The Gospel of Brian, or...
Apr. 12th, 2009 08:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtech...Istanbul, Not Constantinople!
Despite my frivolous titling, this actually is a fairly serious discussion about the New Testament and the Gospels, so feel free to skip it!
This post was prompted by a thought-provoking LJ exchange (things like this are really what makes LJ work for me). What started as Broadway geeking wandered over to a short discussion of the Gospels.
To begin with, let me state that I consider myself a Christian and belong to a church. I think religion plays an important part in many lives and deserves respect; religious groups were incredibly supportive during the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. My own church was very supportive during recent events in my life (though I, myself, am not very active in it). So this isn't meant to be a rant about Christianity nor a Bible-slam: don't take it that way.
This got me thinking about the Gospel of Judas that was recently in the news and while looking into that, I learned some interesting things about the Gospels. Coincidentally, the Discovery Channel aired “Biblical Mysteries Explained: the Lost Gospels” that evening!
I had grown up believing that the New Testament had been written just after the death of Christ. I never questioned as to who or how, though (I was just a little kid). Later, I learned that it had been compiled from the writings of the gospels of the Apostles. Again, I assumed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had written them.
As I got older and more cynical, I resented people who used the Bible to further their own agendas. As The Simpsons’ Chief Wiggum once said, “The Bible says a lot of things!”
And the Bible (both Old Testament and New Testament) does say a lot of things. Much of it was pragmatic and sensible in the days before refrigeration and modern hygienics and modern law. But for every quote that someone uses to further their cause, you can find another that contradicts it (or is equally nutty). The holy books could be the word of God, but they were transcribed by the hand of man— mortal and fallible.
What I recently learned takes that even further: the manner the New Testament was put together was capricious at best. I grew up naively assuming that the Bible was a book and put together by learned people at the time of Christ. Imagine my surprise to find out that this is nowhere near what happened.
People point to the Council of Nicea (under Roman Emperor Constantine) as the event that determined what became canon and went in to making what the New Testament is today. That seems not to be the actual situation: the “official” parts of the New Testament had been pretty much settled by most of the Christian church by that period, though there was still many disputes. The only Gospel that was not included (that Constantine liked) was the Gospel of Mary-- deemed to controversial because it was written by a woman; Constantine let it go in order to help Christianity succeed (according to accounts). There is a surprising amount of detail and record as to what happened at the Council of Nicea. The final, official decisions about what was “canon” actually happened at later gatherings of bishops. Imagine the arguments and riots that erupted over these proceedings (and they did-- boy, did they!). The decisions that led to what was canon were the product of the politics and opinions and fighting of men and, ultimately, compromise. Not God. How can anyone point to the Bible as the last word on anything? Guide, yes...but literally? Maybe not.
There were apparently hundreds of “gospels of” existing and in use during the time of the Nicean Council. Apparently it was common practice for a gnostic to write an account he believed true and assign it to an Apostle to give it more legitimacy. Constantine picked the most generally and widely accepted and convened the first worldwide meeting of bishops. The major points that Constantine can take credit for are settling the day Easter fell on and declaring mass on Sunday instead of Saturday (can’t do anything the Jews did!), and “settling” the question of whether Christ was divine. More importantly, Constantine legalized all religions (not just Christianity) in the Roman empire.
Here is a fine and heated discussion of these points by people more knowledgeable than I.
Another point that surpised me is that it is generally agreed that they were not written by the hands of the apostles themselves. The earliest copy found was written decades after the events. So the New Testiment is based on the writings of people who probably never even met Christ or witnessed the events that occurred. I’m not even going to mention the “Q” document. Oops.
Anyway, that's what I learned at school today!
For more reading on these subjects, check out:
How the Nicean Council Changed the World
and
The ages of the Gospels
Despite my frivolous titling, this actually is a fairly serious discussion about the New Testament and the Gospels, so feel free to skip it!
This post was prompted by a thought-provoking LJ exchange (things like this are really what makes LJ work for me). What started as Broadway geeking wandered over to a short discussion of the Gospels.
To begin with, let me state that I consider myself a Christian and belong to a church. I think religion plays an important part in many lives and deserves respect; religious groups were incredibly supportive during the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. My own church was very supportive during recent events in my life (though I, myself, am not very active in it). So this isn't meant to be a rant about Christianity nor a Bible-slam: don't take it that way.
