Is the Bible Full of Fairy Tales?

[QuietMan1980]

I have heard it said that the Bible should looked upon as a book of ancient fairy tales. However, I would like to make the following comparisons between fairy tales and the books of the Bible (King James Bible, for example).

Fairy tales are usually very vague about the times and places of the events that take place. For example, most begin with "Once Upon a Time in a far away land" and then proceed with the remainder of the story. Based on what we would find in a fairy tale, it would be difficult to corroborate the story with any historical event because there is no specific time in history or specific geographical location mentioned.

By contrast, with a few exceptions (like the first few chapters of the book of Genesis), the authors of the bible took time to detail things like geographical references (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.), genealogies, population counts, livestock inventories, and the names of local rulers and nearby kingdoms.

Comparing the two, it should be clear that the books of the Bible were, at least in the minds of their human authors, detailed accounts of real events that were meant to be taken seriously, while fairy tales were meant to be entertaining stories (perhaps with a moral lesson).

My questions are:
1. Given the clear differences in the way in which the two types of accounts were written, is it not reasonable to say that the Bible stories are not fairy tales (at least not in the literary sense)?
2. Given the quantity of references in the Bible to historical figures and geographical locations, if these references have been (or could be) verified with archaeological evidence, would that not be a reasonable basis for trusting the Bible as an account of actual events?

[JehovahsWitness]

I have deliberatly ignored the "requirement" the implies that a scholar can only be taken seriously if he is in no way associated with any Christian belief. This is both breathtakingly ignorant and insulting to anyone with an academic background. That an academics body of work must first go through the filter of his personal beliefs and after having been "cleared" of any will be examined on the basis of its intellectual and academic merit is an insult to anyone but the most ignorant of armchair Wikipedia levying fundamentalists.

Until all scientists, historians and academics are asked to declare their personal beliefs before submitting peer reviewed work I will continue to ignore such a base and frankly preposterous view of study.

I believe that the request was made, not as an implication that Christian scholars are not to be taken seriously, but in order to remove bias. If, for example, you were reviewing the test results about the safety of drugs, would you want to see if any of the studies were done by researchers not in the pay of the big pharmaceutical firms? Not because the scientists working for big pharma are any less qualified, but you want to get an unbiased review. The same applies here. If the only scholars that support the historical validity of the biblical texts are those who are Christian, then that claim cannot be taken as being an unbiased consensus of the scholars in that field.

It is a weak and intellectually dishonest argument to propose that information in itself cannot be analysed independent of the colour, sex, religious or political persuasion of the GIVER of the information - if the picture is incomplete that is PART of the analysis of peer review. Its a worrying trend to say a profile of the informant must be provided BEFORE an honest analysis of the facts can be made. If Hitler himself provided information about the number of Jews killed during the holocaust, the information itself is either accurate or not. It is for the sociologists to take up the implications of the findings, the psycologists the state of mind of the informant and the politician to use it to his advantage but it is the harbour of the ignorant and the ill informed (no doubt influenced by the politicization of the sciences) that wants to put those particular carts before the horse. Keeping religion out of the sciences (and indeed the classroom) for the thinking person is ensuring that the religion (or lack therefof) of an academic has no more bearing on the analysis of the factual information he or she presents than his race or sexual orientation. In short, while an academics reputation and scholistic credentials may warrant mention, "what is the religion and political persuasion of the source?" should NEVER be a question posed by the academic when analysising factual information of this nature. Shame on anybody that defends the right to access accurate and true information to suggest otherwise.

[fredonly]

Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the “historical detail.�

Archaeologist Nelson Glueck, president of Hebrew Union College
Professor R. D. Wilson,

Would that be Robert D Wilson, American linguist and Presbyterian scholar?

Werner Keller, The Bible as History

Non-Christian? You're joking, right?

E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament,

Edward Musgrave Blaiklock (1903–1983) was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature in New Zealand from the 1950s until his death in 1983.

Dr. Harry Rimmer

Harry Rimmer (1890-1952) was an American creationist, itinerant evangelist and writer of anti-evolution pamphlets. Rimmer had very limited training in science, though he tried to use science to prove the veracity of the Bible. He is most prominent as an early pioneer in the creationist movement in the United States.

A. Rendle Short,

A member of the Open Brethren christian movement.

Sir Frederic Kenyon,

Christian Scholar

I have deliberatly ignored the "requirement" the implies that a scholar can only be taken seriously if he is in no way associated with any Christian belief. This is both breathtakingly ignorant and insulting to anyone with an academic background. That an academics body of work must first be classified as "fitting for serious consideration = atheist" "sub-standard=Christian" and after having been "cleared" be viewed seriously, independent of its intellectual and academic merit is an insult to anyone but the most ignorant, sub-educated, of armchair wikipedia levying atheist fundamentalists.

