quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, thanks - the term doesn't seem to have come up on this thread before. At first glance, I'd go along with much of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So my personal "red-letter" rubric is: the closer a text is (chronologically and otherwise) to the Christ-event, the more authoritative it can be understood to be.

---

So in your scheme of things do the epistles trump the Gospels, or not?

---

Ah, harder to say, at least with the Pauline epistles-- which are chronologically closer to the Christ-event, but are not (with a few exceptions) the words of Jesus. So there it comes down to how accurate you think the gospels are in recording the words of Jesus. As an evangelical, I've got a high view of inspiration, which I think also fits with a scholarly understanding of the transmission of oral traditions in preliterate societies, so I'm going to say the gospel writers got it right. So, while chronologically they were written later than the epistles, if they are the authentic words and acts of Jesus they are "closer" to the Christ-event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

It's my perception that in recent times Paul in particular has come "unglued" from the Gospels, rightly or wrongly, largely because of a whole herd of Dead Horse issues ranging from inerrancy to homosexuality. I'm not sure if these are a cause or an effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

---

I see this as an issue but not an overwhelming one. The gospels are - apparently - written from within the constituency that experienced the incarnation first hand. The epistles are largely written to communities away from this constituency.

Of course, it is a faith claim that where the gospels disagree with points in the epistles, we'll go with the gospel, thanks-very-much, but then it is also a faith position that all of it is as valid and useful as the rest.

...

quote:

---

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

---

Well I think in one sense you're arguing against yourself here. If you are saying that there is an observable difference between (some of) the thinking in the epistles and the gospels, then if the epistles were always considered to be as valid as the oral gospel tradition, then why don't the gospels look more like them?

It seems to me to be a fairly reasonable position that either a) the gospel writers didn't particularly rate (all or some of) the epistles or b) they were not familiar with them. The idea that they knew and liked the epistles may be true but I'm not sure how it is supported by the gospel text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

---

Again, the "red letter rubric" could be applied either way-- and has been by those who advocate it. My argument for gospels over Paul (to the extent you need such a rubric-- see below) is based on my belief that the gospel writers, while later than Paul, are providing an authentic record of what Jesus truly said & did. Which would make the gospels "closer to the Christ event" in terms of content if not chronology. Of course, if you don't share my assumption you're not going to share my conclusion.

---

quote:

---

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
is there a basis to assume that Paul's letters were being reproduced and carried to at least some destinations in the Roman Empire within a few years of their writing.

---

quote:

---

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Gospels and Epistles serve different purposes. The Gospels ensure that an authentic record of the words and actions of Jesus survive. The Epistles build upon those stories to develop the structure of the Christian faith.

---

I would agree with this. The Gospels, particularly the Synoptics, seem to focus mainly on what Jesus did and taught, how he died and that he rose again. Matthew and Luke include Jesus's birth. They provide the evidence, as it were, of the claims made about who Jesus was.

The epistles, it seems to me, are more about the implications of who Jesus was and, in particular, the meaning of his incarnation and his death and resurrection, especially to an infant community of believers.

I see them as complementary of one another.

[ 01. September 2016, 00:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
A perfect summary in your two observations Alan.

You initially quote cliffdweller and her evangelical high view of inspiration. I have a post-evangelical low view, which is of course higher

I watched Risen on Monday night, I liked its minimalism VERY much. May be that deserves its own Purg thread!
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
You initially quote cliffdweller and her evangelical high view of inspiration. I have a post-evangelical low view, which is of course higher

---

I think "high view" and "low view" are misleading.

To me a "high view" of Scripture does not equate to a literalist or inerrantist view, but to the respect one accords to the texts that have come down to us regardless of how one interprets them.

I hang out with some people who are much more theologically liberal than my evangelical brethren who take the content of the Scriptures much more seriously than the former, even if they come to different conclusions.

Not least, by not making blanket statements such as "Paul was WRONG" or "it's ALL got to go"

I concede that some purportedly "high view" evangelicals are as dismissive the other way, though.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Obviously this perceived tension between the Gospels and the Epistles is not a new one, summed up in oft-heard comments such as "Well, Paul changed everything, didn't he?"

Perhaps I could make three brief observations.

One is to remember that we are leaving out the "lynch-pin" book of Acts in all this. It really is the only book which relates the Gospels and the Epistles. Should we be looking in there for possible explanations and reconciliations between the two?

Second is not only to suggest that (some of) the Epistles predate the Gospels but to remind folk that oral "forms" of the Gospels must have been circulating well before the written ones were finally formulated. I suspect that different Christian communities knew different "bits" of the Gospels; I also suspect that truth was mixed with legend. Hence people like Luke needed to organise, assess and set down what was "core" in order to regularise the process, before it was too late.

Leading from the above is to say that eye-witnesses of Jesus were still around in the early days of the Church, in Palestine of not elsewhere. They surely would have been able not only to maintain the authenticity of the Gospel stories but also to help in the process of relating the issues they raised to developing church life.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
They ALL privately think that Eutychus.

And hence my trumping high with low as higher. The truth of the Incarnation is inviolate. Everything else is Iron Age reaction.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
They ALL privately think that Eutychus.

---

"Do not judge another man's sevant..." Or is that one of the bits of Paul that's got to go?

quote:

---

The truth of the Incarnation is inviolate. Everything else is Iron Age reaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The truth of the Incarnation is inviolate. Everything else is Iron Age reaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

---

Again, the "red letter rubric" could be applied either way-- and has been by those who advocate it. My argument for gospels over Paul (to the extent you need such a rubric-- see below) is based on my belief that the gospel writers, while later than Paul, are providing an authentic record of what Jesus truly said & did. Which would make the gospels "closer to the Christ event" in terms of content if not chronology. Of course, if you don't share my assumption you're not going to share my conclusion.

---

It's not at all obvious to me that the Gospels preserve an accurate, unbiased record of the actual historical Jesus free from the embellishments and glosses of intervening oral tradition, and Paul's letters seem more concerned as a general rule with establishing how believers should gather and behave in community than with recording authentic memories of Jesus (whom, after all, Paul had never himself met). However, asking whether Paul or the Gospels offer a more unvarnished and accurate picture of the historical Jesus may also be something of a red herring. I do think the Gospels offer a more mature and fully-developed witness than Paul does to how the early Church came to understand Jesus -- which, for members of the 21st-century Church today, is probably a more appropriate criterion anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The Gospels and Epistles serve different purposes. The Gospels ensure that an authentic record of the words and actions of Jesus survive. The Epistles build upon those stories to develop the structure of the Christian faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think I would start with two observations.

First, the Gospels appear to have been written at a time when the original witnesses were passing on, and it was felt to be important to record their accounts of what Jesus said and did. If this is the case, then there must have been a recognition that these accounts were important, and therefore they were almost certainly being repeated orally when the church met, and may have been written down in now lost documents.

Second, as noted, with a few exceptions the Epistles do not repeat stories of what Jesus said and did. On the few occasions they do (eg: Paul reporting the events of the Last Supper or witnesses to the resurrection) these correspond to the Gospel accounts. The purpose of the Epistles, evidenced by what they actually contain, is different from passing on the stories of what Jesus said and did. Given the evidence above that these stories were important, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the Epistles didn't need to repeat these because they were already well known by the recipients of these letters.