This got me thinking about the Gospel of Judas that was recently in the news and while looking into that, I learned some interesting things about the Gospels. Coincidentally, the Discovery Channel aired “Biblical Mysteries Explained: the Lost Gospels” that evening!
I had grown up believing that the New Testament had been written just after the death of Christ. I never questioned as to who or how, though (I was just a little kid). Later, I learned that it had been compiled from the writings of the gospels of the Apostles. Again, I assumed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had written them.
As I got older and more cynical, I resented people who used the Bible to further their own agendas. As The Simpsons’ Chief Wiggum once said, “The Bible says a lot of things!”
And the Bible (both Old Testament and New Testament) does say a lot of things. Much of it was pragmatic and sensible in the days before refrigeration and modern hygienics and modern law. But for every quote that someone uses to further their cause, you can find another that contradicts it (or is equally nutty). The holy books could be the word of God, but they were transcribed by the hand of man— mortal and fallible.
What I recently learned takes that even further: the manner the New Testament was put together was capricious at best. I grew up naively assuming that the Bible was a book and put together by learned people at the time of Christ. Imagine my surprise to find out that this is nowhere near what happened.
People point to the Council of Nicea (under Roman Emperor Constantine) as the event that determined what became canon and went in to making what the New Testament is today. That seems not to be the actual situation: the “official” parts of the New Testament had been pretty much settled by most of the Christian church by that period, though there was still many disputes. The only Gospel that was not included (that Constantine liked) was the Gospel of Mary-- deemed to controversial because it was written by a woman; Constantine let it go in order to help Christianity succeed (according to accounts). There is a surprising amount of detail and record as to what happened at the Council of Nicea. The final, official decisions about what was “canon” actually happened at later gatherings of bishops. Imagine the arguments and riots that erupted over these proceedings (and they did-- boy, did they!). The decisions that led to what was canon were the product of the politics and opinions and fighting of men and, ultimately, compromise. Not God. How can anyone point to the Bible as the last word on anything? Guide, yes...but literally? Maybe not.
There were apparently hundreds of “gospels of” existing and in use during the time of the Nicean Council. Apparently it was common practice for a gnostic to write an account he believed true and assign it to an Apostle to give it more legitimacy. Constantine picked the most generally and widely accepted and convened the first worldwide meeting of bishops. The major points that Constantine can take credit for are settling the day Easter fell on and declaring mass on Sunday instead of Saturday (can’t do anything the Jews did!), and “settling” the question of whether Christ was divine. More importantly, Constantine legalized all religions (not just Christianity) in the Roman empire.
Here is a fine and heated discussion of these points by people more knowledgeable than I.
Another point that surpised me is that it is generally agreed that they were not written by the hands of the apostles themselves. The earliest copy found was written decades after the events. So the New Testiment is based on the writings of people who probably never even met Christ or witnessed the events that occurred. I’m not even going to mention the “Q” document. Oops.
Anyway, that's what I learned at school today!
For more reading on these subjects, check out:
How the Nicean Council Changed the World
and
The ages of the Gospels
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 05:23 am (UTC)What I found interesting was that it seems that among biblical scholars--you know, the learned men who've studied the topic a lot and you'd thing are experts--and even among the most devout ones, there's pretty much a consensus that the Bible is not the word of God, but a set of text cobbled together over several centuries by many writers with many translations and interpretations that need to be taken in the context of their time period. Their opinion, of course, is that this in no way demeans Christianity or makes it less potent, it's just a historical fact that should be taken into consideration.
For whatever reason, this rational and enlightened concept does not seem to trickle down to the foot soldiers for all the culture wars and crusades and stuff. I guess to do so would deprive them of one of their favorite weapons to bludgeon others with, though.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 05:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 06:51 am (UTC)Thank you.
I probably have less patience than I should, as a practising Christian, for the people who take the Bible completely literally and act as though every word was printed in gold (and English) by the hand of God, and seem to believe that denying its impeccable pedigree is denying the thing as a whole. It's so encouraging to see there are people in the world who can take an intellectual approach, acknowledge the human failings of centuries of transcription, translation, and compromise, and still recognise its value. If only they got as much attention as the ignorant zealots ...
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 07:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 07:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 12:06 pm (UTC)"The Books and the Parchments" by Dr. F.F. Bruce
The section, "The Canon of Scripture" in the massive ESV Study Bible.
A number of resources available from The Masters Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary, among others.
