The Trinity

Pompey Magnus

Is there any particular reason as to why God decided to hide the fact that he was one entity made up of three equal beings until Jesus arrived on Earth?

If the Jewish people were his chosen people then would he not have given them a heads up to prepare them for the arrival of Jesus. The concept of the Trinity is entirely foreign to Judaism, it was a major reason why the Jews rejected the Christian claims as blasphemous. They had been provided with an understanding of what God is in their scriptures and they could not reconcile this understanding with the concept of a Trinity.

Did God intentionally provide the Jews with incomplete and misleading information ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord") because he didn't want them to believe in the Trinity, because this is what he achieved.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think even Jesus claimed to be one part of a three part God. The only explicit mention of the Trinity in the Gospels was a forged addition to the Gospel of John, The Johannine Comma.

Is there any good reason why did God provide such poor evidence for a Trinity, thereby misleading his Chosen People (and every non-Trinitarian Christian)? Or is it just one of those cases where God works in mysterious ways?

Why did God not point out his true nature to the Jewish people before Jesus? Why did Jesus not point out this true nature during his time on Earth? Why is the best evidence in the Gospels for the Trinity provided by a 4th century anonymous Christian forgerer, perhaps in Spain?

santing

There are several indications in the Old Testamanet that God is both plural and yet single - the concept of the trinity.
For instance, God addresses himself as plural in Genesis 1 and 3, and mankind is created in God's image, but also in a pair man/woman, where the pair reflect God's image.

Gen 1:26-27 ESV Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Secondly the word 'God', elohim, is plural, i.e. more than two. It is mainly used with a singular verb, but sometimes it is connected with a plural verb, as in Gen 20:13 and Gen 35:7.
Genesis 19:24 also gives an indication of the plurality of JHWH:

Gen 19:24 ESV Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.

Psa 45:6-7 ESV Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; (7) you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;

Hos 1:6-7 ESV She conceived again and bore a daughter. And the LORD said to him, "Call her name No Mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. (7) But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen."

A distinction between the Spirit of the Lord, the Lord, and the speaker, who is also the Lord:

Isa 61:1-8 ESV The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; ... (8) For I the LORD love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

So although the concept of the trinity is not revealed clearly in the Old Testament, it is not incompatible, and one could even say it is "hidden" in the Old Testament for those who want to find it!

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote:

Secondly the word 'God', elohim, is plural, i.e. more than two. It is mainly used with a singular verb, but sometimes it is connected with a plural verb, as in Gen 20:13 and Gen 35:7.

The -im at the end of Elohim in this context refers to an abstract entity, it is not a plural.

For example in Exodus God says to Moses: "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh". Here the word used for god in Hebrew was also Elohim. Now if you say that Elohim in Genesis is a plural referring to the Trinity then you will need to explain what Trinity is Moses made up of?

A distinction between the Spirit of the Lord, the Lord, and the speaker, who is also the Lord:

I think the speaker is quoting God in Isaiah 61:8 and the author himself in speaking in 61:1 -7, there is no real distinction made here between different entities in the same God.

one could even say it is "hidden" in the Old Testament for those who want to find it!

I have to agree with you here. If you try hard enough you can find anything you want in the Old Testament. Jews have evidence that the concept of the Trinity is blasphemous against God by referring to their Bible, Christians have (weak) evidence that the Trinity is implied a couple of times by referring to the exact same book. If you want to find something to support your cause you can be sure to find it in the Bible.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The -im at the end of Elohim in this context refers to an abstract entity, it is not a plural.

For example in Exodus God says to Moses: "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh". Here the word used for god in Hebrew was also Elohim. Now if you say that Elohim in Genesis is a plural referring to the Trinity then you will need to explain what Trinity is Moses made up of?

You are referring to Exodus 7:1, the term 'like God' indicates Moses commission, being the representative of God.

I found the following definition for Elohim:

Plural of eloah; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I think the speaker is quoting God in Isaiah 61:8 and the author himself in speaking in 61:1 -7, there is no real distinction made here between different entities in the same God.

That is indeed a way of explaining it, but I think the representation of the 'Servant of the Lord' in Isaiah beautifully illustrates the coming of the Messiah in the flesh as a separate person from God, yet being God himself. These are passages that the Jews never completely understood, and after the rise of Christianity have applied solely to the suffering people of Israel.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If you try hard enough you can find anything you want in the Old Testament.

I think you are to negative here and I think it is not true.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (ISBE) contains the following in the entry on the Trinity:

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus, the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

Pompey Magnus

You are referring to Exodus 7:1, the term 'like God' indicates Moses commission, being the representative of God.

Yes, when describing what he has made Moses, God was using what you say is the supposedly plural form, Elohim. Why didn’t he say “I have made thee an Eloah to Pharoah” if Elohim is plural?

