I am trying to learn more about Christianity. I have been reading the Bible and attended church recently. How do we know what's in the Bible is factual? To what extent is it true? My understanding is the Bible is a collection of writings approved by a group. There are more Gospels than those written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Why are these the only ones in the Bible? Maybe I an misinformed. I am not seeking a debate. Just trying to learn.
Questions about the Bible
- Thread starter wab0111
- Start date
JoeyArnold
Well-Known Member
- May 12, 2011
- 2,816
- 71
- 39
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Start with geography. Study where certain things in the Bible occurred in order to grasp how accurate the cities & rivers & places were.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your response. I was thinking more along the lines of prophecies fulfilled, miracles performed, a child born of a virgin, Jesus being the Messiah...
I have been agnostic for the past twenty years but i believe this is out of ignorance. I am getting ready to read the Gospels. Trying to prepare myself in some way.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,457
- 26,883
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
As for how the Biblical Canon came to be, there really wasn't a group that did this. It was a process of gradual consensus among Christians over the course of many hundreds of years; a highly imperfect process wherein there are still disagreements (e.g. Catholics and Protestants disagree over a select few books known as the Deuterocanonicals).
As far as the Gospels are concerned specifically, the Canonical Four (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were widely accepted very early in Christianity and among Christian communities across the known world. There are several generally important reasons for this. For one, these are the oldest, other texts which are often called "gospels" such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Judas (etc) date much later, generally to the end of the 2nd century (earliest) to throughout the 3rd century. Thus the Four Canonical Gospels have pedigree, dating to the last half the first century (scholars dispute the exact dating, but generally the Synoptics are placed between about 50/60 to 80 AD, with John sometime between 80 and 100 AD).
Another really important component of the Canonical Gospels, in particular the Synoptics, is they firmly place Jesus within His Jewish context. In the Canonical Gospels Jesus is the Messiah, He's Jewish, He uses language and idioms that are firmly within the broad Jewish tradition. Later gospels take Jesus out of this context, even de-humanizing Him entirely: Jesus is often an enlightening apparition, a purely spiritual figure that serves as a voice of personal enlightenment concerning the secret and esoteric teachings of the given Gnostic sect that produced the text. The Canonical Jesus is earthy, human, Jewish, at home among the poor, the destitute, and speaking and teaching from within the framework of God's work here, God's kingdom here. The Gnostic Jesus of the later gospels is generally a quasi-material or immaterial voice of esoteric wisdom or secret knowledge about the inner workings of the universe (as understood within Gnosticism).
Additionally, the description of these later texts as "gospels" may, in fact, be wholly inappropriate. A gospel is foremost a report, a good report. It is a report concerning the activity or goings on. In the Roman world the good report concerned the victories of Caesar, usually at the frontier of the Empire. The Gospel of Jesus, likewise is a good report, specifically of God's activity here, the victory of God here through Jesus; the Gospels, then, are written narratives of this. They are reports, good reports, concerning the happenings and goings on of God's work through Jesus in the establishing and coming of God's kingdom (which is not "Heaven", nor a spiritual inner thing; but is rather God's active and dynamic reign and work here amongst us, renewing and reconciling the world to Himself; which is why Jesus, in Luke, could say that the kingdom does not come by observation, saying "here it is" or "look it's there" but rather "the kingdom is amongst you")
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
JoeyArnold
Well-Known Member
- May 12, 2011
- 2,816
- 71
- 39
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Biblical principles are accepted as truth by humanity. Morality is rooted from judeo-christianity, from the Ten Commandments itself. Truth is contagious & people & religions will copy from them because it works.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,446
- 803
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
You could ask these type of question for your whole life and will never get a reliable answer (people have done that). So my suggestion is DON't ask that kind of question.
Instead, carefully read those four Gospel Books we have there. Understand them FIRST. After that, if you will, you may start to read some other versions of "gospel" books and see what are the differences.
