Bible Questions

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Thanks for the detailed analysis of Revelations. Your interpretation here is almost entirely the opposite of what I've always assumed Revelations to mean. That shows my ignorance, I admit.

My view on Revelations is not the dominant one in the Christian church but it is probably shared by the majority of mainstream biblical scholars (at least that's my sense). Also, my understanding of apocalyptic literature is generally shared by Jews too (Daniel and other books in the Hebrew Bible contain apocalyptic sections).

Originally posted by JustaFied
A couple of follow up questions:
1) If there is some contention about the authorship of nearly every book in the Bible, then how are you so confident in the veracity of the subject matter contained in those books? Is it largely a matter of faith?

Because I don't think authorship is all that significant to the issue of truthfulness. Most of the biblical books, with the exception of only a few, were written anonymously. The titles that now appear on these books in modern editions of the Bible were added there after the fact and are based on tradition, some of which appears to be accurate and some of which, through careful analysis, we know is wrong or at least unlikely. In any case, apart from the issues of authorship, the Bible has proven itself to be a relatively accurate historical source.

My faith in God rests primarily on four foundations: (1) the historical witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, including historical records and a long history of human testimony, (2) the Bible, (3) the personal testimonies of friends and family as well as my brothers and sisters in Christ, and (4) my own personal experiences with faith in God.

Originally posted by JustaFied
2) If the Book of Revelations is not meant to be predictive, do you still believe that the apocolypse will be a violent, bloody event as described in Revelations, or will it be more clean and orderly?

Well, I don't think that's what Revelations describes exactly but in any case... I'm not sure... the Bible just doesn't describe the so-called "end-times" in any great detail... all the Bible really states unequivocally is that Jesus will return (this time with all the glory of heaven), there will be a judgment, and the heavens and the earth will be made new.

[JustaFied]

I'm going to continue here the Bible discussion, and I'll refer to some comments you've made in the "Passion of the Christ" thread.

First, in your dates, you're using the letters "C.E." after the date. I've never seen this, what does it mean? You seem to be using it in place of "A.D.", which is short for Anno Domini, I believe. The year of our Lord.

I'm also curious about your reference to a "sayings source": <Also, Matthew and Luke may have been based on earlier source material, namely a sayings source ("Q"), that could derive right from the time of Jesus or at least shortly thereafter.>

On one hand, this "saying source" sounds kind of mysterious; on the other hand, it seems pretty commonsensical; shouldn't any story or transcript necessarily have an initial source?

My final series of questions here will expose my general ignorance of the Bible (ironic, since both my grandfathers were ordained ministers). Were the writers of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) also the disciples of Christ? What were the names of the Disciples? Why did it take 10 years for the first writings of the New Testament to be written, and why were the Gospels not written until 30-80 years after the death of Christ?

[anduril]

The abbreviation "C.E." stands for "Common Era," though some mistakenly assume it means "Christian Era." "B.C.E." means "Before the Common Era." These conventions are typically used in Academia. I've just gotten so used to them now. In any case, they are considered more inclusive designators than "A.D.," which you are correct in defining as "Anno Domini" or "The Year of Our Lord" and "B.C.," which means "Before Christ." Incidentally, in correct usage, "A.D." precedes a date while "C.E.," "B.C.E.," and "B.C." follows it.

The "Q" source, ("Q" stands for "Quelle," the German word for source) is a hypothetical document reconstructed on the basis of sayings shared by both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark). As you may or may not know, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels. This is because they share material that is nearly identical. On the basis of these similarities, scholars have reconstructed a likely model for their development. Mark was written first, perhaps based on the oral tradition of the disciple Peter. When Peter was crucified in Rome, it became necessary to write down this oral tradition. Matthew and Luke came after Mark and used Mark as well as "Q" for their source material. In some reconstructions, Matthew may also have had an additional Aramaic or Hebrew sayings source that contained material unique to Matthew; while Luke's original material may have come either from a written source or from the investigation he claims to have undertaken. (There are a small minority of New Testament scholars who defend the traditional position that Matthew came first.)

John, a quite different Gospel, likely did not use Mark, Matthew, or Luke. Instead, its tradition likely stems from the teachings of "the Beloved Disciple" (a character in the book who is never named, though scholars have made many conjectures, among which Lazarus is the strongest candidate; tradition claims it is John the disciple but there are good reasons to reject this claim). The Gospel probably underwent at least three redactions before reaching its present canonical form.