Second, I hope you will consider doing the hard digging. The real history is buried under a lot of false and popular mythology. A lot of this false mythology has grown in recent years as a result of novels like DaVinci Code and various Discovery Channel "documentaries". Basically, if it features people from "The Jesus Seminar", then you know you are getting scholarly sounding gibberish and not real scholary research. (If you know how the Jesus Seminar folks evaluate claims, then you will agree that it is gibberish.)
Okay, now to your comments ...
Discovery Channel aired “Biblical Mysteries Explained: the Lost Gospels” that evening!
Please keep in mind that Discovery Channel programs are written from the bias of the producers. These so-called "Lost Gospels" have been known for hundreds of years and have been rejected by the churches for many reasons. So, they are neither "lost" or rejected by conspiracy -- two false claims of the program.
Again, I assumed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had written them.
There is over 1900 years of tradition and the testimony of second century church fathers that confirm who the authors were. Also, archeology has found first century fragments of the Gospels that help confirm that the accounts were written during the first century.
But for every quote that someone uses to further their cause, you can find another that contradicts it (or is equally nutty).
The problem is sinful people like to use a technique called "eisegesis" (to read into). In this, they pick text fragments that support their agenda. In that case, I could use pretty much any book to find fragments of text to support anything I want.
However, Scripture itself demands that believers use a technique called "exegesis" (to read out-of). In this, they are to read whole segments in order to understand the grammatical context, historical context, etc. Then, listen to what the passage says and compare with other verses to ensure a consistent statement. But, this is difficult to do, even for believers.
The holy books could be the word of God, but they were transcribed by the hand of man— mortal and fallible.
It is interesting that God used two different techniques to ensure the high degree of accuracy in the transmission of the Scriptures. For the OT, the Jews established very strict copying procedures. Hence the amazement when people compared the 1100 AD manuscripts with the 120 BC manuscripts found at the Dead Sea and noticed that the only significant differences were in the letter style and some spellings. For the NT, God led the early fathers to create tons of copies. So, by the end of the second century, there were over 25 Thousand copies of the NT text. As a result, the Hebrew and Greek texts that are used for translating into other languages are fairly well known and considered very near the original texts.
People point to the Council of Nicea
One of the mythologies. Nicea had nothing to do with canon. Nicea met to resolve the issue of the divinity of Jesus. The first Council that even talked about canon occurred long after Nicea and that Council did not establish canon but ordered that a single compilation, or codex, of the already recognized 27 books be made, resulting in the Hippo Regius codex of 393.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 12:06 pm (UTC)Again, more mythology.
The churches had established the working canon before the end of the second century.
Here is where the mythology comes into play. Prior to the establishment of the Hippo Regius codex and other compilations in the late fourth century, the churches were using separate copies of the Gospel and Epistles. Think of it this way, before 390's, if I were a church pastor I would have 27 separate, thin books on my shelf. After 390's, I would have one thick book on my shelf that compiled those 27 separate books together.
So, when I talk about canon, I'm talking about how the churches accepted a core set of books from as early as 120 AD.
However, when programs like Discovery Channel etc talk about canon, they seem to get hung up on the compilation or single book. And, even the Reformers in the 1600's point out that canon is not in the compilation, but in the inspired nature of each book therein.
How can anyone point to the Bible as the last word on anything?
Like the Jewish leaders on the day of Jesus resurrection. They saw all the facts. They heard all the testimony, even from the Roman soldiers. But, they refused to believe. I can list as much evidence as possible about the inspired, unique, amazing nature of Scripture, but unless you believe you will never be persuaded.
Guide, yes...but literally?
By the way, Jesus makes it very clear in early part of John 3, that if you won't believe what He says about physical things, then how can you believe what He says about spiritual things. So, Jesus does not let you get away with treating Scripture as some "guide" unless you take it literally, grammatically in context.
The major points that Constantine can take credit for are settling the day Easter fell
Wrong. That decision was not made at Nicea.
I've got an electronic copy of the published synod from the Nicea council. Logos Software has been working to put much of the ancient Christian fathers work into electronic form. In fact, the book covers the published material from many of these early councils. It sure would be nice if so-called scholars and TV program producers would actually read the synods from these councils.
on and declaring mass on Sunday instead of Saturday (can’t do anything the Jews did!)
Wrong. The practice of communion on Sunday started soon after Jesus resurrection in about 33 AD.
“settling” the question of whether Christ was divine.
Wrong. The council actually rejected a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ. They did not decide that Christ was divine. Oh, that vote wasn't even close, 367 to 2.
Another point that surpised me is that it is generally agreed that they were not written by the hands of the apostles themselves.