I would be fine with Christian scholars, as I told Winepusher, if they approach the materials objectively. The objective approach is to develop theories that fit the data. The approach of the Christian apologists you cite is the opposite: they find data that fits their beliefs. This is fine, if you're looking for reasons to believe - that is, after all, the objective of apologetics. It is not fine, however, if you're trying to make an objective case for the truth of your beliefs. We're dealing with historical matters, and history is based on best guess - the theories that best fit the facts.

\Until all scientists, historicans, archaeologist and academics are asked to declare their personal beliefs (McCarthy hunt style) before submitting peer reviewed work I will continue to ignore such a base and frankly proposterous view of study as will anyone with more than a shred of intellectual capacity. The assumption that only an atheists (or one must presume buddist or Muslim) can examine the "Bible in a scholarly critical manner" in short that the current system of PEER REVIEW is insufficient to "weed out those pesky theists", is a sad consequence of this eras proliferation of internet *experts".

I suspect you don't stray much from conservative apologetics. There are plenty of historical-critical scholars, including atheists, agnostics, Christians, and Jews, who actually do strive to analyze the data objectively, work collectively, peer review each other, and agree to a great deal.

Obviously I am happy to consider any educated and well informed critique of their work but the lazy, cherry picking, extremism reflected in the above "request" is unworthy of the time those of us that have an education.

Best Regards,
JW

Great to hear that you'll consider educated and informed critque. I try to quote from such sources.

Nevertheless, it's clear that you cannot find the 3 non-Christian scholars who support your view about the historical detail in the Bible. This is what I expected. But to be clear, I am not suggesting the the Bible is pure fairy tale - that everything is made up. The quote from Rabbi Nelson Glueck, the one non-Christian you mentioned (and the only one that McCulloch identified incorrectly), sounds fine to me. There is an element of "historical memory" in the Bible. I alluded to this in my earlier post, that the Old Testament includes historical elements of the Israelites (although with mythological elements added), and the New Testament references some actual people and places. The Bible was WRITTEN during these times; it wouldn't have gotten very far by making up the names and places.

However it also contains inaccuracies and idealized embellishments of Christian History (compare Acts to Paul’s accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

Please provide specific examples (with biblical references) as well as documented historical proof of your statement. Thank you.]

No problem. The following is a summary from Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, chapter 19 (Paul the Apostle: The Man and his Mission). (in case you aren’t aware, this is a textbook used in various colleges and seminaries)

Almost every event that is described in both Paul and Act has differences. There are cases of both minor and major differences. Did Paul go to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to consult with the apostles(per Acts 9:10-30), or not (per Galatians 1:15-18). These accounts are clearly contradictory. Luke invariably portrays a Paul who is in harmony with the original apostles, quite a contrast to Paul’s rendition of his interactions with them. Acts also portrays Paul as maintaining absolute devotion to Torah (e.g. Acts 28:17, as well as chapters 21-22), while Paul himself admits to living “like a gentile� when trying to convert gentiles (1 Cor 9:21), and even attacks Cephas for failing to do so (Gal 2:11-14). And in Gal 2:21, 5:4 – Paul expresses the view that Gentiles who follow the law are in jeopardy of falling from God’s grace, for if doing what the law required could contribute to a person’s salvation, then Christ died in vain. And why are Paul’s sermons, as described in Acts, delivered to Jewish audiences even though in his epistles, Paul repeatedly states that he is the apostle to the Gentiles.

In Acts chapter 17, Paul preaches that pagan polytheists cannot be held accountable for failing to worship the one true God, since they have been ignorant and not willfully disobedient. This contrasts with his letter to the Romans in which Paul claims that pagan idolators are not ignorant of the one true God, that all along they have known of his existence and power by seeing the things that he has made. Here the worship of idols is said to be a willful act of disobedience. Pagans have rejected their knowledge of the one true God, and so have been punished (Rom 1:18-32).
Ehrman concludes:
The book of Acts appears to contain a number of discrepancies with the writings of Paul himself, with respect both to the events of his life and to the nature of his teachings. If this is so, then it cannot be accepted uncritically as a historically accurate portrayal of Paul.

All the books were written in Greek ..

This is incorrect. Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis [60-130 AD] saying “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.� (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)

If you have proof to override this feel free to present it (Please note I have zero time or tolerance for opinion presented as proof. Historical documents only - thanks).]

You have this habit of demanding proof of any assertion contrary to your own. I could ask you to prove your own assertions, but I’ll be more realistic – since it’s not possible to prove anything. We have the evidence that we have, and all we can do is try to understand this data and develop historical hypotheses. The better hypothesis will always be the one that best fits all the evidence.

Regarding Papias: What was his source of information?

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

In other words, he heard it from somebody. What exactly was he told? Who exactly told him? What was this person’s source of information? Was Papias’ source credible? What does this mean about the credibility of Papias’ statement?