Also, if Elohim was intended to describe more than one entity, why was the same attention not given to Jehova, which is used much more often in the Old Testament and is singular

That is indeed a way of explaining it, but I think the representation of the 'Servant of the Lord' in Isaiah beautifully illustrates the coming of the Messiah in the flesh as a separate person from God, yet being God himself. These are passages that the Jews never completely understood, and after the rise of Christianity have applied solely to the suffering people of Israel.

Where in Isaiah’s description of the Servant of the Lord does he describe the Messiah as being a separate person from God, whilst also being God himself?

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus, the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

Does this mean that Jews believe in the Trinity but just don’t realize it? Will they be saved because of their faith in Christ even though they actually know that they have faith in him?

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Yes, when describing what he has made Moses, God was using what you say is the supposedly plural form, Elohim. Why didn’t he say “I have made thee an Eloah to Pharoah” if Elohim is plural?

Also, if Elohim was intended to describe more than one entity, why was the same attention not given to Jehova, which is used much more often in the Old Testament and is singular

Because Moses was the representative of Elohim not of an Eloha.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Where in Isaiah’s description of the Servant of the Lord does he describe the Messiah as being a separate person from God, whilst also being God himself?

Aye that was a challenge to read Isaiah gain. Thanks, always a wonderful experience
I didn't find a direct connection to Servant, but the following read in context give the idea of a separate divine person: Isaiah 48 (vs 16 & 17), Isaiah 59:20 (read the context) and Isaiah 61 (vs 1 & 8)

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Does this mean that Jews believe in the Trinity but just don’t realize it? Will they be saved because of their faith in Christ even though they actually know that they have faith in him?

Yes, the only way of Salvation is through faith in the Messiah. That's the way David was saved, and Abarham and Moses (Heb 11:26) and ... zillions more.

Pompey Magnus

I imagine it is fair to say that, at best, there is only scattered references to the possibility of a triune God that can be found in the Old Testament, and even these are very controversial and require someone to already hold a Trinitarian point of view in order to find them. There is no explicit mention of the Trinity.

The question is why is the evidence so weak? If it is such an important aspect of God why has he never actually said himself that he is three entities in one God? Why did he leave it to mortals to draw this conclusion? I really can't think of any good reason why he didn't point it out from the very start as this would have improved the chances of the Jews recognising Jesus as God. I also really can't think of any good reason why Jesus wouldn't make the claim that he was God, his silence on this question led to serious debates in early Christianity as to whether or not he was God. Many Christians believed (and still believe) that Jesus wasn't God and all he had to do to dismiss this confusion was to explicitly say "I am one part of a three part God".

Fanny Cradock

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I imagine it is fair to say that, at best, there is only scattered references to the possibility of a triune God that can be found in the Old Testament, and even these are very controversial and require someone to already hold a Trinitarian point of view in order to find them. There is no explicit mention of the Trinity.

The question is why is the evidence so weak? If it is such an important aspect of God why has he never actually said himself that he is three entities in one God? Why did he leave it to mortals to draw this conclusion? I really can't think of any good reason why he didn't point it out from the very start as this would have improved the chances of the Jews recognising Jesus as God. I also really can't think of any good reason why Jesus wouldn't make the claim that he was God, his silence on this question led to serious debates in early Christianity as to whether or not he was God. Many Christians believed (and still believe) that Jesus wasn't God and all he had to do to dismiss this confusion was to explicitly say "I am one part of a three part God".

Christians believe in the gradual revelation of God's plans.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The question is why is the evidence so weak? If it is such an important aspect of God why has he never actually said himself that he is three entities in one God? Why did he leave it to mortals to draw this conclusion?

What about:

Luk 4:21 ESV And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
Luk 6:5 ESV And he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."
Joh 3:16 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 8:58 ESV Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
Joh 4:26 ESV Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

Pompey Magnus

Luk 4:21 ESV And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Here Jesus is quoting Isaiah, the passage he quotes was always understood by Jews to refer to an entirely human Messiah, Jesus was not making a claim to his being divine here.

Luk 6:5 ESV And he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

I believe that this was a mistranslation (by Mark) from Aramaic into Greek. The original passage in Mark was "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath." The sentence does not make alot of sense when read like this, however when translated back into original Aramaic it makes more sense as the Aramaic word for Man was identical to the word for Son of Man, "Bar na sha".

What Jesus would actually have said was "Sabbath was made for bar na sha (man), not bar na sha (man) for the Sabbath. Therefore bar na sha (man) is the Lord of the Sabbath." This makes much more sense than the mistranslated Greek version in Mark. Matthew and Luke copied Mark for their Gospels but realised that his version did not make much sense so they omitted the first line ("Sabbath was made for man" etc) and kept the Son of Man reference, thereby losing the confusing context of the saying.

It seems that not only was Jesus not making a claim to being divine here, he wasn't even talking about himself at all. All he was saying was that mankind is the Lord of the Sabbath.

Joh 3:16 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Joh 8:58 ESV Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."[/quote]

Again these are not explicit statements of Jesus claiming to be God. In fact the first could be used to deny the claim. It says that God gave his only son, not God the Father gave his only son. There is a difference.