If traditional authorship is accepted, only Matthew and John were disciples of Christ. However, it is doubtful that the disciple John actually wrote the Gospel of John. The process by which John became known as its author has some obvious and clear flaws. In addition, the description of the disciple John in the other Gospels does not seem to fit with the type of person one would expect to have written the Gospel of John nor does the material in the Gospel of John correspond very neatly to the events John is supposed to have witnessed according to the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew is a more likely fit for his Gospel, although in this case it is quite conceivable that Matthew was only responsible for the Aramaic sayings source that was a basis for the Gospel.

Mark and Luke are likely the authors of their respective Gospels. Mark was a young disciple who travelled with Paul and later accompanied Peter. Luke was a Greek physician from the town of Troas, I believe, and he also travelled with Paul. The Gospel of Luke is actually part I of II. The Acts of the Apostles is also written by Luke. Luke is the only author of a Gospel who can be identified as the author from the text itself. This is because he uses first person narrative in the introduction to Luke and at various places in Acts. Much of the first person narrative occurs in Acts when he accompanies Paul, which allows us by process of elimination to confirm that Luke is, in fact, the likely author.

The names of the disciples as given in Matthew 10:2-4 are "first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him" (cf. Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; also, see Acts 1:12-26, where Matthias is chosen to replace Judas Iscariot). The Gospel of John does not have a list of twelve disciples and actually tends to take a more inclusivist view on this issue of "disciples," likely reflecting a different stream of early Christianity that didn't immediately recognize the Petrine or Pauline authority.

On the length of time taken to write down the story of Jesus... writing in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean world was expensive and limited to a literate, and usually powerful, few. Most of the disciples of Jesus, several being fishermen, probably were not literate. Indeed, Christianity grew as a religion of the common people, and especially among women, and did not spread into the upper echelons of ancient society until much later in its history. Also, oral tradition was a very common way of preserving stories and narratives in these times; the need for written tradition was probably only felt as the first generation of direct witnesses began to pass away. Paul starts earlier than anyone else because his writings are actually correspondence to the churches that he has planted and who have asked for his advice. Also, Paul was literate and likely trained his disciples in literacy as well.

Incidentally, in contrast to other Greek literature from the ancient world, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the common dialect of the people, rather than the more advanced, and elitist, classical forms of Greek.

[JustaFied]

Wow, thanks for the response. Very interesting, I'll have to read over it several times to absorb it all.

Makes sense what you're saying about the general illiteracy of the time period. More stories pass through word of mouth. That said, how can we be so sure some of the details weren't changed or embellished at all? That's one of my concerns with the study of the Bible.

I'm going to what should be an interesting conference next month, involving my grandfather: http://www.newportfoundation.com/conference2004.html

It should emphasize an intellectual and analytical approach to the study of the Bible and to religion in general. I've met many of the people that will be there, and they're true scholars. These aren't your ordinary "fire and brimstone" preachers. Should be some interesting discussions, even to laypersons such as myself. Sounds like something you might be interested in, though it may be more directed towards examining "real-world" applications for those serving in the ministry.

Anyway, thanks again for the explanations. I'm sure I'll have some more questions in the future.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
That said, how can we be so sure some of the details weren't changed or embellished at all? That's one of my concerns with the study of the Bible.

Well, in short, they were changed and embellished. There is clear evidence of that just in comparing Matthew and Luke to Mark. The issue, of course, is how to recognize these changes and embellishments and whether or not these embellishments or changes significantly alter the essential elements of the story.

At the same time, it should be said that oral tradition can be very reliable. For instance, just teach a child a song and, after they have learned the song, just try and change a significant part of the song as you sing it together. You'll be surprised how quickly the vast majority of children, just 2-4 years old, will immediately correct you. I remember teaching my daughter "Jesus Love Me." When I started singing "Jesus Loves You," she immediately corrected me. Or, I originally taught her to sing in this song that "the Bible tells me so." When I started singing it as "the Bible tells us so," she again immediately noticed the difference and insisted I sing it the right way. In our culture, it is sometimes to difficult to believe that oral tradition can be preserved so accurately but when a culture does not have literature to rely on, their oral and aural instincts become very refined, just like children...