The Gospels and Epistles serve different purposes. The Gospels ensure that an authentic record of the words and actions of Jesus survive. The Epistles build upon those stories to develop the structure of the Christian faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The Gospels and Epistles serve different purposes. The Gospels ensure that an authentic record of the words and actions of Jesus survive. The Epistles build upon those stories to develop the structure of the Christian faith.

---

Can you expand on this? What do you mean developing the structure of the Christian faith? You don't think the gospels do this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah G:

quote:

---

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels

---

Q

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I'm concerned at least, you're going to have to make your point with more than single letters of the alphabet...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

Studies have shown that in such a society, stories are handed down with far greater accuracy than they would be nowadays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
That's part of the Incarnation.

The still, then (by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Junia, James, Peter, Jude, Jesus) and now, held sacred texts that the epistles begin to transcend mark the end of the Iron Age. So their thinking is embedded there. As it still is for most Christians to one degree or another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

Studies have shown that in such a society, stories are handed down with far greater accuracy than they would be nowadays.

---

This is a popular belief, especially among amateur scriptural apologists, but recent scholarly anthropological research suggests it is not true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The written texts exist and they inform the oral transmission of a story; they tend to prevent it from changing as much as it probably would if no written texts existed. And yet the written texts themselves are likely to be descended from oral texts, and they are themselves intended for oral performance, and they may suffer corruption/cross pollination from oral sources.

Purely oral societies have certain safeguards such as formulas they use repeatedly in the same situation (e.g. Homer's "wine dark sea"). They also tend to have better trained memories. Literate societies also have safeguards such as the Jewish strictures on how one copies the Torah. The early church is likely to have had safeguards on the stories from both sources, being an in-between craft-literate society with deep Jewish roots. I really would not assume the text altered very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The written texts exist and they inform the oral transmission of a story; they tend to prevent it from changing as much as it probably would if no written texts existed. And yet the written texts themselves are likely to be descended from oral texts, and they are themselves intended for oral performance, and they may suffer corruption/cross pollination from oral sources.

Purely oral societies have certain safeguards such as formulas they use repeatedly in the same situation (e.g. Homer's "wine dark sea"). They also tend to have better trained memories. Literate societies also have safeguards such as the Jewish strictures on how one copies the Torah. The early church is likely to have had safeguards on the stories from both sources, being an in-between craft-literate society with deep Jewish roots. I really would not assume the text altered very much.

---

I disagree that the earliest Christians enjoyed such protections. The early church was comprised entirely of converts -- and more pagans than Jews, thanks to Paul, who couldn't help bringing vestiges of their old pagan religious ways of thinking into their new faith -- almost all of whom who had no direct personal contact with or knowledge of Jesus during his lifetime. The biographical information about him was being passed around entirely by word of mouth, in piecemeal fashion, and had not yet become fixed, much less collected and written down (the Gospels represent the earliest surviving result of the efforts to construct a written record), and the church communities that were being established were too new and immature to have developed the kind of formal mnemonic structures and practices that protect against alteration of critically important orally communicated information. The purpose of Paul's epistles was to provide guidance on the most challenging issues for the governance and operation of these newly planted churches, so the absence of any such instruction in the epistles about the transmission of biographical information about Jesus is further evidence that no such protections existed.

Moreover, the existence of non-canonical literature such as the "New Testament Apocrypha" and the Nag Hammadi library clearly demonstrate that that many contrasting -- and often contradictory -- stories and legends and theologies were circulating among the early Christians at the same time as the canonical Gospels. The non-canonical documents draw from the same oral source traditions as the canonical ones, but they demonstrate how diverse rather than consistent those traditions in fact were.

We do see the more pronounced effect of such protections in transmission of written documents after they were set down. The many surviving early manuscripts of the same documents are relatively consistent; for example, copies of (say) Mark or Luke separated by several hundred years in age are nevertheless more consistent with each other than with the other Gospels. Yet the numerous discrepancies among early manuscripts also show that even the more formal written scribal traditions were not foolproof safeguards against inadvertent or even intentional alteration.

The orthodox written canon did not begin to coalesce until the late 2nd century and did not take its final form until the 4th. The Gospels are not necessarily accurate factual biographies of Jesus, but they are an accurate witness of the mature 4th century Church as to which of the late 1st century (and subsequent) beliefs about Jesus were deemed to be most consistent with 4th century consensus theology.

Which, it may be argued, in any event is a more meaningful criterion of authority for the 21st century follower of the "Christ of faith" than an accurate factual biography of the "historical Jesus" would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

Studies have shown that in such a society, stories are handed down with far greater accuracy than they would be nowadays.

---

This is a popular belief, especially among amateur scriptural apologists, but recent scholarly anthropological research suggests it is not true.

---

I would like to know the details of this recent scholarly anthropological research. Were they researching present-day societies? If so, I doubt that the few modern societies that are illiterate are nearly as sophisticated as that of ancient Palestine.

If they are trying to reconstruct the conditions that prevailed two thousand centuries ago, I want to know in detail how they reached their conclusions.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to have to wait until a more leisured moment to reply to most of your post, but I'd like to note now that the early church was not in fact composed entirely of converts--at least, they certainly would have disputed that with you vigorously. The earliest church was composed entirely of Jews who believed their Messiah had come and therefore considered themselves to be following precisely in the path their fathers began, following the God of Israel. They continued to take part in the corporate worship of Israel (witness Acts) and did not consider themselves to have converted to anything. Moreover, the Gentiles didn't come into the earliest church for quite a long time--and it was Peter, not Paul, who (humanly speaking) opened that door decisively with the conversion of Cornelius and his household.

Given these facts, the earliest church no doubt DID inherit all the Jewish safeguards against the corruption of sacred texts, whether Old or New Testament, written or oral. They would have been their ordinary and habitual mode of operation. And being convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and in fact God incarnate, they would certainly have taken great care with the oral transmission of the facts about his life and work--these were, after all, the basis of their own salvation. Once these were written down (first century, judging by the historical evidence), they would have applied the same written-text safeguards they were accustomed to applying in the case of OT material. That was just how they rolled.

More about canon and variants later, but for the moment I'll just note that there is an astonishing degree of uniformity among the manuscripts of the New Testament books--and yes, I am a (very minor) textual scholar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

Studies have shown that in such a society, stories are handed down with far greater accuracy than they would be nowadays.

---

This is a popular belief, especially among amateur scriptural apologists, but recent scholarly anthropological research suggests it is not true.

---

I would like to know the details of this recent scholarly anthropological research.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I would like to know the details of this recent scholarly anthropological research. Were they researching present-day societies? If so, I doubt that the few modern societies that are illiterate are nearly as sophisticated as that of ancient Palestine.

If they are trying to reconstruct the conditions that prevailed two thousand centuries ago, I want to know in detail how they reached their conclusions.