Joh 4:26 ESV Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

This was Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, not God. There had already been Jewish Messiahs, all human. There was no connection between being a Messiah and being God.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Here Jesus is quoting Isaiah, the passage he quotes was always understood by Jews to refer to an entirely human Messiah, Jesus was not making a claim to his being divine here.

I'll give you this one, but I don't agree. Jewish thoughts on the Messiah have been greatly influenced (negatively) by Christianity.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I believe that this was a mistranslation (by Mark) from Aramaic into Greek. The original passage in Mark was "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath." The sentence does not make alot of sense when read like this, however when translated back into original Aramaic it makes more sense as the Aramaic word for Man was identical to the word for Son of Man, "Bar na sha".

What Jesus would actually have said was "Sabbath was made for bar na sha (man), not bar na sha (man) for the Sabbath. Therefore bar na sha (man) is the Lord of the Sabbath." This makes much more sense than the mistranslated Greek version in Mark. Matthew and Luke copied Mark for their Gospels but realised that his version did not make much sense so they omitted the first line ("Sabbath was made for man" etc) and kept the Son of Man reference, thereby losing the confusing context of the saying.

It seems that not only was Jesus not making a claim to being divine here, he wasn't even talking about himself at all. All he was saying was that mankind is the Lord of the Sabbath.

That's a great idea. By introducing an unknown source in another language and placing that source on a higher level than the actual scriptures, you loose the meaning of the text and the reference to the divinity of the Lord Jesus.
The Lord Jesus refers to himself often as the Son of Man, which indeed means "Just a Man," but in His case it means "The Man" of God.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Again these are not explicit statements of Jesus claiming to be God. In fact the first could be used to deny the claim. It says that God gave his only son, not God the Father gave his only son. There is a difference.

I think you have to reread these verses. If God has a "unique" Son, that Son must be divine.
In John 8, the Jews understood exactly what Jesus was saying, and they picked up stones because of blasphemy (in their understanding)

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This was Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, not God. There had already been Jewish Messiahs, all human. There was no connection between being a Messiah and being God.

The Lord Jesus uses the strong "I AM" just like He did in John 8. This is a reference to his Divinity.

I'll give you a few more ...

Mat 28:19 ESV Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Note that there is one Name and three persons bearing it.

Joh 3:13 ESV No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
and
Joh 6:62 ESV Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Another Son of Man for you. Does this also mean mankind?

Joh 8:28 ESV So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.

Son of Man coupled with "I AM" (check the greek!)

Joh 10:30-33 ESV I and the Father are one." (31) The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" (33) The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

Joh 14:9-10 ESV Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (10) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

The list can go on ... for those who want to see. John writes in his gospel
[quote]Joh 12:37-41 ESV Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, (38) so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (39) Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, (40) "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." (41) Isaiah said these things because he saw his (Christ's) glory and spoke of him.
[/quote]

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

That's a great idea. By introducing an unknown source in another language and placing that source on a higher level than the actual scriptures, you loose the meaning of the text and the reference to the divinity of the Lord Jesus.
The Lord Jesus refers to himself often as the Son of Man, which indeed means "Just a Man," but in His case it means "The Man" of God.

What confuses is me is that I don't understand how Jesus could have differentiated between "man" and "son of man" when both are exactly the same word in Aramaic. When he said, in Aramaic, "The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath" his audience would have heard "Man is the Lord of the Sabbath" because this is what "son of man" actually means.

As for losing the meaning of the text I think that when the passage is translated back into Aramaic we get a more meaningful passage.

"The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath" - This makes sense.
"Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" - This does not make sense, what is the "Therefore" there for?

If you use the proper Aramaic translation the passage makes perfect sense, Jesus concludes by saying that "Man is the Lord of the Sabbath". This fits perfectly with the preceeding sentence, whilst the "Son of Man" translation sticks out like a sore thumb.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

What confuses is me is that I don't understand how Jesus could have differentiated between "man" and "son of man" when both are exactly the same word in Aramaic. When he said, in Aramaic, "The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath" his audience would have heard "Man is the Lord of the Sabbath" because this is what "son of man" actually means.

As for losing the meaning of the text I think that when the passage is translated back into Aramaic we get a more meaningful passage.

"The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath" - This makes sense.
"Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" - This does not make sense, what is the "Therefore" there for?

If you use the proper Aramaic translation the passage makes perfect sense, Jesus concludes by saying that "Man is the Lord of the Sabbath". This fits perfectly with the preceeding sentence, whilst the "Son of Man" translation sticks out like a sore thumb.

There's no need for you to be confused. The book of 1 Enoch was written in Aramaic and uses the phrase 'the Son of Man' in an obviously Messianic sense to refer to a specific religious figure.

