Bible Facts and History

[Zzyzx]

.
A common tactic of Christian Apologist debaters is to proclaim that their Non-Christian opponents are ignorant of the bible and bible history. Here are a few facts that are known to many Non-Christians (and probably not known or admitted by many Christians).

The book now known as the bible

1. Is an edited collection of writings selected from many religious writings available in that era – many others were discarded or not included
2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors
3. No original bibles exist
4. The earliest bible copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from the fourth century
5. No original texts of the gospels or other early writings on which the bible is based are known to exist
6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people
7. The identity of bible / gospel writers is unknown
8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors – their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles
9. Gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or the conversations they record
10. Sources of information by bible writers is unknown and unverifiable
11. It is not known when the gospels were written but appears to be decades or generations after the events and conversations described
12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources
13. None of the claimed miracles or supernatural stories of the bible are noted by anyone other than bible story tellers
14. The claim that Jesus came back to life after three days in the grave is not supported by anyone other than bible story tellers


Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

[ThatGirlAgain]

A common tactic of Christian Apologist debaters is to proclaim that their Non-Christian opponents are ignorant of the bible and bible history. Here are a few facts that are known to many Non-Christians (and probably not known or admitted by many Christians).

The book now known as the Bible

1. Is an edited collection of writings selected from many religious writings available in that era – many others were discarded or not included

True. However the Four Gospels were known and apparently considered of long standing tradition already by 185 CE. The process of selection began fairly early. One speculation is that the works deemed most acceptable were those most widely read aloud in meetings of congregations. The very idea of a canon does not appear to have existed prior to about 150 CE.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... 6428/posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ment_canon


2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors

None of the Emperors chose what was to be in the Bible, unless you have a source for that?

Constantine did commission Eusebius to prepare fifty copies of the scriptures to distribute to various churches. But as Nicaea showed, Constantine was much more interested in having a consensus than in what that consensus was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibl ... onstantine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... onstantine


3. No original bibles exist

True. Again the idea of a canon did not exist until after all the books now included in the Bible were already old.


4. The earliest bible copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from the fourth century

That is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, plus about half of the Old Testament, the rest believed to have existed but been lost. But surviving individual books and fragments date back to the mid 2nd century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the ... _Testament


5. No original texts of the gospels or other early writings on which the bible is based are known to exist

Is this saying something different from # 3?


6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people

True.


7. The identity of bible / gospel writers is unknown
8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors – their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles
9. Gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or the conversations they record

True. The only Gospel that even claims to be eyewitness material is John. The end of that Gospel refers to the source having been the ‘beloved disciple’ who tradition names John but scripture leaves anonymous. But we may note that the Gospel of John differs radically in its story from the synoptic Gospels written decades earlier.


10. Sources of information by bible writers is unknown and unverifiable

True. In another thread I argued that the Gospel writers weaved existing oral traditions into new stories.


11. It is not known when the gospels were written but appears to be decades or generations after the events and conversations described

Mark does not make much sense unless it was written after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. The other Gospels clearly were written even later. And trying to deal with the passage of time with no Second Coming is an important theme in all the Gospels.


12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources

True. Although this is also true of the vast majority of people who lived then.


13. None of the claimed miracles or supernatural stories of the bible are noted by anyone other than bible story tellers

The miracles are not even noted by Paul who wrote before any of the Gospels. As I argued in another thread, these were inserted as part of an attempt to revive a fading story.


14. The claim that Jesus came back to life after three days in the grave is not supported by anyone other than bible story tellers

Even the Gospels provide no actual eyewitnesses to the event. And the stories of post resurrection events differ very substantially among the Gospels.


Might the “Questions for debate� be slightly premature?

[TD101]

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

I was certainly ignorant of it. It wasn't until I started having doubts and then began researching that I discovered these truths. As they say, the truth shall set you free.



Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

In my lifetime of attending church, these things were never discussed.


If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

I think it would have an effect, but probably not as much as you would expect. Many Christians I know are that way because it is the way they were raised. The Inquisition and Salem witch trials are accepted as being perpetrated by the church, but have no effect on their faith. They'll still believe it because their parents and grandparents have passed it on as truth.

[Shermana]

.

Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Quite more often than not.

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

If pressed they may offer a glimpse of the scholarship but certainly not ordinarily.

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

Dishonest in the most.

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

I see more people believing as those like me.

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

Personal experiences...

[Question Everything]

Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Yes, and not just Christians, but almost everyone.

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Not in the churches I was in.

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

Yes, but without this deception most Christian churches would not exist.

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

Yes and very sharply.

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

Heck, no.

[Question Everything]

Constantine was much more interested in having a consensus than in what that consensus was.

Correct. Truth was not important. A story that everyone could rally behind was.

Mark does not make much sense unless it was written after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. The other Gospels clearly were written even later.

The best analysis of how and why the Gospel of Mark was written that I have found so far is here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... l_mark.htm

And trying to deal with the passage of time with no Second Coming is an important theme in all the Gospels.

Correct. Most first century Christians who believed that Jesus was returning to Earth expected this return to come within a few years, and certainly within their lifetimes.

[Slopeshoulder]

.
Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Oh boy, yes and yes.

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

In my experience it is only taught in elite liberal urban churches, sometimes in adult ed, and sometimes from the pulpit via careful turns of phrase, more direclty in said elite urban churches. In theory, it informs ALL of the clergy who recieved M.Div's from the good mainstream schools, but in practice it rarely is taught because their flocks aren't ready for it and might rebel.

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

It's either dishonesty or careful pastoral care, take your pick.

