Was the Bible forged? Author claims some New Testament books were written by 'people pretending to be apostles'
by whereami 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Band on the Run
Im reading a book currently I bought by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright about the historical Jesus and development of Christianity. It is substantial. The Bible is hot now b/c of the Da Vinci Code. Many times I buy books about the historical Jesus and then curse myself for not writing a popular book myself. On the other hand, these books share certain historical facts that were almost impossible to know outside of certain circles.
I completely agree that the Bible did not descend from heaven and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the gospels did not write anything in the NT canon. To call that fact a "forgery" is inaccurate both as a definition of forgery and the connotations of forgery. They followed certain writing genres and traditions with their culture. Looking back with my bias, how can I judge what their intent was. Illiterate people can be very sophisticated and knowledgeable. It is an anthropolic fact. I certainly have trouble understanding it. One of the problems of Biblical interpretation is jumping across thousands of years of history and cultural changes. A forgery is deceit. They weren't fooling anyone.
There are way too many books of this type on the market. It would be interesting to trace the publishing houses. I purchased Gnostics for Dummies or something similar early this year. It is a popular book about Gnostics. A college junior could have written it. It is well organized and easy to understand. I just wish it contained a bit more nuance. People seem to hunger for Bible knowledge. When I attend Bible studies, people seem to fall into churched and unchurched. I am shocked how little Bible literacy exists today so maybe the pendulum swinging with all these books is a good idea.
-
Mad Dawg
What hard facts does Ehrman present?
-
Band on the Run
I see several strands going on in this thread. Some believe the Bible is inerrant. Others like Ehrmann's bold statements that I suspect make him an easier read than a scholarly article. If scholarly articles are never read b/c of the style, they don't help many people. My view is in the strand that Paul wrote Romans, Corinithians, and a few others I can't recall specifically. He did not write the books where he is the most miscogynistic or contain the statements that made me want to vomit from Witness repetition.
Forgery is a strong word. Everyone who writes slant things to their world view. It may be unconscious but it happens. This is the reason with my Witness background that I stayed away from any topic with a Witness slant when I took New Testament. My very accomplished Catholic classmates wrote about Catholicism and their grades dropped. The only people who were accurate concerning Jesus in a seminar I took were Orthodox Jewish males. Our cutlure is innundated with Jesus stuff. I would say the process of the gospels and other writings was valid. No deceit was intended. They were eastern and did not obssess about facts as we do. They were not deliberately lying in my view. Reflecting your culture is not lying. Luke wanted Roman approval for Christianity so he emphasizes certain narratives that Matthew, writing for Christian Jews, did not.
Revelation is not fraud. Metaphor is important. The images in Revelation are nonsensical if taken literally. Without knowing numerology, the dates and "666" etc. are just crazy. I hated and feared this book. Hearing it mentioned would give me stomach pain. One of the first things I did when I found out about a different way of Bible study was to buy a commentary. Now I see it as pure beauty.
I no longer believe everything in the Bible just b/c it is in the Bible. My experience is that is so much complex and ultimately more truthful when you take culture, language, and history into account. These authors were not demigods. They were like you and me.
-
PSacramento
Bart is simply stating an opinion and a very well informed one at that.
Sure he kind of takes it to the conclusion he wants, but doesn't everyone?
He picks and choose the evidence and puts the spin he wants it, like everyone else pro or con the Gospel writers.
We do NOT know for sur who wrote or who copied the NT docuements, though we do have the words of the apostolic fathers, if one choose to give them any credence, though if you don't choose to do that you have to have evidence why they are not reliable, not just opinion.
It is quite possible that the authours of the Gospels were NOT the actual writers and it is almost certain that they were not the editors.
Mark's gospel was the noted he took from Peter that were later "blended" to make a historical account.
Matthew's MAY have been written by Matthew know as Levi, but much wa sbase don Mark as well ( no problem in that).
Luke's was written and quite possible edited by Luke, the writer of Acts also, and he was not an apostle but one of their disciples.
John was historically written by John, though we don't know WHICH John that is, quite certaibly it is the same John of at lest the first letter of John, beyond that,w e don't know, we do know that it was edited by someone else, OR perhaps edited by John and written orignally by someone else, Lazarus is an option for many.
But Forged?
There is NO evidence to state that.
-
Band on the Run
I agree with his facts and most of his conclusions. A more neutral word than "forgery" would have been more accurate. Maybe he had another word and his editors and pulisher wanted to sell books, not to appeal to purists.
I can't locate the book I was reading last night. It is very good. Borg and Wright acknowledge where they differ from other scholars by outlining all the main strands of academic study. They both are practicing Christians who have faith. The book is a discussion of certain themes in NT studies on which they differ about the implications. It is a Socratic dialogue. I've had it for many years but never read it b/c it seemed overly academic for an informed but still casual interest. So I was shocked that I was rivted last night.
Of course, I don't possess the knowledge or background to affirm what they are saying. I am only a reader. There is a place for bold claims, like Ehrmann's, and a place for more nuanced scholarly reflection. I feel that all authors agree on the vast amount of NT studies. When I read these books, it is not only NT scholarship but Judaism, in general, and 1st century Judaism, in particular, linguistics, Hebrew, Greek, archaeology, etc. So many disciplines are involved. I doubt anyone person knows the "truth." I may be befuddled often, but I vastly prefer this, to the WT.
It is a joy to particpate in a thread where we can discuss this topic without fearing the big A. or disfellowshipping.
-
Band on the Run
I found it, deliberately hiding from me under a coat. Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Harper Collins, 1999).