BTW, I think you have misunderstood something in your googling. It is not true that in Aramaic "man" and "Son of man" are undifferentiated, or that they are actually the same word. It is true that sometimes 'son of man' is used as an idiom for 'man', but 1 Enoch 46 clearly demonstrates that it was also used in a specifically messianic sense.

robindch

Just an idle titbit, but on holiday in the DPRK a few years ago, my North Korean guides in Pyongyang regularly, and in hushed tones, use the phrase "The Son of Man" to describe Kim Il Sung, the founder of the DPRK, president for life (though dead, I can confirm) and the nation's Big Cheese. An interesting use of the phrase, I thought, since recent historical research has suggested very strongly that KIS was raised by his preacher parents as a fundamentalist christian.

However, it wasn't until I researched it further in some of the DPRK's own "history" books, that I learned he's actually the "Sun of Man". Oh well.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I think you have misunderstood something in your googling. It is not true that in Aramaic "man" and "Son of man" are undifferentiated, or that they are actually the same word. It is true that sometimes 'son of man' is used as an idiom for 'man', but 1 Enoch 46 clearly demonstrates that it was also used in a specifically messianic sense.

Just to clarify, I got the point that "man" and "son of man" are identical words from "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, a respect Biblical scholar and former Evangelical preacher who is fluent in Aramaic and other ancient languages, and not some nutjob amateur I discovered on google. He does claim that "Bar na sha" was the indeed the same word for both.

For a quick look at his point he mentions it in the Q&A section of his lecture at Stanford, "Scribes Who Altered Scripture And Readers Who May Never Know"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TffAToyojg

ryoishin

In a discussion on the Trinity it is so easy to err, make a mistake depending on what you say, how you say it or how you read it, that I just might stay out of this one.

However the Trinity is Biblical both OT and NT. But we could argue Scripture all day.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

There's no need for you to be confused. The book of 1 Enoch was written in Aramaic and uses the phrase 'the Son of Man' in an obviously Messianic sense to refer to a specific religious figure.

As for the reference to the Son of Man in the Similitudes in Enoch there does seem to be some debate as to the authenticity of the references as it is found in an Ethiopean version of Enoch but all references to the Son of Man are conspicuously absent from the earlier Qumran version which has led to the suggestion that perhaps the Son of Man reference was added by a 2nd Century Jewish Christian. It is just a theory though.

http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/72/4/125

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Bart Ehrman, a respect Biblical scholar and former Evangelical preacher

Is that the same Bart Ehrman as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

He now considers himself an agnostic.

Is this a reliable source?

robindch

santing wrote: »

Is that the same Bart Ehrman as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yep, it's the same guy who wrote the "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", and who wrote in the introduction to that book, that he'd started off his post-secondary education as a christian fundamentalist, but in the process of reading scripture in Ancient Greek and Hebrew, had come to the conclusion that the traditional fundamentalist view that the bible had never been edited was wrong, and obviously so.

On the basis of that, he wrote that decided that the inerrancy of the text could not be guaranteed, and bearing in mind the amount and range of the changes that were made, he became an agnostic. So, yes, the wiki page is accurate.

Pompey Magnus

I find his books to be very well written and he makes the subject of Biblical scholarship interesting and accessible to non-experts like myself. I have just started reading his earlier book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" which seems to be a more detailed and indepth version of "Misquoting Jesus". It should be interesting.

santing

robindch wrote: »

Yep, it's the same guy who wrote the "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", and who wrote in the introduction to that book, that he'd started off his post-secondary education as a christian fundamentalist, but in the process of reading scripture in Ancient Greek and Hebrew, had come to the conclusion that the traditional fundamentalist view that the bible had never been edited was wrong, and obviously so.

On the basis of that, he wrote that decided that the inerrancy of the text could not be guaranteed, and bearing in mind the amount and range of the changes that were made, he became an agnostic. So, yes, the wiki page is accurate.

Thanks, so we have his word against other academici like Bruce Metzger and Ben Witherington:

As I (says Ben Witherington) remember Bruce Metzger saying once (who trained both Bart and myself in these matters) over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.

I would think the question of whether or not the one and only explicit mention of the Trinity in the Gospels could be a late forgery is a pretty important question which shouldn't be brushed under the carpet by Christians.

Similary the question about whether the earliest Gospel written, Mark, ended with the empty tomb and no-one ever actually seeing the risen Jesus is very important. That our earliest source of the resurrection seems to have claimed that there was no eye-witnesses should be somewhat worrisome to believers.

That even Christian experts are forced to admit that perhaps 10% of the NT has been changed, either meistakenly or intentionally, is a pretty big deal.

robindch

santing wrote: »

Thanks, so we have his word against other academici

I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make about the text being inerrant.

Most (all?) fundamentalists and many non-fundamentalist, certainly believe it is. Bart Ehrman has pointed out that it certainly isn't, and I'm happy to see that the other two guys are backing him up in this. All they're disagreeing about is the nature of the changes that were made, and as DM points out, with 10% of text of doubtful origin, one really does have to ask some searching questions about exactly who changed what and why.