In his reference to Matthew’s work, Papias refers to a collection of “oracles.� However, this doesn’t sound anything like the Gospel of Matthew that we have, which is a narrative, and one that is largely derived from the gospel of “Mark.� All the Gospels, including Matthew, were written anonymously. It wasn’t until the mid 2nd century that apostolic authorship began to be ascribed to them. There’s really no tie between the “Gospel of Matthew� we have, and the work of Matthew that Papias refers to, and of course we don’t even know if his information is credible. Eusebius, the source of our quotations of Papias, also wrote: “The same writer [Papias] gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things…he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. “--http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/ ... papias.htm

By historical standards, Papias testimony is of almost no value, and yet apologists embrace it for the usual reasons – it fits what they want to believe.

The eyewitnesses of Jesus were illiterate, Aramaic speakers in Palestine.

This is a presumption (and an unsubstantiated one at that). There would be no way to prove that every Aramaic speaker in Palestine in the first century that saw Jesus was illiterate. This is a proposterous claim.]

Let’s see who has the more “preposterous� assumptions. I’ll give you my support, then examine yours.
In his 1989 book, Ancient Literacy, William Harris, professor of ancient History at Columbia University, did a study of literacy. He argued that in the ancient world, at the very best of tiems, only about 10% of the population was reasonably literate. By “best of times� he meant Athens, a center of learning at the height of its intellectual power in the 4th-5th century BCE (the days of Socrates and Plato). The literate were from the upper classes, the social and economic elite, who had the leisure and money to afford an education. Lower class people did not learn how to read, and even fewer learned how to write. Of those who could write, fewer still could compose a complete sentence, and only the most educated could compose an essay. The number that could read, write, and compose within a foreign language would be extremely small indeed.

Catherine Hezser researched literacy in 1st century Palestine ( Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine). She estimates that about 3% of the population could read, and the majority of these would have been in the cities and larger towns. Smaller towns and villages would have a literacy of around 1%. These literate people were, again, alwayst eh elite of the upper classes. And those who did learn to read, learned how to read Hebrew – not Greek. There are only 2 known Palestinian literary authors from this period: Josephus and Justus of Tiberius; both were upper class and inordinately well educated.

Mark Chancey (Greco-Roman Cluture and the Galilee of Jesus) reports his studies of the archaeological evidence from around 1st centuray Galilee, and concludes that Gentiles (who spoke Greek) in Galilee were almost exclusively located in the two major citiies, Sepphoris and Tiberias. The rest of Galilee was predominantly Jewish. And since most of Galilee was rural, not urban, the vast majority of Jews had no encounters with Gentiles. Greek was not widely spoken in the area, and there would be essentially no reason for an average person to learn it, so the vast majority of the Jews spoke Aramaic and had no facility in Greek.
So I have to say that a strong preponderance of evidence suggests that the peasant followers of Jesus were just what I said, illiterate, Aramaic speaking Jews.
You might also want to take a look at Acts 4:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Wouldn't the disciples of Jesus have been illiterate?

Not necessarily. Certainly his Apostles wouldn't have been. Of the 27 books of the Christian Greek scriptures 13 were written by Paul, a highly educated roman citizen and lawyer.

Paul was indeed well educated, and could write in Greek, but was not one of the 12 disciples, did not write a Gospel, and was never a follower of the earthly Jesus. There are only 7 surviving letters that he wrote. Critical scholars, who examine the text –it’s style, vocabulary, and theology, have concluded that the others are forgeries. I’m curious where you get the idea Paul was a lawyer? He is generally considered to have been a leather-worker.

Matthew* was a civil servant and Luke (who also wrote the Acts of the apostles) a doctor and historian.

Matthew the disciple was a tax collector. Where do you get the idea he was a doctor and/or historian? As a tax collector, he could probably read and write names and numbers – but it’s highly unlikely he’d be trained to write narratives, and certainly would have had no reason to speak, read, or write Greek. Also make the case for attributing this Gospel to a disciple of Jesus, one that also explains why he borrowed so much text from the Gospel of “Mark.�

Of all the *New Testament* writers, only two (Peter and John) were to my knowledge fishermen by trade and the gospel narrative suggest they owned and ran a family business, so while they were clearly working men - not privy to the higher schools of rabbonical education, they were clearly literate and intelligent men. There is therefore nothing "fishy" (by which I presume you mean suspect) that they were able to express themselves in the written greek of the time.]

Clearly they were not literate, as I detailed above. If you wish to propose that they were out of the ordinary, then provide some evidence for it.

As a footnote Johns Gospel, letters and revelation were written very late in the first century and even if he were unschooled in Greek and/or illiterate (which is EXTREMELY unlikely for reasons outlined above) would have had plenty of time to learn.]

