Well, IÂ’ve avoided the meat of this argument, for reasons which may become clearer as I write, but HereticÂ’s post is just such a perfect starting point for what I would like to say, that I just couldnÂ’t pass it up.
This may surprise a lot of you, coming from a Christian, but a lot of what Heretic said is actually true. That is, as I hope to demonstrate, the basic data he is working from appears to be the same data I am. For instance, Mark was not a native of Judea, he was a Greek-speaker, not Hebrew, the narrative of Mark is incredibly simplistic, and it has long been remarked in Christian literature that it reads like a story, or an “Action-movie.” It is very easy to envision it actually intended to be in a Play format. “Markian Priority,” meaning that the Gospel of Mark was probably the first Gospel written, is widely accepted in Christian Churches. Paul was teaching a radically different religion than what was taught in the Gospels, and his theology was almost certainly formed apart from reading them. (Jesus was teaching a new perspective on Judaism, Paul was teaching a new religion, Christianity.) And so on. I recently read a Christian review on an Atheistic book, where the reviewer gives kudos for clearly and accurately portraying the facts about what we
know about the compilation of the New Testament.
Well then, some of you may be wondering why I am a Christian, if all the above is true? Simple - the answer is in the
interpretation of those basic facts. Not to ignore, or “explain away” or “justify” the facts, but in taking these relatively abstract bits of data and combining them into a whole lump of belief. Depending on what “rules” of interpretation you set at the beginning, you’ll be required to organize and weigh the facts according to those rules. The heart of the debate will always lie here:
What rules are appropriate for the interpretation of data?
What I am going to try to do, is to provide some of the basic facts that I believe are accepted in general, not all of them, but some of the more pertinent ones, (according to my bias, of course.) It will be very difficult to avoid a straw man argument here, so I will need help from guys like
Tellner and
Heretic to keep me honest. If I over-simplify your views, please post a correction.
Basic Facts will be in
Brown, Critical Interpretations that IÂ’ve heard will be in
Green, and my interpretations, as a Christian, will be in
Blue. Make sense?
First the basic starting points:
Critics: Starting from a skeptical standpoint, because of the supernatural material, the New Testament should be first regarded as a book of myth, subject to the same basic interpretation and belief as any book of religious myths of any other religion, such as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, The Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. The compilation was obviously intended to promote a certain agenda, and is not reliable as an independent source of history or fact. Any recorded “Miracles” cannot be taken at face value, and should first be attempted to be explained by natural, as opposed to super-natural means. Basically, the natural reading is one of fiction, and the burden of proof lies on anyone attempting to claim otherwise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism for more information. (This is in my own words, so please feel free to post your thoughts on this to make it clearer, or correct any misunderstandings I may have put here.)
Myself: Starting from a perspective of belief, I am looking for proof of what not to accept. That is, starting from a basic desire, I want there to be a God, particularly one who is different from humans, and one who has the potential to be involved in my personal life. Any god, no matter how interesting, is nothing more than academic if it is not interacting with my life in any way. The deified passions of the Greek and Latin gods are nothing more than humanity boiled down, distilled, and given power. Any god created in “man’s” image holds no draw for me. However, the God that is “introduced” in the Tanach, (commonly known as the “Old Testament”) and revealed more clearly in the New Testament fits that desire. Having found what I was desiring, I am now examining the basis for belief in this God, that is, are there any obvious reasons not to pursue this God. So then, being honest enough to admit that I am starting from a desire (as many Theologians do, including men like C.S. Lewis, who often used the phrase “A God-shaped hole in our hearts”) I now have to guard against the tendency of stopping there, but should push on and test to see whether I am a fool for not for allowing myself to follow these desires. Therefore, while admitting that not everybody is starting from this same desire, the burden of proof is on those wanting to prove the impossibility of supernatural intervention as depicted in the Bible, particularly the New Testament.
You can see, if the argument is framed this way, why the debate rages on. I can not simply “erase” this desire, for to remove it would be to completely change my reason for existing. Perhaps something will happen someday that will remove this belief, but I cannot make it go away on my own, nor do I desire that. On the other hand, no amount of arguing is going to “awaken” this desire in the skeptic. Again, something could occur to change his/her mind, but it’s not something to just “decide.” (In fact, this desire could be the basis for what many consider “faith.”) Because of this, each perspective places the burden of proof, and logically so, on the others. The weight of this burden must be agreed on before any resolution can be achieved. However, the very foundations of each perspective require the burden of proof be on the other, so we have an eternal dilemma.
