Ranking the Gospels

Post Reply New Topic

i'd rate them pretty low. since those people more than likely didnt actually write them in the first place, a scribe did. and its not as if someone had a pen and paper with them when all this totally rad stuff was happening and was jotting everything down, it was oral tradition and then some guy was all, "hey we better start writing this down"

and since i believe if there is a god, and if hes perfect there is no way you'd even find 1 contradiction in the bible at all, when infact i do believe there are hundreds! so either god isnt perfect or suprise, suprise man wrote the bible

SKa, that was funny.

I don't see how humankind's transcription errors would overrule the idea of God's existence, or even God's perfection, if you subscribe instead to the theory that free will (and the mistakes we make as a result) are of sufficiently high value that to override or abrogate that free will would be even worse than taking one's physical life.

I believe the Scriptures are divinely inspired. I believe those who wrote them down tried the best they could to render that inspiration, but to expect total freedom from errors, given that it is humans who had to make that rendition, is a bit much. (And expecting the Bible to be a scientific treatise is REALLY incredible, and I mean that in the literal sense, not the "wow" sense.)

Luke (in the KJV) has the richest language, and some of the most compelling storytelling. From a literary perspective, it would be my choice.

The KJV is very much a literary work. The translation isn't so hot, as far as scholarship, but if you want to understand the foundations of modern English, along with works such as those of Shakespeare, it will tell you a great deal.

The KJV translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka TNKH or what you Gentiles call the Old Testament) is utterly horrendous. My test verse is Isiah 7:14. If I see the English word "virgin" in the translation I immediately consign it to the Flames.

ruveyn

It doesn't, but it overrules the idea of the inerrancy of the Bible.


Does that mean that the Bible is divinely inspired directly or indirectly?
I mean, the idea of a direct inspiration in the NT doesn't seem evident, except for Revelations, I mentioned earlier about Luke 1:1-4, which describes how Luke, or whoever wrote that book, gained the information he wrote. And scripture itself doesn't indicate that it was trough a voice telling him what to write ir through visions, but rather, through investigating and getting information from eyewitnesses. And well, even indirect inspiration when it comes to Luke is something to wonder about.

Luke was the closest thing to a journalist that there was. But I am of the mind that different people will respond to the divine differently--and for him to have done so in an analytical, methodical manner is not anything I see as problematic.

As to Biblical inerrancy, not all Christians subscribe to the idea that there are no mistakes whatsoever in the Bible. What I believe is that what the Bible has to offer on faith and the Christian experience is to be trusted, but it is NOT expected to be a scientific treatise, to be have all dates and all years recorded to a T, to be entirely free of "typos" (though I will say that great care was taken with its transcription and the number has been kept down quite impressively considering the size and scope of the text, so I do NOT see those small errors as undermining the text as a whole).

But if it was inspired by God why would he allow Antisemitism in one book and yet praise the Jews and all other non Christians in other stating that everyone is gods children.

Just a big contradictory plot hole (like the rest of the Bible)

All judeo-christian-muslim books should be consigned to the flames.

Some of them have literary worth. Very much like -The Odessy- which was regarded as a religious text by the ancient Greeks who believed in their gods. We can look at the same book as a cultural artifact giving us some insight into the way the Greeks thought.

ruveyn

I took the comments about "the Jews" to refer to the political establishment, myself--people who called for executions, participated in mob actions, and so on. I did not take it to refer to all Jewish people or anything like it.

I think that the idea of ranking the Gospels is interesting. Once, after years of avoiding the Bible, began reading Luke for literary reasons and swooned with Christian sentiments. I started going to an Episcopal church and considered reverting to my childhood Catholicism. I was God-crazy for about four weeks, the time it took me to read Luke in a thoughtful manner.

Then I got to John and it was all over. As I waded into that tar pit of arrogant, overblown, anti-Semitic mumbo-jumbo, I realized that there was no way I could know God through such a confusing document as the Bible. At least, that's how I see it. Sorry if I offend; literary and religious experience is certainly subjective.

For the record, I had similar feelings after revisiting the Qur'an a year after leaving Islam.

God forbid a religious text be driven by theological reasons.

Orwell, I am glad that you found the idiot train, but I would be more pleased if you got off of it.

Look, Orwell, I know you're a historian, so let me ask you a question: which historical text is more relevant to you? A polemic meant to promote one side's views of the matter, or a writer who is less partial? I would think the latter, because with the latter you don't have to worry about all of the self-deception and manipulations taken by a person trying to prove something. When I say that John was "most likely driven by theological reasons", I mean that the Gospel of John isn't as much meant to spread what is believed as history among the Christians as other Gospels, but rather that this Gospel is written with aims of promoting a sophisticated theological structure, and this is seen with things in John such as importation of logos philosophy from Greek philosophy, and anything like that will tend to be less reliable as it becomes less of an attempt at history and more of a polemic. (Note: I am not saying the other NT scriptures had to be great either, and frankly a lot there may be flawed, but the issue is what is more likely to be more flawed, and a person trying to project philosophical and theological ideas onto history is going to be a problem.)

In many ways, the polemic is much more informative. No meaningful record can be impartial, and by showing their bias more openly an author allows us a unique window into their world.


Not necessarily. At the very least, it gives us a clearer picture of how early Christians saw their faith.