Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, others are not. It doesn't have to be, and it's not as a matter of fact, that historians treat the Bible either as an entirely abstract work which is meant to convey theological concepts OR as a piece of history containing nothing else but facts about the world(s) it is meant to describe.
Also, who determines and makes final judgment on which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which aren't?
Historians.
This was not a question about how we ought to interpret the Bible more generally (my answer to that question would be the standard Catholic answer). But rather how historians view the bible - this was your original point which I took up.
Historian's work can determine which parts of the bible are historically credible, but many people take portions of the bible literally that are not historically credible.
From a theological standpoint, that wouldn't leave you with much.
Many people do take portions of the bible literally that aren't historically reliable. But trace our discussion and you'll see that all I am doing is disputing your claim that historians do not treat the Bible as a historically reliable document. My response was that it depends which parts of the bible you're referring to. Some are regarded as reliable others aren't.
I think you may be overstating some of the problems with the New Testament text. Even Bart Ehrman agrees that 90 to 95% of the NT is error free and only about 1% of the errors are anything significant and even then they do not effect the doctrine. You hardly need to take the text on faith. You need faith with its message but you don't need faith in its overall historical credibility.
Faith Unites said:You can't prove miracles from a historical standpoint (there is simply no avenue to do so). This is something that will never be overcome. However, it is safe to say that the apostles believed that Jesus was resurrected. So while we may never be able to prove that a resurrection ever occurred, we can say that the authors believed it happened. Now there are really only a few conclusions from this point. !) it happened 2) mass hallucination 3) they made the whole thing up. Each point presents its own set of problems for our logical linear minds.
Or 4) even the apostles are loosely based on real people, but aren't historically accurate in the bible.
Faith Unites said:You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.
You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.
The sad thing is you're not joking.
Scholars already recognize the apostles - as recorded in the four canonized gospels - are loosely based on reality. Take Judas for example... in each later-written gospel, he becomes more and more evil. In Mark he's an apostle fulfilling a prophecy; by John he's like Satan himself at the Last Supper. There were Jewish gospels, which were almost definitely more accurate, but they were destroyed and gentile gospels were canonized which pretend to be from historical observers (but they're not, and it's obvious because they screw up Jewish traditions over and over and over, geography over and over and over, etc).
50 years after the Persian Wars, Herodotus wrote that the temple at Delphi defended itself with magic weapons and lightning, and that a flood wiped out a party of Persian soldiers who desecrated a statue of Poseidon. Historically accurate?
Faith Unites said:Not sure what you are talking about here. What Jewish Gospels are you referring to? (I'm genuinely curious) There are no doctrinal differences in the variances. Historians also agree that these variations actually make it more credible.
I like that you say "historians also agree," as if it is a monolithic group.
No. No, historians do not agree that variations make it more credible. That Judas kills himself in a multitude of ways in the various New Testament writings does not make them more credible - it makes at least one of them wrong. That Jesus has three different accounts of his last words does not make them more credible - it makes at least two wrong. That one has Jesus condemn all divorce and one has Jesus condemn all divorce except when adultery occurs does not make them more credible - it makes them contradictory and stupid (according to Jesus, you may beat your wife to a pulp and she has no recourse, but you kiss another woman and she can leave you). It is ridiculous.
Jewish-Christian gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Twelve is a symbolic number in the Bible, and we know that the gospels weren't written by any of the men in this group. It's entirely possible that the scribes were lacking this information. I doubt people spent time memorizing the hometowns and parentage of twelve men and passed this information on for generations without error.You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?