Well, I am a philologist, so the first task would be to analyze the separate texts for telltale signs of authorship: if they've all been written by the same person, it'll show - and indeed, it does. There are some scholarly debates as to whether Bill Shakespeare wasn't just a cover for somebody else (Philipp Marlowe, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, etc.), but one thing's for certain: these texts *were* written by a single author.Jane,
Would you have any difficulty with a Shakespeare anthology in determining that Shakespeare was the author.
Putting "by William Shakespeare" on the cover/under the title suffices for that (at first glance). The Bible does not even try to make that claim in relation to God.You state: 'That the books of the Bible do not claim to represent God's words (except for passages that explicitly state: "Thus says the LORD")? Again, the text itself suffices'. Do Shakespeare's works have written through them, 'thus says Shakespeare', to affirm that Shakespeare is the author? Is think not.
[/QUOTE]You state: 'Or maybe that the Pauline epistle in question does not make the claim that the whole anthology is inerrant? For that, you only need to do one thing: read the epistle in its historical context. For starters, the New Testament did not exist at that point. Zilch. Zip. Nada'. I presume you are referring to 2 Tim 3:16, 'All Scripture'. If you did your homework on this text, you would discover that this verse is referring primarily, but not exclusively, to the OT Scriptures. Here are a couple examples:
There is teaching on inerrancy in this passage, based on the nature of God, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that.
- William Hendriksen: 'All scripture, in distinction from "(the) sacred writings" (for which see on verse 15) means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative. When Paul wrote these words, the direct reference was to a body of sacred literature which even then comprised more than the Old Testament (see 1 Tim 5:18).... Later, at the close of the first century A. D., "all scripture" had been completed. Though the history of recognition, review, and ratification of the canon was somewhat complicated, and virtually universal acceptance of all the sixty-six books did not occur immediately in every region where the church was represented - one of the reasons being that for a long time certain of the smaller books had not even reached every corner of the church' (Hendriksen & Kistemaker 1957:301).
- Edwin Blum: 'These sacred writings are what we know as the Old Testament books and are so valuable because they have the ability to give the "wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"' (Blum 1979:45)
Blum, E A 1979. The apostles' view of Scripture, in N L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, 39-56. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Hendriksen, W & Kistemaker, S J 1955, 1957, 1984. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
That must be the WORST rationalization I've ever seen, ignoring historical context, authorial intent and even the very text in question. The scripture Paul's talking about here is the Septuagint - nothing more, nothing less. He's simply addressing the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures or not.[/QUOTE]Well, I am a philologist, so the first task would be to analyze the separate texts for telltale signs of authorship: if they've all been written by the same person, it'll show - and indeed, it does. There are some scholarly debates as to whether Bill Shakespeare wasn't just a cover for somebody else (Philipp Marlowe, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, etc.), but one thing's for certain: these texts *were* written by a single author.
The same cannot be said about the Bible - and the Bible never disguises that fact. Its separate books bear the names of those people who (in some cases only supposedly) wrote them - both in the New and in the Old Testament. It doesn't claim that God wrote the psalms - David did. It doesn't claim that God wrote the gospel of Luke - the greek physician of that name did, etc.
It does not collect the texts of a single author - it collects texts written by very different people with very different perspectives and theologies, composed over a period of a thousand years. And it shows. No philologist would ever conclude that, say, the Song of Songs was written by the same person as Ecclesiastes.
Putting "by William Shakespeare" on the cover/under the title suffices for that (at first glance). The Bible does not even try to make that claim in relation to God.
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
That must be the WORST rationalization I've ever seen, ignoring historical context, authorial intent and even the very text in question. The scripture Paul's talking about here is the Septuagint - nothing more, nothing less. He's simply addressing the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures or not.
I presume you are aware that the pastoral letters weren't written by Paul.
You are presenting a view promoted by F Schliermacher from early in the 19th century.
However, as a NT scholar, I have examined this issue surrounding pseudepigraphy and have concluded that this view presents greater historical difficulties than accepting Pauline authorship.
Yes, but I thought it best not to bring up the issue of traditional authorship to avoid unneccessary complications. Which is why I find it doubly ironic that Oz is now trying to use that for *his* side of the argument.I presume you are aware that the pastoral letters weren't written by Paul.
