Does the Bible actually contain lies?

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Does the Bible actually contain lies?

Of course it does, though most Biblical scholars wouldn't phrase it quite so blatantly. But Bart D. Ehrman does, in a new article, Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters:

Bart D. Ehrman wrote:

Bart D. Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Posted: 03/25/11 08:38 PM ETApart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


JGillespie
Theist
JGillespie's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-04-30
User is offlineOffline
Something left to be desired...

As a newly minted "member" herein, I will keep my comments as concise and pointed as is possible. Towards that end, I freely admit that I am myself, a Christian...I am also an educated man working in a technological field with no small amount of "life experience" which challenges, shapes and defines what I believe. Additonally, I have never been able to approach my beliefs from a "hear no evil...see no evil" standpoint; if something can be proved false...it is illogical to cling to the falsehood.

However, as this article points out...there is little definitive anyone can say regarding the events of two, let alone five to ten millennia ago. Much of the Old Testament can be found in both the inclusive texts of Orthodox Jewish practice as well as Islam...the New Testament has been translated so many times since the time of the purported writers, it is impossible to determine when or by whom the original versions were first laid down on paper.

Any serious person of faith will tell you that essential to the belief that there is actually a divine power shaping the world, is the notion that Power has imparted certain truths through special people. Perhaps the Apostles...maybe even a few of the more sincere members of the clergy...often via the common theologian. Whatever the means, it is obvious that just as modern historians comment on events lived and experienced by others, scribes of the time commented upon the much touted leaders of the First Century Christian faith.

Still, many of these later books feature addresses by the writer...most notably Paul. It is not impractical to imagine an educated and powerful man such as Paul may have drafted or at least dictated the substance of these "letters"...is it really so hard to imagine a popular movement activist such as Peter (who may not have been literate) doing the same?

As with any "evidence", there is far more speculation than fact to review as pertains to the origin of the world's leading sacred texts...one might as well attempt to validate the authorship of this "blog" in two thousand years. My humble assertion is that while those of us follwing "faith" choose to believe something we cannot prove...those who do not agree seem engaged in "proving" the basis of that faith does not exist.

Unapologetic Right Wing Nut armed with Brain


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
JGillespie wrote:...I have

JGillespie wrote:
...I have never been able to approach my beliefs from a "hear no evil...see no evil" standpoint; if something can be proved false...it is illogical to cling to the falsehood.

Agreed.  If you would, please describe what you would accept as disproof of your beliefs.  What would serve as falsifying evidence?

JGillespie wrote:
However, as this article points out...there is little definitive anyone can say regarding the events of two, let alone five to ten millennia ago. Much of the Old Testament can be found in both the inclusive texts of Orthodox Jewish practice as well as Islam...the New Testament has been translated so many times since the time of the purported writers, it is impossible to determine when or by whom the original versions were first laid down on paper.

The more times a text has been copied or translated, and the further in the past the events therein related, the more cautious one ought to be in accepting those events as true.  Furthermore, any supernatural claim must be met with skepticism, which only scales upwards the number of times that claim has changed hands.

JGillespie wrote:
Any serious person of faith will tell you that essential to the belief that there is actually a divine power shaping the world, is the notion that Power has imparted certain truths through special people. Perhaps the Apostles...maybe even a few of the more sincere members of the clergy...often via the common theologian.

This appears to vindicate gullibility, and give license to any charlatan to claim he or she is a recipient of "certain truths" from "that Power".  Paul, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon et al. have availed themselves of this notion to great success.  I find it doubtful they could all be correct in their several claims to being "special people", but they could certainly all be wrong.  As I don't accept the premise that there is a divine power, I cannot accept the assertion based upon it that this unproven divine power favors certain people with revelation to the exclusion of the rest of us.  

JGillespie wrote:
My humble assertion is that while those of us follwing "faith" choose to believe something we cannot prove...those who do not agree seem engaged in "proving" the basis of that faith does not exist.
 This appears in conflict with your initial statement:  You said it would be illogical to cling to a belief proven false, yet here you admit to believing without proof.  There is no need to disprove beliefs which rest on no proof to begin with; unproven beliefs can be rejected out of hand.  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"...is it really so hard to

"...is it really so hard to imagine a popular movement activist such as Peter (who may not have been literate) doing the same?"

No. The christian religion does exist, afterall.
But it is EXTREMELY hard to believe that a popular movement two thousand years ago has any reality to it. Especially when that movement claims to be started by an all powerful/all knowing creature.
How hard could it possibly be for such a god to leave just enough credible evidence to raise doubt in a skeptic on their position of skepticism?
Instead, all the evidence points away from the claims of the christian church's throughout history. They've never been right. There are no demons possessing people, there are brain injuries and deformities. The world isn't flat, the stars are lightyears away and giant balls of fire, the Earth isn't the centre of the universe, the universe wasn't created in 7 days, there was no adam and eve, the list goes on.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And you get to the point

And you get to the point where you realise that the bible is just one of many failed attempts by humanity to make sense of everything in an age of ignorance.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Ktulu wrote:

 Response to the OP.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Is the bear catholic?

Therein lies the whole of the answer to your question.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

OldandTired wrote:

 It appears that the vast majority of 'Rational Response' is simply mockery.  While I do , on occasion appreciate good mocking, in this forum it simply makes the mockers position look weak.  If the biggest guns you have in your intellectual arsenal are mockery, you are clearly under gunned.

Foolish you are.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

OldandTired wrote:

 As seems to be the case with most of the Atheist argument against religion, I must respond that you saying it does not make it so.  One of the basis of most religions is respect for anothers opinion, you can have any opinion you like and I will respect you for having one...wrong though it may be.  Mockery is seldom appropriate.