Matthew and John were Apostles/Disciples.
Mark was written by John Mark, who was acting as a secretary for Peter.
Luke was written by Luke, the doctor supporting Paul, and was acting as a secretary recording interviews with a lot of eyewitnesses from the various women and disciples.
So, technically, only two of the Gospels were written by the physical hand of the apostles.
The earliest copy found was written decades after the events.
Amazing. Consider, the earliest copy we have of Plato is 1100 years after his supposed writing. And, the earliest copy we have of Julius Caesars works are about 800 years after. Yes, the NT works we have fragments from about 40 years after authorship.
I’m not even going to mention the “Q” document.
Good, because the "Q" theory has long been disproved. Anyone bringing up "Q" for NT and the old "J"/"P"/etc theory for Moses is showing they are not keeping up with modern scholarship.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 04:42 pm (UTC)Yeah-- the foot soldiers are the key. Although not the leaders, they influence the actions and voices of their leaders (who are not fools and know what it takes to stay in power). I am ever surprised and hopeful when some of those very leaders act humanely in the face of their congregation's beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 04:49 pm (UTC)The further I looked into this, the more heated and detailed and controversial the topic got. People who spent their entire lives researching this subject arguing with others that have similar pedigrees. I'm way out of my league, there!
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 05:23 pm (UTC)I will address specific points, but one overall feeling I get from your excellent comment is that the creation of the New Testament as we know it today was a smooth and agreeable process overseen by God. From the readings I found, that was hardly the case. In fact, I would be disbelieving if someone tried to convince me that this was a painless process. I found a note from someone (I don't remember what discussion this was from) that describes how I see the process: "The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry."
Something as influential and important as the New Testament simply could -not- have come about in a peaceful and orderly manner. The controversy and bitter division we see today (over gay ministers, marriage, feuding churches, secular politics, etc.) is nothing compared to the violence that occurred during the Synods of those days.
To your comments:
As noted above, my interest is cursory. I am more interested in the process and how consensus is reached. Myth and popular beliefs aside, I honestly do not believe that there can be a last word on who is correct, based on some of the debates and the extremely qualified debaters on all the different sides.
Discovery Channel/Lost Gospels:
I understand that DC's programs are designed for ratings and snagging viewers: I just found the timing serendipitous. Like Wiki, it provides decent information and key words for further research. As for the "Lost Gospels", what you say is not really true: while they are known, complete copies of the most famous (or infamous) do not exist. So they are "lost". Or mostly lost.
There is over 1900 years of tradition and the testimony of second century church fathers that confirm who the authors were. Also, archeology has found first century fragments of the Gospels that help confirm that the accounts were written during the first century.
I'm afraid that the testimony of people hundreds of years (at least decades) after the events does not hold water. Particularly due to the less structured archiving technologies of the day. A court would label this evidence -hearsay- and disallow it.
For the NT, God led the early fathers to create tons of copies. So, by the end of the second century, there were over 25 Thousand copies of the NT text. As a result, the Hebrew and Greek texts that are used for translating into other languages are fairly well known and considered very near the original texts.
Considering how the eisegesists will argue on the bases of exact wording (and these zealots are a big part of the problem), points of translation or a mis-copied text is -huge-. Why choose such a fallible method for getting the Word out? And in allowing men to choose what compromises the NT, valuable Words are lost.
One of the mythologies. Nicea had nothing to do with canon.
I said as much. The synods that established canon for what we now call the New Testament happened 40-60 years after Nicea (the Festal Epistle of Athanasius 367ce is cited by some). Still, the most popular collection of books that made up the NT was so well known at the time of Nicea that an index of them was not even mentioned in those notes.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 06:16 pm (UTC)[your reply]
Again, more mythology.
The churches had established the working canon before the end of the second century.
Mythology?!?! How can you believe that a single book representing hundreds (if not thousands) of different groups could be compiled and agreed-upon without politics, fighting and compromise?? History is FILLED with records of the riots that took place during the times of these synods; Christian sects have been fighting and even killing each other for all of those hundreds of years, to this very day! The Gospel of Mary is a perfect example of a vital piece of text that was excluded from the canon!
Yes, I know that it was some time before a single volume of the NT was produced. This had more to do with binding technologies at the time as anything. I'm not citing DC (or Wiki) for most of this. As for controversy, what about William Tyndale? The church itself had periods of violent suppression.
[me]
How can anyone point to the Bible as the last word on anything?
