Believers Should Admit Some of Those Who Wrote the Bible Lied
Some who study and write about religion find forgery in the Bible unimportant. They believe the intent of the author is to help teach the faith and if they lie about who wrote it this does not detract from the noble mission. Bart Ehrman explains why this is not acceptable. He maintains there needs to be agreement between the author and reader about the game. Both need to be in on it. Further, the game needs to be accepted widely beyond the author and reader.
Forgery was discussed many times in ancient writing which has survived. In nearly all cases ancient critics did not agree authors and readers were both in on the game. Those ancients thought authors tried to keep readers in the dark, deceiving them into thinking they were someone different than who they were, were unsavory. Accusations of forgery, especially by the authors whose names were used by others, was bitter. There was no wink wink this is OK.
But, among Christian apologists today, "wink wink this is OK" is quite common. It is as if someone today published an article under the name, "Albert Einstein". Would "apologists" in science say, "It's OK if this unknown person forged in the name of Einstein, we should consider the work as reliable and grounded as if Einstein actually wrote it."
In a past era preachers could get by claiming the Bible had some sacred source. Today we know it was written and promoted by with less than the best of motives.
Is it Law or Gospel? What genre is each book? What does this mean? How is this done?
ReplyDeletelittle helper: As a non-theist I must admit some of your comments here, as well as some of Jon’s, have led me to some reading I wouldn’t have otherwise bothered with. That’s a good thing. One topic of interest to me is Christian apologetics. The shear variety of approaches to defense of the faith is stunning. Wikipedia describes ten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics. There may be more. It is puzzling why so much effort from so many angles is needed. The pseudepigraphy of the “Word of God” must be a contributing factor.
DeleteArdy; Good question. The number of questions is related to the number of people asking a question. Much of it can be redundant, or colored by the reason for the question. The old famous; "Little boy blue come blowing his horn. The sheep are in the meadow, the cows in the corn." There are many questions available to this simple poem, which can be "apologized". ie. Why is he blue? Is he cold? does he have limited oxygen intake? Is it his clothing, or is it his family name? Come from where, and where is he going? What kind of horn? How accomplished is he on the instrument. Can he read music? What kind of sheep? Have they been shorn? What kind of cows? Are they beef cattle or milking? Are they horned, or polled? Would they be in danger of bloating if they are eating too much un-cured corn.
DeleteYou see, for every person hearing this poem, many visualizations are possible.
Within Christianity alone, there are many differences. Many of them are in the area of adiaphoris. (Neither commanded nor forbidden). Most often in ecclesial ( the what, why and how procedures are conducted.) Examples; candles- no candles, robes, no robes. organ or guitar. Those issues related to pure doctrine are more important to the faith. The term "apologetics" is really a response to the reply to the original document's contents. The apology is almost always much more lengthy than the first reply. The best example I can think of was in the case of the Reformation. The Reformers produced a document that laid out the issues in disagreement with the Catholic Church. It was called the Augsburg Confession. The Catholic Church then produced a document with many anathemas against the content of the Augsburg Confession, which in response was produced by the reformers, (The apology to the Augsburg Confession.) a point by point clarification in disagreement . The Apology is four times bigger than the original confession.
So you see apologetics is merely a reasoned and more thorough response to a disagreement.
Following apologetics is dogmatics. Related to apologetics, but in much more depth. Dogma can have a negative tone, but systematic doctrine / dogmatics is an interesting topic. I enjoy dogmatics.
Early on in the Ancient Church Arius proposed an anti- trinitarian position. The result was the Apostles creed. When that wasn't sufficient, the Nicene Creed was produced. When that too argued by the Arians, the Athenasian Creed pretty well covered the distractions of the triunity of the Godhead. In all three Creeds, dogmatics was the tool used.
Ardy; ps. The Jehovah's Witnesses most closely mirror the Arians with their anti-trinitarian teaching.
DeleteThank you little helper. Would it be way off base to say dogmatics is like the philology of religious doctrine?
DeleteArdy; you are one foot up a two foot step. In addition along with ; exegetics, known and established contexts, word studies in translations, and a host of other considerations.
DeleteDogmatics is also called the systematic science of understanding the truth in doctrine. AKA systematic theology, replete with explanations.
Then there is the dark side of "Dogma". Often used to force submission and/or house arrest. A famous world wide church is heavy into dogma. "(That which must be believed to obtain salvation".) Determined by a group to be infallible. In the past, to go against dogma risked being put under the Ban. (sentence of death). Once something has been declared infallible dogma, it cannot be reversed without the whole house of infallibility collapsing.
Ardy; Now to complete your concerns of "pseudepigrapy" Included in this genre are the duteroconical / apocrapha. (the intertestamental books included in the Catholic Bible. Not included in the Hebrew cannon, but inserted in the Greek translation (with Greek influence) called the Septuagent. Only made official at the Council of Trent. some of Catholic dogma is derived and supported by the apocrapha. Thus the need to hold on to them, even if the FCC consider them secondary.
DeleteLook up pseudepigrapy . There you will find seven layers of authenticity. 1. literal authorship---2. dictation---3. delegated---4. posthumous---5. appretince---6. honorable---and 7. outright forgery.
In addition, there are innumerable writings long considered invalid for the canon, some being the gnostic gospels, folk tales of the life of Jesus and Mary. Adam and Eve in the garden and life out, etc. Virtually all written centuries after AD. Much like dime novels to satisfy curiosity.
I must include Dante's Divine comedy, as so much ignorant understanding of the subject of death and hell is based on it, and not based on biblical understanding. It is in fact a political statement of the time against corruption in and out of the Catholic Church. I have seen it creep in on this site over the years as being authentic. (Hint--it is not).
little helper; The seven layers of authenticity is very helpful. I tended to go right to #7 - outright forgery when first exposed to the word pseudepigraphy. Your point on Dante’s Divine comedy is well taken. Enjoy your adventures in dogmatics. Until I explore that topic further I am stuck on the discipline being the study of the meaning and intent of the symbolism in church doctrine AND the is and ought of the same. Thanks again.
DeleteArdy; I prefer to think and have observed that the use "doctrine" is the result of honest objective dogmatics. To reverse them would lead to "word smithing" to arrive at a predetermined doctrine, and abusive dogma. The Council of Trent is evidence. Many times in the past, false doctrine and dogma has been revealed by using dogmatics through apologetics. Doctrine, dogma, and dogmatics are not interchangeable.
DeleteArdy; Interesting you used the word "symbolism". In our church and others, "symbolics" is a stand alone topic. In our church, our symbols are the documents of our statements (plural) of our beliefs/ doctrine. Arrived at by dogmatics. They are contained in "The Book of Concord". Developed 500 yr. ago, following the Lutheran Reformation. They are contained in the constitution of every particular church, including the Synod. I specify Lutheran because there were several "reformations" following the 95 thesis, that don't subscribe to the book of concord. Namely Calvin's, Henry VIII, Zwingli, Jacob Hutter, Anabaptists, Munzer, etc. etc. and later Wesley, followed by many off shoots.
DeleteWhich Bible?
ReplyDeleteall of them
DeleteSorry, To be more clear; Not the Shooter's Bible, The re-loader's bible, The fly fisherman's bible, the Bible of guitar chords, The hunter's bible, The camper's bible, The bible of stupid questions.
Delete