Bible authenticity and transmission,fully detailed argument.

[Zafran]

mark 16-9-20 is a corruption not in codex vaticanus can someone tell me where it is? the earliest manuscript evedince.

 

[Follower]

sorry Uthmann!!

rpwelton - "LOL, and the Muslims don't claim that God is One?"
There is no question that GOD is One but what that ONE is, how we define this One GOD, understand the make-up of this One GOD.

And when did I ever mention Gnostic gospels? I've never even read a gnostic gospel, so I can claim zero authority on saying anything about those.
That was intended for Ibn Ahmed Herz.

Back on topic -

Here is a very good article on the subject of Bible authenticity:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

 

[MSalman]

my question to Christians is simple: how can you trust a book which has unknown authors? How do you get around this big problem?

 

[Follower]

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Does this sound anything Mohammad would say about his Quran? A book saying of itself that it is from GOD. Or a man sying of himself that he is a prophet of GOD.

Where is the proof that it is GOD's inspired Word?

http://www.bibletruths.org/salvation/wordgod.html

 

[جوري]

my question to Christians is simple: how can you trust a book which has unknown authors? How do you get around this big problem?

Haven't you read Follower's pearls? a disciple of saul amended it, thus, it is enough of a testimony to the truth ...

I'd recommend you simply focus on bro. Yusuf's very detailed biblical passages which covers internal error of the saulian documents, it is enough a testimony to the scope of discrepancy. I am rather fascinated by how far back antisemitism started in christian literature and mythology.

 

[Grace Seeker]

my question to Christians is simple: how can you trust a book which has unknown authors? How do you get around this big problem?

First, we don't see it as getting around something. Not sure what there is to get around. Authorship is important, but is only one of the criteria for inclusion in the canon.

Then too the level of trust that you reference probably varies with the theological bent of the reader. Some Christians believe the whole Bible to be the literally inspired and dictated word of God to human who served more as scribes than as authors, so it isn't really important who the human author was as God is believed to be its divine author. Other Christians on the other end of the spectrum see the Bible as a collection of writings which reflect the faith of the community at a particular given point in time, but sees the whole process as being purely human in origin. Some of these folks label themselves as Christian but in fact don't trust the Bible at all. And of course there are folks, like myself, who are somewhere inbetween those points of view.

I understand that the early church accepted the books that were in use by the Jews of their day as the canon for what would come to be known as the Old Testament. (Disagreements between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox believers as to what the collection of books accepted by the Jews was has led to two different lists of books that are considered canonical with regard to the Old Testament.) The New Testament was formed not by committee (I don't care how many times people try to throw the Council of Nicea at me, they are oversimplifying the process), but by a slowly agreed upon consensus formed within the church over time that was later confirmed by the action of church councils. This process included criteria such as whether the books were in use by the church for not just personal reading, but in corporate worship? Were they connected to an apostle? Were they used throughout the church?

Many books might have passed one or two of these tests, but few passed all of them. Your question about authorship was key to the rejection of many. For instance, Yusuf mentioned the Epsitle of Barnabas (not to be confused with the supposed "gospel" of Barnabbas, which is a whole other story). It was a well respected piece of Christian literature. In widespread usage in the church. I don't know to what degree it was utilized in corporate worship, but it eventually failed the authorship test. Though it carried the name of Barnabas, the church did not really believe the letter to have been written by the Barnabbas mentioned in the book of Acts. Other letters such as Hebrews, whose authorship is unknown, probably got accepted because it was originally thought to be a letter of Paul or one of Paul's disciples. Though Paul's authorship of Hebrews is summarily rejected today, it's inclusion in the canon seems secure given its long established place within it.

Ultimately then, it seems that it is the Church itself, acting as the body of Christ, which claims the authority to decide what is and is not canonical. I suspect that will be satisfactory for some, and not for others -- but like it or not, that's the way it is.

 

[rpwelton]

Ultimately then, it seems that it is the Church itself, acting as the body of Christ, which claims the authority to decide what is and is not canonical. I suspect that will be satisfactory for some, and not for others -- but like it or not, that's the way it is.

Is this Church a collective body of all trinitarian Christians, or only Protestants or only Catholics? When Catholics say "The Church" I understand what they mean because Catholicism has a central "power", whereas Protestantism does not. Or is the "Church" more theoretical and intangible in nature, referring perhaps to a collective spirit?

 

[YusufNoor]

sorry Uthmann!!

rpwelton - "LOL, and the Muslims don't claim that God is One?"
There is no question that GOD is One but what that ONE is, how we define this One GOD, understand the make-up of this One GOD.

And when did I ever mention Gnostic gospels? I've never even read a gnostic gospel, so I can claim zero authority on saying anything about those.
That was intended for Ibn Ahmed Herz.