Well no, as I detailed it is extremely unlikely that John, son of Zebedee was able to read, write, and compose narratives. More importantly, most scholars do not believe this John wrote the Gospel. Raymond Brown (a Catholic Priest), the foremost expert on the Gospel of John, believes it a community effort. Nevertheless Brown does not rule out the possibility that the “beloved disciple� referenced in the Gospel had been a minor follower of Jesus, but certainly not one of the twelve.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic languages:

• "[In first centry society] Writing in Greek, Aramaic and hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society" regarding the assertion that the Gospel texts arose from an engirely illiterate society he continues "That is an unlikely picture, [as] writing would have been known about everywhere... Consequently, there were usually people present who could have written [what] they heard, whether for their own reference or to inform others".

]

I described the works of three scholars who did very specialized research in this, and summarized their findings above. Millard is an apologist, not a historian. I found Millard’s paper (here: http://web.archive.org/web/200708240828 ... rticleID=4) and the weakness of his case is apparent.

Millard says, “The prevalence of the Greek language in the first century A.D. is also apparent from Greek public notices set up in Jerusalem. Most notable are the stones warning non-Jews not to enter the sacred courts of Herod’s Temple.� Jews from around the empire came to the temple to make sacrifices. Of course they would have Greek signs here. Jerusalem is not Galilee, as he later admits.

Then in defending his notion that literacy was widespread, he states: “A deed of debt, dated 55–56 A.D., was discovered among the Second Revolt documents and may be an example of the debt notes Jesus referred to in the parable of the Shrewd Manager; in the parable, the manager instructs his master’s debtor, “Take your bill, sit down quickly and write half the amount� (Luke 16:6–7). It is taken for granted that an ordinary man would be able to write out a numerical sum.�

People who had need to record transaction would have had to learn how to do this, certainly including debtors. It is invalid to suggest this meant that these businessmen knew how to generally read and write, and certainly this is far removed from being able to speak, read, and write Greek – and very distantly removed from being able to compose narratives.

Millard is typical of so many apologists. Their goal is not to determine what happened based on the evidence. Their goal is to identify evidence that supports their theological views. Such things are fine for Christians looking for excuses to believe what they want to believe, but of no value in making an objective case for the traditional Christian position.

...couldn’t understand Greek,...

Please do some research, Greek was the common language of the time and had dominated the known world for hundreds of years before the gospels; the hellenization of hebrew culture was widespread.
I have done the research, as described above. I recommend you do some reading by actual scholars who are objective enough to try and derive history from the evidence instead of apologists who simply find evidence to fit their convictions.

According to historian Emil Schürer

• “Into this stream of Hellenistic culture the Jews were also drawn, slowly and with reluctance, but irresistibly,â€� Greek was the language of government and commerce And Schuer notes “the small Jewish territory was surrounded on almost all sides by Hellenistic regions with which, for the sake of trade, it was obliged to be in constant contact.â€�

And the Jewish Encylopedia refers to

• "...The Christian Church, which was first founded among Greek-speaking peoples"
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 7&letter=H
  
  "The spoken languages among the Jews of that period were Hebrew, Aramaic, AND to an extent Greek -- Jewish scholar David Flusser [CAPs mine]. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (Tel Aviv: Mod, 1989), p. 11.

Given the above it seem likely that people in the region where Jesus and his disciples originated would have spoken common Greek as well as their own native Aramaic (and at least understood, if not spoken Hebrew, the language of the Temple). This was epitomized by the need to translate the sacred Jewish text into Greek (septuguint) in about 280 BC.

It seems more than likely then that Jesus and his disciples spoke both their native Aramaic, Hebrew dialect AND Greek (Jesus himself may well have also spoken Latin since at his trial it seems that Jesus conversed with Pilate without any mention of a translator) and not at all unusual that the gospel writers chose Koine Greek to document and spread their message.]

You’re relying on rather dated analysis. Schürer’s work was published in 1890. A great deal of scholarship has been done since those days, and again his work is apologetics – not objective analysis.

As an aside

– perhaps Q began as oral tradition. .

Please provide physical evidence that Q existed. (not presumption/assumption and supposition, actual early copies or 1st 2nd documentation of this text and where these documents can presently be viewed)

The amount of physical evidence for Q is equivalent to the physical evidence that Jesus’ disciples wrote gospels: none. But unlike apostolic attribution of the Gospels, Q is a credible theory that fits the facts well.

The existence of Q is a historical hypothesis associated with the “synoptic problem.� In brief, there is solid evidence that the Synoptic Gospels have a dependency relationship; there is no better explanation for why there is identical text in many of the common passages. The synoptic dependencies lead scholars to try to identify the specific relationship: who depended upon whom, and the evidence points most strongly to Marcan priority, that Mark was first, and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a source (in many cases copying Mark’s text, verbatim). With Marcan priority in mind, this leaves some additional common passages between Matthew and Luke. Nearly all of this commonality is in the form of sayings of Jesus. Since these are not included in Mark, this implies another common source was used by both Matthew and Luke – and this is termed “Q� for the German “quelle,� which means “source.� This is the most widely accepted theory among textual scholars of the New Testament.