Now that this is settled, On to the data! (This is by no means comprehensive, but is intended to review some of the facts brought up here, and use them as an example of how they could be interpreted differently based on oneÂ’s own perspective.)
In no particular order:
Basic Facts: Paul, born as Saul, of Tarsus traveled throughout the Roman Empire in the latter half of the 1st Century, preaching a radical off-shoot of Judaism. He recorded a large part of his new theology in the form of letters to the churches he established and others. The most reliable of these letters (sometimes called the “Undisputed Epistles” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_Epistles#The_undisputed_epistles) are known today as: Romans, I, II, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. These are listed, among other New Testament books by 170 C.E. Paul’s teaching are the foundation of theology for the Christian Church.
Critics: There is no basis that Paul learned directly from Jesus. Paul himself claims that his theological training came from a supernatural source, and that his conversion to being a follower of Jesus occurs in a miraculous event. Moreover, Paul’s basic theology is not found in Jesus’ teachings. Paul’s theology is radically different from the Judaism he claims as his background, and is hostile to the Jewish religion in his writings. After removing any “supernatural insight,” his theology appears to be designed by his own thinking, and that he inserted spiritual elements to provide a basis for this new religion.
Myself: Paul never received any physical “benefits” from this new religion. He received no wealth or profit from his teaching. On the contrary, he was constantly beaten, often poor, and eventually killed for his teachings. This was not a short era of Paul’s life. He chose to enter into, and to continue with this teaching. Whether right or wrong, Paul appeared to believe what he taught. Also, if he did create this system out of “thin air,” so to speak, it is a remarkable system, that is able to be studied and dissected on a multitude of levels. Paul showed amazing insight into humanity, and constructed a systematic theology that has intrigued scholars for centuries. However, Paul’s writings require (self-admittedly) a specific miracle to have occurred, the resurrection from the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Without the acceptance of this miracle, all of his other teachings have no basis.
Basic Facts: Mark, and his Gospel. While the Church traditionally dated the Gospel of Mark as the second to be written, and so placed after Matthew, modern scholarship believes that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source for some of the material in Matthew and Luke, and so was probably the first Gospel to be written. Mark was written in Greek, and probably not written in the area of Judea, but probably written somewhere within the Roman Empire, perhaps Rome, itself. Traditionally it was attributed to Mark, sometimes called John-Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, according to Eusibius of Cesarea, Irenaus, Origen, and Tertullian. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship)
Critics: Since the first gospel was written by a non-eyewitness, and other gospels appeared to copy from it, the whole story is suspect. Furthermore, since it describes the destruction of Jerusalem, which didn’t happen until 70 C.E., the book couldn’t have been written until after that event. Since Paul died around 64 C.E., the Gospel of Mark would have been clearly influenced by Paul’s writings, and could have been written as “proof” of the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection, to give weight to Paul’s religion.
Myself: The key passage for the dating of Mark, according to the critics, is the description of the destruction of Jerusalem. (Most believe post 70 C.E., some after 135 C.E.) However, this description is in the form of a prophecy. Since my beliefs allow for the existence of prophecy and supernatural communication, this is not a requirement for dating Mark. Instead, drawing from the “Markian Priority” the dating of Mark is connected to the dating of the other two synoptic Gospels. Since Luke was written before the book of Acts (Acts is part II to the book of Luke, beginning where Luke left off, and apparently written by the same author.) It follows that Mark must have been written before either. The history of the Book of Acts ends about 60 C.E., before the death of Paul. It stands to reason, then, if prophecy is indeed possible, that the Gospel of Mark could well have been written several years before 60 C.E. Since the Church would have started in c.33 C.E., and didn’t gain momentum in the Roman Empire until Paul began his Second and Third missionary journeys around 50 C.E. this would have been an appropriate time to record the Gospels.
That’s about all I have time for today. So far this discussion has been involving “Higher Criticsm.” I would like to deal with the idea of the Bible being “edited” over the centuries, and the textual accuracies (A.K.A. “Lower Criticism), but to be honest, while I’m familiar with the sources for “Modern Translations” and the debates held there, most of it is in reference to the “My Translation in Divine, yours is crap” kind of arguments, so I’ll let them be for now. Maybe another thread for that, someday.
So, I did my best to present the critical view in a fair manner, but I realize that I am biased, and so I may have misrepresented you guys. If you can help me to clarify the critical point of view, I would appreciate it.
