Good morning, dw4 ...
davewhite04 said:
ConsequentAtheist said:
Only someone wholly ignorant of the process of Canonization of the Tanach and NT would question it being a culled subset.
I am somewhat ignorant of the process of Canonization, but basically what you’re saying here is that you cannot rely on the NT for a truthful witness to the life of Jesus for example.
It is unfortunate that you would claim the results of a process about which you are ignorant as
"truthful witness". The first couple of centuries gave
witness to a number of compeating nascent Chrstianities. Predictably enough, a Gentile variant emerged victorious over its Jewish counterparts (e.g., Ebionites) just as the Roman empire emerged victorious over a shattered 2nd Temple Period Israel. The victors authored and, in more than a few cases,
massaged the test that supported their position while rejecting as heretical the textual variants of their opponents. I doubt that you will find any peer reviewed biblical scholar who would argue this.
davewhite04 said:
What did these people who canonized the NT have to gain from making up a fairy tale?
First of all, Dave, the same question can be asked of the variant and excluded narratives. Why would the authors of the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James write what they wrote? What about the Gospels of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, or the Gospel of Mary?
In all cases, I suspect that the general answer is likely much the same, and involves (1) the general process of folklore development (2) merged with (refracted thru?) a form of exegesis known as Midrash, and (3) later polished in the course of sectarian squabbles. Urban legends happen.
davewhite04 said:
Also, are there any major differences between the Tanach and the Old Testament? If not then why wasn’t the Old Testament corrupted along with the NT?
I'm not too sure what you're asking here. The Tanach is Jewish Canon and, for our purposes here, essentially the same as the OT. Assuming that you are using the term
'corrupted' in its formal sense, the answer to your question is clearly
'yes'. There are differences between the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch, the proto-Masoretic text, and the LXX. Deuteronomy 32:8 is almost certainly an example or
harmonization. And, of course, there are the deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphical texts such as Baruch and Enoch.
davewhite04 said:
I don’t agree actually. I fail to see the motives for corruption here, I am however all ears.
It is, in truth, a remarkable failure. While the existence of motive is not, in and of itself, evidence of culpability, if you see no motive in embellishing ones cult leader in contradisticting with competing ones, nothing I say will convince you. In all honesty, I do
not believe that you are
"all ears". On the contrary, such a comment in inconceivable except from someone walking around with
"eyes wide shut".
davewhite04 said:
ConsequentAtheist said:
Let me begin by offering Luke 13:10-17, not to mention 6-winged seraphims, nephalim, global floods, unevidenced conquests, fortuitous whales, virgin births, suicidal pigs, cursed fig trees, fish picnics, and zombies strolling the streets of Jerusalem.
Well, in the mixer you’ve provided, there are miracles, demons etc. All of which are too ridiculous to believe if you don’t believe in God, so I hear you.
But, Dave, it goes beyond a laundry-list of supernatural events. Let's assume, for the moment, that your Jesus was more or less as portrayed. Do you really find Luke 13, authored some 5 to 10 decades later by someone who was
an eye witness to absolutely nothing of relevance, at all credible?
Here we are. Today is Shabbat and you and I, both learned and observan Jews, are in the synagogue studying Torah. Of course we know the old woman over there. Poor thing, she's been bent and twisted like that for the past 18 years. How good that she comes the the synagogue. I wonder what Yeshua is doing with her?
Hey Dave, look. He cured her. Now why would that upstart do something like that on Shabbas? ....
That's it. No surprise. No amazement. No awe. No fear. Not even polite applause. The act of magic was taken as a matter of course, and all we have left is some banter about Halakhah - about Jewish law.
And, even here, Luke gets it wrong. There are any number of things that are prohibited on Shabbat. None include healing someone by touching them (unless done for wages). Furthermore, had her infirmity been acute rather than chronic, healing her (be it Shabbas or not) would have been mandated. The leader of the synagogue simply would have had no basis for saying what he is purported to have said.
The story is devoid of credibility, obviously written by someone every bit as superstitious as his peers and demonstrably ignorant of Halakhah and ritual observances. It is most easily understood as a sloppy effort aimed at denigrating the second most powerful enemy of nascent Christianity, Pharisaic Judaism.
Shabbat Shalom