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

That's the big question: literalism would certainly decline, after wars and suicides probably, but are there enough people to get with a modern liberal approach? I fear there aren't, as people are in the main lazy and fearful. This is the liberal condundrum. Clergy will say, "I know that, but I can't tell THEM that! And why should I? I'm here to attend to pastoral needs and officiate in rituals. Let 'em dig it up on their own if their interested, then we'll talk." I can't really blame them.

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

I'd go for its meaning and values. The spirit, not the letter. If my wife tells me I'm the most handsome man in the world, I don't debate it, I just dim the lights and act as-if, because the alternative is cold, lonely, and no fun. And then, eureka, I feel handsome. I live the myth. And maybe it's true, or maybe I find a deeper truth.
Religion is like that.

[Shermana]

If everyone knew what the churches have to lose,
they'd convert to Messianic Non-trinity Jews

[ThatGirlAgain]

The best analysis of how and why the Gospel of Mark was written that I have found so far is here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... l_mark.htm

I found the analysis you linked quite good and very interesting.

A couple of relatively small disagreements:

The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus.

If written narratives were meant, this may very well have been the case. But it seems to me that there existed at least oral traditions independent of Paul’s epistles. Mark’s reference to a promise by Jesus that “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power� would be a serious embarrassment forty years after the alleged fact unless it were too embedded in the popular imagination to ignore.

In Paul’s view the messianic age opened with the resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the judge and the universal resurrection could not be far behind. But faced with a too well known and too specific a meme as “some who are standing here� to ignore, Mark needs an explanation. The Temple theme is an attempt to ‘reset the clock’. This is the signal opening the messianic age. Matthew and Luke continue this theme but with increasing disclaimers about the delay. ‘The bridegroom is delayed’, ‘The king went to a far land’ and so forth. By the time of John it is no longer possible to keep it going and it becomes a misunderstanding!

The writer of the Gospel of Luke then came along and created his version of the story by attempting to reconcile other historical sources with the Markan narrative, no doubt believing himself that the Markan narrative was a literally true story. The author of the Gospel of Luke may have relied on works such as the writings of Josephus, the Epistles of Paul, and other early Epistles, as well as other notes and writings that remain unknown to us, and also perhaps the same longer version of Mark that the author of Matthew may have used. What this author tried to do is fit all of these sources into a single cohesive historical narrative.

My own belief about Luke is that he was aware of Matthew and deliberately writing a counterpoint to him. Luke’s community was mainly gentile and he was trying to remove the bad associations with the First Revolt that Matthew amplified by branding the Jesus movement as deeply Jewish. Luke based his Gospel on Mark and Matthew, turning parts of Matthew upside down to ‘universalize’ Jesus. Examples: Why is Luke the only other source to include a genealogy for Jesus but one that is radically different from Matthew’s in every way possible? Why is Luke the only other source to include a Nativity narrative but one that is again radically different from Matthew’s ?

View Luke this way and there is no need for postulating any additional unknown material. The Two Source Hypothesis and its Q document idea are unnecessary. (Hopefully I can find the time to amplify my personal ideas in this regard. Lots of details in my head and I want to do it right.)

.

[Mithrae]

6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people

The purpose of transcribing a text is (usually) to make an accurate copy, though of course errors can occur. I don't know how many times the various texts were copied between the originals and our earliest manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th century. Two times? Five times? How much accidental inaccuracy should we reasonably expect?

Modern scholars generally prefer to work with the oldest Greek manuscripts where possible, so it's not entirely accurate to talk of translations. There are some well-known examples of editting, revising or rewriting of the texts, for example in Mark 16, John 8, 1 John 5 - but of course we know about these cases because they are found only in some manuscripts or manuscript families, and even these examples don't significantly change or conflict with the more authentic body of text. To the best of my knowledge, there was no widespread effort to significantly alter the writings, though obviously errors in transmission did occur.

8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors – their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles

The earliest record of names specifically assigned to the four gospels comes from Irenaeus, around 180CE. I don't know of any evidence that he was an editor of the gospels. Mark and Luke were never claimed to be apostles. Luke was a companion of Paul, and from memory Irenaeus himself explains the reasoning which led him (rightly or wrongly) to identify Luke as the author of Luke/Acts. According to Papias (c. 120CE), Peter's interpretor Mark wrote down the stories of Jesus' life he'd heard from the apostle. And as ThatGirl pointed out, the fourth gospel clearly states that it was written by the 'beloved disciple.'

To state that these identifications are pseudonymous suggests that they are incorrect, rather than merely uncertain. Particularly in the case of Mark and John, I believe that assertion is unwarranted.

12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources

Both Peter and Paul are discussed in the late 1st century non-biblical work of Clement of Rome. You may have meant non-Christian sources of course, but I believe that precision is important when raising questions of dishonesty or obscurantism against others. Even then however, the non-Christian writer Josephus makes reference to the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities xx.9). Josephus was living in Jerusalem at that time (c. 62CE), so he is a primary source regarding the brother of Jesus.

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

To my understanding, most reverands, pastors or the like receive their salary for encouraging the faith and reinforcing the doctrine endorsed either by the diocese, presbytery etc, or by the church itself. Some folk would say that spending a Sunday morning explaining the nuances of ancient scribal practices doesn't really achieve that goal. Some folk might even say that deliberate failure to do the work one is paid for could be considered wrong or dishonest.

On the other hand, is it dishonest for someone on a debate forum dedicated to intelligent discussion and learning to make sweeping generalisations such as #12? You are aware of that reference in Josephus of course, since we've discussed it in the past. You may be of the opinion that the passage has been tampered with, or that it doesn't refer to the Christian Jesus Christ. But obviously it's easier to simplify and generalise than to acknowledge the existence of any substantial area of disagreements or uncertainty. That's also how Christian preachers operate, and from behind a pulpit I don't believe that it's dishonest.