The conference looks quite interesting... let me know how it goes.

[JustaFied]

Not sure that I completely agree on the reliability of oral tradition, particularly in situations where the initial teller of the story isn't there to correct future mistakes. What if your daughter goes to school and teaches the song to her class, they sing it once a day for a month or so, one of the other students goes home and teaches it to his family, then one of his siblings goes to school and teaches it to his class, and so forth.... I would think that at some point along this chain of events the lyrics of the song, or the substance of the story, may change, possibly even significantly. I think that's what happens when a story is passed on for generations and there is no other medium in which to record it. Example: do you really believe that persons in the day of the Old Testament lived to be several hundred years old? Just one example, but kind of highlights my thesis here...

But, as you say, it is then important to try to differentiate whether these embelishments "significantly alter the signficance of the story". True indeed.

The conference should be interesting. I'll be there to observe, really.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Not sure that I completely agree on the reliability of oral tradition, particularly in situations where the initial teller of the story isn't there to correct future mistakes. What if your daughter goes to school and teaches the song to her class, they sing it once a day for a month or so, one of the other students goes home and teaches it to his family, then one of his siblings goes to school and teaches it to his class, and so forth.... I would think that at some point along this chain of events the lyrics of the song, or the substance of the story, may change, possibly even significantly. I think that's what happens when a story is passed on for generations and there is no other medium in which to record it. Example: do you really believe that persons in the day of the Old Testament lived to be several hundred years old? Just one example, but kind of highlights my thesis here...

First, even in your story, I would imagine the song would remain very much the same with, at most, minor differences. But, in any case... I'd like to address some of the points you've made directly...

Actually, the age of persons in the Old Testament has nothing to do with your "thesis." Numbers in nearly all ancient Near Eastern and Classical literature are often only ideological devices and rarely represent actual numbers. Take a look at relevant Assyrian and Babylonian king lists that list the ages of kings... these are even more outrageous than biblical numbers. Despite the outrageous numbers, there is no evidence that I know to suggest that these numbers were changed or embellished from an original account.

In fact, consider the ages of Moses as reported in the Bible... he flees Egypt when he is forty, he returns to Egypt to deliver the Hebrews when he is eighty, and he dies when he is one-hundred and twenty. You'll notice that these numbers go by forty-year increments. This is not surprising given that in ancient Israelite culture forty years was conventionally recognized as "a generation." It also has some other ideological functions too so it is not, no matter how unlikely, an "embellishment" per se. You'll notice in the Hebrew Bible that many numbers, and multiples of those numbers, recur time and again; three, seven, twelve, and forty being the most prevalent.

It was also very common to list outrageous numbers for the size of armies in the ancient world. Consider the epics of Homer or the histories of Herodotus on this point. If you've seen the trailer for Troy, you'll no doubt notice that the director(s) of that movie have chosen to take some of these numbers literally.

As for the reliability of oral traditions in oral/aural cultures... for the sake of brevity, I'll simply let it suffice to say that extensive anthropological studies have been done on this and confirm what I have claimed. For starters, you may look into the seminal work undertaken by Milman Parry and later completed by Albert Lord. From there, you should find abundant resources on the topic.

[JustaFied]

Tough to argue with you; you know your stuff. I'm afraid you've punched a hole in my "thesis". Oh well, back to the drawing board.

I guess my problem with what you're saying now is that if parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally, i.e. the age of people, periods of time, descriptions in Revelations, then what can we take literally? Did Eden really exist? Were the inhabitants on Noah's ark really the only survivors after 40 days and nights of flooding? And, most importantly, did Jesus really rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven? Are these passages to be taken literally? If not, in what context are we supposed to understand them?

Actually, I think I know the answers to these questions; I can see your logic and it makes some sense. But, I've got to get up early, so I'm calling it a night.

Yeah, there are lots of people in the fighting scenes in "Troy". The producers may need a refresher course here.

[anduril]

I'm glad you can anticipate my answers... just in case, I'll explain.

