:

I can't find anything to disagree with in that. I would just add that it is by no means clear that the historical Jesus was even trying to start a new religion.

Newdwr

No worries about the timing of the response - life’s a bit bigger than this blog! And thanks for the conversation these last couple of weeks, I’ve enjoyed it.

I read your comments this morning and had planned to let the conversation go at that; however, on reflection, I’d like to respond to your summary of my (and Andrew’s) “explanations” of the Passover supper issue. Andrew, of course, is more than able to speak for himself, but I’d like to clarify the following, and, I think, add a more personal comment at the end.

You write, ”None of the explanations you have provided for these discrepancies is compelling in my view.” and continue to outline a number of ‘explanations’ as you see them; however, while I felt I had little option other than to be drawn into responses to the specific issues you raised (I've discussed everything on here from double donkeys to cognitive dissonance, and I see that now you have raised the issue of the time of day as well!), specific responses were not my main aim, much less to attempt to provide “compelling” explanations.

My aim, rather, has been to flag up the possibility of readings other than simple contradiction. This was most fully summarized in my post #67 - the bible is full of these: literary device, theological points, cultural context, various genre, Old Testament references and so on. It’s simply impossible to read the bible and accept it for what it is without keeping these kinds of ideas in mind. And back in #49, with regard to the inerrancy question I wrote, ”Within that framework, and within the framework of the Christian idea of a God who speaks in the cut and thrust of daily life (incarnation), I’m more than happy to accept that there were local traditions, references, idioms and so on that made perfect sense to the readers then, that we might miss now.

It is this, and not specific resolutions that has been the main thrust of my thinking.

For this reason I struggle too with your use of a phrase like, “blatantly differ”; it’s a weighted phrase, a phrase which seems to want to press the text into a single reading which has as it’s conclusion, ‘contradiction’.

So my summary of my contributions to this conversation would be: given cultural context, genre, author, audience, purpose and so on, I’d be hesitant about saying contradiction. (‘Contradiction’ is a *possible* reading, of course, but it is not a fait accompli.)

And so to my more personal comment.

To be honest, there are times it would suit me just fine if the bible were a flat linear text, with one contradiction plied up on top of another; there’s a bazillion of these ‘discrepencies’ available at the click of a button (as I’m sure you know). If it were flat and linear, I could do one of two things - I could either (1) blindly hold to my faith with my fingers in my ears singing la, la, la, god is so great, pick and choose the bits of the bible which made me feel good and largely ignore the rest, or I could (and this is more likely) (2) spend more time on the beach, safe in the knowledge that the whole Christian thing was a ‘busted flush’; that the disciples meant well, but hope got the better of fact; that a well told fictional story, the fulfillment of Israel’s hope in a (dead and now alive again) man called Jesus, although a long shot, captured the imagination of a pagan world, and, ho hum, we are where we are, but as they didn’t know one day of the week from the other - I’m off.

However, I’ve come to a different conclusion, and it’s precisely the ‘real life, hold on a minute, what did you say? He was who? what? like, you mean...’ gripping, frustrating, puzzling, unfolding, astonished, everyday feel which makes me doubt the contradiction theory. And it is, gripping, frustrating and puzzling, and all at the same time!

NT Wright puts it much better though, (SPCK, The Resurrection of the Son of God) ”Supposing, in other words, that these stories have the puzzled air of someone saying, ‘I didn’t understand it at the time, and I’m not sure I do now, but this is more or less how it was.’ ”

Now that, to me, has an everyday ring of truth.

I might be wrong, but I had taken yourself, Peter, and Andrew, for "fundamentalists". Your arguments above look a lot like the kind of equivocation one might expect from an Anglican or Catholic. This gives me little comfort.

The gist seems to be that it's either unfair or inappropriate to subject the Bible to modern scholarly criticism; a kind of appeal to NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) as suggested by the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould.

Anyone who's given that attempt at, if not reconciliation, then at least agreeing to disagree, any attention at all, realises that it fails because the two magisteria simply do overlap. It's special pleading writ large.