Back on topic -

Here is a very good article on the subject of Bible authenticity:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

actually, that link is only about Mark 16:9-20.

it has this cool graph that it won't let me copy here. anyways, Christians believe that the NT was originally in Greek [although the Injeel would have had to have been Aramaic]; that being the case the article actually proves that Mark 16:9-20 IS a fabrication!

it CLEARLY shows that Mark 16:9-20 is NOT in ANY Greek Manuscript before the 5th Century!

Paul was not promoting antisemitism so much as trying to get Jews to allow Gentiles to worship with them without going through the pains- literally LOL! of fufilling the Law that was meant for the Jews.

no one says Paul was promoting antisemitism; the point was that much like Paul spent time trying to figure out the reason for the [alleged] crucifixion, Christians AFTER Paul had to make sense of his writings!

IF Paul was correct in his deductions, then why was Peter STILL keeping KOSHER in Acts 10.? THE POINT being that Paul made this deduction and started preaching it.

Paul's words were later twisted into the words in Barnabas, which WAS considered canonical by many churches.

I am rather fascinated by how far back antisemitism started in christian literature and mythology.

i am as well and maybe another thread when i have time, In Sha'a Allah!

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

this is rather silly. let me illustrate by asking you a few questions:

who wrote 2nd Timothy?

when was it written?

and when it was written, what books were considered "Scripture?"


Does this sound anything Mohammad would say about his Quran? A book saying of itself that it is from GOD.

KhalamAllah! the word of Allah!

Or a man sying of himself that he is a prophet of GOD.

so Paul is then considered a Prophet?

Where is the proof that it is GOD's inspired Word?

Ultimately then, it seems that it is the Church itself, acting as the body of Christ, which claims the authority to decide what is and is not canonical. I suspect that will be satisfactory for some, and not for others -- but like it or not, that's the way it is.

when did the Church decide that the "current list of canonical books" is the Bible?

and is that your Church?

and finally, i intend to transcribe a bit of a lecture by Luke Timothy Johnson, In Sha'a Allah. it may take a while, but it should be of interest.

:wa:

 

[جوري]

^^ another great thread..

I found this by Br. Ansar Al'Adl
perhaps it is of use to you in your studies insha'Allah..


Jesus says that our good works are necessary and meaningful (Matt. 5:16; John 10:24-25) while Paul says they are worthless and unnecessary (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6-14).

Jesus exhorts his followers to strictly adhere to the laws and commandments (Mark 10:18-19; Matt. 19:17; Luke 18:20) while Paul calls the law and commandments a “curse” and “bondage” (Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 24; Rom. 2:13). (SOURCE)

 

[YusufNoor]

^^ another great thread..

I found this by Br. Ansar Al'Adl
perhaps it is of use to you in your studies insha'Allah..


Jesus says that our good works are necessary and meaningful (Matt. 5:16; John 10:24-25) while Paul says they are worthless and unnecessary (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6-14).

Jesus exhorts his followers to strictly adhere to the laws and commandments (Mark 10:18-19; Matt. 19:17; Luke 18:20) while Paul calls the law and commandments a “curse” and “bondage” (Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 24; Rom. 2:13). (SOURCE)

there are actually differences BETWEEN the Gospels! In Sha'a Allah, we will get to that.

i have finished the part of Luke Timothy Johnson's lecture that i wanted folks to be able to read. sometimes people just see a chart or something that you have to figure out. i really like how Professor Johnson put this, so here it is:

…Religious tradition ascribes these 5 books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy to the Prophet and Lawgiver Moses, who lived in the 13th BCE, and had led the people out of Egypt. Since the Enlightenment, unanimously agreed [that’s the 1st time I heard anyone say unanimously, so don’t have a cow] that the composition of these 5 books involved a more complex process that took place over a considerable period of time. This is one of the ways in which a traditional understanding of authorship and a more critical Scholarly understanding of authorship come to quite different conclusions.

19th Century source criticism of the Pentateuch observed several features of these 5 books that called out for explanation such as doublets and different designations for God. Let me talk a little bit about each of those. As we read the stories in the Books of Moses we see sometimes that the same story seems to be told twice, these are called doublets. So for example in Genesis 1 we have a creation account in which god creates everything simply by a word including male and female in the image of God. But then in chapter 2 of Genesis there is quite a distinct creation account in which God creates the male and then creates the female out of the rib the male with no mention about being made of being made in the image of God. There are 2 creation accounts. Similarly, in Genesis 6 and 7 there seem to be 2 versions of the Noah and the flood story that are interwoven creating certain inconsistencies within the story. Or in Genesis 12:1-20 we see that Abraham, with his wife Sarah goes to Egypt and out of fear that his wife will be taken away from him, he asks Sarah to say that she is his sister. 14 chapters later in Genesis 26:6-11, we see Isaac with his wife Rebecca going into the land of the Philistines and out of fear he asks his wife to say, “I am his sister” rather than his wife. And so these are called doublets, and call out for explanation.