Moo

---

The chairs of the anthropology department at the U. of Kansas and the folklore department at the U. of North Carolina are both college classmates and personal friends of mine. They haven't pointed me to specific research articles, but they have assured me that it is has been the consensus opinion of anthropology scholars over at least the past 50 years that there is no difference between literate and illiterate societies in the communication of oral information, except in cases where formal social structures exist for the preservation of especially revered cultural histories and legends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
What makes you believe that there were no formal social structures in the early church for the preservation of revered cultural histories? People who had been present when Jesus taught or healed would have told their fellow Christians about it. These stories would immediately have become especially revered cultural histories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I still want to know what specific cultures were studied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
My field is linguistics, and this topic is an area where linguistics and anthropology overlap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
My field is linguistics, and this topic is an area where linguistics and anthropology overlap.

---

Okay, so one of Ehrman's simpler points is that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek by Greek speakers. That all by itself is an argument against, rather than for, care for precision and accuracy within the early Church.

A specific example of linguistic evidence against accurate historicity that he cites is the dialogue in John 3 between Jesus and Nicodemus concerning being "born again". The Greek word translated into English as "again" is anothen, which (Ehrman says) can ambiguously mean either "again" or "from above". In John's telling, Nicodemus is confused by the ambiguity and Jesus clarifies it. However, in Aramaic the word for "again" has no such double meaning. Since Jesus and Nicodemus were both Jewish rabbis who would have spoken to each other in Aramaic rather than Greek (Ehrman argues), the ambiguity and need for clarification would not have arisen; and the tale must therefore have originated as a later legend among Greek-speaking Christian converts, rather than as an authentic memory of an actual event in Jesus's life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
My field is linguistics, and this topic is an area where linguistics and anthropology overlap.

---

Okay, so one of Ehrman's simpler points is that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek by Greek speakers. That all by itself is an argument against, rather than for, care for precision and accuracy within the early Church.

A specific example of linguistic evidence against accurate historicity that he cites is the dialogue in John 3 between Jesus and Nicodemus concerning being "born again". The Greek word translated into English as "again" is anothen, which (Ehrman says) can ambiguously mean either "again" or "from above". In John's telling, Nicodemus is confused by the ambiguity and Jesus clarifies it. However, in Aramaic the word for "again" has no such double meaning. Since Jesus and Nicodemus were both Jewish rabbis who would have spoken to each other in Aramaic rather than Greek (Ehrman argues), the ambiguity and need for clarification would not have arisen; and the tale must therefore have originated as a later legend among Greek-speaking Christian converts, rather than as an authentic memory of an actual event in Jesus's life.

---

But Nick's confusion wasn't about the meaning of the word. He doesn't ask, "do you mean from above or again?" He asks, "How can a man enter into his mother's womb a second time?" -- He KNEW Jesus meant "again" and wondered how it was possible. Your "evidence" is no such thing. It's manufacturing a difficulty where none exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And, even if it did exist, why would the specific reference be no more than a Johannine insertion by way of explanation? One doesn't have to reject the entire story as "legendary".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I fail to see how an ambiguity in Greek means Jesus was ambiguous in Aramaic. Are you saying that there is am unambiguous Greek word the translator might have used, but thru foolishly used the ambiguous one? Or is it just unfortunate that there was no way in Greek to unambiguously translate the unambiguous Aramaic word?

The problem with all such analysis is that it is quite clear from context which of the two possible meanings of the Greek word is meant. Nicodemus' follow-up question makes it crystal clear what and what Nicodemus took Jesus to mean.

tl;dr--What's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All of which tends to suggest, to me at least, that this is a story that originated from Aramaic, and hence is based on actual words of Jesus, but has been adapted to expound a theological message. John is much more obvious in this than the Synoptics, but I believe that all the Gospels adapt the stories to clarify and expand on the theological message rather than simply record events.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All of which tends to suggest, to me at least, that this is a story that originated from Aramaic, and hence is based on actual words of Jesus, but has been adapted to expound a theological message. John is much more obvious in this than the Synoptics, but I believe that all the Gospels adapt the stories to clarify and expand on the theological message rather than simply record events.

---

I'd go along with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
As to 1 Peter, most scholars today do not think it was actually written by Peter, but rather, that it was written some time later ...
it seems unlikely that Peter himself would have known how to write, much less in Greek.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
As to 1 Peter, most scholars today do not think it was actually written by Peter, but rather, that it was written some time later ...
it seems unlikely that Peter himself would have known how to write, much less in Greek.

---

Though, within the context of a thread discussing how the Epistles and Gospels relate the exact authorship of any document (whether Epistle or Gospel) is not directly relevant. Though, a late Epistle may be expected to draw upon a larger number of stories of Jesus (assuming that over time each community slowly learnt more and more stories), and for very late Epistles may even draw on the Gospels themselves. So, timing of the Epistles relative to the Gospels may be relevant.

It is, of course, totally irrelevant whether or not a given author could write Greek. He simply needed to be able to speak Greek inorder to dictate to a scribe (and, any of the people who preached outside Judea would be able to speak Greek, otherwise they wouldn't be able to communicate the gospel). It is evident that Paul was only marginally able to write, making a point on the few occasions in his letters that he writes with his own hand how bad his handwriting is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
I get the sense that you and I would be in broad agreement that (1) the Gospels draw on subjectively remembered and retold oral hearsay circulating among Jesus's admirers, few if any of whom had direct first-hand knowledge of the actual events they were describing,

---

quote:

---

and (2) are each written from the subjective, even if earnest and well-intentioned, perspective of their respective authors; but nevertheless, (3) despite flaws in their historicity, the Gospels also represent the most reliable surviving witness to the life and teachings of Jesus, and (4) through the centuries have consistently offered to Christians an authoritative composite portrait of the "Christ of faith".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They aren't even close to biography in the sense we would understand that term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Going back to my original point, though, I would also say that the Epistles also present the Christ of Faith, even though they contain very little that would be statements of what Jesus said and did. In addressing the issues and struggles of the early church the Epistles also have an influence on how the Church understood the person and work of Christ, and influenced the formation of the "Christ of Faith" that the Gospels subsequently portray.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
It is a matter of unquestioned historical fact that it took 400 years or so for the early Christians to reach an orthodox consensus as to what they believed about Jesus

---

quote:

---

The idea that during the earliest decades there existed only a single, commonly accepted, uniform oral tradition that was preserved by institutional and social conventions against corruption or innovation is simply counterfactual. If that were true, there could never have arisen such a diverse variety of views, nor fully-developed orthodox theological concepts such as the Trinity and substitutionary atonement, nor the need to spend so much energy the first four centuries developing and implementing standard ideas of orthodoxy and heresy. ...The canon (including the four canonical gospels) is the safeguarded product of a fourth-century consensus of belief, not a first-century collection of well-preserved facts.

---

quote:

---

My anthropology/folklore professor friends...

---

quote:

---

The sort of institutional and social safeguards you speak of did eventually arise, though.

---

quote:

---

Speaking of which, I in turn also still want to know which studies (if any) show that illiterate societies routinely transmit oral information more accurately than we do today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah G:
Jan Vansina's "Oral Tradition as History" is the seminal work here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we're probably missing the point if we try to compare the oral transmission of the stories about Jesus with pre-literate societies employing specially constructed methods of maintaining the exact details of tribal history and ancestry. Those methods exist because the exact detail of ancestry and tribal history was very important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As an evangelical, I've got a high view of inspiration, which I think also fits with a scholarly understanding of the transmission of oral traditions in preliterate societies, so I'm going to say the gospel writers got it right. So, while chronologically they were written later than the epistles, if they are the authentic words and acts of Jesus they are "closer" to the Christ-event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
As I said before, these kinds of anthropological studies...
<snip>
...Yet the kinds of social and mnemonic practices that prevent (for example) the African griots Vansina studied from misremembering the names and order of tribal ancestors were simply not present in the earliest Christian churches.