In most cases, the Bible indicates to its readers whether or not something is to be understood historically, mythically, mythologically, poetically, or otherwise. The problem that so many Bible readers have is that they get caught up in this notion of the "literal" interpretation and equate it with historical = truth. Part of the reason for this is that they do not appreciate the different literary genres in Scripture nor do they appreciate or even know about the ancient Near Eastern world out of which the Bible arose. The "literal" interpretation is not necessarily the one that says this actually happened; rather, it is the interpretation that listens to the text and honestly re-presents, as best as possible, what is actually written there. Sometimes this means that the text does make a claim about history and specific events that have happened; however, other times, it means that the text intends to communicate something entirely ahistorical, something that transcends history and time. And, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.

Genesis 1-11 and the stories contained therein are very different from the rest of Genesis. There are several indicators in these chapters that these stories are mythology and are not meant to conform to present-day standards of historical accuracy. Instead, they communicate universal truths, as the Hebrews understood them, about the world they lived in. That said, I think there may be historical kernels to some of these stories in part because several of them abound in slightly different forms in many different cultures, most notably the flood story and the Tower of Babel story. I believe that these stories answer "an ancient quest for the common unconscious ... [and] fulfil a spiritual need that people have: to share a common memory" (as Scorsese once said about movies); a common memory that likely has some basis in reality.

The death and resurrection of Jesus is clearly an event that the Gospels and especially Paul places in history.

PS. My favourite scene in the "Troy" trailer is the ships. I swear, building a fleet that size would have exhausted all the lumber in the ancient world... and what empire would have had the human resources to accomplish it... :-) But, of course, it is an epic and epics must be grand (both in literature and movies). It is, in truth, part of the wonder of the story. Without it, the viewer/reader/hearer is often left with the mundane, the expected, the predictable, and the all-too-often boring. Spectacle takes us away and I think ancient readers/listeners and modern viewers share that desire for spectacle, at least on occasion. It helps us escape our reality and pretend (or perhaps remind us) that the human race is capable of some pretty amazing things.

[JustaFied]

Thanks again for sharing your opinions / analysis of the Bible. I didn't mean to sound arrogant or condescending in saying that I could "anticipate" your answers. It's just that it seems that are two ways of approaching Biblical interpretation: 1) literally stating that all the events occured as described; 2) understanding the writing style / storytelling style of the time in which they were written so as to better understand the context. The 2nd option here probably tends to be a bit more complicated, not as appealing to fundamentalists.

I've just watched "The Last Temptation of Christ" for the first time, and I'm still trying to get my mind around what it's saying. Certainly a more difficult nut to crack than "The Passion of the Christ". I see that it's on many of the top 10 lists from the '80's for many of the regulars here, and with good reason...

[anduril]

I didn't take offense at all. I was actually being genuine in saying that I'm glad you could anticipate my answers. That's a good thing in this case, in my opinion...

The second option certainly requires greater understanding and study, that's for sure. But, if the Bible does contain the word of God, I think the effort is more than worthwhile, eh?

The first option is incorrectly worded in my opinion because, for me, it's the same as the second option. What the Bible is "literally" saying happened can only be understood through an appreciation of the writing style. Fundamentalists, though they claim to read the Bible literally, actually do something different; they read it naively, and based on modern conceptions of factuality, historicity, authorship, and such. Also, Fundamentalists read the Bible through a specific theological grid that informs what they see there. It is theology first then Bible; I prefer Bible first then theology. The latter seems much more honest and intellectually sound.

RE: Last Temptation of Christ. It certainly is a great movie. In my opinion, the best Jesus film ever made and one of the best movies of all-time. Of course, that's not to say that the Jesus of this movie is the Jesus of the Bible or of Faith. It is a very provocative movie.

[anduril]

Oh, I want to give an example of what I mean about literal reading.

If I wrote, "There once was a man named John." What is the literal meaning of this phrase given your understanding of the English language and the way people communicate in English? Would a literal reading of the phrase be that there really was a historical person named John or would you assume that I'm about to tell a story and probably a fictional one at that? It is not enough to simply know the definition of each word in the sentence; it helps to know something about communication, literature, and genre to really know what a sentence means and intends to convey. Even changing this sentence ever so slightly to read, "There was once a man named John" or "There was a man named John," will undoubtedly give you a slightly different impression of the intent behind the sentence. Now, what if I wrote,

"There once was a man named John;
John was once the name of a man."

What's your reading now?

I could give many more examples and pull them right out of the Bible just to make it really interesting. But, I imagine you get my point.