Similarly different parts of the story use different designations consistently for God. In some the name Yahweh, the Sacred Tetragrammaton, is used. In others the Hebrew term Elohim; a more generic term for God is used. And sometimes there seems to be a conflation, [which] is the Lord God, Yahweh Elohim, is used. How do we account for these?

Although the precise delineation of the sources is debated, many scholars perceive 4 distinct sources for the 5 Books of Moses, which are called the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly sources. Even more vigorously debated is the assignment of distinct periods of composition, according to the supposed outlook of these sources. The Yahwist and the Elohist are taking to be the oldest sources perhaps in the 10th and 9th Centuries before the Common Era, with the South Kingdom [Judah, thus J] being represented by the Yahwist and the Northern Kingdom [Ephraim, thus E] being represented by the Elohist. And the Deuteronomist as a reform voice in the 6th Century (BCE) that not only accounts for the Book of Deuteronomy but also stamps the entire history from Joshua through Kings with it’s distinctive reformist outlook. And then the Priestly editor coming at the end very much concerned with genealogies, with the laws for sacrifice, with the Temple, what is clean and unclean. Now, according to this understanding then, the oldest parts of the Books of Moses would come from the 10th Century [BCE] from the Yahwist and the newest parts would have been written last in the 5th Century perhaps by the Priestly editor. According to this reading, the very 1st part of Genesis, “In the Beginning god created heaven and earth” would have been the last written. It would have been written by the Priestly editor to begin the whole.

Now all of this is debated by scholars and needs to be supplemented by other considerations such as oral tradition, such as other forms of rhetoric and so forth available in antiquity.

The basic point is that the 5 books of Moses came into being over a long period of time through a complex process…


that is from Disc 1 lecture 2 of the link i posted before.

for a full reading on this subject, i recommend:

Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible?, seen here:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353

just make sure that you get the 2nd Edition. i get them at Half Price Books for about $8 a pop.

ooop, prayer time...

:wa:

 

[جوري]

what is the point of prophets stating their wives are their sisters, what is the point of that? as it is actually later understood as such especially in the case of Abraham (p)

 

[YusufNoor]

what is the point of prophets stating their wives are their sisters, what is the point of that? as it is actually later understood as such especially in the case of Abraham (p)

the King will see how beautiful your wife is. if he kills you, she is not your wife no more, and he can take her. imsad

HOWEVER if she is your sister, he will STILL take her, but you become the King's best friend. cuz he's married to your sister! or so he thinks...:hmm:

:wa:

 

[جوري]

the King will see how beautiful your wife is. if he kills you, she is not your wife no more, and he can take her. imsad

HOWEVER if she is your sister, he will STILL take her, but you become the King's best friend. cuz he's married to your sister! or so he thinks...:hmm:

:wa:

Rofl.. I am sorry but that was hilarious.. was there a shortage of women then? It reminds me of a biblical story I read, I am not sure where.
When a passerby came the man of the house offered his daughter to him (to be hospitable) then a bunch of rapists came strolling into town, they raped the girl until sunrise taking turns and of course she died, and when the guest was awe struck by their barbarity he decided to cut her up into pieces and send her to each tribe to show them the wrongs of their way, or maybe mounted a donkey and took her to each tribe dead so they can see the wrong of their ways.. ;D I wish I had saved it as I don't remember every detail but it was the most fantastic thing I'd ever read...

 

[YusufNoor]

Rofl.. I am sorry but that was hilarious.. was there a shortage of women then? It reminds me of a biblical story I read, I am not sure where.
When a passerby came the man of the house offered his daughter to him (to be hospitable) then a bunch of rapists came strolling into town, they raped the girl until sunrise taking turns and of course she died, and when the guest was awe struck by their barbarity he decided to cut her up into pieces and send her to each tribe to show them the wrongs of their way, or maybe mounted a donkey and took her to each tribe dead so they can see the wrong of their ways.. ;D I wish I had saved it as I don't remember every detail but it was the most fantastic thing I'd ever read...

that's Judges Chapters 20. but you need to read until the end of 21 to hear the whole story!

:wa:

 

[Supercareful]

:salamext:

I am still in the middle of this thread but noticed the offtopics including the last two :embarrassplease forgive me Gossamer Skye and YusufNoor) but brother Uthman has already warned not to get offtopic on many other threads in the Comparative Religion section of this forum. JazakAllah Khayr,just reminding. May Allah(Subhan'Allah Tala) give us the blessings and permits us to act upon this and attain hasnaeet(good deeds).