---

quote:

---

The Jerusalem church, whose leaders and members might have been closest to Jesus and have possessed the most and clearest direct memories of him, had little lasting influence on the emerging growth and traditions of Christianity... secondhand hearsay or gossip...

---

quote:

---

If there were any valid analogy to be drawn between Vansina's work on accurately preserved African oral traditions and early Christianity...
<snip>
...yet nothing whatsoever that was gathered into the New Testament canon (gospels or otherwise) is written in Aramaic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
The orthodox written canon did not begin to coalesce until the late 2nd century and did not take its final form until the 4th. The Gospels are not necessarily accurate factual biographies of Jesus, but they are an accurate witness of the mature 4th century Church as to which of the late 1st century (and subsequent) beliefs about Jesus were deemed to be most consistent with 4th century consensus theology.

---

quote:

---

The decisive boundary-markers for the canon have already been erected by Irenaeus by 180, for around this time a con- sensus already exists from Gaul, through Rome and Carthage, over to Alexandria. The Baur school erred in its dating of the New Testament writings, and Lightfoot, Harnack, and others set this right. On the whole, we have no extracanonical writings that are older than the essential New Testament ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Here is the original assertion, emphasized in italics, that I have been objecting to:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As an evangelical, I've got a high view of inspiration, which I think also fits with a scholarly understanding of the transmission of oral traditions in preliterate societies, so I'm going to say the gospel writers got it right. So, while chronologically they were written later than the epistles, if they are the authentic words and acts of Jesus they are "closer" to the Christ-event.

---

Note that Cliffdweller is justifying her "red-letter" hermeneutic both on the notion that preliterate societies are especially adept at preserving oral traditions, and on the notion that the Gospels are spiritually "inspired" in an especially reliable way.

The only thing I am objecting to is the premise that in the earliest churches there was an oral tradition fixed enough and mature enough, as well as social and mnemonic stuctures that were effective enough and widely enough practiced, that the means of preserving oral traditions that cultural anthropologists have observed in preliterate societies would have successfully safeguarded memories of Jesus that were being passed down through word-of-mouth against exaggeration, embellishment, or revision.

---

quote:

---

I would probably state that part of her argument more strongly than she does by relying on a "lower" but I think broader concept of inspiration, and say that the inspiration of the authors renders the Gospel texts reliable as religious authority for faith formation and belief, even though it did not protect their sources from developing factual inaccuracies, and even though such inaccuracies render them less reliable as objective history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Nevertheless, the Gospels are still the best record we have of what Jesus said and did. Therefore for a "red letter" approach, which favours the actual teaching of Jesus above that of His followers and the earlier prophets, they are the only place to turn.

quote:

---

I would probably state that part of her argument more strongly than she does by relying on a "lower" but I think broader concept of inspiration, and say that the inspiration of the authors renders the Gospel texts reliable as religious authority for faith formation and belief, even though it did not protect their sources from developing factual inaccuracies, and even though such inaccuracies render them less reliable as objective history.

---

To echo what I've just said, I don't think "objective history" was the intent of the authors of the Gospels, nor indeed the early Church as it retold the stories of Jesus. The intent is much more to present the Christ of Faith, as understood by the communities that the authors of the Gospels belonged to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

Further, the evidence is that there was very little change in the substance of the texts between Irenaus and the 4th century.

So, the consensus of the 4th century church was in fact, notwithstanding the intervening ferment, an acceptance of the same documents in the same form which were largely accepted by the 2nd Century church as having been already established by then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
But then again, George Washington died in 1799, and when I was growing up in the mid-20th century, only 150 years later, it was already received as "gospel truth" in the oral tradition surrounding American heroes that as a child he admitted chopping down his father's cherry tree, and that as a young man he threw a silver dollar across the mile-wide Potomac River.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
But then again, George Washington died in 1799, and when I was growing up in the mid-20th century, only 150 years later, it was already received as "gospel truth" in the oral tradition surrounding American heroes that as a child he admitted chopping down his father's cherry tree, and that as a young man he threw a silver dollar across the mile-wide Potomac River.

---

No. Many people knew that the cherry tree story was made up by Parson Weems in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates, which is morally and spiritually reliable....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates, which is morally and spiritually reliable....

---

What exactly does that mean in plain English? (and no, "culmination of the spiratual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates" is not plain English. "Narrates" for a narrative rather than a person writing a narrative isn't even standard English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we're probably missing the point if we try to compare the oral transmission of the stories about Jesus with pre-literate societies employing specially constructed methods of maintaining the exact details of tribal history and ancestry. Those methods exist because the exact detail of ancestry and tribal history was very important.

---

Again, I agree with you.

The most important meaning of the Gospels is in the overall portrait they paint of Jesus as he came to be remembered within a few decades after his death, not in the precise historical accuracy of their specific details. However, it was argued earlier that the Gospels must be historically accurate because illiterate societies preserve oral tradition more accurately than literate societies, and that it is this historical accuracy which gives them their presumptive reliability. It is this essentially anthropological argument that I am trying to refute.

The traditional position of the Church has always been that the canonical Gospels are reliable because the Holy Spirit guided their composition, not because the earliest Christians possessed any especial cultural adeptness at protecting orally transmitted information against the natural propensity for alteration across time and distance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
You initially quote cliffdweller and her evangelical high view of inspiration. I have a post-evangelical low view, which is of course higher

---

I think "high view" and "low view" are misleading.

To me a "high view" of Scripture does not equate to a literalist or inerrantist view, but to the respect one accords to the texts that have come down to us regardless of how one interprets them.

I hang out with some people who are much more theologically liberal than my evangelical brethren who take the content of the Scriptures much more seriously than the former, even if they come to different conclusions.

Not least, by not making blanket statements such as "Paul was WRONG" or "it's ALL got to go"

I concede that some purportedly "high view" evangelicals are as dismissive the other way, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The written texts exist and they inform the oral transmission of a story; they tend to prevent it from changing as much as it probably would if no written texts existed. And yet the written texts themselves are likely to be descended from oral texts, and they are themselves intended for oral performance, and they may suffer corruption/cross pollination from oral sources.

Purely oral societies have certain safeguards such as formulas they use repeatedly in the same situation (e.g. Homer's "wine dark sea"). They also tend to have better trained memories. Literate societies also have safeguards such as the Jewish strictures on how one copies the Torah. The early church is likely to have had safeguards on the stories from both sources, being an in-between craft-literate society with deep Jewish roots. I really would not assume the text altered very much.