If you wish to reject the earlier existence of Q, then please provide a theory that fits the facts better than Q. Of course, you can choose to reject it based on faith – but if so, there’s nothing to debate about. You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but please refrain from suggesting the evidence supports your views.

[Slopeshoulder]

I do think the bible is full of fairy tales, if reflecting a specific jewish style historical foundation in many cases. And I think that is wonderful!!

As it happens, I'm reading a collection of 19th century literary fairy tales. In the introduction we read that as fairy tales were making a comeback after being pushed aside by Locke, the empiricists and the elightenment, and after being rediscovered first by the french and germans, the theologian and poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge is quoted as saying that fairy tales first introduced his heart and mind "to the vast." And looking back at earlier time, Tolkein says that it is wrong to think that fairy tales are just about dwarves and elves, but about and sea, air, all of life, all of nature, whenever we are enchanted. A devout and conservative catholic, he writes like a panentheist.

So fairy tales are more than child's tales, moral lessons, or pre-scientific superstitions. To read them that way is to read them as a child. Rather at their best they are deeply romantic myths that enchant, that take our minds beyond ourselves to a sense of "the vast" that can only be called religious. And children are already there, so fairy tales speak to them, and encourage that sense Coleridge and Tolkein, and others, mentioned.

In this way, to call the bible full of fairy tales is to pay it a supreme compliment. It has all sorts of literary forms in it, but fairy tales are among the best.

And what we usually call fairy tales (Grimm etc) are really vestiges of pagan oral traditions that might have made up a scripture of their own. Much of it, especially these 19th century literary tales, is very beautiful. Not to forget hans christian andersen. Countless american christians take thier kids to disney versions, watch the grinch, etc etc. We love 'em.

I'm sort of on a fairy tale kick. First fantasy, now going back to fairy tales and other forms of 19th century aesthetic enchantment. Moves me deeply.

[WinePusher]

Yes, I think it’s a pretty fair request. It’s not that secular scholars are better than Christian scholars, but I was proposing an objective test of the accuracy of the statement that “the bible is impressive in its historical detail.� This was a simple, easily applied filter to remove the noise of Christian apologists who don’t attempt to look at the Bible in a scholarly critical manner. These are the sort of people that many Christians read, and this very possibly includes Mr. JehovahsWitness. Of course there are plenty of good Christian scholars, and I don’t think any of them would agree that the New Testament contains “impressive historical detail.� (I am taking "historical" to imply "it actually happened"). If the statement is true, then surely it should be a fact that is widely recognized, and I am open to letting you or JehovahsWitness cherry-pick your non-Christian scholars. Alternatively, we could once again debate the historicity of events that are narrated in the New Testament.

Fine, if we were to seperate these people into two groups, we would have the close minded dogmatic literal christian fundamentalists who take the Bible word for word and on the otherside we have the historically illiterate and uneducated atheist who doesn't understand anything about biblical studies or scholarship. So, the opinions these two groups cling to are moot. What we're left with are the opinions of the actual scholars and historians. Now, I don't fully comprehend what JW means when he says the bible is "historically detailed" but I can tell you the majority of mainstream biblical scholarship rejects any notion of the Bible being a book full of fiction, fairy tales or myth.

Let's address the point raised by JehovahsWitness. Give me a source of information for Early Christianity just as detailed and informative as the New Testament.

If the point is that the Bible contains detail, irrespective of accuracy, about events that may or may not have happened – then you are right, the New Testament is a great source. “Informative� is subjective. It certainly contains information that has “informed� Christians – but that is, again, irrespective of its accuracy.

Yet, your assumed premise is that the information contained within the New Testament is inaccurate. How do you go about determining such a conclusion?

The New Testament does provide some information that can be analyzed to make historical guesses. In this respect, I agree it is the best single resource available of 1st century Christianity. My response was based on the assumption that JehovahsWitness was suggesting the Bible is historically accurate, and could be accepted at face value. Did I misinterprete him?

No, that was his claim. The one and only event that the Bible needs to be accurate on is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the foundational cornerstone of Christianity. As I've argued with you before, the historical evidence and circumstances surrounding the resurrection is extremely strong, and the only objections I've heard from you lie within the realm of philosophy and science, not history. You present vague philosophically based arguments against the probability of miracles in general rather than a historical critque of the resurrection and the events surrounding it.

I want to know, how strong and reliable do you think the oral tradition was?

Oral traditions are strong in oral cultures, but there’s no indication that the Gospel narratives are a transcription of an oral tradition.

So we're at an impasse here. The Gospels were either written by the Evangelists who were eyewitnesses, which is my contention, or they were written as a byproduct of oral tradition that circulated throughout the palestinian region. If oral tradition didn't play a role in the development of the Gospels, how'd they come to be?