I say this because a move from the fundamentalism of, say, the Phelps family variety, to the equivocation of Catholics and Anglicans, does nothing to assuage the extreme discomfort the secularist feels when he looks at the history of Christianity which is littered with crusades, burnings at the stake, persecution of gays, and the perpetuation of the biggest pack of lies that the world has seen. These things were bound up with belief. They were not happenstance.

I speak here as a secularist first. Forget the Bible's supposed inerrancy, forget whether God exists or not. Criticism of religious doctrine in the past was answered with murder. By its nature it is laden with the potential to do so again. That alone makes my blood run cold. Religion seems to be on the back foot - and two able fellows such as yourselves, fundamentalists - appropriating little covens of ambiguity and intellectualism strikes fear in me and renders me as sure as ever that religion should be relegated totally to the private sphere. It is not innocuous.

The appeal to doubt looks a lot to me like some sort of demon wearing a nice smile. Conveniently. For now.

And I am deadly serious about that.

89. peterm2:

Thanks peterm2; I've enjoyed the too-and-fro also with you and Andrew, which I think has been by and large cordial and constructive.

I fully agree with your statement: "...literary device, theological points, cultural context, various genre, Old Testament references and so on. It’s simply impossible to read the bible and accept it for what it is without keeping these kinds of ideas in mind".

I also agree that I lost the run of myself slightly by using phrases such as “blatantly differ”. However I'll generously overlook my zeal on the basis that it was borne a little of frustration.

You see at several times I've said more or less exactly the same thing as you about the use of literary device; the inclusion of theological considerations and the use of allegory, etc. It's no problem for me, or for many Christians, that John may have changed the grim details of the crucifixion chronology to underscore the memorable theological theme of his manuscript. It doesn't matter in the least if Luke made a slight historical mistake in his Nativity narrative; he was after all working off various sources by his own admission (Lk. 1:1-3).

I thought at a few points we'd reached agreement about how these things were of little consequence to the overall Christian message. It was slightly surprising therefore to be confronted by Andrew with a series of what I regard as quite fundamentalist apologetic explanations for these particular texts. Firstly we had all agreed that such apologetics were unnecessary for the reasons already stated; secondly the explanations given were very weak in my view, for the reasons summarised in 85. above.

It appears that on the one hand there is a willingness to accept that the texts are not to be taken as a straight journalistic account of events; on the other there is a marked reluctance to accept that any discrepancies, whether historical or chronological, even exist. There is something of the 'having your cake and eating it' about that position I think.

Andrew seems to have a 'thing' about Bart Ehrman, but I think Ehrman's idea that each gospel should be given the respect of being read individually is eminently reasonable. A gospel should not be considered as one quarter of a homogeneous whole. We have to recall that they were written with very definite individual communities and audiences in mind.

We also have to recall that they were written at a place remote both in space and in time from where the events occurred, not to mention in a different language from the one the protagonists spoke. Notwithstanding oral tradition, there are abundant surviving manuscripts to prove that even written words cannot be passed on with complete accuracy from copy to copy, never mind after several generations of copies.

Re your closing passages: it is indeed hard not to be gripped by the stories of the Nativity and the crucifixion. I suppose that is why they have struck such a chord with many people. But where your sense of excitement leads to belief, mine is quenched by some persistent reserve of scepticism.

If you'll allow me a 'stream of consciousness' moment: "Why do the accounts of the crucifixion differ slightly? - OK they're not meant to be modern police witness statements, but even so... what 'else' has been changed? More importantly, and I hate to bring this up on Good Friday, but to paraphrase Mark Twain: is giving your 'life' for others really such a big deal for an immortal? It's not meant to be insulting; it's a genuine problem I have with the whole Christian concept of sacrifice."

Consciousness stream ends. Happy Easter to all!

88. newdwr54

I think you are the first person that has agreed with me on anything I have ever written on this blog. Thanks.