---

I disagree that the earliest Christians enjoyed such protections. The early church was comprised entirely of converts -- and more pagans than Jews, thanks to Paul, who couldn't help bringing vestiges of their old pagan religious ways of thinking into their new faith -- almost all of whom who had no direct personal contact with or knowledge of Jesus during his lifetime. The biographical information about him was being passed around entirely by word of mouth, in piecemeal fashion, and had not yet become fixed, much less collected and written down (the Gospels represent the earliest surviving result of the efforts to construct a written record), and the church communities that were being established were too new and immature to have developed the kind of formal mnemonic structures and practices that protect against alteration of critically important orally communicated information. The purpose of Paul's epistles was to provide guidance on the most challenging issues for the governance and operation of these newly planted churches, so the absence of any such instruction in the epistles about the transmission of biographical information about Jesus is further evidence that no such protections existed.

Moreover, the existence of non-canonical literature such as the "New Testament Apocrypha" and the Nag Hammadi library clearly demonstrate that that many contrasting -- and often contradictory -- stories and legends and theologies were circulating among the early Christians at the same time as the canonical Gospels. The non-canonical documents draw from the same oral source traditions as the canonical ones, but they demonstrate how diverse rather than consistent those traditions in fact were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
What makes you believe that there were no formal social structures in the early church for the preservation of revered cultural histories? People who had been present when Jesus taught or healed would have told their fellow Christians about it. These stories would immediately have become especially revered cultural histories.

---

No offense, but that's nonsense. It is a matter of unquestioned historical fact that it took 400 years or so for the early Christians to reach an orthodox consensus as to what they believed about Jesus, to canonize an orthodox collection of writings consistent with their beliefs, and to purge all the contradictory beliefs and writings (and believers) that had sprung up in the meantime. During that time not only the canonical Gospels were set to paper out of the emerging oral (proto-)tradition, but also dozens of others, many of which were starkly contradictory in narrative, in theology, or both. We know what many of those contradictory beliefs and writings were, because they survive to this -- a few as actively held dissenting beliefs (such as Arianism, modalism, universalism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism), even more in the documented historical record. We know who many of the heterodox believers were, and that they had been members and often leaders in the Church in good standing up until the point when they were eventually anathemized.

The idea that during the earliest decades there existed only a single, commonly accepted, uniform oral tradition that was preserved by institutional and social conventions against corruption or innovation is simply counterfactual. If that were true, there could never have arisen such a diverse variety of views, nor fully-developed orthodox theological concepts such as the Trinity and substitutionary atonement, nor the need to spend so much energy the first four centuries developing and implementing standard ideas of orthodoxy and heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I am happy for my evangelical pov to be considered a "high view" of inspiration, but would hope that it's clear that I do not hold a literalist or inerrantist view. And perhaps even more hopeful that I don't come across as dismissive of those with other perspectives. **cliffie looks quizzically at her buddy fausto for the answer on that one...**

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).

---

quote:

---

It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.

My 2 cents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates,

---

quote:

---

which is morally and spiritually reliable -- and which in turn offers a valid interpretive lens through which to try to understand and harmonize other difficult or seemingly contradictory passages of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I may be wrong (and at this precise moment don't have access to my books to check), but I think that if we limit ourselves to the Gospels, rather than the entire NT canon, then that consensus on which of the various Gospels in circulation were considered authoritative happened even earlier than for the Epistles (and Revelation which took a very long time to be universally recognised as canonical - if it actually is universally recognised even today).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).

---

This seems like a very odd thing to state so confidently. An alternative narrative of the development of the canon suggests that certain influential collectors ultimately had a big impact on the proto-orthodox in later generations. Indeed, from what we can tell the heretic Marcion was the only early leader who had a NT booklist which is approaching the one we accept today. Almost everyone else we know of included or excluded books, including notoriously the (bloody ridiculous, grrr) Shepherd of Hermes.

So, I think it is a reasonable position to refute what you've said here and to say that the reason it looks like there was early consensus is because we tend to telescope backwards from our accepted canon and focus on those books which appeared on various early lists and say "ah ha! look, consensus", ignoring all the differences.

quote:

---

It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.

My 2 cents.

---

I honestly believe this is about perception mixed in with a big dollop of preciousness about our accepted NT canon. A simple reality may be that there were a whole load of "Christianities" floating around in the first centuries which used a wide variety of books. In later years a proto-orthodox "party" was able to take control of the thinking of the whole movement at which point the written history of divergent Christian histories was burned or buried. This certainly seems to be why the Nag Hammadi collection was preserved.

Whether this theory is true or whether - as you claim above - there was consensus early on and all the other books were always left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos is impossible to tell from this distance. It certainly isn't just a case of "falling into error", it is a matter of belief and opinion as to the best explanation of the available facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).

---

This seems like a very odd thing to state so confidently. An alternative narrative of the development of the canon suggests that certain influential collectors ultimately had a big impact on the proto-orthodox in later generations. Indeed, from what we can tell the heretic Marcion was the only early leader who had a NT booklist which is approaching the one we accept today. Almost everyone else we know of included or excluded books, including notoriously the (bloody ridiculous, grrr) Shepherd of Hermes.

So, I think it is a reasonable position to refute what you've said here and to say that the reason it looks like there was early consensus is because we tend to telescope backwards from our accepted canon and focus on those books which appeared on various early lists and say "ah ha! look, consensus", ignoring all the differences.

quote:

---

It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.

My 2 cents.

---

I honestly believe this is about perception mixed in with a big dollop of preciousness about our accepted NT canon. A simple reality may be that there were a whole load of "Christianities" floating around in the first centuries which used a wide variety of books. In later years a proto-orthodox "party" was able to take control of the thinking of the whole movement at which point the written history of divergent Christian histories was burned or buried. This certainly seems to be why the Nag Hammadi collection was preserved.

Whether this theory is true or whether - as you claim above - there was consensus early on and all the other books were always left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos is impossible to tell from this distance. It certainly isn't just a case of "falling into error", it is a matter of belief and opinion as to the best explanation of the available facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Except for the speculation about how the heterodox written material disappeared, I agree with everything mr cheesy says here. But we do know that it took the orthodox party several centuries to successfully suppress all the heterodox positions that it deemed heretical. The fact that they deemed it necessary and worked so hard and so long to do it speaks loudly to just how prevalent and enduring these alternative positions were. We don't know how much of their written material didn't survive, but we do know that there was a lot of it and that it was suppressed somehow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Where I think I would express things differently is the "they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates". The Gospels certainly present and interpretive portrait of Jesus, one that is the interpretation of the Christian communities that the different Gospel authors are part of. Where I would part company with you is that those communities do not, themselves, form part of the Biblical narrative - in some cases we have a very brief description of their foundation in Acts, or some letters addressing issues they were facing, all of which relate to points in their history decades before the Gospels are written. Second, I wouldn't say the Gospels represent the culmination of their journey, the Gospels are written at a particular point in that journey when it became important to commit the oral history they had to writing to prevent embellishment of the stories they had, and to produce an authoritive record of which stories they considered to be important - and, by exclusion, those they considered either unimportant or inauthentic. The histories of those early Christian communities continued after the Gospels were written, the spiritual journey of the Church is still ongoing and has yet to reach a culmination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


An alternate way to look at the loss of alternate writings would simply be that they are a victim of what happened to virtually all writings from the ancient era. The NT is exception in part simply because we DO have so many documents from the ancient era. This doesn't happen for very many ancient documents, simply because preserving documents from that era took considerable effort/resources-- something like what we see with the monks where an entire institution is devoting resources to supporting someone who's entire job is simply to preserve a copy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here is a helpful table.
To me this just shows that there was considerable disagreement on the canon right up until post AD 400.