[you]
Like the Jewish leaders on the day of Jesus resurrection. They saw all the facts. They heard all the testimony, even from the Roman soldiers. But, they refused to believe. I can list as much evidence as possible about the inspired, unique, amazing nature of Scripture, but unless you believe you will never be persuaded.
That's the hard part about Faith: I can have absolute Faith in God, but Faith in something whose creation is filled with controversy, hearsay and unverifiable sources. Maybe I am just un-gifted, but the Bible does not glow with truth when I look at it. The more I learn, the more I see a book compiled by leaders with their own agendas, bias and beliefs. I may be trapping myself in a solipsistic trap, but those are my feelings.
[me]
Guide, yes...but literally?
[you]
By the way, Jesus makes it very clear in early part of John 3, that if you won't believe what He says about physical things, then how can you believe what He says about spiritual things. So, Jesus does not let you get away with treating Scripture as some "guide" unless you take it literally, grammatically in context.
That is what the exegesists use to justify their methods. Again, I don't disbelieve what Christ said: I just have some question about those who transcribed His words (hearsay, which is fallible and which is why courts don't allow using hearsay as evidence).
Wrong. That decision was not made at Nicea.
I've got an electronic copy of the published synod from the Nicea council. Logos Software has been working to put much of the ancient Christian fathers work into electronic form. In fact, the book covers the published material from many of these early councils. It sure would be nice if so-called scholars and TV program producers would actually read the synods from these councils.
Okay, I'm resorting to Wiki here: it has the simplest explanation (and if it was wrong, I can't believe that no one is challenging it). From the entry titled, "First Council of Nicaea":
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy).
I don't have the time to track down the source of Sunday/communion, but it is possible that they "officially" made that the day. From what I read in a couple of sources, Sunday was to distinguish the Christian day of worship from the Jewish day (much like the reason for making the celebration of the day of Resurrection never fall on the Jewish Passover).
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 06:17 pm (UTC)[me]
“settling” the question of whether Christ was divine.
[you]
Wrong. The council actually rejected a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ. They did not decide that Christ was divine. Oh, that vote wasn't even close, 367 to 2.
This is where you are starting to get annoying. This is also why I have -no- desire to get serious about this research. Too many sophists that claim absolute knowledge. My post at this point was concise by design. I was not "Wrong." If I wanted to spend more words on it, I would have said that the Council of Nicaea agreed to a compromise (that word) in agreeing that Christ was "of the same substance" of God. That much credible sites and authors seem to agree upon.
[me]
Another point that surpised me is that it is generally agreed that they were not written by the hands of the apostles themselves.
[you]
Matthew and John were Apostles/Disciples.
Mark was written by John Mark, who was acting as a secretary for Peter.
Luke was written by Luke, the doctor supporting Paul, and was acting as a secretary recording interviews with a lot of eyewitnesses from the various women and disciples.
So, technically, only two of the Gospels were written by the physical hand of the apostles.
There is no hard evidence that those gospels were written by the hands of those you cite. The earliest fragments still date from decades after the original events. As several sources note, it was a common practice at the time to attribute an account to the apostle that it seemed most in character of. Why were there no accounts written at the time of the events themselves? How can you dismiss other gospels that have just as much validation as those that made it in?
[me]
The earliest copy found was written decades after the events.
[you]
Amazing. Consider, the earliest copy we have of Plato is 1100 years after his supposed writing. And, the earliest copy we have of Julius Caesars works are about 800 years after. Yes, the NT works we have fragments from about 40 years after authorship.
Amazing? Not really. Plato's works (which are also hearsay!) are not the source of belief affecting millions of people; wars are not fought over Plato; people are not persecuted over Plato's -exact- words. That's why there is a difference. How can you even make those comparisons?
To modern standards, 40 years is nothing; in those days, four decades is a significant and critical amount of time. Particularly because so much of the story was passed on by the spoken word: stories grow in the telling.
The "Q" source does invite investigation, though. Although this is circumstantial, the phrases and wordings in the Gospels (and various gnostic texts) that are identical or very similar is curious, the more so because of the nature of the spoken word.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-13 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 04:01 am (UTC)As I concluded, I could probably pile up all the evidence in the world, but that will not change a person's mind.
As Jesus related in the story of the rich man in Hell asking Abraham to let him warn his brothers. Abraham responds, "If they won't believe Moses and the Prophets, they won't believe if a dead man comes to life and tries to warn them".
Maybe you might find my response an interesting academic exercise.