[JustaFied]

Thanks, I believe I understand what you're saying. It makes sense, it's logical. The difficulty here, is that at some point you must balance this idea of understanding the context, as you've described, with a certain core belief of faith. You have faith that Jesus was indeed the son of God, and you have faith that he rose from the dead. These are points that are difficult to prove or disprove, and there's a limit on what understanding the context of the time will help explain. It's a matter of faith, take it or leave it. Fundamentalists make it easier - they read the entire Bible literally, they take the entire text on faith.

A quote from The New Yorker article on Gibson that I think you'll enjoy: "It's horseshit. It's revisionist bullshit. And that's what these academics are into. It was like they were more or less saying I have no right to interpret the Gospels myself, because I don't have a bunch of letters after my name. But they are for children, these Gospels. They're for children, they're for old people, they're for everybody in between. They're not necessarily for academics. Just get an academic on board if you want to pervert something!"

Did you realize you were "perverting" the Bible, Anduril? That's a classic.


The Last Temptation of Christ is a much more murky film. The beginning seems to leave open the question of whether Jesus was really the son of God, to whom God gave direction, or just a psychotic, disturbed individual whose new, revolutionary message touched a nerve in a rather unstable time in history. I listened to part of Scorsese's commentary. He seemed to find it amusing that Puritanical America (his words) created a controversy about the sexual nature of the film, when he thought the role of Judus in the film would be much more controversial. The film suggests that Judus was really the person pushing Jesus to spread his message, and that Judus and Jesus agreed that Judus should turn him in to the Roman authorities so that Jesus would be crucified as God intended.

[anduril]

Easier? Okay, if you say so... but again, Fundamentalists don't read the Bible literally! If they did, they'd get it right.

And, of course, faith plays a role in how you respond to the text... I've never suggested otherwise. But, faith doesn't mean that you ignore what the text actually says and claims and pretend it is something more outlandish than it is. Faith is a response to the worldview of the text. Do you as a reader agree and accept that the writer provides accurate testimony when he describes and perceives the work of God in history? Also, do you agree that the writers have attempted as accurately as possible to contend with theological and moral truths that have been revealed to them through inspiration? For me, I answer yes to both questions.

As for Mel's comments in the New Yorker... Yes, he said something similar in his interview with Diane Sawyer. It's actually a typical response that people have towards scholars. It's part of the reason scholars have a tendency to retreat to their ivory tower. To be frank, scholars, by benefit of their wealth of knowledge, are generally able to see that what we know has nearly infinite nuances. In general, people don't like that... it confuses them. So, they take positions that are "easier" for them. Scholars, again in general, try to correct these positions and help people arrive at more balanced and informed opinions but often they are met with hostility because this correction is threatening. Gibson is just one of those anti-intellectuals, who clearly feels threatened by those have more knowledge than he does.

RE: The Last Temptation of Christ. Scorsese's movie makes many assertions about Jesus that are biblically inaccurate. But, that's not the point. Scorsese is attempting to grapple with the meeting of divine and human in Jesus and he does this by exploring a fictional Jesus who bears some resemblance to the biblical one. This take allows Scorsese some freedom to ask questions that may not otherwise get asked.

[JustaFied]

Back to this discussion, I agree with you - someone claiming a "literal" interpretation of the Bible may not actually be interpreting it literally, in that they're failing to understand the context in which it was written. Try explaining that one to some fundamentalists - easy way to get them really confused.

On to the next question: "Do you as a reader agree and accept that the writer provides accurate testimony when he describes and perceives the work of God in history?" - I guess that's the big question here, and frankly it's the one I have the most trouble with. I don't think I'm going to change my mind today.

Would Scorsese (and Paul Schrader) agree with your assertion that The Last Temptation of Christ makes many assertions that are biblically inaccurate? What exactly do you consider to be inaccurate? I'm asking out of ignorant curiousity, mainly. Obviously, the part about his coming down off the cross and living out the rest of his life is not in the Bible. But, are you also referring to the pre-crucifixion life of Jesus as depicted in the film? It's a film I've thought about often in the month or so since I saw it; need to buy a copy (Criterion).

Appreciate the responses here. No offense intended to you with my long lag time between posts. I am reading intermittingly a book on Revelations. Interesting stuff.