Also, you commit a classic historical fallacy. A person who is intent on writing a written account in the ancient world would dictate the material to a scribe, yet the text would bear the name of the dictator, not the scribe. It's how the ancient world operated, and it's how the Gospels came to be. When you apply classical historical thought and methodology to the Bible alot of these problems you mention vanish.

The Gospels did not bear ANYONE’s name, and they clearly aren’t dictation of an uneducated Aramaic speaker. They were originally written in Greek, and the narratives are coherent – indicating the author was educated.

I already dealt with this fallacy and how it's wrong.

Regarding methodology, there are no other instances of such scribing taking place – in which an uneducated person related stories in one language, and the “scribe� translated them and turned them into coherent narratives in another language.

That's because this was the way the ancient world operated fredonly. Whether it be Cicero, or Ovid or St. Paul, their texts were written by means of oral dictation to scribes. This rids us of the supposed "problem" of how uneducated aramaic speakers managed to produce greek texts.

Then give me a cause for why there were "occasional and sporadic" persecutions of Christians other than their unwillingness to renounce their adherence to the dogma found within the New Testament.

I was responding to JehovahsWitness comment, “writers were willing to die in defense of what they had written.� As I said, there’s no evidence at all that a writer died defended his writings. If you have some evidence, tell me what it is.

Do you believe Paul, John, James and Peter were martyed or not?

[JehovahsWitness]

The following is a summary from Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, chapter 19 (Paul the Apostle: The Man and his Mission).

Did Paul go to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to consult with the apostles?
viewtopic.php?p=374497#p374497


The details between Paul and Luke are not irrreconcilable neither can they be catagorized as "embellishment" which implies untruths.

• The record at Acts 9:20-25 describes Paul’s spending time with the disciples in Damascus and “immediatelyâ€� beginning to preach in the synagogues there. ... On the other hand, Paul’s letter to the Galatians speaks of his going off into Arabia after his conversion and then of his returning to Damascus. (Ga 1:15-17) ..
  
  Paul may have gone into Arabia right after his conversion in order to meditate on God’s will for him. In such a case, Luke’s use of the word “immediately� would mean that immediately upon his return to Damascus and upon associating with the disciples there, Paul began his preaching.
  
  However, at Galatians 1:17 Paul is evidently emphasizing the fact that he did not immediately go up to Jerusalem; that the only place outside of Damascus to which he went during that early period was Arabia. So, the trip to Arabia does not necessarily have to have come immediately after his conversion. It may be that Paul first spent some days in Damascus and quickly made public renunciation of his previous course of opposition by expressing his faith in Christ in the synagogues. Thereafter he may have made his trip into Arabia (the actual purpose of which is undisclosed) and upon his return continued his preaching in Damascus, becoming stronger in it to the point that his opposers sought to put him to death. The two accounts are complementary rather than contradictory, and the only question is as to the precise order of events, which simply is not provided.

Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scritpures Vol II p 586

Luke invariably portrays a Paul who is in harmony with the original apostles, quite a contrast to Paul’s rendition of his interactions with them

Unsubstanciated opinion, no biblical references provided to support this point. It will therefore be ignored.

ACTS also portrays Paul as maintaining absolute devotion to Torah

This is inaccurate, Acts does nothing of the kind.

At no point does Paul express (quote) "absolute devotion to the Torah" (unquote). His ministry in Acts reflected a respect for the law of his Nation while preaching that following of the Mosaic law was not a requirement for ALL Christians. When he saw fit and when it would further his freedom to preach the good news, he observed laws and customs and (as in the case of his submitting to the instruction of the Jerusalem council) did so publically to avoid controversy. None of this represented "absolute devotion" and any freedom he allowed himself whether expressed in Acts or in personally in Galatians, do not represent a "contradition" to the above.

ACTS 28:17
Acts reports that Paul "had done nothing contrary to the people or the customs of our forefathers[/i]" Does this statement represent Pauls "absolute devotion to the Torah"?

Not associating was gentiles was NOT a part of the Mosaic law and was not a 'custom of [their] forefathers' the early Hebrew Patriachs, it was a Rabbonic tradition and one neither Paul nor Peter were legally under obligation to observe (Gal 2:11-14)..

ACTS CHAP 21, 22
The Ephesian riots as reported had nothing to do with Paul actually breaking any of the Mosaic laws, the account clearly shows it the troubles stemmed from false rumours started by those that were financially motivated because of a percieved threat to their commercial interests.

CONCLUSION Any claim that "These accounts are clearly contradictory" have not been substantiated by the passages provided. Having NOT established in the passages presented in Acts any suggestion of "absolute devotion to the Torah" the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:21 as a supposed contradiction to this, would constitute a response to what is essentially "a strawman argument".


PAUL'S DISCOURS

# Gal 2:21, 5:4 – Paul expresses the view that Gentiles who follow the law are in jeopardy of falling from God’s grace, for if doing what the law required could contribute to a person’s salvation, then Christ died in vain.