You say, 'it is by no means clear that the historical Jesus was even trying to start a new religion.' and I would add that there is very little perfectly clear about any thing in the Bible. However, I do believe that Jesus did start a new religion, church or whatever you choose to call it.

From my reading of the New Testament there are a number of passages which point to a new gospel dispensation being established at the time of Jesus. It is obvious that the Jews, looking forward in anticipation to a promised saviour, had almost completely lost their way. It is clear that the Jews did not recognise that promised saviour. Given this, I believe that it was necessary to establish a new way. One that would include both Jew and Gentile, have the authority of God and a liturgy that instead looked at Christ in retrospect.

In fact, when Jesus asked his followers to 'Teach all nations...' (Matt.28:19) He was instructing them to build 'the kingdom'. There are a number of other scriptures that show that this was done. Acts2:47, 15:4, 16:15; Rom.16:16; 1Cor. 12:13; Heb.12:23. There are are a number of other scriptures that even point to Christ being the head of such a church or religion. See Matt.18:18,19; Eph.1:22, 5:23; 1Col.1:18.

It appears to me that we have a partial understanding of what the scriptures mean and due to the changes that have come about through translation and the various contridictions it holds, we are like a group of people trying to put together a giant jig-saw without any reference to the overall picture. Over time, some have been able to piece together little scenes from the main picture and have claimed that what they had was the central focus of the picture and, therefore, enough to build 'the kingdom' on. I believe that without the main picture it is dangerous to attempt to put the jig-saw together. I dont believe, however, it is dangerous to study the parts in order to conclude that all attempts to complete the picture have been a complete failure.

Only when God reveals the picture will the jig-saw make sense. Maybe christianity, like Judism at the time of Christ, has also lost it's way. Maybe it will take a new gospel dispensation to be established before we can see clearly. However, if the scriptures are anything to go by, the christians, like the Jews, will be the greatest enemy of a new order.

On that note then...Happy Easter

Complain about this comment

92. puretruthseeker:

It seems to me that your religious views are at least as valid as anyone else's. Perhaps more so, given that you are happy to concede that "there is very little perfectly clear about any thing in the Bible".

There is a persistent view that the Ebionite Christians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites ) might have formed by core of what remained of the Apostles in Jerusalem after Jesus and John the Baptists' deaths.

In this view, both Jesus and John the Baptist were Jewish Apocalyptic radicals, riling against both secularism and increasing Roman influence in Judea. How ironic it would be if it turns out that an anti-establishment Jewish Holy Man became revered as a 'god' by the very people he was accusing of blasphemy in the first place!

AboutFace

Thankyou for your thoughts in #90. How to respond? Part of me is wondering which is the more damning insult - fundamentalist or smiling demon! (not that I’m insulted); but what I’m actually trying to do, is to hear the person/feeling/sentiment conveyed by the words. ”...appropriating little covens of ambiguity and intellectualism...”, for example, is a wonderful phrase - even if it does communicate your antipathy towards my worldview. We are, however, communicating, and that, perhaps, is good; and maybe we might be able to continue. There’s quite a bit packed into those few sentences! so maybe I should (first) just ‘cut to the quick’!

Yes, there is a history of Christianity which is littered with crusade and persecution. Even a cursory glance at the history of the church which has taken the name of Jesus will show this. Polycarp might have been burned at the stake, but it wasn’t long until Christians were lighting the pyre. And yes, it is true that religion is a powerful force for, well, exercising power. Don’t think I haven’t thought about this - you mentioned crusades and stakes, but there are other, smaller, less noticeable, yet equally potent ‘persecutions’. There are the little, everyday and commonplace, attempts at exercising power. There are power-plays in churches up and down the country, and very often there are examples of non-Christian people living more honourable lives that those who say they are. So you are quite correct to flag up these problems; I am not blind to them.

If I read you correctly however there are other, let’s call them more moderate Christians, who stand accused of advancing the cause of the extremist because religion, at it’s heart, to use Christopher Hitchens’ description, “poisons everything”. But this seems like a ‘tar everyone with the same brush’ approach, and one which must then describe the life of ”Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brave Lutheran pastor hanged by the Nazis for his refusal to collude with them”, not as a life of faith, but as an ”admirable but nebulous humanism”. For some reason his actions can be “admirable”, but they cannot be “religious”.

(the last two quotations are from this article:

https://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article1860734.ece

By Christopher Hitchens.)

And yes I know you are “deadly serious”; literary fellow that you are, I’d already got that bit before you stated it so explicitly! :-)


BTW I've a good recipe for roast cod loin with cherry vine tomatoes and chorizo - if you're interested and the mods let me, I'll fire it up some time.

I thought I'd done with this thread as well. Peter's #89 does a good job of putting the discussion in context. I'll not add to it.

There are few things I do want to comment on though;

AboutFace

Fundamentalist, Anglican, Roman Catholic? Are these my only choices?

I don't agree that Peter and I have been arguing for equivocation or that scholarly criticism is inappropriate. It is needful to read and interpret the gospels in light of the environment in which they were written. Within this context, criticise away.

Newdwr

You see at several times I've said more or less exactly the same thing as you about the use of literary device; the inclusion of theological considerations and the use of allegory, etc.

I don't think you're saying quite the same thing, and the difference, seems to me, to be all important.

.It's no problem for me, or for many Christians, that John may have changed the grim details of the crucifixion chronology to underscore the memorable theological theme of his manuscript. It doesn't matter in the least if Luke made a slight historical mistake in his Nativity narrative; he was after all working off various sources by his own admission (Lk. 1:1-3).


A couple of things;

1) This is evidentially false, it has and does matter a great deal to you...

Textual criticism has thrown up serious questions about the 'sufficiency of scripture', at least in as far as we can consider it 'inerrant'. As natman points out, the reasons these matters are not discussed in Bible groups, especially among young people, may be partly because of the fact that they often 'do' undermine the authority of scripture. They certainly did for me. #17

Here we have you explicitly linking inerrancy with the authority of Scripture. And your belief in the authority of Scripture was undermined because you think textual criticism undermines inerrancy.

2) Clubbing John's crucifixion chronology together with the Lucan census only works if you believe they are both making historical errors. It doesn't work if John is rearranging the chronology for theological reasons, as you insist he is. It's a category error.

I thought at a few points we'd reached agreement about how these things were of little consequence to the overall Christian message.

This was never agreed. We did agree that the variations in the manuscript tradition make no difference to 'the overall Christian message'.

It was slightly surprising therefore to be confronted by Andrew with a series of what I regard as quite fundamentalist apologetic explanations for these particular texts.

I'm not sure what a 'fundamentalist apologetic explanation' is. I'm even less sure what a 'quite fundamentalist apologetic explanation' is. Perhaps it means harmonisation, which is what I've been doing.

Firstly we had all agreed that such apologetics were unnecessary for the reasons already stated; secondly the explanations given were very weak in my view, for the reasons summarised in 85. above.

On the Johannine crucifixion chronology you continue to evade the meaning of the word Passover. So far you've offered circumstantial evidence in support, which I have shown to also be consistent with the interpretation I have favoured. The other line of evidence you've drawn is the theological motif of the Paschal Lamb, here you must explain why, at the key point in John's narrative, he neglects to draw the Christ/Paschal Lamb analogy. You also must show that 'day of preparation' refers to the day before the Passover meal when it normally refers to Friday and when Christ's body was removed from the cross because the next day was the Sabbath. And I have shown that Passover may refer to one of several different things. So, unless, and until, you can show that the word 'Passover' must refer to 'Passover meal' in the 'problem verses' I've nothing else to add.

The Lucan census was raised as an objection to inerrancy. Here I can't help but think of Peter's reference to Penelope Pitstop (I wonder if peterm2 is none other than Peter Perfect in the Turbo Terrific?. Perhaps my defence of Lucan accuracy makes me one of the slag brothers?).

There are good internal reasons to think that Luke is not saying that Herod the Great and the Quirinius census were contemporaneous. I'll not repeat the two lines of evidence I have used. Your question, why mention Quirinius then, I've answered with a variation on the time marker argument you used responding to me. On the client kingdom issue, I've referred to indirect evidence. The lack of attestation for such a census is an argument from silence on your part. It's also not immediately problematic, what we're discussing is what Luke says, and since you believe that Luke was not a very good historian you can't discount that he is referring to an earlier census on the grounds of historic reliability.

It appears that on the one hand there is a willingness to accept that the texts are not to be taken as a straight journalistic account of events; on the other there is a marked reluctance to accept that any discrepancies, whether historical or chronological, even exist. There is something of the 'having your cake and eating it' about that position I think.

It's true that Peter and I agree that the gospels are not to be taken as 'journalistic' accounts but your parallel doesn't work since it relies on a view of discrepancies that is itself 'journalistic'. I'd add anachronistic and reductionist. But we've been over this several times now.

Andrew seems to have a 'thing' about Bart Ehrman, but I think Ehrman's idea that each gospel should be given the respect of being read individually is eminently reasonable.

Most of this stuff is distilled through Bart Ehrman. There're several tell tale signs, one is 'copies, of copies, of copies,' and another 'on what day did Jesus die? Depends which gospel you read'. Ho-hum.

Ehrman does not believe we have the original gospels. He insists after 'copies, of copies, of copies' the words and events of the life of Christ are lost. What we have are accounts altered, accounts fabricated, accounts misquoted. Again, ho-hum.

Saying we should read each gospel 'individually' sounds well and good, but what does it actually mean? Interpreting any text often involves reference to other sources. Particularly when there are different sources claiming to describe the same events.

(Incidentally, the New Testament scholar Darrell Bock (author of excellent commentaries on Luke and Acts) has just completed a review of Ehrmans latest book, Forged, on his blog)

A gospel should not be considered as one quarter of a homogeneous whole. We have to recall that they were written with very definite individual communities and audiences in mind.

And who said, or give the impression, they should be considered a 'quarter of a homogenous whole'?

The gospels since the early church have been understood as giving different perspectives on the life of Christ. This is why they tend to be titled 'The gospel according to John', 'The gospel according to Luke' and so on.

Notwithstanding oral tradition, there are abundant surviving manuscripts to prove that even written words cannot be passed on with complete accuracy from copy to copy, never mind after several generations of copies.

This sounds impressive until you look at what the variations in the manuscript tradition are. Minor and quibbling. And by the same token, if the manuscripts overwhelmingly agree then this must establish the veracity of the manuscript tradition.

95. Andrew wrote:

"1) This is evidentially false, it has and does matter a great deal to you..."

I have not at any point linked the historical reliability of scripture with its 'authority'. The authority of scripture is not in the drab details of when the crucifixion took place, or whether or not someone gets a historical fact wrong.

The authority of scripture is in the teaching of Jesus: 'Do as you would be done by'; 'forgive your enemies'. Or it is found in books like Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes. It may also be found in the writings of Aesop, Mark Twain or of any other moral teacher/philosopher you could name.

The details of Jesus's life, or whether there even was a Jesus, is secondary to the 'authority' I recognise in scripture, or in any other source.

I've already explained, as far as I can, my reasons for regarding the matters we have discussed in the way that I do. Most if not all secular historians agree with my view. Several (at least) theologians also do. You beg to differ; fair enough. I don't see any point in continuing with a bickering match.

We agree to differ.

I have not at any point linked the historical reliability of scripture with its 'authority'. The authority of scripture is not in the drab details of when the crucifixion took place, or whether or not someone gets a historical fact wrong.

Except that I've quoted you to this effect (#95). Here's another;

More importantly, if Luke got this simple detail wrong, what else did he get wrong? I don't see how the Gospel of Luke has any 'authority'. That's just one example from many that you are probably already well aware of. #29

Most if not all secular historians agree with my view. Several (at least) theologians also do.

