How much of scripture is fiction?

[polonius]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

[polonius]

JW posted:

In my opinion.. none of the bible is fiction. It contains parables, illustrations, poems and songs, visions** and dreams but outside of these, all the characters, places and events are imho, historical.

RESPONSE:

In the beginning of Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the time of King Herod who died in 4 BC.

In the beginning of Luke we are told Jesus was born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

That's a 10 year difference. Therefore, one (or both) stories is fictional.

[JehovahsWitness]

JW posted:

In my opinion.. none of the bible is fiction. It contains parables, illustrations, poems and songs, visions** and dreams but outside of these, all the characters, places and events are imho, historical.

RESPONSE:

In the beginning of Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the time of King Herod who died in 4 BC.

In the beginning of Luke we are told Jesus was born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

That's a 10 year difference. Therefore, one (or both) stories is fictional.

I've never seen either of those dates written in the bible, indeed the gospels contains precious few numbers at all and even fewer dates. I do believe this is what they call a "strawman argument" unless you can produce a verse with the words 4BC written in it.


JW

[Difflugia]

Are you suggesting there is something that would render this impossible? If so, what?

Grossly improbable, yes.

The Oxford Bible Commentary on 1 Peter:

Despite I Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but I Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew.

On 2 Peter:

2 Peter's Hellenistic Jewish thought expressed in Greek Asiatic rhetoric cannot be attributed to the author of i Peter, nor to Jesus' Palestinian disciple.

The author of 1 Peter had a classical Greek education. The author of 2 Peter also had a rhetorical education, but in a different tradition. The Peter of the Gospels and Acts didn't have a Greek education.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by ]

polonius: How much of scripture is fiction?

Checkpoint: None, according to Jesus.

The Script: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are Gods'? If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came —and Scripture cannot be set aside — what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.� Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

William: In reality, the script where you claim Jesus say's that none of it is fiction, doesn't say that at all.
Jesus refers to stories that those claiming he should be stoned for blasphemy - should be familiar with.
If one reads all the script withinmind that - KEY - Jesus is The Word of GOD, one gets a different impression as to what the book of stories is.

[JehovahsWitness]

COULD THE FISHERMAN DISCIPLE PETER HAVE WRITTEN THE LETTERS OF FIRST AND SECOND PETER ?

An argument based on supposition and a somewhat literal take on Acts 4:13 seems hardly enough to make an affirmation of "gross improbability" , especially in the light of external and and textual indications this was indeed the case.

Peter’s writership is established by the opening words. Moreover, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.* The authenticity of First Peter is as well attested as any of the inspired letters. Eusebius tells us that the elders of the church made free use of the letter; there was no question as to its authenticity in his time (c. 260-342 C.E.). Ignatius, Hermas, and Barnabas, of the early second century, all make references to it.* First Peter is completely in harmony with the rest of the inspired Scriptures and sets out a powerful message for the Jewish and non-Jewish Christians residing as “temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia�​—regions of Asia Minor.​—1 Pet. 1:1.

*McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, 1981 reprint, Vol. VIII, page 15.

Source : All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial� p. 251
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990121#h=6

Internal evidence upports the above. We know from Acts that the disciple ex-fisherman Peter figured among the leading men at Jerusalem, and that Paul was introduced to a leading man Peter soon after his conversion. It stretches credibility to breaking point to suppose that the writer of the Letters, that later had the authority to endorse that same Paul's writings in his letter, was another Peter, writing under the same name, indeed one has to wonder how anyone could seriously propose such an idea.


A GREEK SPEAKING BUSINESSMAN

Regarding the question could the fisherman write such sophisticated Gresk, the fact is that if the Apostle as described in the gospel did write the letter it would have been many decades after the fisherman we first met on the shores of Galilee. And it should be noted that even at that time the young disciple was part of a family owned business that had at least two other boats, possibly more, so at the very least, even as a younger man, to run a not insignificant small business he must have been apt enough with money and calculas to hire and pay workers. Greek was the common language of the time and especially for northerners just across from the Decapolis and the language of commerce so it's more than likely even then he was could speak both his native Aramaic and Greek, probably fluently.


AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER

Thanks to the synagogue school system the Jewish literacy was fairly high and any Jewish male could read from the sacred scrolls. Luke records Jesus not only reading from the scroll of Isaiah but being able to locate the desired verses, no mean feat, proving if his discourse were not enough how thoroughly familiar Jesus was with the Hewbrew writings.

In Jesus’ day, why was reading from a scroll quite an undertaking?