---

quote:

---

... the fact that when quoting I John Didymus refers to it as the Epistle of John and not the First Epistle of John must mean that he did not accept the canonical status of II and III John.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An alternate way to look at the loss of alternate writings would simply be that they are a victim of what happened to virtually all writings from the ancient era. The NT is exception in part simply because we DO have so many documents from the ancient era. This doesn't happen for very many ancient documents, simply because preserving documents from that era took considerable effort/resources-- something like what we see with the monks where an entire institution is devoting resources to supporting someone who's entire job is simply to preserve a copy. The alternate writings simply weren't deemed worthy to any sizeable group to devote that degree of resources to. Again, not because they were necessarily "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos" but simply because they weren't sacred Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, not because they were necessarily "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos" but simply because they weren't sacred Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course "scripture" just means sacred writings, so it isn't a given that those in the early centuries understood the term differently to the way we'd use it now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course "scripture" just means sacred writings, so it isn't a given that those in the early centuries understood the term differently to the way we'd use it now.

---

Sorry, I meant it isn't a given that the term "scripture" was used as we do now. Hopefully I've not added confusion on that point!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, I would agree that the terms are imprecise and vary from era to era, denomination/tradition to denomination/tradition, and person to person.

But the point remains: a rather sizable community felt strongly enough about the 27 books of the NT to devote considerable resources to insure that they were preserved. We don't know what they thought/felt/believed about the alternate writings-- whether they thought them "pretty good", "silly rubbish" or "out right heresy." But we do know that they didn't choose to devote the same level of resources to preserving those documents that they did to the canonical writings. Whether you want to call that difference "Scripture" or "authoritative" or something else, the fact remains, that difference in use of resources is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy in the preservation of these ancient documents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
They ALL privately think that Eutychus.

---

"Do not judge another man's sevant..." Or is that one of the bits of Paul that's got to go?

quote:

---

The truth of the Incarnation is inviolate. Everything else is Iron Age reaction.

---

I'm sorry, I still don't get this ring-fencing of the Incarnation from any form of criticism, deconstruction, or reinterpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
That's part of the Incarnation.

The still, then (by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Junia, James, Peter, Jude, Jesus) and now, held sacred texts that the epistles begin to transcend mark the end of the Iron Age. So their thinking is embedded there. As it still is for most Christians to one degree or another.

---

I still don't understand how you can be so sure that the Pauline epistles require deconstruction such that they are incontrovertibly and henceforth "wrong" for all subsequent time - AND be convinced that the Incarnation and the narratives of it are, albeit deconstructible, never going to be "wrong".

Unless it is by having the same kind of belief in supernatural preservation of integrity for the Gospels that more conservative Christians would also extend to the rest of the NT, Paul included.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
That's part of the Incarnation.

The still, then (by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Junia, James, Peter, Jude, Jesus) and now, held sacred texts that the epistles begin to transcend mark the end of the Iron Age. So their thinking is embedded there. As it still is for most Christians to one degree or another.

---

I still don't understand how you can be so sure that the Pauline epistles require deconstruction such that they are incontrovertibly and henceforth "wrong" for all subsequent time - AND be convinced that the Incarnation and the narratives of it are, albeit deconstructible, never going to be "wrong".

Unless it is by having the same kind of belief in supernatural preservation of integrity for the Gospels that more conservative Christians would also extend to the rest of the NT, Paul included.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If we're agreeing that there was a gradual erosion of the available books into the canon over 400+ years, then I'd agree that this seems to fit the evidence - but then this seems to be in full contrast to the idea that there was early agreement and consensus as to what was quote unquote "scripture".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And I just don't follow your logic given that the Shepherd of Hermes seems to have such a lot of support by so many for such a long time…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
This handy table, linked to above, shows four authorities citing Hermas with approval, five querying/disputing it, and the remaining seven not mentioning it at all. It clearly had some currency, but "such a lot of support be so many for such long time" seems to me to overstate things a bit.

---

quote:

---

Well again, given how many authorities that've found from the 4th century endorsing the inclusion of Hermas…

---

quote:

---

In the fourth century there are still indications that some Christian circles regarded the Shepherd of Hermas as an authoritative Christian text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, I would agree that the terms are imprecise and vary from era to era, denomination/tradition to denomination/tradition, and person to person.

But the point remains: a rather sizable community felt strongly enough about the 27 books of the NT to devote considerable resources to insure that they were preserved. We don't know what they thought/felt/believed about the alternate writings-- whether they thought them "pretty good", "silly rubbish" or "out right heresy." But we do know that they didn't choose to devote the same level of resources to preserving those documents that they did to the canonical writings. Whether you want to call that difference "Scripture" or "authoritative" or something else, the fact remains, that difference in use of resources is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy in the preservation of these ancient documents.

---

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The facts appear to be that there were a range of writings available in the first few centuries AD and that early influential people we know of had a range of opinions regarding the writings which were worth keeping. And, presumably, these are a smaller selection of the writings that were in circulation before Marcion (apparently) set the tone with the idea of codifying them into a useful library.

If we're agreeing that there was a gradual erosion of the available books into the canon over 400+ years, then I'd agree that this seems to fit the evidence - but then this seems to be in full contrast to the idea that there was early agreement and consensus as to what was quote unquote "scripture".

And I just don't follow your logic given that the Shepherd of Hermes seems to have such a lot of support by so many for such a long time. At some point there must have been a decision that Hermes was a load of crap (which I'd totally support, it is) and that all the other authorities in previous generations - who let's not forget we're lauding as being able to use divine inspiration to keep the "correct" canon - dropped the ball in that instance. If we're not saying that, then I can't see what basis we're using to keep Hermes out of our (evangelical) NTs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So there is no Aramaic equivalent for 'born again'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
One problem with Ehrman's argument is that he takes Nicodemus' confusion to be caused by the meaning of a word, and not by the simple fact that Jesus said, in whatever language, something amazing and impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But you're not thick. The chapter functions perfectly well, both Jesus' statement and Nicodemus' amazement, even if we magically whisked away the "from above" meaning of anothen. Nothing in their interaction depends on that meaning. In fact, Nicodemus's amazement makes it clear that the meaning he has in mind (Greek OR Aramaic) is "again", and "from above" can go hang as far as he's concerned. It's only us onlookers (onreaders?) who get the extra benefit of the pun.

So if they spoke only in Aramaic, and the pun only existed in Greek, it would not invalidate the story. Nicodemus is reacting to a single outrageous meaning; the fact that John, or the Holy Spirit, chooses to layer on extra meaning when rendering it in Greek is no skin off Nicodemus' nose. The main point (again) was always clear.

Unless anyone is arguing that Jesus did not intend the "again" meaning at all?

---

• This is a pun
• It is a pun which works only in Greek
• Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek
• Therefore this is not a report of authentic teaching of Jesus

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This says to me absolutely nothing about the oral transmission of this story, which all took place BEFORE the pun was introduced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Do you need to cut out that middle 's' from periscope BroJames?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This says to me absolutely nothing about the oral transmission of this story, which all took place BEFORE the pun was introduced.