That maybe who first proposed but more recent scholarship substantiated it.
I'm sure it presents theological difficulties for an inerrantist but it is a philologically, historically and academically sound thesis.
Yes, but I thought it best not to bring up the issue of traditional authorship to avoid unneccessary complications. Which is why I find it doubly ironic that Oz is now trying to use that for *his* side of the argument.
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624, has demonstrated that that is not the case.
Having investigated the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, several conclusions can be made. First, theories of pseudonymity create more problems than they solve and are not viable solutions for the problem of authorship. A pseudonymous writing is inherently deceptive and cannot be considered authoritative. Second, in regard to the historical evidence, the information within the epistles does not have to be forced into the timeline of the book of Acts. Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment and then a second arrest is entirely plausible. Furthermore, the numerous internal references to various historical circumstances only strengthen the case for authenticity while the external witness of the church fathers is overwhelmingly in favor of Pauline authorship. Third, the conclusion that Paul wrote the letters is not undermined by their theological content. The ecclesiology found in the letters does not conflict with church structure evident in Acts and the other epistles of the New Testament. Also, the heresy addressed in the letters is Jewish in nature and contemporaneous to the time of Paul. Finally, the differing vocabulary and literary style of the Pastoral Epistles and the undisputed Pauline corpus can be accounted for by the various circumstances and purposes surrounding the Pastorals’ composition. The use of hapax legomena [i.e. a term occurring only once] is dictated by the content of the letters, and statistical studies have demonstrated that the percentage of hapax legomena in the Pastoral Epistles is comparable to that of other Pauline writings. Moreover, the literary style of the Pastorals exhibits many similarities to the undisputed writings of the apostle. Thus, while the view of Pauline authorship is not without difficulties, readers have every reason to believe that the epistles to Timothy and Titus are, in fact, genuine writings of the apostle Paul and authoritative for the church today (Carter 2007:34-35).
'If such situations and contacts with people were fabricated by a pseudepigrapher pretending to be Paul, surely the fraud could have been easily exposed. However, none of the church fathers doubted the letters' authenticity. Thus, Knight argues that the self-testimony of the Pastoral Epistles makes clear in each introduction that the author was in fact Paul the apostle, and the extensive personal allusions that permeate each letter substantiate that claim' (Knight in Carter 2007:14).
I've done my own research and concluded differently to your position. Now you want to fob me off onto some other approach.
Let's keep on topic and why 2 Tim 3:16 is reliable and Pauline (and hence inerrant as God's theopneustos). There is ample evidence to affirm the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline. Here goes:
Brandon Carter's (2007) thesis investigated the Pauline authorship or otherwise of the Pastoral Epistles and concluded:
Marcion and Tatian, 2 heretics of the 2nd century, did reject the Pauline authorship of the pastoral apostles (see Carter 2007).
Why are you wanting me to read about your Bahai faith when the topic is the inerrancy of Scripture. Seems like you are pushing your own agenda.
I'm just presenting what standard academic scholarship has already established.
Your evidence appears to rest merely on the opinion of some of the early church fathers. At most, what that establishes is that by the middle of the second century it was commonly believed Paul wrote those epistles. To prove he actually did write them, I would expect evidence such these epistles being consistent with Paul's writing style (they aren't) and to reflect the church structure as it existed in the first century (it doesn't.)
In any case, if biblical texts are going to be rejected on the basis of pseudepigrapha a great deal of the Old Testament would have to be rejected as well.No, but when you claim a book proves something yet fail to state how it does so you obviously expect me to read it. I'm just saying I'll read one of yours if you'll read one of mine. Both books in a discussion of this sort are irrelevant unless you present evidence to demonstrate they are relevant.
"Liberty University"? Ah, yes, a private Christian fundamentalist college that teaches creationism as "science". Yyyyeah, that sure is a reliable academic source...
Thats very very very very very very simple to answer why the 66 book bible is perfect. Just go to http://www.theomatics.com and get challenged on every and each account.Since spending a few years in researching the origins of the bible and trying to make sense of the intent of the writers of the bible I have discovered to much evidence that the bible is far from perfect. Why do people believe it is perfect?
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624, has demonstrated that that is not the case.