:salamext:

 

[جوري]

^^ are you related to our dearly departed member young yanal? (technically your post is off topic too ) we haven't taken a large detour we are still on the unusual contents of the bible which we can file under unauthentic or questionable .. I wouldn't be too worried about either of our fate for a small detour!

 

[Supercareful]

:salamext:

No I am not sister. If you can you may check my IP inshallah.

Ok I agree but let that be a simple reminder for future reference inshallah.

 

[جوري]

hm...what would a complex reminder be like?
you can always use the red button to report posts that you feel aren't in concert with the topic, and I believe that would be up to the mods to decide whether to remove or if it is of relevance...

 

[Grace Seeker]

Is this Church a collective body of all trinitarian Christians, or only Protestants or only Catholics? When Catholics say "The Church" I understand what they mean because Catholicism has a central "power", whereas Protestantism does not. Or is the "Church" more theoretical and intangible in nature, referring perhaps to a collective spirit?

The way I was using the term "church" in my post was not a reference to the Catholic Church, nor to Protestantism, but to a larger concept of the entire body of Christ, that is all those who belong to Jesus. So, yes, it would be something that is both intangible and a collective of all Christians (including people like Arius who were definitely not trinitarian but were part of the early church, even if a heretic*).




*(I know, it has to be confusing how someone who is identified as a heretic today could be considered part of the church, but the definition of a heretic is one who has received and then turned away from the truth, so the only way to be a heretic is to have first been part of the church. People who are never believers in the first place therefore cannot be heretics.)

 

[Grace Seeker]

…Religious tradition ascribes these 5 books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy to the Prophet and Lawgiver Moses, who lived in the 13th BCE, and had led the people out of Egypt. Since the Enlightenment, unanimously agreed [that’s the 1st time I heard anyone say unanimously, so don’t have a cow] that the composition of these 5 books involved a more complex process that took place over a considerable period of time. This is one of the ways in which a traditional understanding of authorship and a more critical Scholarly understanding of authorship come to quite different conclusions.

No, "cow", but a little beef. What Johnson puts forward here is generally referenced as the Graf-Wellhausen developmental hypothesis. It most certainly is widely accepted by many scholars today. But it has never been universally received. So, what is the beef? If anyone writes that it is "unanimously agreed", they are ignoring those who disagree with them. Such a person is not truthful, and thus it calls the rest of their statements into question as to how truthful they are in presenting that material. On the whole I don't have a problem with the larger argument that Johnson presents. It seems to fairly accurately present the theory at an easy to understand level for the lay reader, but it is also worth noting that it has less acceptance today than it once did, and given what is at least overstated hyperbole regarding the theories level of acceptance, I doubt that Johnson wrestles with those criticisms very well.

Other equally notable scholars were far from being convinced of the merits of many aspects of the evolutionary position that had been set out so plausibly by Wellhausen. Eduard Riehm attacked the view that the Priestly Code was the latest part of the Pentetuech, observing that the Deuteronomic legislation presupposed acquaintance with it. Dillmann placed the Priestly Code considerably prior to Deuteronomy in terms of development, and assigned the bulk of the Holiness Code, to which he accorded the designation S(iani), to an even earlier date. Baudissin placed the Law of Holiness in the pre-Deuteronomic period, while Kittel held that the Priestly literature had existed for a prolonged time as a document of ecclesiastical law, available only to the priests at first but subsequently made public by force of circumstance.

Whereas Dillman, Kittel, and Baudissin tended towards a mediating view of the Preistly material, Franz Delitzch openly attacked the entire Wellhausenian shceme in his commentary on Genesis. He held that all sections of the Pentateuch specifically attributed to Moses in the text were in fact from his hand, while other portions of his legal enactments were given their final form by priestly circles during the settlement period....

[Meaning that Delitzch would even disagree with your "basic point -- that the 5 books of Moses came into being over a long period of time through a complex process…"]

A different form of attack upon the views of Wellhausen came in 1893, when A. Klostermann rejected the developmental hypothesis and replaced it with his own version of the crystallization theory of Ewald and Knobel. In his work he postulated the existence of an original Mosiac nucleus of law which, because of its liturgical use, was expanded by priestly editors.


source: Introduction to the Old Testament, R.K. Harrison, Eerdmans Publishing, 1969, p. 23.

And those are just "Enlightenment" figures that argued against the developmental theory. Succeeding generations have produced even more critiques. That said, it must be admitted that Wellhausen is widely regarded, and even among his critics it is generally not the whole but only particular portions or conclusions with regard to its application that are disputed, but it is certainly not the only theory that is in vogue among biblical scholars and to present it as such requires Johnson to participate in a distortion of both the truth and of history.