Upvote
0
Most of the texts around the time of the NT that were considered heretical (that we have) are because they were Gnostic texts. The Gnostic position conflicts against the orthodox/catholic position. The catholic position is an attempt to fix the world by establishing Jesus as the king of all kings. The Gospels in the NT are stories about how that faith in him as the messiah started and the Christian faith was initiated with his self sacrifice. The gnostic position doesn't agree with that plan and doesn't recognize Jesus as a king but as a teacher of metaphysics. They don't believe in the world being fixable so they don't see the idea behind a good king being worshiped by man as a solution. The only salvation is for the individual to get his soul to fleshy spiritual realm because they also don't believe in the possibility of the Resurrection of the dead.
Also, at the time they were closer in time to the situation, so it was easier to see that the Gnostics were a later interpretation. Now there is uncertainty about who came first so that is giving them some current credibility with people who distrust orthodox Christianity.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Hmmm...I think what you are really asking (and, of course, correct me if I'm wrong) is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy in what it communicates to us. If Christians think it is true, why do they think so? You're going to get a wide spectrum of response to this question. Personally, I believe the Bible does literally and precisely reveal the nature and will of God to us and His involvement in human history during the time recorded in Scripture. I do believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. Why?
1. The Bible has been proven to be factually historically correct again and again. Archaeologists working in the Middle East commonly use the Bible as an important reference tool in their work. Even when the Bible has made statements about people and places that could not initially be corroborated by the efforts of archaeology, there have been many instances where supporting evidence in favor of the Bible's assertions has eventually come to light. One remarkable example is the matter of the Hittites. It seemed for some time that the only historical evidence for the Hittites was found in the Bible. This appeared to be solid ground upon which critics of the Bible could claim the biblical accounts were unreliable. Surely, if the Hittites actually existed, mention of them would have existed somewhere else. Eventually, however, a fellow named Hugh Winckler found the Hittite capitol, which contained a massive library of clay tablets. There is now so much information about the Hittite people that one can specialize in their culture as a Hittitologist!
Where archaeology can shed light on the historical accounts of the Bible, the Bible has been found to be astonishingly accurate. Here's a brief list of examples:
The Merneptah Stele. A seven-foot slab engraved with hieroglyphics, also called the Israel Stele, boasts of the Egyptian pharaoh’s conquest of Libyans and peoples in Palestine, including the Israelites: “Israel — his seed is not.” This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources and demonstrates that, as of c. 1230 BC, the Hebrews were already living in the Promised Land.
Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy,is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.
Shishak’s Invasion of Judah. First Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12 tell of Pharaoh Shishak’s conquest of Judah in the fifth year of the reign of King Rehoboam, the brainless son of Solomon, and how Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem was robbed of its treasures on that occasion. This victory is also commemorated in hieroglyphic wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes.
The Moabite Stone. Second Kings 3 reports that Mesha, the king of Moab, rebelled against the king of Israel following the death of Ahab. A three-foot stone slab, also called the Mesha Stele, confirms the revolt by claiming triumph over Ahab’s family, c. 850 BC, and that Israel had “perished forever.”
Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In 2 Kings 9–10, Jehu is mentioned as King of Israel (841–814 BC). That the growing power of Assyria was already encroaching on the northern kings prior to their ultimate conquest in 722 BC is demonstrated by a six-and-a-half-foot black obelisk discovered in the ruins of the palace at Nimrud in 1846. On it, Jehu is shown kneeling before Shalmaneser III and offering tribute to the Assyrian king, the only relief we have to date of a Hebrew monarch.
Burial Plaque of King Uzziah. Down in Judah, King Uzziah ruled from 792 to 740 BC, a contemporary of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. Like Solomon, he began well and ended badly. In 2 Chronicles 26 his sin is recorded, which resulted in his being struck with leprosy later in life. When Uzziah died, he was interred in a “field of burial that belonged to the kings.” His stone burial plaque has been discovered on the Mount of Olives, and it reads: “Here, the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah, were brought. Do not open.”
And so on, and so on.