If you're interested in the topic of inerrancy and editing, then do read Ehrman and judge for yourself -- he's quite an easy read. Or if you're short of time, do take a look at the website for the Codex Sinaiticus, which went live recently:

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/significance.aspx

...which is one of two copies of the NT which remain extant and which does corroborate what Ehrman, Metzger and Witherington are saying.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Similary the question about whether the earliest Gospel written, Mark, ended with the empty tomb and no-one ever actually seeing the risen Jesus is very important. That our earliest source of the resurrection seems to have claimed that there was no eye-witnesses should be somewhat worrisome to believers.

That even Christian experts are forced to admit that perhaps 10% of the NT has been changed, either meistakenly or intentionally, is a pretty big deal.

There are a few portion in Scriptures, like the ending of Mark 16 that are in brackets in nearly all modern translations. It seems Ehrman has set out against the old King James translation.

If we leave these passages aside, and if we remove any changes that have no bearing on the interpretation of the text, the preservation of the Scriptures (from an Evangelical viewpoint) jumps to a 99.5%.

santing

robindch wrote: »

If you're interested in the topic of inerrancy and editing, then do read Ehrman and judge for yourself -- he's quite an easy read. Or if you're short of time, do take a look at the website for the Codex Sinaiticus, which went live recently:

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/significance.aspx

...which is one of two copies of the NT which remain extant and which does corroborate what Ehrman, Metzger and Witherington are saying.

Thanks Robinch,

I am very interested ... I have read the Greek New Testament since I was 14 years old, and own copies of Metzger's books "The Text of the New Testament" and "A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament."

Links around this topic that I enjoyed are:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

and

http://answersforthefaith.com/bookreviews/misquoting-jesus-by-ehrman/

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

There are a few portion in Scriptures, like the ending of Mark 16 that are in brackets in nearly all modern translations. It seems Ehrman has set out against the old King James translation.

Every Bible I have seen includes the extended ending of Mark, not just the King James. Why include non-original verse at all? Also I wonder how many Christians actually understand why the passages are put in brackets? When I was a Christian reading the Bible I certainly didn't. My Bible that I have in front of me doesn't explain the significance of the extra passages in Mark, it just gives it the heading "An Old Ending To The Gospel".

Perhaps if it gave the extra passages the heading "An Ending To The Gospel Written By An Unknown Scribe Centuries After The Original" it would be a little more honest.

If we leave these passages aside, and if we remove any changes that have no bearing on the interpretation of the text, the preservation of the Scriptures (from an Evangelical viewpoint) jumps to a 99.5%.

So basically if we take out all the forgeries and unintentional mistakes we know of we can claim to have a very good idea about what the original Gospels actually said. This isn't a great claim to make and I am not sure how accurate it is.

How can you be 99.5% confident that the Gospels are accurate representations of the originals when you don't actually have the originals? The earliest complete Gospel is (I think) the Gospel of John from the beginning of the third century. This means it had undergone over 100 years of copying. How can we be so very confident that the first person to copy the original didn't heavily edit it to suit his point of view?

If we go back to the resurrection story we can see how this did happen. Mark originally wrote his Gospel and ended it with an empty tomb but no-one witnessing the risen Jesus. We know of at least four copiest who added to the Mark ending, one adding the long ending to the Gospel, another adding the short ending, and another two (the copiests we now call Matthew and Luke) adding their own endings to Mark. Four scribes, four different endings to the Gospel.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Every Bible I have seen includes the extended ending of Mark, not just the King James. Why include non-original verse at all? Also I wonder how many Christians actually understand why the passages are put in brackets? When I was a Christian reading the Bible I certainly didn't. My Bible that I have in front of me doesn't explain the significance of the extra passages in Mark, it just gives it the heading "An Old Ending To The Gospel".

Perhaps if it gave the extra passages the heading "An Ending To The Gospel Written By An Unknown Scribe Centuries After The Original" it would be a little more honest.

I checked a few translations for you, (NIV, ESV, NAS) and they all have the passage clearly marked as not in the oldest Manuscripts, the NKJV has a footnote (which is not so clear) at the end of verse 20 saying the same thing.

The reason why they do include this are various. The main reason is that this passage belongs the textual tradition of Mark. We don't know when the extra verses where added or why. In my opinion, Mark didn't finish the gospel, he published the work "nearly finished." Don't forget that this was in a time of severe persecution! He may have added the ending at a much later date himself!

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

So basically if we take out all the forgeries and unintentional mistakes we know of we can claim to have a very good idea about what the original Gospels actually said. This isn't a great claim to make and I am not sure how accurate it is.

1. I don't think I believe in forgeries in the Bible. This is something people come up with, but they cannot be proven.
2. The claim is based on scientific statistics, and regarding to the preservation of old texts, it is way better than anything else. Not even "Hamlet" by Shakespeare comes close.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How can you be 99.5% confident that the Gospels are accurate representations of the originals when you don't actually have the originals? The earliest complete Gospel is (I think) the Gospel of John from the beginning of the third century. This means it had undergone over 100 years of copying.

