Can the story of Noah be literally true?

Faith & Science Conversation
82

He does know better than zealous apologists spreading misinformation on the internet. That the textual variations do not impact essential Christian doctrines does not mean they are slight. Not to mention he is only referring to extant variants, aka the ones we know of. We have next to nothing the first 100-200 years these texts were written before many of them came to be known as scripture. There are many examples of diversity and editing that show up before the manuscript tradition. There are numerous examples of Christians editing extant texts, writing texts in someone else’s name and many early church fathers were very concerned about their own works being edited.Many scholars think several of the works came in different versions and once Mark is sent somewhere else, there is no copyright or control. Look at what Matthew and Luke did to Mark in a generation and maybe even John. That could have been done by others or even with an earlier form of our present Gospel. The idea of an “autograph” is rejected by many textual scholars today. Some of these works may be community texts and the redaction of GJohn with a new ending makes this explicit. The “autograph” you speak of may have been composed in stages and those different stages may even influence the record we have. The simple fact is we have next to nothing the forst 100 years of these text’s existence. There is an absolute and co plate lack of evidence as to what happened or what early version of each work may have ultimately become the canonical one. Conservative commentary on the textual status of the Bible id largely centered around a desire for certainty, as is their chief reason for inerrancy.

Vinnie

83

Bruce Metzger said only 40 lines, or about 400 words, of the 20,000 lines of the NT are in serious doubt.

"The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like , there would be very few points of disagreement —maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions… The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

“So why does Ehrman give one impression to the general public and the opposite to the academic world? Could it be because he can get away with casting doubt on the New Testament to an uninformed public, but not to his academic peers? Does selling books have anything to do with it? I don’t know. I just find the contradiction here quite telling– the man who gets all the attention for casting doubt on the text of the Bible, upon further review, doesn’t really doubt it himself.” Tom Howe
The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament Ehrman

Am I misunderstanding what Bart says here?

84

I’d be interested in seeing the exact quote and source it comes from and it’s context. Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John is 25 lines all by itself. That redacted ending alone shows your claim is absurd. And Bruce knows nothing about the compositional stages, redactions, alterations and so on of the first 50-100 years of our Gospels’s existence. He was in the same boat as everyone else in this regard. He can only comment on early archetypes floating around in the second century. There is no way to go further back and even that is speculatively.

You are also issuing a fallacy. You are claiming the historical evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming. It is not and there simply can’t be any based on our available sources. Then immediately You go on to assert its the most factual piece of history in existence that Jesus’ disciples believed it. Is this supposed to be evidence? That people believe a miracle occurred is not historical proof it actually occurred. That is nonsense. That many followers of Jesus believed it is an extremely probable piece of history. It is not the most certain by a long shot. That is absolute nonsense. We actually have forst-hand writings from many people in antiquity, their diaries and so on. In the modern world we have video an so forth. We don’t have any writings by any of the disciples. Everything we know about them is inferred through others. We have to infer the original disciples beliefs about Jesus from a contemporary named Paul and the later Gospels. We have no writings from them stating their exact views on Jesus. For all we know, some of these Galilean Jews may have flatly rejected some things we find in the gospels (e.g. declaring all foods clean in Mark alone). Just as you are doing with textual evidence, you are vastly overstating things in your favor and issuing arguments that just don’t follow. All this shows is your need for absolute certainty. This is not about historical evidence to you or many conservative apologists because they would see what is so plain to the academic world.

Vinnie

85

You should ask Ehrman what he means by essential and whether he still holds to this outdated view. He has a blog and forum on his website. In fact, he addresses this issue here:

<<<<>>As it turns out, I don’t disagree with most of that. I don’t put a percentage on what we know and don’t know the way Metzger did, because I don’t think that’s humanly possible. And I think there are several issues that have become issues since Metzger was personally active in the field as a textual critic. One is that textual critics today are highly disinclined to speak about the “original text,” because they have come to see how problematic that category is, given the nature of our evidence. Metzger was relatively certain that the original text probably survives among our manuscripts somewhere, almost certainly in our oldest and best manuscripts. Where he and I (and many others) differ is that I (and others) are not very comforted by the fact that we have decent manuscripts that date 300 years after the originals were produced.