2. The fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
3. Personal experience of the wisdom and truth of the Bible.
I have found all that the Bible declares about God and my relationship to Him to be positively borne out in my day-to-day experience. The Bible's delineation of moral principles, practical advice on various mundane topics, it's description of a transcendent, causeless, eternal and personal Creator, it's explanations of spiritual truths - all correspond with tremendous accuracy to reality.
To the extent that it claims to be true.
"The Church did not originate the Bible. Its inspiration is divine, not ecclesiastical. It stands or falls because of its relationship to God, not to the Church. Moreover, any official action of the Church is late. We do not find it before the last part of the fourth century. But by then the canon had to all its intents and purposes been decided." - Leon Morris
"The wording of the conciliar decisions is also significant here. The decrees are never in the form: "This council decrees that henceforth such and such books are to be canonical." The Church never attempted to confer canonicity. The Church did not give authority to the canon, rather it recognized its authority. Hence the conciliar decrees have the form: "This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical." It would therefore be truer to say that the canon selected itself than that the Church selected it. Canonicity is something in the book itself, something that God has given to it, not a favoured status that the Church confers upon it.
Herman Ridderbos sums up the situation rather aptly:
It must be emphasized that the Church does not control the Canon, but the Canon controls the Church. For the same reason the Canon cannot be the product of the decision of the Church. The Church cannot 'make' or 'lay down' its own standard. All that the Church can lay down is this, that it has received the Canon as a standard and rule for faith and life, handed down to it with absolute authority." - Stephen Voorwinde
As to the matter of standards for canonicity suggested by your question about why some books for the canon and not others, I would offer the following quotation:
"Evaluation: Further proposed criteria for canonicity could be discussed, such as antiquity, catholicity, inspiration and orthodoxy. Historically, however, all attempts to establish such criteria have failed. More to the point is the observation that all attempts to establish criteria must in principle fail and in fact destroy the canonicity of the New Testament. This is true even in the case of apostolicity and Christocentricity. It is impossible to isolate "factor x." It would mean subjecting the canon to fallible human insight and this destroys the absolute authority of the canon. To rationalize this phenomenon rests upon man's autonomy. An Archimedean point is then placed above the canon. A criterion would embrace the canon and hence undercut it. We are shut up to the canon as a self-establishing entity (cf. internal testimony). Canonicity is a unique concept. It coincides neither with what is apostolic nor with what appears to be "Christological." The canon is the highest authority and we cannot appeal to a higher authority to validate the canon.
Admittedly this approach is heavily presuppositional and a priori. The Scripture is self-authenticating. History shows that it commended itself to the Church. The historical development of the canon concept is quite in harmony with our presuppositions about the nature of its authority." - Stephen Voorwinde.
Selah.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with some intellectual type things people have mentioned, but I find what you are undertaking is a matter of the heart. After "bringing fruits fitting for repentance," here is the approach that has done me the most good:
1. Approach the Bible with the attitude that it is God speaking to you, telling you about how to relate to Him. Pray with a quiet, meditative spirit, for exactly that. Ask Him to show Himself strong to you, in ways you haven't known yet. It's ok to stir up your hunger, but try not to let that stir up your emotions.
2. Do this every morning, and every evening. We can talk about Scriptural reasons in depth later, but it is God's way.
3. As you read, anything that looks good PRAY FOR IT. Specific examples I've found powerful:
a. Is 50:4 "The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to [him that is] weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. (Jesus got this, prophetically. Talk about humility!)
b. “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:” Eph 1:17
c. Realize EVERY instance of "the wicked man" in Proverbs is you (me / us).
Yeah, ouch.
4. If there's time for more involved praying after this, fine; but more likely there will be other things you need to go do. Don't think they take you away from God because they DON'T! Just don't leave home w/o Him. It's in the doing that prayer seems to be most helpful. "Pray w/o ceasing," keep a prayerful attitude; there is room in His kingdom for our own unique style. The calling is to abundant LIFE.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You've asked a frequently asked question, which ought to have an FAQ somewhere.
For your specific question about the Gospels, see Ebia's response. He's right that the 4 gospels we have are the only ones that seem to be primary sources for Jesus' life. I'm going to comment on the broader question of whether the Bible is factual.