A common size of the sheets that were used in making scrolls was from 9 to 11 inches [23 to 28 cm] long and from 6 to 9 inches [15 to 23 cm] wide. A number of these sheets were joined together side by side with paste or sewn together with linen thread. In some cases, longer sheets were used. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah was made of 17 parchment strips, totaling approximately 24 feet [7 m] in length in its present state of preservation. The scroll of Isaiah that Jesus used in the synagogue in Nazareth may have been of a similar length.​—Luke 4:16, 17.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008246#h=7

While Peter it's true was a ordinarily working man, he spent more than three years in intimate aquaintence with the remarkable Jesus of Nazareth. if If the book of Acts is to be believed his three year "apprentiship" with someone who was arguably one of the most knowledgable and eloquent teachers of his time left it's mark. There is no reason not to believe the comment of the Religious leaders at the Senheddren that the men were "uneducated" neither meant they were illiterate nor ignorant, simply that they (like Jesus) had not attended any of the schools of higher learning.

Even at the beginning of the Christian movement, the book of Acts portrays Peter as an eloquent and forceful man, in short a man with enough of a command of language to hold his audience, so it would not be unreasonable to speculate from such a starting point towards the the end of his ministry he would have acquired an outstanding ease of expression in spoken and written Greek.

A WELL TRAVELLED RELGIOUS LEADER

The Peter of the gospel had enough potential for Jesus to have given him special responsibilities. Paul testifies to his (Peter's authority) as one of the leading men international Christian community. The Peter as the religious leader decades later was a well travelled man that no doubt has spent decades studying the Hebrew Scriptures. Tradition has the religious leader writing his letters to the Christian community from Babylon where it is a matter of historical record there was a thriving Jewish community.

CONCLUSION A common error in bible reading is to freeze people in time. We met Peter the shores of Galilee and we tend to freeeze him there. But if lowly carpenter from the highlands faced down the religious elite of Jerusalem the center of Jewish learning and left their best teachers dumbfounded, his protégé could after decades of religious devotion write letters to the community left in his charge. Given the external and internal evidence in its favor one has to wonder why anyone questions the identity of the writer at all, it would be most extraordinary if the Letters were NOT written by the one time fisherman.

[polonius]

JW posted:

I've never seen either of those dates written in the bible, indeed the gospels contains precious few numbers at all and even fewer dates. I do believe this is what they call a "strawman argument" unless you can produce a verse with the words 4BC written in it.

JW[/quote]



RESPONSE:


Lets try some common sense


The AD - BC system of dating was developed long after the time of Christ.

We know when Nero was alive and when the the census of Judea took place (10 years after Herod's death)

I've never seen either of those dates written in the bible, indeed the gospels contains precious few numbers at all and even fewer dates. I do believe this is what they call a "strawman argument" unless you can produce a verse with the words 4BC written in it.

Ten yeas after his death Herod's son-inheritor Archalaus was exiled and Judea passed under direct Roman control. It was ten years
after the death of Nero.


I bet you can't find the date
Columbus discovered the New World in the Bible either.

[polonius]

JW posted:

I've never seen either of those dates written in the bible, indeed the gospels contains precious few numbers at all and even fewer dates. I do believe this is what they call a "strawman argument" unless you can produce a verse with the words 4BC written in it.

JW

RESPONSE:


Lets try some common sense


The AD - BC system of dating was developed long after the time of Christ.

We know when Nero was alive and when the the census of Judea took place (10 years after Herod's death)

I've never seen either of those dates written in the bible, indeed the gospels contains precious few numbers at all and even fewer dates. I do believe this is what they call a "strawman argument" unless you can produce a verse with the words 4BC written in it.

Ten yeas after his death Herod's son-inheritor Archalaus was exiled from rule of Judea and Judea passed under direct Roman control. It was ten years
after the death of Nero.


I bet you can't find the date
Columbus discovered the New World in the Bible either. Do you think that date is "a strawman argument " too; O come now.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 17 by polonius]

why don't you produce the quotation with the dates in it and we will discuss them, I am uninterested in your speculations, interpretations and verbal gymnastics. If there are two different dates written in the texts then we'll talk if not all you have is supposition.



JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

Solution:

Look up in a history book when King Herod died. Then look up in a history when Matthew reports Jesus was born and then when Luke reports Jesus was born. See the difference.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 19 by polonius]



First produce the year in the source text then we'll worry about if that year written in the text corresponds with secular history. I'm uninterested in defending what your imagination tells you the text means.

You're free to shareyour opinion, we all do when it comes to scripture to some extent, but it's still just speculation until we see those years written in black and white in the bible.


JW