Response to Josh

[_huckelberry]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

The compilation porcess for the Bible certainly is seen as a problem for the integrity of the Bible by more then just LDS.
Start with Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar and go from there. And authorship is not simply a problem of who wrote Hebrews. How many Christians are aware that most likely three of the four gospels are not authored by those they attribute them too?

That and the fact that they were authored years and years after the events described therein supposedly happened (many of which probably never happened). The exercise often seen in Church of microanalyzing quotes and specific word choices in the New Testament is ludicrous. As if Christ actually said and he used those exact words. Hell, I can't remember the exact wording of a conversation that occured a few minutes ago, let alone four score and seven.

I do not think I am completly projecting my present understanding into the past but I cannot remember a time when I did not realize reading the Gospels that we are reading bits of Jesus sayings which have become conventionalized in memory and assembled into a narrative with a bit of invention. I imagine any alert skeptical teenager might see this. We do not have taperecorded conversations. Instead we have phriases and narritive pieces which have been assembled into a constructed narrative. This is made more apparent by observing how events are not identical in the four versions. The saying pieces are not always put together the same way.

The gospels are in a sense a fictional retelling of a story based upon fragments which were important enough to people that they were remembered. It might have been chosen to simply preserve the sayings in a group. We have an example with Thomas. However putting the sayings into a action narrative presented some aspects of Jesus life, it lead to a significant disaster, that a collection of sayings did not present. Reading a narritive can involve the reader imaginatively with the intended meaning of the phrases people received from Jesus and valued.

These observation do ask what sort of information we have in the gospels. It does not guarantee that the narrative episodes each happened just as presented. Some may have but there is a possiblity that some are pure fiction. Instead of detailed narrative accuracy what we have is a record of what Jesus life and teaching meant to his followers. We do not know the complete story of Jesus mind. We hear instead what followers were sufficiently struck by to remember. We do not know the details of his life. We have the string of events that people remembering understood as important. In that context the interval of years between event and writing is appropriate. The space is close enough to be a witness to what the early Chritians believed and took from the life of Jesus. It does not offer any hope of exact knowledge of the details of the events.

I suppose how one reacts to these observations would be influenced by how much it might mean or not mean to you to know what early Christians believe. When one considers the book of Hebrews there is good historical reason to see the book as a real example of what early Christians believed and thought. It was written by one and more importantly was accepted as good teaching by others. I do not know what more you can ask of it. It does not present critical historical details instead it presents ideas. Those ideas stand on their own whether the authors name was Fred or George.

Perhaps some might say they do not care for the ideas. That is a possiblity but realistically that would not change much if we found the book by somebody important like Cesear instead of some nobody.

But then there is my prejudice which is interested in the experience of nobodies. It is an aspect of the Bible I like, the witness of ordinary nameless people. Beyond that curiosity about the beliefs of ordinary people there is a sense I have that I share the attraction to Jesus that these early followers felt. I care how they remember him.

I can imagine another objection. How can we be sure that various miricles actually happened showing Jesus was divine. I do not think there is any possiblity of coming to believe Jesus is divine on the basis of miricle stories. I do think they record a memory of Jesus being a miracle worker. How accurate is that? I see no way of knowing. I base my relationship to him on the value of his words and the sense that he put his actions where his mouth was.

[_richardMdBorn]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

The compilation porcess for the Bible certainly is seen as a problem for the integrity of the Bible by more then just LDS. Start with Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar and go from there. And authorship is not simply a problem of who wrote Hebrews. How many Christians are aware that most likely three of the four gospels are not authored by those they attribute them too?

That and the fact that they were authored years and years after the events described therein supposedly happened (many of which probably never happened). The exercise often seen in Church of microanalyzing quotes and specific word choices in the New Testament is ludicrous. As if Christ actually said and he used those exact words. Hell, I can't remember the exact wording of a conversation that occured a few minutes ago, let alone four score and seven.

You live in an age where books are plentiful. Pre-printing press, memories were much better. People would memorize the Iliad and the Odyssey (though the nature of these epics facilitated this).

[_Jason Bourne]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

The compilation porcess for the Bible certainly is seen as a problem for the integrity of the Bible by more then just LDS. Start with Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar and go from there. And authorship is not simply a problem of who wrote Hebrews. How many Christians are aware that most likely three of the four gospels are not authored by those they attribute them too?