As for how to best use the Bible for yourself, I agree completely with razeontherock.
If you look at other threads coming from similar questions, you'll see that they end in arguments between liberals and conservatives, because there are two (actually three, but one isn't always Christian) ways to answer your question.
Since the Renaissance, there has been a development in critical thought. By critical I mean an approach that tries to be as objective as possible, asking for evidence and considering alternatives, even for beliefs that we hold dear. The Reformation was right at the beginning of this. Indeed I'd argue that Protestantism resulted when people looked at Catholic beliefs in light of the new understanding of the Greek and Hebrew originals, and realized that some don't measure up. However critical thought during the Reformation was primarily applied to getting a correct translation and understanding of what Scripture said. Since then it has moved in a direction of asking about the accuracy of Scripture itself.
This process is complicated because many of the first uses of critical thought were by people who wanted to attack religion. They felt that the Church (particularly the Catholic Church) was the enemy of humanity, and that it was necessary to destroy its authority. And in the 19th and 20th Cent, critical analysis was used, particularly in Europe, by people who were Christian, but believed that faith shouldn't be based on historical grounds, and thus had an agenda of discrediting the use of the Bible as a historical source.
However you can still try to apply critical thought without such agendas. British and American scholars have been more inclined to do that. They have tended to operate within the Church or within seminaries, and have as their goal simply understanding Scripture as well as possible.
Here's a rough summary of current critical Christian scholars thinking about the accuracy of the Bible:
* The OT historical books seem not to be generally reliable before about Judges. This is based primarily upon archaeology. The creation story is most discussed, because of issues with science. However the problems are not just in creation. They include the exodus and Israel's conquest of the Holy Land, which is unlikely to have happened in the form portrayed in the Bible. By the time of the kings, and probably a bit earlier, it seems generally OK. However even for that period you need to realize that the OT wasn't intended as pure history, but was written to make a point. (Note however that there are a substantial number of archeologists who would go further than this. They believe that the entire historical content of the OT is largely fictional. This is not just a fringe view, as the corresponding NT view is. I'm not yet convinced, but it is apparently a credible position.)
* There are differences between conservatives and critical thought about the intent of some of the other OT books. E.g. I would consider Jonah to be a satire on certain narrow-minded approaches to religion. I doubt that the author intended it to portray as an actual event, and that some of the humor of the satire comes from its absurdity. Conservatives tend to think it happened literally (and thus risk being identified with the view that it's attacking). There are other cases like this.
* The NT doesn't have the serious historical issues that parts of the OT do. You'll read claims that the Gospels are primarily fictional, and Jesus didn't exist in the form portrayed. Those are fringe claims, with little support even among critical scholars. However there are less radical differences on the accuracy of the Gospels otherwise. The "Jesus seminar" was well publicized in its claims that few of the quotations of Jesus were accurate. Again, this was a group whose PR has always been better than their acceptance by other scholars. But that group has more support than those who claim that the whole thing is fiction. I'd say that you can get a reasonable understanding of what Jesus was teaching by reading the Gospels as is, although there are reasons to think that some specific passages have been reinterpreted a bit from Jesus' original. Certainly if you compare parallel accounts of the same even in the 4 Gospels, you'll realize that we don't have a verbatim recording. As a result there are some historical issues, e.g. whether Jesus' ministry was 1 or 3 years. There are also questions about the historical credibility of the birth stories, particularly Matthew's. But in general terms the picture of Jesus' life and teachings in at least Matthew, Mark and Luke is likely to be pretty accurate.
The more serious issues raised by critical scholarship within the NT fall into the following categories:
* Authorship. Of course we don't know who authored the Gospels, but there are traditional associations with apostles. Some conservatives hold views that I think are unlikely (e.g. that the disciple Matthew wrote the first Gospel). More seriously, however, there are reasons to question the authorship of some of Paul's letters, and also some of the other letters. There are different views of the significance of this. Many will say that claiming the authority of someone else for a document was an accepted convention. I'm not convinced. I think it seriously undermines the authority of a letter if it was intended to claim authority it didn't deserve. This would seem to apply to most of the disputed NT letters.