While it is commonly considered unseemly to make fun of the village idiot what you do suggest when the idiots seek out places to suffer for their lord and do his good works? Reason does not work. Pity does not work. Even agreeing with them does not work.

Your suggestions please BUT only if they are something untried. Keep in mind this is the internet not reality. We cannot give them the christian trip to the burning stake.

Quote:
As for your statement above "Biblical doctrine has no objective evidence", that is clearly wrong and deceptive. There is plenty of empirical evidence for biblical doctrine, I will readily agree that there is not empirical evidence for ALL biblical doctrine though, but neither is there empirical evidence for ALL scientific endeavours.  The vast majority of scientific benefits we see today were originally based on speculation, according to your argument they should not have tried them...
 

The idea of doctrine was invented no earlier than the 3rd c. AD when Constantine insisted upon a single set of beliefs from all the conflicting beliefs of Christians in his time. There is obviously no doctrine in the bible stories. If you disagree cite a doctrine intrinsic to the stories not something that was declared doctine by or after Nicaea. You do not get points for sloppy posts. Nor can you have any expectation that anyone will accept your expressed or implied framework for any discussion.

As all science is based upon physical evidence by definition your statement about science is false by inspection. You should also read up on the difference between science and engineering. They cannot arbitrarily be mixed.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

OldandTired wrote:

 Clearly you do not understand the concept of "defeated".  If the argument against religion had actually won, as you are suggesting there would be no further argument, as there is still world wide debate you can hardly claim victory.

Attempting to insert, the fool must agree he is wrong, as a criterion is unacceptable. That believers are believers solely because they believe rather than have knowledge based upon physical evidence is not in question. Belief is only opinion. Opinions are not arguable. Expression of opinion only in a debate is losing in the first round. "All you have is an opinion? You lose." Don't bring a belief to a fact fight. 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

JGillespie wrote:

As a newly minted "member" herein, I will keep my comments as concise and pointed as is possible. Towards that end, I freely admit that I am myself, a Christian...I am also an educated man working in a technological field with no small amount of "life experience" which challenges, shapes and defines what I believe. Additonally, I have never been able to approach my beliefs from a "hear no evil...see no evil" standpoint; if something can be proved false...it is illogical to cling to the falsehood.

How much of this life experience comports with your religious principles, such as the power of prayer, without invoking explanations for their incongruance that assume the conclusion, such prayer works except when ... ? As all such arguments are un-biblical who invented them and why do you think they are any more valid than any other ad hoc nonsense?

Quote:
However, as this article points out...there is little definitive anyone can say regarding the events of two, let alone five to ten millennia ago. Much of the Old Testament can be found in both the inclusive texts of Orthodox Jewish practice as well as Islam...the New Testament has been translated so many times since the time of the purported writers, it is impossible to determine when or by whom the original versions were first laid down on paper.

All the evidence is the OT is a translation of the Septuagint created around the middle of the 2nd c. BC. Even if you have faith it is older you have nothing but its invention by different people.

The idea that one can take out the magic and miracles from old stories to get to the truth does not differ from claiming one can take the magic out of the Wizard of Oz to discover what Dorothy really did.

Quote:
Any serious person of faith will tell you that essential to the belief that there is actually a divine power shaping the world, is the notion that Power has imparted certain truths through special people. Perhaps the Apostles...maybe even a few of the more sincere members of the clergy...often via the common theologian. Whatever the means, it is obvious that just as modern historians comment on events lived and experienced by others, scribes of the time commented upon the much touted leaders of the First Century Christian faith.

In your no small life experience which events can you demonstrate were shaped by divine power? If you cannnot then your experience contradicts faith.

As to your assertion of imparting truths to special people, what objective tests do you apply to separate the special people from the fruit loops? How you apply these tests to the dead including the long dead? Considering Paul clearly does not have the same "theology" of as Christians who came barely a century later, which is the true theology? Paul or all the rest?

If you are not conducting your own tests, who is telling you this crap and why do you believe them?

Quote:
]Still, many of these later books feature addresses by the writer...most notably Paul. It is not impractical to imagine an educated and powerful man such as Paul may have drafted or at least dictated the substance of these "letters"...is it really so hard to imagine a popular movement activist such as Peter (who may not have been literate) doing the same?

But no one knows who that Paul was. He writes saying he has no knowledge of what his Christ did or said but that he writes from the spirit. (Perhaps he meant spirits.) He also writes of imminent return of his Christ so he wrote clear nonsense in all as the crux of all was that return. It is also clear the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of the letters.

As to who wrote what, dictation was not done. Every mention of important people writing is of writing it themselves. That is an invention of believers to get around the illiteracy of their imagined authors and the high quality of the Greek.

Quote:
As with any "evidence", there is far more speculation than fact to review as pertains to the origin of the world's leading sacred texts...one might as well attempt to validate the authorship of this "blog" in two thousand years. My humble assertion is that while those of us follwing "faith" choose to believe something we cannot prove...those who do not agree seem engaged in "proving" the basis of that faith does not exist.

There is often very little problem. The apparent problems arise from trying to reconcile their origin with unprovanenced religious traditions. As with the OT the sole provenance of an OT from bibleland is the forged letter of Aristeas. No rational person accepts a forgery. A van Gogh on which the paint is still drying will come with a letter of authenticity.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Answers in Genesis,

Even though you are a big fat chicken and won't tell me your level in the occult, I'll answer this easy question that you ought to have been able to figure out on your own.

When the serpent said that you shall be like gods when you eat the "apple" (some fruit).

This was not true. Eve ate the apple and never became a god.

get it now, or do you need more examples?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

Since when is the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime occult?  Are the Aborigines occultists?  Is that why the faithful Christians came and slaughtered them?  Oh, now I understand!  I used to think that this crime against these native people was horrible, now I realize that it was because they are occultists.  Thanks Jean!

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL