Are forgeries inspired scripture?

[Tawhano]

Remember, I used to be one of you.

"...claiming to be a former" christian "doesn't give you any street cred here n CF"

 

[ChetSinger]

Aside from @Hammster , I don't think any of the other Christians have weighed-in with an answer to the OP. Would it bother you to learn that one of the NT books is likely to be a forgery - i.e. the author intended to deceive readers by pretending to be a famous Christian?

That forged book is the same book that you have read many times and found inspirational. Does the deceits of its origins change its position today as inspired scripture?

I assume that even the scholars who believe that none of the NT books are forgeries must admit that this opinion is only an educated guess. Nobody can know for certain.

It sounds to me like you're thinking of one in particular. If so, would you share it?

 

[OzSpen]

Setting aside the question of which if any scriptures might be forgeries, would solid evidence that some NT book is a forgery imply that this book is NOT inspired scripture? If you found out that Slippery Sam from Siam wrote one of the NT books as a practical joke, would you tear that book out of your bible in disgust, or would you be amazed that God can inspire scriptures - even when the writer is not aware that he/she is part of God's plan?

cloudy,

Your pseudonym is a good one - cloudy!

Your hypothetical is typical of those I hear coming out of the atheist/agnostic corner of a secular world.

However, since 'God is truth' there is no possibility that Scriptures would include forgeries. Lies promoted by the God of truth is an oxymoron of a suggestion.

Since 'all Scripture is theopneustos (breathed out by God)', nothing that is in Scripture would be a forgery. To put it another way, if a book is found to be a forgery, it cannot and would not be regarded as Scripture.

Slippery Sam from Siam's book would never have made it into Scripture, but Slippery Sam from Siam is a typical invention of atheists like you. The thought of inspired, absolutely truthful Scripture cannot be accepted by your atheistic worldview. If you were honest, you would be like Richard Dawkins and not call yourself an atheist, but an agnostic. 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic', by Suzannah Hills, Daily Mail, 25 February 2012.

Why? Because it is absolutely impossible for you to check every bit of information in the universe to determine that God is not there.

You are proposing an impossibility, but your agnostic worldview prevents you from seeing how ridiculous this 'practical joke' is.

Now let's get down to business. What is preventing you from considering the evidence for the existence of God that is all around you?

Oz

 

[cloudyday2]

It sounds to me like you're thinking of one in particular. If so, would you share it?

No, I didn't have any particular NT book in mind.

How about answering the question in the OP? Can a forgery be part of God's plan? Maybe the forger is motivated by church politics or greed, but God is trying to communicate some important teachings, and the forger unwittingly is inspired by God?

 

[cloudyday2]

...
Now let's get down to business. What is preventing you from considering the evidence for the existence of God that is all around you?

Sorry, I didn't see your post until today. Of course I disagree with your reasons for ruling-out the possibility of forgeries in the NT.

To answer your last question (quoted above), what evidence for God do you have in mind? The only evidence I have for God is prayers that seemed to have been answered, a few synchronicities, a few visions/hallucinations. I sometimes wonder if there is a God of some kind, but the Judeo-Christian God seems impossible based on the history that I have read.

 

[ChetSinger]

No, I didn't have any particular NT book in mind.

How about answering the question in the OP? Can a forgery be part of God's plan? Maybe the forger is motivated by church politics or greed, but God is trying to communicate some important teachings, and the forger unwittingly is inspired by God?

I have trouble believing that a forgery is part of God's plan. The church fathers felt that way too, afaik. The books we have in our New Testaments today are there because the church believed they were written by apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, etc.) or the traveling companions of apostles (Mark, Luke). It was important to them that their scriptures be written by witnesses or their companions.

A big reason the gnostic writings were rejected was because their claimed authorship wasn't accepted.

And the reason 2 Peter took so long to become part of the NT wasn't because it contained suspicious theology, but because parts of the church weren't convinced that Peter wrote it.

There were additional books that were accepted and read in various parts of the church, such as The Shepherd of Hermas, but which were eventually rejected as canon because they couldn't be traced to an apostle.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have trouble believing that a forgery is part of God's plan. The church fathers felt that way too, afaik. The books we have in our New Testaments today are there because the church believed they were written by apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, etc.) or the traveling companions of apostles (Mark, Luke). It was important to them that their scriptures be written by witnesses or their companions.

A big reason the gnostic writings were rejected was because their claimed authorship wasn't accepted.

And the reason 2 Peter took so long to become part of the NT wasn't because it contained suspicious theology, but because parts of the church weren't convinced that Peter wrote it.

There were additional books that were accepted and read in various parts of the church, such as The Shepherd of Hermas, but which were eventually rejected as canon because they couldn't be traced to an apostle.

So most scholars consider some books to be probably authentic, some books to be probably forgeries, and some in the middle. With that knowledge, would you consider excluding the suspected forgeries from your Bible reading practices? Also would you consider excluding theological ideas that justify themselves by referencing suspected forgeries?

 

[ChetSinger]

So most scholars consider some books to be probably authentic, some books to be probably forgeries, and some in the middle. With that knowledge, would you consider excluding the suspected forgeries from your Bible reading practices?

Here's where imo you'll have to start becoming specific. Which books? Which scholars, and what are their arguments? What are the counter-arguments?

Also would you consider excluding theological ideas that justify themselves by referencing suspected forgeries?

Again, which ideas?

 

[cloudyday2]

Here's where imo you'll have to start becoming specific. Which books? Which scholars, and what are their arguments? What are the counter-arguments?

Which books and which ideas is not important is it? The real question is the level of certainty don't you think? Whether you like the forgery or not is irrelevant IMO.

Ideally it seems that the Holy Spirit should give discernment to Bible readers to detect these forgeries, interpolations, etc. The fact that people have been reading a hypothetical forgery for 2000 years, should be a concern to any believer.

Imagine that all the scholars from the best universities agree that some phrase is a forgery. Only the fundamentalist scholars disagree. Would that be enough certainty for you to remove that phrase from the Bible and remove any derived theologies? In other words the hold-outs are the same people who believe in a global flood and a young Earth (of course many reasonable people believe in the global flood and the young Earth due to their religious indoctrination - I don't mean to dismiss their opinions)

 

[ChetSinger]

Which books and which ideas is not important is it? The real question is the level of certainty don't you think? Whether you like the forgery or not is irrelevant IMO.

Ideally it seems that the Holy Spirit should give discernment to Bible readers to detect these forgeries, interpolations, etc. The fact that people have been reading a hypothetical forgery for 2000 years, should be a concern to any believer.

Imagine that all the scholars from the best universities agree that some phrase is a forgery. Only the fundamentalist scholars disagree. Would that be enough certainty for you to remove that phrase from the Bible and remove any derived theologies? In other words the hold-outs are the same people who believe in a global flood and a young Earth (of course many reasonable people believe in the global flood and the young Earth due to their religious indoctrination - I don't mean to dismiss their opinions)

I'm sorry, but I'm reaching the point where such hypothetical questions have to yield to some actual examples before I can continue much further.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm sorry, but I'm reaching the point where such hypothetical questions have to yield to some actual examples before I can continue much further.

I'm trying to think of a forgery that is universally recognized. How about Mark 16:9-20? These verses were the inspiration for the idea that Christians should be immune to poison and venom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Also, if you are tired of the discussion, then that is fine too.

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm trying to think of a forgery that is universally recognized. How about Mark 16:9-20? These verses were the inspiration for the idea that Christians should be immune to poison and venom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Also, if you are tired of the discussion, then that is fine too.

Excellent choice! One of the two best, imo, along with the story of the forgiven adulteress in John.

Since ancient times the longer Markan endings (there are several) have been considered suspect and marked as such (see below). That particular one remains included by convention, but is always marked by footnotes as not appearing in the earliest manuscripts. So, readers such as myself can choose what to make of it.

I don't think it's inclusion changes the message of the gospel. Specifically, I don't think it adds dodgy theology. For example, the Acts of the Apostles describes Jesus' followers as they cast out demons, speak in new tongues, heal the sick, and are impervious to a poisonous snake.

Btw, here's more background information on that passage, which I've lifted from the relevant footnote in the New English Translation (NET). It's good scholarship on display, imo. You might find it interesting:

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't think it's inclusion changes the message of the gospel. Specifically, I don't think it adds dodgy theology. For example, the Acts of the Apostles describes Jesus' followers as they cast out demons, speak in new tongues, heal the sick, and are impervious to a poisonous snake.

Today we have the Church of God with Signs denominations that pick up deadly snakes. I have also heard of some churches where people drink poison as a sign of faith. I wonder how these verses were understood by the early Christians? A reader might understand these verses to mean that God will protect missionaries from physical harm while they are spreading the Gospel throughout the world. When did the idea of voluntarily picking up a snake as an act of faith develop?

 

[ChetSinger]

Today we have the Church of God with Signs denominations that pick up deadly snakes. I have also heard of some churches where people drink poison as a sign of faith.

Heh, my church's worship director and his wife are from the South and they're familiar with the "box of snakes" that a handful of churches keep around. Not my cup of tea, though. I don't have that kind of faith.

I wonder how these verses were understood by the early Christians?

Look into it, perhaps the ECFs spoke on them.

A reader might understand these verses to mean that God will protect missionaries from physical harm while they are spreading the Gospel throughout the world.

I've heard many testimonies of miraculous works God has performed among missionaries. But they also suffer and are persecuted, too, as Jesus said they would be. Hard to have one without the other, imo.

When did the idea of voluntarily picking up a snake as an act of faith develop?

Outside of Pentecostalism I don't know.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, I didn't see your post until today. Of course I disagree with your reasons for ruling-out the possibility of forgeries in the NT.

To answer your last question (quoted above), what evidence for God do you have in mind? The only evidence I have for God is prayers that seemed to have been answered, a few synchronicities, a few visions/hallucinations. I sometimes wonder if there is a God of some kind, but the Judeo-Christian God seems impossible based on the history that I have read.

cloudy,

Could you be missing this evidence as explained in Romans 1:18-32 (ESV):

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practise such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practise them.

What about this evidence according to Psalm 19:1-6 (ESV)?

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places for evidence of God's existence. His evidence is all around you and me as these 2 sets of Scripture explain.

Because of this evidence, God is correct in concluding, 'The fool says in his heart, “There is no God"' (Psalm 14:1 ESV).

You state, 'I sometimes wonder if there is a God of some kind, but the Judeo-Christian God seems impossible based on the history that I have read'. That evidence seems to make you an agnostic and not an atheist. If you are a full-blown atheist, you would have to look under every nook and cranny in the entire universe to be absolutely sure there was no God in existence. Even Richard Dawkins who has called himself an atheist for years, has admitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury that he prefers to call himself an agnostic and not an atheist. See: 'Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist'.

What history have you read to conclude that 'the Judeo-Christian God seems impossible based on the history that I have read'?

I look forward to further interaction with you.

Oz

 

[HitchSlap]

Because of this evidence, God is correct in concluding, 'The fool says in his heart, “There is no God"' (Psalm 14:1 ESV).



Oz

Can I play?

Because of the lack of evidence, man is correct in concluding, 'A fool says in her heart, "There is a God.'"

 

[OzSpen]

Can I play?

Because of the lack of evidence, man is correct in concluding, 'A fool says in her heart, "There is a God.'"

Red herring.

 

[OzSpen]

Can I play?

Because of the lack of evidence, man is correct in concluding, 'A fool says in her heart, "There is a God.'"

Red herring.

There is ample evidence for you to believe in God, but God tells us why you won't do that in Romans 1:18 (NIV): 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness'. In your godlessness and wickedness, you are suppressing the truth of God's evidence in creation. These are not my words, but are from God.

Think about your sinfulness and godlessness and your suppression of the truth. Then do something about it before it's too late.

Oz

 

[HitchSlap]

Red herring.

There is ample evidence for you to believe in God, but God tells us why you won't do that in Romans 1:18 (NIV): 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness'. In your godlessness and wickedness, you are suppressing the truth of God's evidence in creation. These are not my words, but are from God.

Think about your sinfulness and godlessness and your suppression of the truth. Then do something about it before it's too late.

Oz

I recognize that you have a certain framework you use to navigate the world, including the notion of sin, godlessness, etc., however, as an agnostic/atheist/humanist, the notion of sin is irrelevant for me. As for truth, I'm all for it!

 

[ViaCrucis]

When did the idea of voluntarily picking up a snake as an act of faith develop?

Best as I can tell (thanks Google!) it began when an early 20th century illiterate preacher, George Hensley, became obsessed with the passage in Mark which led him to pick up a snake, bring it to church, and claim people needed to prove their salvation by picking up snakes.

It's possible there were cases of this happening before in Christian history, though I'm unaware of it, but the modern practice can seemingly be pinned directly on George Hensley.

-CryptoLutheran