* I believe it's pretty clear that various NT authors had their own viewpoints, and to some extent they conflicted with each other. To pick the clearest example: Both Acts and Paul's letters report that Paul and James were opponents. But both authored letters in the NT. James' letter attacks justification by faith. Plenty of people have understandings that combine the insights of both, so they aren't completely contradictory. But James was in fact attacking Paul. Similarly, Paul has a visibly different approach than Jesus to issues such as sin and judgement. Again, you can combine insights of both, but they aren't always saying the same thing. Critical scholars are inclined to let each author speak for himself, and let theologians look at all of them and try to come up with a consistent position taking from all of them. Conservatives are inclined to paper over the differences and claim that the whole Bible is saying exactly the same thing.
* But the most serious issues have to do with our preconceptions. Conservative Christianity approaches Jesus with the understanding that our sins keep God from forgiving us, and that Jesus' main goal was to die so as to allow God to forgive us. If you approach the NT with this, you can read this into a number of passages. But if you approach the Gospels objectively, you won't find that this was actually Jesus' main message. At least in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus seldom spoke of sin except to say that God was willing to forgive it, and never seemed to see that God needed any excuse to forgive us. What Jesus spoke of was bearing fruit. When he threatened people with Gehenna, it was because they didn't treat each other right, not because of what Christians typically call "sin." For a good presentation of this, see N T Wright's book "How God became King." However this posting is about the accuracy of Scripture, not a full presentation of what Jesus actually taught. There are similar differences in how we read Paul, depending upon whether we come at it with conservative assumptions or not, though I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical of some critical approaches to Paul.
If you reject the critical approach, then there are a completely different set of answers. The Bible is completely accurate in all details. There are a separate set of archaeologists will always find a way to interpret evidence to be consistent with the Bible, and (depending upon how you interpret Genesis) people who will tell you why scientists are wrong about creation and evolution. There are separate Biblical scholars who will tell you that the New Testament means just what Protestant tradition has always said (or what Catholic tradition has always said, if you pick a different set of scholars). Some of these are fine scholars, who really know their stuff. But you'll have to read the Bible for yourself and see which description fits it best.
I think the OT is the editor's best effort at pulling together all of Israel's traditions about its history and its relationship with God, and that they didn't try to pick just one viewpoint. And I think the NT contains most of the 1st Cent material available about Jesus and the early church, and that it reflects the various views of Christians then. But most Protestants think I'm wrong, and that all the books are saying exactly the same thing, and it's completely accurate in all details.
Be aware that the Internet is in general a medium of the popular culture. If you ask Google about most of these issues, the probability is that you'll come up with a pop version of scholarship, which will be conservative, but may well not be even the best conservative scholarship. Wikipedia generally gives you critical scholarship, though it tends to be better on details than on giving you a real understanding of what's going on. The best source, for both conservative and critical approaches, is probably to make sure you choose sources that are from faculty at appropriate institutions -- major universities for the critical approach -- denominational institutions and seminaries for the conservative approach. Bible.org also has excellent conservative scholarship.
For your specific question about the Gospels, see Ebia's response. He's right that the 4 gospels we have are the only ones that seem to be primary sources for Jesus' life. I'm going to comment on the broader question of whether the Bible is factual.
As for how to best use the Bible for yourself, I agree completely with razeontherock.
If you look at other threads coming from similar questions, you'll see that they end in arguments between liberals and conservatives, because there are two (actually three, but one isn't always Christian) ways to answer your question.
Since the Renaissance, there has been a development in critical thought. By critical I mean an approach that tries to be as objective as possible, asking for evidence and considering alternatives, even for beliefs that we hold dear. The Reformation was right at the beginning of this. Indeed I'd argue that Protestantism resulted when people looked at Catholic beliefs in light of the new understanding of the Greek and Hebrew originals, and realized that some don't measure up. However critical thought during the Reformation was primarily applied to getting a correct translation and understanding of what Scripture said. Since then it has moved in a direction of asking about the accuracy of Scripture itself.