---

I would have expected that the story had been translated into Greek, including the word that could potentially be a pun, very early on. This would have been necessary to tell the story to the Gentile believers (and, probably even some of the Jews from outside Judea) who would not be able to understand Aramaic. For the majority of time between the actual conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus the oral transmission would have been of the Greek version of the story, not the Aramaic.

Though, it still tells us nothing about the transmission of the story - what John wrote could still have been a very accurate reproduction of that first translation to Greek, or a very substantial variation on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This says to me absolutely nothing about the oral transmission of this story, which all took place BEFORE the pun was introduced.

---

I would have expected that the story had been translated into Greek, including the word that could potentially be a pun, very early on. This would have been necessary to tell the story to the Gentile believers (and, probably even some of the Jews from outside Judea) who would not be able to understand Aramaic. For the majority of time between the actual conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus the oral transmission would have been of the Greek version of the story, not the Aramaic.

Though, it still tells us nothing about the transmission of the story - what John wrote could still have been a very accurate reproduction of that first translation to Greek, or a very substantial variation on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Yes, but while it is possible that the Greek could be read as a pun, or at least a play on words, in fact the text gives us no reason to suppose that a play on words is intended. The Greek word is a perfectly ordinary word for again or anew.

Ehrman's argument seems to be:

• This is a pun
• It is a pun which works only in Greek
• Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek
• Therefore this is not a report of authentic teaching of Jesus

What many of us here are challenging is his first premise. We do not agree that there is a pun. If Ehrman's wrong about that then this periscope is not evidence for his wider thesis about St John's Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
If Ehrman's wrong about that then this periscope is not evidence for his wider thesis about St John's Gospel.

---

quote:

---

It provokes confusion in Nicodemus, and a responsive clarification from Jesus, that would not have occurred if they had been speaking less ambiguously in Aramaic.

---

quote:

---

A specific example of linguistic evidence against accurate historicity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Yes, but while it is possible that the Greek could be read as a pun, or at least a play on words, in fact the text gives us no reason to suppose that a play on words is intended. The Greek word is a perfectly ordinary word for again or anew.

Ehrman's argument seems to be:

• This is a pun
• It is a pun which works only in Greek
• Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek
• Therefore this is not a report of authentic teaching of Jesus

What many of us here are challenging is his first premise. We do not agree that there is a pun. If Ehrman's wrong about that then this periscope is not evidence for his wider thesis about St John's Gospel.

---

Ehrman's argument is not simply that the word itself with its double meaning (I don't think it's meant as a pun) only occurs in Greek; it's that the ensuing events as narrated by John also occur only because of the ambiguity of the word in Greek. It provokes confusion in Nicodemus, and a responsive clarification from Jesus, that would not have occurred if they had been speaking less ambiguously in Aramaic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
I think we have gotten way too bogged down in obsessing over this single passage. It's just one verse that he uses as an example, not the touchstone of his entire thesis. There are many other clues in all the Gospels to support a wider thesis that they were written primarily to present an interpretive portrait of Jesus, rather than to preserve a factually accurate history. Any glosses and embellishments that may have crept into the oral tradition or been added by the authors when the texts were finally written support that portrait, they don't invalidate it. (I have been told elsewhere, and rather sharply, that most shipmates agree with the wider thesis even if not with the interpretation of the one verse.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just a brief note on a tangential topic, not to be pursued further because of its Dead Horse status--but since there seems to be a perception on this thread that inerrantists are = to fundamentalists, let me assure you that is not the case. Nor does that position require lack of nuance or education. I mention it only because I wouldn't want anybody reading this thread to think inerrantists as a whole are surprised to learn there are glosses, variants, etc. in the texts. Shutting up now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure any of these terms really mean very much because those using them actually mean different things by them. Fundamentalist seems like a particularly useless term as fundamentalism depends on your viewpoint - and one can clearly be a fundamentalist about different fundamentals!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure any of these terms really mean very much because those using them actually mean different things by them. Fundamentalist seems like a particularly useless term as fundamentalism depends on your viewpoint - and one can clearly be a fundamentalist about different fundamentals!

---

AIUI the original meaning of fundamentalist was one who subscribed to the five fundamentals, which were presented the basis of faith in the early twentieth century. Unfortunately, I cannot find a statement of the five fundamentals at the moment.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, this came out of the Presbyterian church following the "fundamentalist-modernist controversy". (brief history)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, this came out of the Presbyterian church following the "fundamentalist-modernist controversy". (brief history)

---

Everything but the first few paragraphs of that article is blocked behind a subscription paywall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
In my experience, those that profess a "high view of scripture" appear to favour the epistles (particularly the theology of Paul) over the Gospels.

For example. Mudfrog has interpreted Luke through Paul.

How does that work? Seems very strange to me.

Is it simply a bias that Luther inculcated into the Protestant tradition? Because Luther certainly favoured the theology of Paul over the theology of the Gospels. This is understandable of course. He saw Paul's theology of justification by grace for the purpose of including the gentiles as relevant to his own condition where he felt he was never good enough (something I can certainly relate to and am grateful to Luther for raising the point)

But it seems like to interpret Christ and the Gospels through the Epistles is getting things a bit ass backwards. And makes a mockery of a "high view of scripture".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I've come across this too (and have been guilty of it myself).

I'm not sure that it is a conscious decision, rather that folk with a more "rationalist" or "modern" approach to things favour Paul's logical discourses over the story-telling of the Gospels. It also chimes in well with the week-by-week expository preaching technique they often like, whereas the Gospels may appear to be more "bitty".

What these folk forget - and what perhaps wasn't popularly recognised until fairly recently - is that the Gospels aren't the naive or random accounts that they appear to be, but are carefully edited narratives which wish to present certain pictures and make certain points.

The converse of this is the tendency I have have observed in MOTR churches, both Anglican and URC, to always focus on the Gospel reading in ministry and ignore the Epistles entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One factor here is that chronologically the epistles came first, almost all before the writing of Mark's gospel.

Yes, the actual life of Jesus came first; but then the Apostles and other missionaries travelled about preaching on what that meant, the 'theology' (though not in a narrowly academic sense) which could be derived from Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The epistles are that teaching written down in instructions to various groups. Romans in particular is a kind of theological primer. The teaching would probably be illustrated, especially by eyewitnesses like Peter, with stories from Jesus' life and quotes of his actual words.

Then the gospels were written to preserve the eyewitness evidence of Jesus' actual words and examples of his miracles and other deeds. As they're written to supplement the already well-known epistles, they don't spend a lot of time going over again the stuff in the epistles, but try to add to it.

Also I suspect much of what we find in the epistles comes in fact from Jesus, but from the key period the gospels don't cover in detail, that is between the resurrection and the Ascension, when over forty days Jesus "...appear(ed) to (the disciples) and discuss(ed) the interests of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1; 3). An example of this is also mentioned in Luke, when the risen Jesus meets two disciples on the Emmaus road and "starting from Moses and through all the prophets, He explained to them in all the Scriptures what referred to himself".

