is the following statement true or false? why?
>Biblical Criticism has proven the bible to be a product of many different authors, most like not the ones named (Moses, Luke, Matthew etc), and many of the events of the OT and the NT are unlikely to have ever happened. Jesus was probably a very different figure from the one presented by tradition and Higher Criticism has proven false many claims of the established Christian tradition.
>proven
picture of sweaty fat young man with bad acne and pubes for facial hair dressed all in black and placing his hand on the brim of a 1940s style hat in preparation of a tipping action.jpg
>>398716
I don't get it.
>>398706
Different Men inspired with the Holy Spirit (God) wrote the Bible. Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, Isaiah wrote the book of Isaiah, the Apostle John wrote the book of John etc
The Bible was written by a lot of authors. There's literally zero evidence the Gospels were not written by whom they are attributed to, though, and I see no reason to think Jesus was a very different figure from how the Apostles thought he was.
No "established" (I assume this means dogmatic) claims of the Christian tradition have been proven false.
Why is the statement false? Because these things have not been proven.
What do people here think of Historical Criticism of the bible? It seems to me that the majority of it challenges much of the Christian tradition. Even Christian scholars in that field seem to say things that contradict tradition. Raymond E. Brown, for instance, a scholar endorsed by the Church and Pope Benedict himself, seems to have some views on the bible that could be called heretical e.g. questioning the immaculate conception (dogma).
>>398744
It's generally beleived that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the bible as it is claimed and that some of the books attributed to Paul where done by an annonymous different author using Paul's name.
We know the first case is true because the books are dated hundreds of years apart. We know the second is true because we can analyze Paul's writing style and some of his other books just don't match up. That's pretty good evidence.
The reason we think Jesus was a completly different is because.
1. There are 4 Gospels. 3 of them are not written by witnesses but instead compilations of various 3rd hand accounts copied from previous sources
2. The forth Gospel, John is probably not written by John.
3. Of the accounts we do have they contain contradictions. For instance the date and time of Jesus's death have been changed. Many think that this was dilbertly done: John changed it so he was killed on the day of prepreation of the pass over, when lambs are slaughtered, to emphasis he was the lamb of God. While the other Gospels say he was killed on passover. The ressurection story story also varies. In some versions the first wittness see's the stone being moved away, in others the stone is already moved when they got there. In some versions a angels tells the woman what happened. In others it is two men. In another version one man.
Jesus also has 2 different genealogies. Both claim explicitly to be the gemology of Joseph but give completely different people.
Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20)
Pope Pius XII: "they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters." (Humani Generis, n. 22).
Well, not proven, because it's pretty hard to prove something as complex as history, but most of it is pretty accurate
>>399053
Pope Pius XII: "The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical 'not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.' When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as 'obiter dicta' and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).
Note here that questioning the bible on any front is condemned. The bible is to be taken as historically accurate, its science is to be seen as accurate, and certainly its authorship and details of the life and miracles of Christ are to be seen as accurate. All of these things are called into question by modern scholarship.
>>398973
>. For instance the date and time of Jesus's death have been changed.
No it isn't. The source of this misunderstanding is that "Passover" in the other Gospels is used in the Christian sense (notice Christ doesn't use unleavened bread, the word for unleavened bread is used several times in the NT, but here is just the word for bread), not the Old Covenant sense. This is not something we intuitively understand today, but Christians would have then, because they'd already have learned about that.
A parallel example is the Sunday Christ rose on is referred as the "first Sabbath" (that is, of the new covenant) even though it's not the Jewish Sabbath.
Luke 24:1 (Young's Literal): "And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain others with them,"
See, now casually that might look like Christ arose on Saturday, but see
Matthew 28:1 "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the
week [the word used for "first day of the week" here is literally "sabbath"], Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb."
You cannot pick up on these things from Scripture alone, because Scripture was written for people who were already Christians and knew the whole context.
>1. There are 4 Gospels. 3 of them are not written by witnesses but instead compilations of various 3rd hand accounts copied from previous sources
Do you understand what the basis of this idea is?
A: The Gospels include predictions, so scholars assume they were written after them.
B: The Gospels cover the same material, so scholars assume they have a common written source...however, this is absurd, since they word the material in often very different ways.
>>399053
>>399070
I'm Orthodox.
We see minor contradictions in the Bible as evidence of its validity. If you are in a court of law, and all the stories by the witnesses are exact down to minutiae, then they collaborated to create a unified story ahead of time. But if the minutiae differ, then it means the testimonies can be submitted as evidence.
>>398706
Proven is a strong word, but they have shown it to be probable
>>399079
>literally referred to as "the Sabbath"
That is, it is called "the first Sabbath". The first Christian Sabbath (the day celebrating Christ's Resurrection, obviously the first would be his actual Resurrection)--which is the day after the Sabbath. Early Christians would already know that, but if you don't have the context, it's confusing.
>>398706
You people must undertstand that history as a field of science and positivistic approach to science were not a thing throughout most of history. You're using your modern perspective or believe people from the past were retarded or something.
In fact oral tradition used to be regarded as something very reliable and much more important in general. Almost no historical account was written first-hand and at the time of the event happening. Only relatively recently have we moved to a different approach.
>>399092
>We see minor contradictions in the Bible as evidence of its validity
You're a fucking idiot as well
>>398973
>It's generally beleived that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the bible as it is claimed
Claimed by whom? Moses dies in them.
Confirmed for never having read the Bible.
>>399245
I'd father be a fool for God than a boor for myself.
>>399310
You are an atheist.
>>399079
In Jewish tradition ad day does not begin at dawn, dawn is when a day ends, days begin at night. So the "early dawn" it is talking about is not the Sabbath it's the day after the Sabbath. So yes the time of Jesus's death HAS been changed. You are just reading it from the perspective of a modern person that see's dawn as the start of the day rather than the beggining of the day. Being Jews the writers would have not done this. That's two separate days.
>Do you understand what the basis of this idea is?
>A: The Gospels include predictions, so scholars assume they were written after them.
Incorrect.
Gospel of John. 90-110 CE, the upper date based on textual evidence that the gospel was known in the early 2nd century, and the lower on an internal reference to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues.
Luke 80-90 CE, with some scholars suggesting 90-100.[72] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
>B: The Gospels cover the same material, so scholars assume they have a common written source...however, this is absurd, since they word the material in often very different ways.
misleading
They don't just cover the same material. They copy paste the exact same words for 1/3 of the document, at least in the original language. The english version you are reading might be altered. Look up the Q source concept.
>>399270
It's also most likely that Moses didn't exist as a physical person. Also the entire events of Exodus never happened. We know how the pyramids were built; it didn't involve slaves.
>>399245
This is a rel academic interpretation. All we know is there are contradictions. The reason why they exist is open for debate.
>>399245