This process is complicated because many of the first uses of critical thought were by people who wanted to attack religion. They felt that the Church (particularly the Catholic Church) was the enemy of humanity, and that it was necessary to destroy its authority. And in the 19th and 20th Cent, critical analysis was used, particularly in Europe, by people who were Christian, but believed that faith shouldn't be based on historical grounds, and thus had an agenda of discrediting the use of the Bible as a historical source.
However you can still try to apply critical thought without such agendas. British and American scholars have been more inclined to do that. They have tended to operate within the Church or within seminaries, and have as their goal simply understanding Scripture as well as possible.
Here's a rough summary of current critical Christian scholars thinking about the accuracy of the Bible:
* The OT historical books seem not to be generally reliable before about Judges. This is based primarily upon archaeology. The creation story is most discussed, because of issues with science. However the problems are not just in creation. They include the exodus and Israel's conquest of the Holy Land, which is unlikely to have happened in the form portrayed in the Bible. By the time of the kings, and probably a bit earlier, it seems generally OK. However even for that period you need to realize that the OT wasn't intended as pure history, but was written to make a point. (Note however that there are a substantial number of archeologists who would go further than this. They believe that the entire historical content of the OT is largely fictional. This is not just a fringe view, as the corresponding NT view is. I'm not yet convinced, but it is apparently a credible position.)
* There are differences between conservatives and critical thought about the intent of some of the other OT books. E.g. I would consider Jonah to be a satire on certain narrow-minded approaches to religion. I doubt that the author intended it to portray as an actual event, and that some of the humor of the satire comes from its absurdity. Conservatives tend to think it happened literally (and thus risk being identified with the view that it's attacking). There are other cases like this.
* The NT doesn't have the serious historical issues that parts of the OT do. You'll read claims that the Gospels are primarily fictional, and Jesus didn't exist in the form portrayed. Those are fringe claims, with little support even among critical scholars. However there are less radical differences on the accuracy of the Gospels otherwise. The "Jesus seminar" was well publicized in its claims that few of the quotations of Jesus were accurate. Again, this was a group whose PR has always been better than their acceptance by other scholars. But that group has more support than those who claim that the whole thing is fiction. I'd say that you can get a reasonable understanding of what Jesus was teaching by reading the Gospels as is, although there are reasons to think that some specific passages have been reinterpreted a bit from Jesus' original. Certainly if you compare parallel accounts of the same even in the 4 Gospels, you'll realize that we don't have a verbatim recording. As a result there are some historical issues, e.g. whether Jesus' ministry was 1 or 3 years. There are also questions about the historical credibility of the birth stories, particularly Matthew's. But in general terms the picture of Jesus' life and teachings in at least Matthew, Mark and Luke is likely to be pretty accurate.
The more serious issues raised by critical scholarship within the NT fall into the following categories:
* Authorship. Of course we don't know who authored the Gospels, but there are traditional associations with apostles. Some conservatives hold views that I think are unlikely (e.g. that the disciple Matthew wrote the first Gospel). More seriously, however, there are reasons to question the authorship of some of Paul's letters, and also some of the other letters. There are different views of the significance of this. Many will say that claiming the authority of someone else for a document was an accepted convention. I'm not convinced. I think it seriously undermines the authority of a letter if it was intended to claim authority it didn't deserve. This would seem to apply to most of the disputed NT letters.
* I believe it's pretty clear that various NT authors had their own viewpoints, and to some extent they conflicted with each other. To pick the clearest example: Both Acts and Paul's letters report that Paul and James were opponents. But both authored letters in the NT. James' letter attacks justification by faith. Plenty of people have understandings that combine the insights of both, so they aren't completely contradictory. But James was in fact attacking Paul. Similarly, Paul has a visibly different approach than Jesus to issues such as sin and judgement. Again, you can combine insights of both, but they aren't always saying the same thing. Critical scholars are inclined to let each author speak for himself, and let theologians look at all of them and try to come up with a consistent position taking from all of them. Conservatives are inclined to paper over the differences and claim that the whole Bible is saying exactly the same thing.