It’s true that we have early papyrus manuscripts, but these are highly fragmentary indeed. We do not get large chunks of texts until some papyri of around 200 CE (these too are still highly fragmentary). That means the text was being copied for over a hundred years before we start getting full chapters of any of it preserved. Our first complete copies of any of the books come from 150 years after that, around the middle of the fourth century.

I simply don’t see how we can know what changes were made in the first month or two, or the first year or two, or the first decade or two of the text if we don’t have any manuscripts from that time – or in fact any manuscripts with those passages for another 300 years. This did not bother Metzger so much because at the end of the day he had faith that the manuscripts we do have are accurate representations of the original text. But that really is a matter of faith, not of logic or evidence. My view is that we simply don’t know if we can get back to the original text. Metzger thought we could. But knowing everything he said about the matter, I don’t see why he, or anyone else, should ever have thought so.>>>>>>

He says Bruce simply assumed the oldest and earliest texts we possessed would get us to the autographs. It’s an assumption. When there are no actual manuscripts that is all it can be.

It would be helpful, if instead of just data-mining outdated quotes in your favor on the issue you would read the books and authors themselves. Stop picking an authority who agrees with you or trying to show a skeptic says something that agrees with you as if that fallacious line of thought is supposed to convince a critical exegete of anything. Actually dialogue with the material and arguments I have read Metzgers Text of the NT. The 3rd edition is on my shelf. I have read several of Bart’s works as well. Have you?

Vinnie

86

The church didn’t canonize autographs. The extant form of the New Testament in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries was canonized in the 4th century. Autograph is a modern notion in an attempt to preserve an inerrant Bible when we see hundreds of thousands of insignificant variations and evidence of many other changes, alterations and omissions in our Sacred Scriptures. Evangelicals have to imagine something that never existed to get around obvious errors in the Bible. They are vastly more worried about the inerrancy of the Bible than God ever was. It’s a figment of our imagination.

87

[quote=“Vinnie, post:85, topic:46151”]
But that really is a matter of faith, not of logic or evidence
[/quote] He understood the logic at one time. I don’t know what changed.

“of the many hundreds of thousands of textual variants that we have among our manuscripts, most of them are completely unimportant and insignificant and don’t matter for twit.” BE

I am not sure why Bart includes this information in his books if it doesn’t matter a twit.

I have read a great deal of Bart’s work. He certainly has a vast wealth of knowledge. I simply think he is wrong at times. His interpretation of Christ’s comments on the family unfortunately demonstrate a serious flaw in his ability to interpret data. He believes Christ isn’t pro-family. He points out that Jesus said that in order to be his disciple one must hate his brother and sister and father etc.

He points out that the one text that states the concept of the trinity wasn’t original and therefore it casts doubt on the Trinity, a foundational tenet of Christianity. While he adds that theologians get around that type of problem by referring to other verses that they can find to support their viewpoint, he doesn’t mention that those other texts do a heck of a job pointing out that the Trinity is a reasonable position to have.

Who is responsible for the words included in John 14, 15 and 16? Let’s look at trying to validate the gospel accounts beginning right here. I suggest that this is an approach to study the NT that has value. How is it possible that these words have come down to us through history? There’s nothing like them and by this I mean what they convey. They are not just any words. Those words from those three chapters say what? Who could have thought of them? Where did they come up with them? How did they develop the ideas they express? Luck? The phone game randomly produced them after many generations from the oral traditions? There is no record I am aware of, of anyone else speaking those thoughts. No one, ever, gave us sentences/phrases like what we find there, from what I know. Out of the billions and billions of people who have lived, not one of us is recorded as saying or thinking anything like, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

88

You haven’t understood him then. He is saying most of the variants between later manuscripts don’t amount to much. His argument is not nor was it ever that they do. Stop with the straw man arguments.

The rest of your post goes on to uncritically use Johannine sayings material as if it goes back to Jesus. As part of a sermon that is fine, but when discussing issues from a critical perspective it is not. Ehrman, along with the rest of competent NT scholars do not believe this. Your argument from incredibility, not withstanding. John rewrote synoptic material from a heavenly viewpoint. That’s the consensus today. For Christians like me it speaks to timeless truths about Jesus but it’s not remotely accurate in a historical sense.