The earliest fragments of the gospel are of AD 150, giving a much better time of preservation.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How can we be so very confident that the first person to copy the original didn't heavily edit it to suit his point of view?

There are many theories you can come up with of what could have happened. The astonishing amount of (early and partial) copies of the New Testament show that the scriptures where early copied and used by many people. Actually, the number of mistakes introduced by the copist actually help establish the accuracy of the original text.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If we go back to the resurrection story we can see how this did happen. Mark originally wrote his Gospel and ended it with an empty tomb but no-one witnessing the risen Jesus. We know of at least four copiest who added to the Mark ending, one adding the long ending to the Gospel, another adding the short ending, and another two (the copiests we now call Matthew and Luke) adding their own endings to Mark. Four scribes, four different endings to the Gospel.

Great story - what happened was that most Christians thought the gospel of Mark wasn't really finished the way it stood and tried to add a suitable ending to it - maybe even Mark did it himself. One of those endings became the favourite - maybe because it had good original credentials...

I don't know what Luke was called before, Matthew indeed had a different name before the Lord Jesus called him Matthew.

santing

The NET Bible has the following note to Mark 16:9
(See http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mar&chapter=16#n9)

There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

Pompey Magnus

1. I don't think I believe in forgeries in the Bible. This is something people come up with, but they cannot be proven.

I assume you are basing your conclusion on faith rather than the evidence? We know for a fact that Christians did forge the Bible. Marcion forged his own version of Luke for example. By examining the various manuscripts we see stories popping up in copies which weren't present in any of our older, more reliable manuscripts - the ending to Mark and the story of Jesus and the Adulteress come to mind. If this isn't strong evidence for Christians altering scripture I don't know what is.

We also see theological problems being solved by the sudden appearance of convenient phrases in copies - eg the Johannine Comma. This appeared around the time that there was great debate among Christians as to the true nature of Jesus. Adoptionists were stressing that Jesus was not an eternally existing deity but he was simply a man who was adopted by God to do his work. They used scripture to support their arguments, the Trinitarian side had no explicit evidence to support their side until, out of the blue, evidence miraculously appeared in John. I would find that suspicious.

2. The claim is based on scientific statistics, and regarding to the preservation of old texts, it is way better than anything else. Not even "Hamlet" by Shakespeare comes close.

Of course it isn't very important for us to be 100% confident that our version of Hamlet is exactly the same as the original copy. However when it comes to the Gospels there have literally been life and death decisions made on very precise wordings. This would mean the Gospels need to be reliable to an unparalleled level of accuracy.

The earliest fragments of the gospel are of AD 150, giving a much better time of preservation.

The earliest fragment is of John and it is called P52, it is a credit card sized fragment found in ancient rubbish dump in Egypt. It is of very limited use in determining how reliable the entire Gospel was copied.

Great story - what happened was that most Christians thought the gospel of Mark wasn't really finished the way it stood and tried to add a suitable ending to it - maybe even Mark did it himself. One of those endings became the favourite - maybe because it had good original credentials...

Or maybe it was finished exactly as Mark had intended to finish it but because it didn't provide strong evidence to support the resurrection some scribe somewhere decided to make up an ending.

I don't know what Luke was called before, Matthew indeed had a different name before the Lord Jesus called him Matthew.

Yes, but we don't know the names of who actually wrote the Gospels. We give them the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but it might as well be John, Paul, George and Ringo.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I assume you are basing your conclusion on faith rather than the evidence? We know for a fact that Christians did forge the Bible. Marcion forged his own version of Luke for example. By examining the various manuscripts we see stories popping up in copies which weren't present in any of our older, more reliable manuscripts - the ending to Mark and the story of Jesus and the Adulteress come to mind. If this isn't strong evidence for Christians altering scripture I don't know what is.

We also see theological problems being solved by the sudden appearance of convenient phrases in copies - eg the Johannine Comma. This appeared around the time that there was great debate among Christians as to the true nature of Jesus. Adoptionists were stressing that Jesus was not an eternally existing deity but he was simply a man who was adopted by God to do his work. They used scripture to support their arguments, the Trinitarian side had no explicit evidence to support their side until, out of the blue, evidence miraculously appeared in John. I would find that suspicious.

I would say that I base my argument on faith, but well supported by evidence, whereas I would regard your argument completely based on groundless speculations...
The Scriptures themselves present the requirements for copies being made available to a wider public. See for instance Col 4:16, 2 Cor 8:18 (about Luke), 2 Peter 3:15,16 (about Paul).
Another fact is that the early Church contained many Jewish Christians, who have proven to be excellent copiist of the OT books ... arguably they were also instrumental in the first copies of New Testament books.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The earliest fragment is of John and it is called P52, it is a credit card sized fragment found in ancient rubbish dump in Egypt. It is of very limited use in determining how reliable the entire Gospel was copied.

