Re: What Bible?

At 07:47 AM 3/11/2006, Mervin Bitikofer wrote to Debbie Mann:

>I would guess that you are probably a reader of Elaine Pagels -- am
>I correct? The questions you ask below could come straight from
>her book: "Beyond Belief" -- which I'm in the middle of at the
>moment. I may not come to the same conclusions as I anticipate
>she might (I'm not a Da Vinci code fan -- although I haven't read
>that one at all yet, and only know about it by hearing various
>responses to it.) But I am learning some excellent Bible history
>from Pagels' work. According to her, the pre-Nicean body of
>believers was so diverse and eclectic that they could not agree even
>on the things that eventually came to be embraced as
>orthodoxy. She points out that every 'canonical' source of truth
>had claims to close proximity to Jesus -- and yet the actual
>authorship of each has also been called into doubt. This applied to
>the writings that were eventually rejected as well as those
>embraced. Each group had their own underlying assumptions and emphases.
>Is it so wrong that some church fathers found the 'decide what truth
>is for yourself' mentality alarming and felt compelled to delineate
>and define what truth is? We can always quibble over whether or not
>their version of it was right -- but the alternative to abandoning
>the quest for absolute (community -- even world-wide) truth in favor
>of more individualistic "just search within" type of interpretations
>seems dangerous to me. And yet to throw out committment to a
>('the') sacred text, seems to me to invite just such a
>conclusion. I'm eager to finish her work to see what conclusions
>she draws -- I already suspect I won't be in complete agreement with
>them, but I'm learning a lot about early church history that I
>didn't know. --merv

@ Four items of reference FYI

Item [1]: "....quite the usual mix we've come to expect from the
modern Jesus Seminar crowd -- a mix of accurate information mixed in
with speculation of varying degrees being passed off as accurate
information. . ... Pagels is one of those critics infected with that
naive sort of universalism that supposes that every religious belief
is valid if it is valid for the holder. Now The Gnostic Gospels is
admittedly an excellent primer for the history of the Nag Hammadi
texts, the beliefs and writings of the Gnostic movement, and some
aspects of church history. You can trust Pagels on these accounts,
certainly, for information if not for critical evaluation. Where you
have to watch out with this text is where the typical line on the
dates of the Gospels is uncritically accepted, and where it seems
that the heretics are given favor just because their beliefs are
preferred by Pagels over Christianity's intolerant exclusivism -- her
profession of neutrality as to who is "right" or "wrong"
notwithstanding. Case in point: Pagels' treatment of the differences
in belief over the resurrection of Christ -- orthodoxy's physical
body versus the intangible ghost and spiritual "resurrection" of the
Gnostics. The orthodox view is misrepresented by both bad data (the
same misinterpretation of "flesh and blood" we have found Robert
Price guilty of) and by unwarranted speculation (it is supposed that
Luke's Emmaus road story suggests a "different view" of resurrection,
when there is no grounds at all for saying that it does), and is not
even described with reference to Jewish views of resurrection, which
were ALWAYS physical and would seal the matter clearly in favor of
the orthodox view. Pagels can hardly be trusted for a fair evaluation
of the data when not all of the data is presented.

On the other hand, the Gnostics are given every possible break: Their
cowardly avoidance of persecution by adaptation of syncretism is seen
as a case of independent and worthwhile thinking (hard to believe,
when that sort of attitude was normal for the period in Rome); their
self-authenticating internal witness to "truth" is described in
sympathetic terms; likewise their appeal to having had "secret
wisdom" or knowledge, certified only by the claim that the giving of
the knowledge to them was secret as well! A critical thinker would
not give such claims the time of day, but Pagels is not interested in
determining who is right or wrong; she thinks only that the
differences were matters of power and politics, where only might made
right and the history was written by the winners who were only
interested in making the losers look bad rather than in truth versus
fiction. Subjective and personal interpretation is all. And
postmodernism had its early predecessors.