Give me the names of your sources and I'll check them out. We've had Ehrman, an apostate evangelical, and Raymond Brown, a liberal/moderate Roman Catholic priest, who else?

98. Andrew:

In that first quote I used the term 'authority' in inverted commas. This was to indicate that I was talking in the context of what many fundamentalists regard as biblical 'authority'. Those who espouse the absolute inerrancy of scripture would have a hard time accepting that the contradictions we have discussed, if proven, don't undermine scriptural 'authority' for them.

I do not regard historical mistakes or chronological inconsistency between gospels, etc as grounds for dismissing the bible's 'authority' in terms of its moral or spiritual teaching (though there may be other reasons for doing so). I hope that clarifies things.

Re Ehrman and Brown: you are rather dismissive of these two theologians. Ehrman has a PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary; Brown had a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University and numerous honorary doctorates. Arguments from authority don't cut much weight, but if you're going to dismiss Ehrman in particular simply as 'an apostate evangelical', then it's only fair to give the whole picture. He is an extremely erudite commentator, whether you agree with him or not.

The first person to raise doubts about the historical accuracy of Luke's account of the Nativity was a Protestant theologian, Emil Scheurer (or Schurer): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Sch%C3%BCrer . He did not allow this to interfere with his faith because, like Walter Bauer and many others from the German critical schools, he was able to 'separate the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith' [quoted from Lane Fox, R, 1991]

The list of scholarly sources supporting Scheurer's position are given by Wikipedia as follows:

Raymond Brown, Christ in the Gospels of the Liturgical Year, (Liturgical Press, 2008), page 114. See, for example, James Douglas Grant Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) p344. Similarly, Erich S. Gruen, 'The expansion of the empire under Augustus', in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10, p157, Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96, W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984, Anthony Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament (Cambridge University Press 2004), p221, Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213, Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554, A. N. Sherwin-White, pp. 166, 167, Millar, Fergus (1990). "Reflections on the trials of Jesus". A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. pp. 355–81. repr. in Millar, Fergus (2006). "The Greek World, the Jews, and the East". Rome, the Greek World and the East (University of North Carolina Press) 3: 139–163.

Several of those authors are Christian theologians, including William Horbury and John Paul Meier. The list is by no means exhaustive (as you can see, neither Ehrman or Robin Lane Fox are featured on it).

Regarding the chronology of the crucifixion: in addition to Brown and Ehrman, another theologian who has discussed the (apparent) discrepancy at length is Robert J. Miller, Chair of Christian and Religious Studies at Juniata College in Pennsylvania. Miller said: "the day of preparation (here and in v. 14) can mean either the day before Passover or simply Friday; in this case it is both." Also: "from early times Christians have recognized that "the Gospel according to John" is dramatically different from the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke)." [The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, 1992].

For a secular historical source Lane Fox describes E J Bickerman's 'Studies in Jewish and Christian History' (1986) as "the essential study" on Jesus's arrest and trial. In this, Lane Fox claims that Bickerman shows that each gospel narrative "...has been shaped by its author's own coherent line of presentation... [their] disagreements begin on the most basic level: they do not even agree about the day on which things happened."

So there you have it. By all means 'check these out'; but I can't help thinking we'll just end up in the position we are already in: with you accepting your view and I accepting mine.

96. Andrew wrote:

"The gospels since the early church have been understood as giving different perspectives on the life of Christ. This is why they tend to be titled 'The gospel according to John', 'The gospel according to Luke' and so on."

Unless you mean by "the earliest church" that of the late second century at the earliest, then that can't be true. The gospels were not composed simultaneously and in a single place. We know that there were groups of Christians who for example: i) revered one gospel and did not know of the existence of other gospels; ii) revered one gospel even though they knew about the existence of other gospels; iii) revered a gospel or gospels that no longer survive.

What do you mean by "the earliest church"?