#And why are Paul’s sermons, as described in Acts, delivered to Jewish audiences even though in his epistles, Paul repeatedly states that he is the apostle to the Gentiles.

>>COMMENT Why has the presumption been made that Pauls refering to himself as "Apostle to the Gentiles" means he will not longer permit himself to address Jews? This is like saying a famous French cook can never make Paella.

#In Acts chapter 17, Paul preaches that pagan polytheists cannot be held accountable for failing to worship the one true God, since they have been ignorant and not willfully disobedient.

#This contrasts with his letter to the Romans in which Paul claims that pagan idolators are not ignorant of the one true God, that all along they have known of his existence and power by seeing the things that he has made.

>>COMMENT: Reading the above two points carefully by the writers own admission two DIFFERENT aspects of pagan responsibility are being discussed. This is like claiming "inconsistency" by noting that a bike is nothing like a pretzel.

In Acts Paul does not say Pagans cannot be held accountable he says they COULD not be held accountable. Indeed he concludes "God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent" All idolatry is disobedience but Paul's focus in Romans is that Pagans stand condemned because they failed to acknowledge the existence of a god for whom the evidence was all around them in creation. It was this formed the basis for the acts of sexual depavity (a form of idolatry) that Paul condemns in Romans.

In short in Athens Paul commends the Greeks for at least acknowleging the "maker of all things" but warns them the time is over for trying to worship him through an idol has passed; whereas in Romans Paul is condemning the failure to even recognise the existence of a God of any (Rom 1:18-32). Apples and oranges are both fruit but "contradiction" cannot be presumed because they taste different.


Ehrman concludes:
The book of Acts appears to contain a number of discrepancies with the writings of Paul himself, with respect both to the events of his life and to the nature of his teachings. If this is so, then it cannot be accepted uncritically as a historically accurate portrayal of Paul.

CONCLUSION
The passages quoted do not sufficiently establish the above premise, thus the above conclusion is at the very least premature.

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

[fredonly]

Yes, I think it’s a pretty fair request. It’s not that secular scholars are better than Christian scholars, but I was proposing an objective test of the accuracy of the statement that “the bible is impressive in its historical detail.� This was a simple, easily applied filter to remove the noise of Christian apologists who don’t attempt to look at the Bible in a scholarly critical manner. These are the sort of people that many Christians read, and this very possibly includes Mr. JehovahsWitness. Of course there are plenty of good Christian scholars, and I don’t think any of them would agree that the New Testament contains “impressive historical detail.� (I am taking "historical" to imply "it actually happened"). If the statement is true, then surely it should be a fact that is widely recognized, and I am open to letting you or JehovahsWitness cherry-pick your non-Christian scholars. Alternatively, we could once again debate the historicity of events that are narrated in the New Testament.

Fine, if we were to seperate these people into two groups, we would have the close minded dogmatic literal christian fundamentalists who take the Bible word for word and on the otherside we have the historically illiterate and uneducated atheist who doesn't understand anything about biblical studies or scholarship. So, the opinions these two groups cling to are moot. What we're left with are the opinions of the actual scholars and historians. Now, I don't fully comprehend what JW means when he says the bible is "historically detailed" but I can tell you the majority of mainstream biblical scholarship rejects any notion of the Bible being a book full of fiction, fairy tales or myth.

I agree. The real answer is more nuanced. Anyone who goes to this extreme is simply being dismissive.

Let's address the point raised by JehovahsWitness. Give me a source of information for Early Christianity just as detailed and informative as the New Testament.

If the point is that the Bible contains detail, irrespective of accuracy, about events that may or may not have happened – then you are right, the New Testament is a great source. “Informative� is subjective. It certainly contains information that has “informed� Christians – but that is, again, irrespective of its accuracy.

Yet, your assumed premise is that the information contained within the New Testament is inaccurate. How do you go about determining such a conclusion?

My simple assertion is that the Bible is like any other data from the past – it needs to be evaluated with objective standards. ==========================================

The New Testament does provide some information that can be analyzed to make historical guesses. In this respect, I agree it is the best single resource available of 1st century Christianity. My response was based on the assumption that JehovahsWitness was suggesting the Bible is historically accurate, and could be accepted at face value. Did I misinterprete him?

No, that was his claim. The one and only event that the Bible needs to be accurate on is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the foundational cornerstone of Christianity. As I've argued with you before, the historical evidence and circumstances surrounding the resurrection is extremely strong, and the only objections I've heard from you lie within the realm of philosophy and science, not history. You present vague philosophically based arguments against the probability of miracles in general rather than a historical critque of the resurrection and the events surrounding it. ?