That and the fact that they were authored years and years after the events described therein supposedly happened (many of which probably never happened). The exercise often seen in Church of microanalyzing quotes and specific word choices in the New Testament is ludicrous. As if Christ actually said and he used those exact words. Hell, I can't remember the exact wording of a conversation that occured a few minutes ago, let alone four score and seven.

You live in an age where books are plentiful. Pre-printing press, memories were much better. People would memorize the Iliad and the Odyssey (though the nature of these epics facilitated this).

So your defense is they had better memories?????

[_huckelberry]

" so better memories is your defense?"

It means something but if it doesn't apply perhaps clarifing the objection would show why.

" how could they be the exact words, hell I can't remember the exact words of a conversation a few minutes ago."

I shall speculate that the intention is saying that the memory of Jesus teachings must be random meaningless phrase because the past disappears into a vague tumble of confusion within a few minutes of it happening if you do not have a vidio recorder on.

Actually people were able to handle the past before modern recording methods. It is true I have had a good number of coversations that I do not remember. Dull stuff best forgotten. I am tempted to say some folks may never have engaged in a conversation worth remembering so find the idea of people remembering what Jesus said is just plain incomprehensible. However there must be some of us who a few times encountered some words worth remembering. In any case I do not find it even a tiny stretch to believe that Jesus close followers collected a set of memorable saying which they subsequently shared with others. In fact I find that picture completely natural.

Is the attact Richard is failing to notice that these memories might not be exact? How is that an attact? I cannot concieve of thinking they are exact. The theoretic possiblilty seems so remote I cannot think of a reason to consider it.

[_richardMdBorn]

Jason,

Perhaps you should read a book by an acquaintance of mine:

Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity) (Hardcover) by William Lane Craig

Here's part of a review of it:

After a brief preface, Craig spends about 150 pages dealing with the Pauline evidence for the resurrection. He makes a compelling case for the early origins of Paul's formulaic recitation of the 1 Cor. 15 tradition about the death, burial, resurrection and appearances of Jesus to various witnesses. There is also a convincing and thorough examination of the nature of Jesus' resurrection body in Paul's letters--a physical resurrected body. This discussion should be enough to drive a steak through the heart of the lingering skepticism that clings to the belief that Paul believed only in a "spiritual" resurrection (which is, a Craig shows, a contradiction in terms).

After wrapping up the Pauline evidence, Craig turns to the Gospels and continues his methodical, passage-by-passage discussion of the evidence. As with the rest of the book, you will be hard pressed to find one scholar who engages so many different theories and approaches in one book. Finally, Craig wraps it up and makes his case for the resurrection. Those who have read one of Craig's popular books or even heard him in a debate will immediately see the origins of those treatments. It was nice to see how well the research and background supporting the final argument actually fit together.

http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testame ... 0889466165

[_huckelberry]

Hi Richard, your post asks people to start considering the fact that even though we do not know the individual authors of a number of the New Testament books we do know the time and context of their writing. They are not mystery pieces like Secret Mark found in translation pasted in the back of a medieval manuscript in a library by a presumable responsible scholar. They are writings held as witness by an organization existing continuously back to the first century. They relate to each other in ways which reflect when they were writen and why.

One can say that there is no way to be sure exactly which city Mark was written in. The general area is not in question. We do not know the exact year but we have a clear idea within a few decades of when it was actually written. We do not know which early Christian put the pieces together. There is no sensible question but that it was an first century Christian. I think those are the ciritical things about the piece of writing.

It may be interesting to be sure if Matthew or Mark was first. I do not think we know for sure but am not much inclined to doubt Mark was first. Either way I see little difference it makes for the gospel message. That does not mean there is no historical reason to wonder. One can say we know a lot about the beginnig of Christian belief if one is looking at one leval of detail. If one askes for a finer resolution of detail then one notices there is a lot we do not know.

This discussion is still drifting on very general observations. It may fit that for me to notice that I understand the message of the New Testament to be a call to follow Jesus into a new future not a simple reproduction of the first century. If it was the second reproducing the first century what we do not know would matter more. Instead I think first century Chritianity to be very imperfect. We know enough to see its imperfections.