Of the rest of the work, little needs to be said; the basics are the
same, and there are those few outrageous statements you can easily
pick out. (Did Martin Luther really mean the same thing as the
Gnostics when he said that the true church was "invisible"??) The
Gnostics, like Pagels thought that mixing truth with error was just
no big deal; but a wiser authority than Pagels tells us that broad
roads lead inevitably to destruction. ..." [snip]

Complete book review here: http://www.tektonics.org/books/pagelsggrvw.html

Item [2]: "... Heretic #3 - Marcion We come now to the heretic
who is credited more than any other for forcing the issue of the
creation of a canon - the man who "tabled once and for all the
question of a new canon." [VonCamp.FCB, 147ff.] This was the heretic
Marcion. [snip]

  "...Objections on the matter of the canon are seldom encountered,
but there are two general categories that we can expect to encounter
when considering the NT canon:

"Spectre of diversity" arguments. Skeptics may cite disagreements
among believers concerning which books belong in the canon, with the
implicit or direct conclusion that these disagreements are prime
fodder for skeptics wishing to disprove the veracity of the canonical
process. The conclusion is unwarranted, and involves overplaying the
disagreements and their importance while ignoring the basic unity of
canonical and doctrinal decisions. It is the sort of argument
generally offered by the uninformed.

Such objections, when encountered, should be taken seriously ONLY if
the arguer can offer some reason why the competing view or book
itself ought to be taken seriously. They should also demonstrate some
knowledge of the form and content of the book in question. Simply
throwing titles in the air and shouting, "Why was/wasn't THIS in the
canon, huh???" is not a sufficient form of argument; nor is pointing
to this or that church somewhere and asking why they include a
particular book in the canon and others do not. Without knowing the
history behind such inclusions or exclusions, the argument is little
more than parade confetti.

Motivational arguments. It may be argued that some sort of bias,
power play, or other motivational factor was at work in the formation
of the NT canon by various church councils. Again, such arguments are
generally advanced only by the uninformed. As we shall see, the
councils did nothing more than confirm what was already believed by
the church at large. The church was not dependent upon the decision
of a council for the contents of the NT. As McDonald points out,
"(i)n the broadest definition of the term 'canon,' neither the
Israelites nor the Christians were ever without a canon or
authoritative guide; they always had a story that enabled them to
establish their identity and give life to their community." [ibid.,
21] And Sanders adds: "Canon functions, for the most part, to provide
indications of the identity as well as the lifestyle of the ongoing
community that reads it." [Sand.CanPar, 17] The "Canon" with a
capital C was merely a written codification of what had already been
established for the Jews and the Christians. It is not as though,
prior to the NT, Christians ran around willy-nilly not knowing what
they believed! ..."

  "..Let us now briefly consider a few of the books that did not make
the canon cut, and look for reasons why. Again, any time these titles
are brought up, it is a good idea to see if whoever flies them on the
flagpole knows what they actually contain and what their history is.
If they do NOT know, then they are just blowing hot air or arguing
for the sake of it. ...."

To continue: Canon Fire http://tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

Item [3]: "...even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier,
declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether
Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the
Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters. A Gnostic Paul is a figment of
the Christ-myth crowd, which needs Paul Gnostic in order to explain
away certain problematic contentions. For this essay we
..." Continue: The Perverted
Paul http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gnostpaul.html

"...As demonstrated by the above, heretics were often not
particularly bright ...." Continue: Textual
Trysts http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

Item [4]: Footnote [31] Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels (Oxford
Press, 2002), 69, 117. On the prime time ABC program Elaine Pagels is
quoted as saying that it is possible that documents like these are
"very early," though it is not clear whether she means "to the first
century" or "very early, as in 150 AD, compared to the fourth century
date others assign." If she means the earlier date, she is only
supposing this to be the case; there is absolutely no evidence the
support it. If she means 150 AD or later, they are already facing
the formidable challenge of the church-wide common acceptance already
of the four gospels which became canonical. ...

Details: Not InDavincible http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

Have fun ~ Janice

>Debbie Mann wrote:
>
>Babylonean history looks much like Genesis. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel
>of Mary, Apocrypha - people argue over the literal details of our
>Bible - but Early Christians didn't agree on much. They didn't have
>one Bible - that didn't happen until 325 A.D. in Nicea. Why Paul's
>Bible? Why not James' Bible? James knew Jesus personally - why was
>Paul considered more inspired? Did politics or truth determine these
>details of what we believe? Was James just too restrictive and the
>more liberal views of Paul more politically digestable? [snip]
Received on Sat Mar 11 10:15:08 2006