Very limited use? I think a small fragment can already say a lot about the complete work. This is a "random" fragment, so you can compare it with ramdom sampling that is acceptable in say the Health Care industry. If the random sample is OK, the full batch is OK. Similarly a random sample of the gospel of John gives an indication of the full reliability of the gospel of John.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Or maybe it was finished exactly as Mark had intended to finish it but because it didn't provide strong evidence to support the resurrection some scribe somewhere decided to make up an ending.

Not enough evidence to support the resurrection? Where do you get that from?

Mar 16:6 ESV And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Yes, but we don't know the names of who actually wrote the Gospels. We give them the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but it might as well be John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Interesting. Where is your evidence for this?
I think there is very strong, unanimous regocnition for the 4 traditional gospel authors. See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=969 for a short discussion on Matthew. (The other gospels are available through the link of next article at the top of the page)

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

I would say that I base my argument on faith, but well supported by evidence, whereas I would regard your argument completely based on groundless speculations...

How is my argument that Christians altered the Bible based on groundless speculation when we actually have the manuscripts and can see for ourselves exactly where the Bible has been changed? I would think that all the evidence points to intentional Christian alteration of the Gospels. The only way the evidence would support your argument would be if every manuscript of the Gospels we had was identical to one another (allowing for unintentional errors of course).

We also have external evidence that Christians altered the Bible. The pagan Celsus wrote:


"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism."

We have internal evidence from Christian sources that they were altering the Gospels:


'the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please' - Origen

What more do you need to finally accept that the Bible has been altered by Christians? The evidence is plentiful.

Not enough evidence to support the resurrection? Where do you get that from?

Well he ends with no eye-witnesses, which is never a good way to leave a claim as big as a resurrection. He basically ends with some people go to a tomb of a dead guy, the tomb is opened and there is a bloke inside who says Jesus is risen. Not exactly top quality testimony there.

Also I think the fact that there was a false ending added to the Gospel is pretty good evidence to show that early Christians were unhappy with the ending to Mark. If the original Mark story was satisfactory "proof" of the resurrection then there were have been no need to add on a better ending.

Interesting. Where is your evidence for this?

Where is my evidence for claiming that we don't know who wrote the Gospel? My evidence is the Gospels themselves. They are all anonymous. They are all written in the third person with no suggestion that the authors were present at any of the events. They authors all spoke fairly good Greek and had sophisticated philosophical and theological knowledge, Jesus' followers were illiterate, uneducated, Aramaic speaking peasants.

I think there is very strong, unanimous regocnition for the 4 traditional gospel authors.

There certainly isn't unanimous recognition for the traditional 4 Gospel authors. The first mention of any Gospel written by Mark and Matthew comes from Papias, the Gospel of Mark he was aware of was jumbled chronologically whilst our Mark is ordered in a structured timeline. His version of Matthew was written in Hebrew, our version of Matthew was written in Greek. This is a pretty bad start already but it gets even worse

Eusebius described Papias as "a man of small mental capacity". Paias got his information from anonymous presbyters and takes their word for it, he also believed that Judas infalted to bigger than the size of a cart before exploding.

So to recap: our best evidence for Matthew and Luke actually witing the Gospels comes from a man writing decades after the books were written, who describes two Gospels with entirely different structures to the ones we have, a man who does not name his own sources, a man who was not regarded highly by Eusebius, a man who seems to have been so gullible that he believed any old nonsense. I'm can't say I'm convinced.

robindch

santing wrote: »

Similarly a random sample of the gospel of John gives an indication of the full reliability of the gospel of John.

Not at all. You've already agreed with Ehrman, Metzger Witherington that there were thousands of changes right through the NT and elsewhere.

One can't simply claim that, when interpreted with the glasses of "faith", these thousands of differences disappear.

santing

I think it might be good to summarise my view of the discussion as it stands.
1. We have established that the current Bible (New Testament) is based on sufficient manuscript so that we can establish to a very high degree of certainty what the underlying source must look like.
2. None of the uncertainties put in doubt any of the basic Christian dogmas.

What we do not agree on is whether the original copy was indeed a copy authored by an Apostle or close associate, or that the original copy is a corruption of what the Lord Jesus (and the Apostles) taught.

Are we in agreement on this?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How is my argument that Christians altered the Bible based on groundless speculation when we actually have the manuscripts and can see for ourselves exactly where the Bible has been changed? I would think that all the evidence points to intentional Christian alteration of the Gospels. The only way the evidence would support your argument would be if every manuscript of the Gospels we had was identical to one another (allowing for unintentional errors of course).

We also have external evidence that Christians altered the Bible. The pagan Celsus wrote:


"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism."

We have internal evidence from Christian sources that they were altering the Gospels:


'the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please' - Origen

What more do you need to finally accept that the Bible has been altered by Christians? The evidence is plentiful.

The evidence is plentiful of later attempts of changing the Bible, for instance w now have one manuscript (Code Bezae) that is generally regarded as an corruption. It has still great value because there are numerous parts where it is identical to the majority of manuscripts and the corruption therefore supports the part that are not corrupted. It is a science to take all the manuscript and establish what the original did look like.