Vinnie

89

“You haven’t understood him then. He is saying most of the variants between later manuscripts don’t amount to much. His argument is not nor was it ever that they do. Stop with the straw man arguments.”

I am sorry you feel that way. Bart, unfortunately, is pretty human like the rest of us. He makes errors. His analysis of NT issues is fascinating, not perfect.

My reference to what Jesus is quoted as saying, preserved for thousands of years, is worth close examination. Starting there, with what He had to say, we should be able to learn a great deal. The questions I asked about them are legitimate and deserve our best efforts to answer, including a careful attempt to see if He spoke them. There is nothing wrong or unscholarly about undertaking such an endeavor. It can only lead to more information.
I am convinced those words represent what He said. No one, at least no one I am aware of, has tried to publish his opinion on who other than Christ could have uttered them, ever, even you, which is disappointing. I was hoping you would weigh in on it.

“The rest of your post goes on to uncritically use Johannine sayings material as if it goes back to Jesus.”

To whom do they go/belong?

" As part of a sermon that is fine, but when discussing issues from a critical perspective it is not."

I have to disagree with you. We are negligent by not examining them from this perspective.

“Ehrman, along with the rest of competent NT scholars do not believe this.”

Fundamentalists are criticized for not believing in the value of textual criticism. I think it is a fascinating field to study.

“Your argument from incredibility, not withstanding. John rewrote synoptic material from a heavenly viewpoint. That’s the consensus today. For Christians like me it speaks to timeless truths about Jesus but it’s not remotely accurate in a historical sense.”

Why? What about them makes it impossible? But, that doesn’t address my initial quest. Who did craft those statements? Who could have? Why would he? What was He hoping to achieve? John? What reasons do you have for claiming that?

90

No one really uses the term impossible and possible like this in historical discussions but apologists. I never said it was impossible which to me sounds like I can give you a logical proof. It’s based on historical argumentation and therefore, probability, not possibility. I don’t chase conservative apologists, fundamentalists or evangelical, up never-ending hills of “what-ifs.”

Vinnie

91

I think it is a fair question. I don’t mind if my inquiries don’t fit others’ definitions of what are acceptable pursuits. I love truth and I love the efforts to find it, notwithstanding my own biases.

Personally, I don’t think Bart suffered from delusions when he experienced what he called his born again experience with Jesus Christ. I am convinced as he was, that indeed God became real to him, became his best friend, changed his perspective on everything, even guiding him to understand that Love is the key.

Same thing happened to me

92

But what about what Jesus says on this? Not to proof text but I think this says a lot.

John 14:25-26 These things I have spoken to you while remaining with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you.

If God took the time to insure the Apostles would remember all things don’t you think we can be accept God would insure all of the important things would be written down and transmitted to us? And I don’t mean in a perfect unbroken chain from the lips of the Apostles to the 4th century texts.

1 Like
93

First, proof-text hunting John doesn’t work for me. I treat most of the sayings material in John as a post-Easter creations. The big picture of John is true. It rewrites the synoptic Jesus from a divine perspective. Even if grant that saying, I don’t think the Holy Spirit is overly concerned with making sure the Apostles and all of us could pass a theology exam.

Jesus also said this just before, “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” That is most certainly not literally true. We need to come to grips with historical reality.

I no longer read the Bible the same way as many Christians. Every word and syllable wasn’t hand-written by God to teach us a timeless truth. We have to look at the bigger picture and the goal of each author in their specific life setting. It was written 2,000 years ago and fact-literal history was not its goal. Spreading the good news was. I believe salvation and moral instruction are God’s intended goal with scripture. It leaves us a record of the incarnation, fallible and erroneous. But when read with an open heart and through the Holy Spirit, the Gospel speaks to us. We find God in Jesus. So yes, I have faith the Bible serves the purpose for which God intended it. But the Bible has many things which are incorrect when taken literally. In numerous places, if we treat it the same it contradicts itself, is shown false by history and contains many things that are outright immoral. Do I accept the big picture of the NT? Of course. But I accept it on faith. Not because textual evidence or historical arguments are overwhelming.