That intense period of instruction effectively gave the Apostles a structure or framework to link together everything Jesus had taught and done, and explaining the death and resurrection in ways difficult before the event. The epistles contain that kind of exposition about the meaning of Jesus. The gospels then 'flesh out' that framework with the examples from Jesus' life.

Gospels and epistles are not contradictory but complement one another, and we should use both together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
In the EOC, there are two separate books used in the services: a Gospel Book, and the Epistalarion. The epistles can be read in the church by tonsured readers or even laymembers, whereas the gospels are only read by a deacon or priest, with much pomp, and constitute the culmination of the first half of the service (ministry of the word or whatever the technical title is -- high church westies will be familiar).

Further in our exegesis we filter the epistles (and the OT) through the gospels rather than the other way around. In particular through the Gospel of John.

I defy anybody to say we don't take a high view of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cattyish:
Coming from snakebelly low traditions (Scottish Baptist by upbringing, via Free Church of Scotland and happy-clappy-independent to Church of Scotland) the idea of a "high" or "low" approach to reading the Bible is a new one on me. I suppose I see people reading their favourite bits, the bits they agree with or if they're brave getting out the tricky parts for an airing.

Most folks I know have a certain tolerance for Paul. My favourite septuagenarian calls him 'that mannie Paul' as only a Scottish teacher can spit out a phrase. Personally I have tended to value the Sermon on the Mount over the Epistles just from my personal preference, and I find Paul's instructions sometimes annoying and sometimes reassuring.

Cattyish, considering the readings for Youth Group tomorrow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those with a 'high view of scripture' see the Bible as having one overall message; it may be 66 books with all the different authors but it is One Book. When you say, therefore, that I have interpreted Luke through Paul that would only be accurate if you also allowed that I would also interpret Paul through Luke when the occasion arose.

Scripture interprets Scripture and illumines itself.

I don't see any book or collection of books as being in any way opposed to other books. It's a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think the use of 'a high view of Scripture' is an intentionally divisive denigration of a different hermeutical approach of someone who also loves Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


What these folk forget - and what perhaps wasn't popularly recognised until fairly recently - is that the Gospels aren't the naive or random accounts that they appear to be, but are carefully edited narratives which wish to present certain pictures and make certain points.

The converse of this is the tendency I have have observed in MOTR churches, both Anglican and URC, to always focus on the Gospel reading in ministry and ignore the Epistles entirely.

---

Bingo to both points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One factor here is that chronologically the epistles came first, almost all before the writing of Mark's gospel.

Yes, the actual life of Jesus came first; but then the Apostles and other missionaries travelled about preaching on what that meant, the 'theology' (though not in a narrowly academic sense) which could be derived from Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The epistles are that teaching written down in instructions to various groups. Romans in particular is a kind of theological primer. The teaching would probably be illustrated, especially by eyewitnesses like Peter, with stories from Jesus' life and quotes of his actual words.

Then the gospels were written to preserve the eyewitness evidence of Jesus' actual words and examples of his miracles and other deeds. As they're written to supplement the already well-known epistles, they don't spend a lot of time going over again the stuff in the epistles, but try to add to it.

Also I suspect much of what we find in the epistles comes in fact from Jesus, but from the key period the gospels don't cover in detail, that is between the resurrection and the Ascension, when over forty days Jesus "...appear(ed) to (the disciples) and discuss(ed) the interests of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1; 3). An example of this is also mentioned in Luke, when the risen Jesus meets two disciples on the Emmaus road and "starting from Moses and through all the prophets, He explained to them in all the Scriptures what referred to himself".

That intense period of instruction effectively gave the Apostles a structure or framework to link together everything Jesus had taught and done, and explaining the death and resurrection in ways difficult before the event. The epistles contain that kind of exposition about the meaning of Jesus. The gospels then 'flesh out' that framework with the examples from Jesus' life.

Gospels and epistles are not contradictory but complement one another, and we should use both together.

---

This is quite a fascinating reflection Steve. Thank you. Its not one I've heard before.

I think my main disagreement would be the suggestion that the Gospels are not theological expositions about the meaning of Jesus (as Baptist Trainfan suggests above).

I also think there's a chronological problem. While many of the epistles were certainly earlier than the gospels (primarily Paul's) they were written to specific communities so it's hard to know whether they would have been circulated widely before the Gospels were written.

So to say the Gospels were written to supplement the Epistles is not really a claim that I think will historically wash.

As for the Epistles coming directly from Jesus via the apostles during the period between the resurrection and ascension, the majority of the epistles are Pauline and he never met Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:


Further in our exegesis we filter the epistles (and the OT) through the gospels rather than the other way around. In particular through the Gospel of John.

---

The Gospel of John hey? That I didn't know. I think Anglicans primarily filter through the synoptics (except during High Seasons). The difference might be quite interesting to see.

Is there anything obvious you can think of in terms of filtering things through John vs via the synoptics? #justcurious

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Evensong;

quote:

---

So to say the Gospels were written to supplement the Epistles is not really a claim that I think will historically wash.

As for the Epistles coming directly from Jesus via the apostles during the period between the resurrection and ascension, the majority of the epistles are Pauline and he never met Jesus.

---

Sorry, I perhaps wasn't quite clear enough....

As I see it, the Apostolic preaching would be about an essentially theological understanding of what Jesus had done/achieved, illustrated by examples of Jesus' life and teaching. The epistles reflect that way of going about things. In later compiling written gospels, it was less necessary to explain the 'theology' and more important to include as much as possible of Jesus' life and day-by-day teaching. The gospels didn't explicitly supplement the epistles as such; but they supplemented widespread 'teaching explaining Jesus' of the kind also recorded in those epistles.

Yes I know Paul didn't meet Jesus during Jesus' life and before his ascension - though

a) he was also far from ignorant of Jesus' life and teaching. And
b)he did in fact meet Jesus on the road to Damascus - and I assume Jesus knew what he was doing dragging this Pharisaic scholar into the apostolic team....

My point is that much of what we find in the epistles probably derives from that period of intense explanation and connecting things up when the risen Jesus met with the disciples to equip them for their mission. It is a different kind of material to the gospels, but in my opinion no less directly from Jesus than the pre-resurrection material on which the gospels concentrate.

Paul combines that material with his academic understanding from his pre-Christian life, which made him perhaps uniquely able to bridge the gap from a Jewish Messianism to a global faith for all. He gives a unique perspective to the way Jesus fulfilled the OT and also how that works for Gentiles. But the Pauline epistles are also in that area of 'explaining Jesus' which the gospels did not need to repeat when presenting the life and teaching of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:


Further in our exegesis we filter the epistles (and the OT) through the gospels rather than the other way around. In particular through the Gospel of John.

---

The Gospel of John hey? That I didn't know. I think Anglicans primarily filter through the synoptics (except during High Seasons). The difference might be quite interesting to see.

Is there anything obvious you can think of in terms of filtering things through John vs via the synoptics? #justcurious

---

Not at this early hour. Mumble mumble John 1 and the Logos; mumble mumble John 6 and the bread of life; mumble mumble the (interminable) Last Supper discourse and the role of the apostles and later their successors the bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I see it, the Apostolic preaching would be about an essentially theological understanding of what Jesus had done/achieved, illustrated by examples of Jesus' life and teaching.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0