* But the most serious issues have to do with our preconceptions. Conservative Christianity approaches Jesus with the understanding that our sins keep God from forgiving us, and that Jesus' main goal was to die so as to allow God to forgive us. If you approach the NT with this, you can read this into a number of passages. But if you approach the Gospels objectively, you won't find that this was actually Jesus' main message. At least in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus seldom spoke of sin except to say that God was willing to forgive it, and never seemed to see that God needed any excuse to forgive us. What Jesus spoke of was bearing fruit. When he threatened people with Gehenna, it was because they didn't treat each other right, not because of what Christians typically call "sin." For a good presentation of this, see N T Wright's book "How God became King." However this posting is about the accuracy of Scripture, not a full presentation of what Jesus actually taught. There are similar differences in how we read Paul, depending upon whether we come at it with conservative assumptions or not, though I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical of some critical approaches to Paul.
If you reject the critical approach, then there are a completely different set of answers. The Bible is completely accurate in all details. There are a separate set of archaeologists will always find a way to interpret evidence to be consistent with the Bible, and (depending upon how you interpret Genesis) people who will tell you why scientists are wrong about creation and evolution. There are separate Biblical scholars who will tell you that the New Testament means just what Protestant tradition has always said (or what Catholic tradition has always said, if you pick a different set of scholars). Some of these are fine scholars, who really know their stuff. But you'll have to read the Bible for yourself and see which description fits it best.
I think the OT is the editor's best effort at pulling together all of Israel's traditions about its history and its relationship with God, and that they didn't try to pick just one viewpoint. And I think the NT contains most of the 1st Cent material available about Jesus and the early church, and that it reflects the various views of Christians then. But most Protestants think I'm wrong, and that all the books are saying exactly the same thing, and it's completely accurate in all details.
Be aware that the Internet is in general a medium of the popular culture. If you ask Google about most of these issues, the probability is that you'll come up with a pop version of scholarship, which will be conservative, but may well not be even the best conservative scholarship. Wikipedia generally gives you critical scholarship, though it tends to be better on details than on giving you a real understanding of what's going on. The best source, for both conservative and critical approaches, is probably to make sure you choose sources that are from faculty at appropriate institutions -- major universities for the critical approach -- denominational institutions and seminaries for the conservative approach. Bible.org also has excellent conservative scholarship.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is the tip of the iceberg.The bible has certain characteristics to conclude it could only be written by God. No other religious book does this.
Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this), read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell a former agnostic- and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ and The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel a former athiest.
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible (science website)
Eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Apologetics Study - Evidence For The Christian Faith
Bible Reliability: M-A-P-S to Guide You through Bible Reliability
Historical Accuracy(bible is the most accurate history book)
The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Number of Manuscript Copies-New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10
Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this), read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell a former agnostic- and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ and The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel a former athiest.
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible (science website)
Eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Apologetics Study - Evidence For The Christian Faith
Bible Reliability: M-A-P-S to Guide You through Bible Reliability
Historical Accuracy(bible is the most accurate history book)
The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Number of Manuscript Copies-New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10
Upvote
0
Differences between Catholic and Protestant relate only to the Old Testament, which was passed down from the Jews -- in two versions: a Hebrew version, and in a Greek version with a few extra books.
From very, very early on, about 85% of the New Testament was agreed on by all Christians: the four Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. Some of the other Epistles and Revelation were debated -- partly because, during the time of persecution, not everyone had gotten copies of those.
A key decider was that New Testament books should be by an Apostle (John, Matthew, Peter), with Paul counted as an apostle too, or by someone very close to the apostles (Luke with Paul, Mark with Peter) or by someone else close to Jesus (James, Jude). Another was that they should be early -- the whole New Testament was written before the year 100, as you say, and popular Second Century books like the Epistle of Barnabas were left out.
As you say, the so called "other gospels" were written later, and were written outside the Christian community.
With regards to reliability, the parts of the New Testament that are checkable pass all those checks -- see here for archaeology, and here for written history.
Upvote
0