And I see John 14 as comforting Jesus’ followers after the fact. It lets them know their doctrine is true, God is looking out for them. They live in Jesus and he lives in them. Whether this is a prophetic utterance or simply John being filled with the spirit, the sole goal of this chapter is for Jesus to reassure and comfort his followers. Did Pentecost occur or was the Holy Spirit always available? I honestly have no idea. Nor does it matter to me. I accept the gist of John 14 as true but I don’t look at every detail and build a theology out of it or side-arguments about other topics. This chapter seems to be more about pastoral concerns.

I don’t think early Christians felt as strong a need as us to distinguish between things said by Jesus before and after the Cross. It was the same resurrected Jesus speaking to them now as before. It is not difficult to imagine how post-easter sayings make it into a story about Jesus. None of the Gospels are written strictly about the past. Every single one of them was very much written in the here and now for its current audience. It meant to address their concerns and issues and spread the good news.
Vinnie

94

That is awesome! I concur 100 percent. May I ask you how you came to that conclusion? What convinced you?

95

Point is that we dont have the first bible(if exists at all) or at least the original copies or letters or writtings of the apostles and their people who recorded them.

But hey do you know what we have ? Evidence that there were these early Christians who had some customs and beliefs similar and on point to what the todays bible says.

So maybe some things were altered trough the early vhurch? Sure of course. Did the Matthew used Mark etc etc for his versiok of the Gospel. Maybe(unless you were there and saw him copying from Mark). Are some things in them later inventions to suit the narrative? Why woukd the authors do that? If they wanted Jesus to be believed by anyone they would have simply taken out his crucifixion ,the most weakling thing about Christianity to this day

96

His crucifixion was a brute fact. Mark is one big apology for it. As Paul says, a stumbling block for Jews and folly to Gentiles. See Hengel’s little packet on Crucifixion for an overview of what it was like and meant in antiquity. Without the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, there is not Christianity.

And some did remove the crucifixion. The Gospel of Thomas for example. How well did that work out?

Any creativity from the gospel authors was probably pastoral. It meant to strengthen its community. You see it as a dirty word. To you it means lie and misinformation. That is not at all what it means to me. The gospels never intended to be what you think they are. It’s the standard that you impose on them that is bad and leads to misinformation. The gospels are good news and God is telling a specific story of salvation to a specific community through them. They are meant to inspire, to bring people to God, to move them to charity and every good deed. Its not meant for modern readers to proof-text hunt and form all manner of silly doctrine out of taking every single word and statement in there as if it were a timeless universal mandate that fell on stone slabs from heaven. We need to ask the Gospels the right questions as we read them.

Vinnie

97

No one (and more than others the pagans) want a “weak” God. Crucifixion was a weak way to die and punished. So your point is?

Isnt that a forgery of the middle ages? You know at that time Christianity was pretty much spread already. If not from the middle ages i recall it was at least at the time were Christianity was the dominant religion in the Roman Empire
Hense the many heresies or cults in the early christian church. Paganism and plytheism was basically done by that time.

98

And look what happened with that weak God who died on a Roman cross. Peter was lookin for a Messiah who would overthrow Rome as were most people at the time. Get thee behind me Satan! We got the Suffering Servant. That tiny mustard seed as blossomed and filled the earth. The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Parts of the Gospel of Thomas may date from the first or second century, depending on how you see it’s compositional history (its potential layers). I don’t know of anyone who dates it to the middle ages. Many put it in the second century and claim it is dependent on the canonical Gospels. Others argue it is independent.

Vinnie

99

I believe I said that Bruce Metzger said that the apostle’s belief in the resurrection was second to none as evidence from antiquity.
"

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2 And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write these things so that your(1 John 1) joy may be complete.

100

No one does this. I repeat no one. Sure it was the first of the canonical gospels . By the time it was written the gnostics werent even a thing ,i mean they werent even trying to spread their religion

101

That is false and a lie. We have historical evidence about some of the beliefs lf the early christians outside of the bible