However, we need to establish if the very first copy taht the Apostle or close associate wrote got corrupted and that only the corrupted version became public. This assumption has immediately great problems. Peter for instance writes about people that want to corrupt the scriptures:

2Pe 3:15-16 ESV And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

And the Apostle John wrote:

Rev 22:18-19 ESV I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, (19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Now if the original authors were aware that people intentially wanted to change their words, it is not difficult to assume that they were alert so that their letters/books were faithfully copied and distributed to the target audience. Anything else is imho groundless speculation.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well he [Mark] ends with no eye-witnesses, which is never a good way to leave a claim as big as a resurrection. He basically ends with some people go to a tomb of a dead guy, the tomb is opened and there is a bloke inside who says Jesus is risen. Not exactly top quality testimony there.

I don't get how the short ending of Mark in any way would discredit the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If there was a doubt about the resurrection Mark would have written a different ending. he short ending is powerful because it assumes that all the readers already know that the Lord was risen from the death.
Through the short ending of Mark and also in Matthew and John we do not have the ascencion of the Lord Jesus into heaven. Do we therefore presume that that never happened? No, we have it twice by Luke, and in the letter to the Hebrews for instance.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Also I think the fact that there was a false ending added to the Gospel is pretty good evidence to show that early Christians were unhappy with the ending to Mark. If the original Mark story was satisfactory "proof" of the resurrection then there were have been no need to add on a better ending.

You seem to know why the "false ending" was written...
Wikipedia contains a discussion on the endings of Mark, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 and it indicates that the longer endings was most likely based on the descriptions found in the other gospels and acts. So no new material is given in this longer ending, not something the Christians didn't know already.
Wikipedia also shows that the longer ending has very old roots and that is why in my opinion it is part of Scripture. It is not from Mark, but added very soon afterwards, maybe by Ariston, another associate of Peter.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

They authors all spoke fairly good Greek and had sophisticated philosophical and theological knowledge, Jesus' followers were illiterate, uneducated, Aramaic speaking peasants.

First of all the disciples of the Lord Jesus came out of Galilee, an area that was despised by the Pharisees because the inhabitants were to much romanised. They probably spoke better Greek than Aramaic. All Jewish boys were taught to read the OT from a young age.
Luke narrates:

Act 4:13 ESV Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

Uneducated, common here means - in our language - that they had no training beyond the basic (primary/secundary school) training. The books we have from Peter and John reflect that they spoke Greek with a aramiac accent.

OK, let's us look at the traditional authors:
1. Matthew - not illiterate, uneducated peasant, but a tax collector in employ of the Roman government
2. Mark - we do not know much about his education, he was (afterwards) "very usefull in service".
3. Luke, a physician, so in our days, someone with a very high education.
4. John - Was a fisherman, his father owned a fishing boat. John was also known to the High Priest (Jon 18:15), so he was familiar with "educated" people.

So to say that all disciples were illiterate is quite frankly not true. To state that they are uneducated needs further explanation, they were not educated in the higher level of education of their days, such as Paul and Luke were, but we can assume that they had a good standard of primary/secundary eductation and were able to read, write, calculate etc.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Where is my evidence for claiming that we don't know who wrote the Gospel? My evidence is the Gospels themselves. They are all anonymous. They are all written in the third person with no suggestion that the authors were present at any of the events.

Both the gospel of Luke and the gospel of John are semi anonymous at best.
The authorship of Mark we have already established through your quotation of Papias. That leaves only Matthew to figure out!

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

There certainly isn't unanimous recognition for the traditional 4 Gospel authors. The first mention of any Gospel written by Mark and Matthew comes from Papias, the Gospel of Mark he was aware of was jumbled chronologically whilst our Mark is ordered in a structured timeline.

We only have Paias from a fragmented quote, so that doesn't give us much to go by. However, you already misquote Papias! Papias doesn't say "jumbled chronologically," he doesn't use the word chronologically at all.
He says: (quote from Wikipedia)

This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it

So Papias says that Mark was without systematic arrangement and not in order. That means that Papias was used to having a Gospel that was systematic and/or ordered. The gospel of Matthew is for instance ordered around teaching, and so is the gospel of John. Mark is indeed very chronologically, and this was regarded by Papias as unstructured, unordered.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

So to recap: our best evidence for Matthew and Luke actually witing the Gospels comes from a man writing decades after the books were written, who describes two Gospels with entirely different structures to the ones we have, a man who does not name his own sources, a man who was not regarded highly by Eusebius, a man who seems to have been so gullible that he believed any old nonsense. I'm can't say I'm convinced.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

His version of Matthew was written in Hebrew, our version of Matthew was written in Greek.

Papias doesn't say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, he says that "Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as he was able".
What the logia actually means we don't know, we do know that the gospel of Matthew is originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew. If we have a close look at the gospel of Matthew than we can see that Matthew uses a lot of material from the Old Testament, so the Logia could have been a compiled list of messianic verses from the Old Testament.