I don’t think you’re being fair here. I debated the Resurrection with you in good faith, responding to every point you made. You decided to drop the debate – which is your privilege, but now you’re denigrating my argument as being “vaguely philosophical.� There are philosophical elements on either side of this. On my side, the approach is to utilize objective standards to arrive at historical theories (I don’t see anything “vague� about this). On the other side, you assume the Christian “cornerstone,� or at least you assume whatever premises are necessary to make your case (e.g. the supernatural exists; miracles happen). I’d be happy to debate this with you 1:1.
==========================================

I want to know, how strong and reliable do you think the oral tradition was?

Oral traditions are strong in oral cultures, but there’s no indication that the Gospel narratives are a transcription of an oral tradition.

So we're at an impasse here. The Gospels were either written by the Evangelists who were eyewitnesses, which is my contention, or they were written as a byproduct of oral tradition that circulated throughout the palestinian region. If oral tradition didn't play a role in the development of the Gospels, how'd they come to be? ?

Of course there was oral transmission of the stories about Jesus, but it’s false to assume that this somehow implies the Gospel texts in our possession something are anything like transcriptions of an oral history of Jesus. The differences among the Synoptic gospels demonstrate the way the story can be changed to correspond to theological viewpoints. Add in the data from the non-Canonical gospels (also influenced by oral tradition), and it’s clear that there is at least SOME tendency to make up stories.
==========================================

Also, you commit a classic historical fallacy. A person who is intent on writing a written account in the ancient world would dictate the material to a scribe, yet the text would bear the name of the dictator, not the scribe. It's how the ancient world operated, and it's how the Gospels came to be. When you apply classical historical thought and methodology to the Bible alot of these problems you mention vanish.

The Gospels did not bear ANYONE’s name, and they clearly aren’t dictation of an uneducated Aramaic speaker. They were originally written in Greek, and the narratives are coherent – indicating the author was educated.

I already dealt with this fallacy and how it's wrong.?

Once again you’re not being fair – we discussed this in the debate you abandoned despite my responding to all your points. But please review the response I made to JW last night – I provided a good bit of background to support my case. This is another thing we could take as a 1:1 debate. But to be honest, I really do not know why you stick to this ultra-conservative viewpoint. In the midst of our Resurrection debate, this led me to believe you were a Fundamentalist Christian. But since then, I’ve noticed you are a Catholic – which is also my personal background (although I’m a hellbound heretic). Although your conservative view is consistent with Catholic doctrine, it is out of step with modern Catholic scholarship. For example, Father Raymond Brown certainly didn’t believe the Gospels were written by the apostles to which they were later attributed. He discusses this in his reference book, Introduction to the New Testament – a book that it used in many (if not all) Catholic seminaries in the U.S. So you are declaring as “fallacy� a concept that is widely taught to men who are training to be the priests of your faith.
==========================================

Regarding methodology, there are no other instances of such scribing taking place – in which an uneducated person related stories in one language, and the “scribe� translated them and turned them into coherent narratives in another language.

That's because this was the way the ancient world operated fredonly. Whether it be Cicero, or Ovid or St. Paul, their texts were written by means of oral dictation to scribes. This rids us of the supposed "problem" of how uneducated aramaic speakers managed to produce greek texts.?

==========================================
Provide me evidence that Cicero, Ovid, and Paul dictated in one language to a scribe who then translated to another language. If you do, you’ll be partway to making your point. These three were obviously literate and educated. Give me an example of an illiterate, uneducated man telling his story in his native language to a scribe who then accurately organized the thoughts into a coherent narrative in a different language. Good luck!

There’s a huge difference between the transcription of an oral dication and what would need to have occurred with the Gospels.

Then give me a cause for why there were "occasional and sporadic" persecutions of Christians other than their unwillingness to renounce their adherence to the dogma found within the New Testament.

I was responding to JehovahsWitness comment, “writers were willing to die in defense of what they had written.� As I said, there’s no evidence at all that a writer died defended his writings. If you have some evidence, tell me what it is.

Do you believe Paul, John, James and Peter were martyed or not?

There is a tradition that Paul was beheaded in Rome during Nero’s reign. If so, this would likely have been for the same reason Nero persecuted other Christians: the arson allegation. Regardless, the manner and circumstances of Paul’s death is not well documented – so it’s unclear. Tell me if you have some evidence to support your contention.

According to Josephus, James was killed in a temple plot due to the actions of the high priest, Ananus, who accused James of “breaking the law (of Moses),� and sentenced to stoning by the Sanhedrin. You can interpret this, if you wish, to be a martyrdom for his faith (although that’s debatable). Even so, this is not the killing of a writer for his writings. It doesn’t appear James wrote anything (scholars do not believe the brother of Jesus actual wrote the book of James).

Regarding Peter, there is a tradition – recorded by Origen, that Peter was crucified in Rome. The circumstances and date are not documented. Since the only known 1st century persecutions in Rome were related to the arson charge, this seems like the best guess as to the reason. Regardless, Peter did not write anything.