.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … the old-testament was finalised around 200AD when it was decided exactly which books to include »

There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed. It seems the Pentateuch or Torah had been accepted since the time of Moses in the 1440s BC but did not take final form until around 400 BC. Some scholars say the whole law dates to Moses, but agree that Ezra did some editing or “clarification”.

Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants use different canons, which differ with respect to the texts that are included in the Old Testament that, together with the New Testament, constitute the Christian Bible.

Despite these differences, the fact remains that the majority of the Old Testament texts were composed long before Jesus was born and long before the Christian Church was established. There is absolutely no way “the early Christian Church” could possibly have been “doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written” as Peter declared in his article.

Consequently, the conclusion Peter draws from that erroneous premise has not been substantiated :

« This means that the bible was derivative of the theological ideas of the early Church rather than being a source of factual information from which theology was derived »
.

You also observe :

« It appears that Peter is fighting an uphill and unenviable battle against bible-literalists … »

In my view, that too is an error. Nobody can change the beliefs of another person. If anybody can change them, it is the person himself or herself, nobody else. It is possible to change reality, but not another person’s beliefs.

Deep-rooted beliefs form an integral part of each individual human being. To question the credibility of a person’s deep-rooted beliefs is to question the integrity of that person.

All we can do is to try to understand why somebody believes what he/she does. As Anatole France said :

« It is better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot »

.

To Peter.

I'm sorry if I insulted you, but you must understand. This conversation has been going on for a while now with my asking you for a correct interpretation. What you gave outlines your view with more to go to for why a historical interpretation is wrong, and that, as far as I can tell has been your ongoing position. Not about what is a correct theology, but about what are erroneous theologies. If there is a reply coming for what is a correct theology for the bible sections you gave, then I would be delighted that you finally gave both a scripture example and a theology you hold based on that scripture. The scripture example you gave is on Genesis 1-3:24. But after reading it the first time I didn't see a theology that you've gained from those verses.

Is the theology you hold that God spoke and created the earth, and that evil came from disobedience from God? Or are those competing theologies that are both not true, and they are a contradiction. The way you've written it sounds like they are an example to disregard the bible instead of learn from it. You call them both legend and part of an explanation of a false historical theology. Can you see where I'm coming from here?

It's gotten to the point to ask if you actually have any theology based on reading the scriptures, or if you disregard it all and hold the bible as worthless. If I am wrong and you hold a theology based on sections of the bible, then I apologize.

Dear Banjo,

«the majority of the Old Testament texts were composed long before Jesus was born and long before the Christian Church was established.»

This is not contested, yet the question is, what exactly was Jesus referring to in Matthew 5:17 as "the Law or the Prophets", for this is the point where Christianity became entangled and burdened with the old-testament.

It obviously could not have been the entire completed old-testament as it stands today, since it was not yet finalised/sealed, nor did Jesus include in his statement the histories of the Jews, the cosmological sections or other sections of the old testament that are clearly neither Law nor prophecies.

The "Law" simply means the 613 commandments of the Pentateuch, 248 do's and 365 dont's, which Jesus urged his disciples to keep. It appears that at the time, "The Prophets" referred to a common and well-known list of specific prophets and/or prophecies (possibly compiled into a, now lost, separate book/scroll). Otherwise, how could the prophets themselves be destroyed/abolished? A list can be destroyed, not the actual prophets!

We could also speculate that the list of Laws and Prophets could be somewhat different than today's Rabbinical list, but then Jesus would have known which Laws are truly from God (thus truly part of the "Law") and which are later manipulations. Similarly, Jesus would have known which prophets/prophecies were indeed produced through the Holy Spirit (thus truly part of the Prophets) and which did not.

It is most likely that SOME of the prophecies, were late political insertions, most clearly the "prophecies" of Samuel against Saul and foretelling his death. Critical reading of the book of Samuel and Chronicles, shows that Saul, the first King of Israel, was in fact a very good/generous/kind king who did nothing wrong, but when the cruel and dishonest bandit, David, usurped his kingdom, he ordered the scribes to smear Saul's name, painting Saul as a moody and irresponsible madman - and he supported this view in the "prophecies" of Samuel. Will we ever know what the prophet Samuel actually said? probably not, but Jesus knew.

To Yuyutsu.

Everything you just wrote is unsupported speculation. The matter to consider is that throughout the bible, no reference to correct older texts exist. Not by prophets, not by Jesus. If there was an error, I would think it would be exposed, due to the high value for being pure, and against lies and false testimony.

No instead, the good and the bad are reported on most of the people of the bible. If there was going to be changes in the bible, they would have removed the parts that showed their faults. Instead you have histories and events that show an inspiring amount of dedication, faith, and goodness, along side several faults, missteps, and moments of weakness that those same people had.

If anything it's inspiring the truthfulness expressed, as well as knowing that these people that God blessed, were like anyone today with our imperfections and struggles.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … the question is, what exactly was Jesus referring to in Matthew 5:17 as "the Law or the Prophets", for this is the point where Christianity became entangled and burdened with the old-testament »

You raise there a technical question for those who place their faith in the narratives of the scriptures which, I’m afraid, I don’t. I’m not even sure that Peter does either so he may not be the best person to turn to for the sort of technical response you appear to be seeking.

For what it is worth, my personal opinion is briefly as follows :

1. Each of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was written in a specific context for a specific purpose, which affects how we understand its allusions, references, and framing.

2. Matthew, Mark and Luc are the three synoptic gospels (“an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect” – OED).

3. Matthew is the first of the gospels in the New Testament. It was probably placed in that position because it acts as an interface between the Old and the New Testament. It’s obvious that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. While the book doesn’t say “to my Jewish friends,” it clearly depicts Jesus as a Jew and contains numerous references to the Old Testament that indicate that Matthew really wanted his audience to see the Christ in relationship to Jewish tradition.

4. The source information for Matthew is a matter of contention among experts. The actual author is also unknown. He is thought to have been an anonymous male Jew who wrote in in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek". It seems likely that the writings of the 8th-century BC prophet Isaiah ben Amoz (a major contributor of the Book of Isaiah) as well as other Jewish literature and oral traditions were among Matthew’s sources.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

5. Matthew deliberately connected Jesus to Messianic prophecies in order to leave no doubt that he was the Messiah—the one who was promised, the long-awaited king of the Jews from the line of David.

I think that sums up the purpose of Matthew’s gospel. It serves as a link between the Old and New Testaments in order to persuade the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ), born of Abrahamic and Davidic lineage (Matthew 1:2-16).

I don’t see anything unusual about the fact that, as you say : “this is the point where Christianity became entangled and burdened with the old-testament”. The bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and absurdities.

It should not be read as a history book. It makes no appeal to reason. It doesn’t matter what foolishness, baloney or utter nonsense the bible contains seen in the light of our 21st century scientific knowledge and understanding. It was written for an audience stretching from the 1st century AD to the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. It was founded on faith and faith alone – which is why, as you say, “Peter is fighting an uphill and unenviable battle against bible-literalists” who continue to place their faith in it.

I, personally, find the Christian bible extremely interesting. It is a major book of reference that occupies an important place in my library as an anthology of Jewish and Christian mythology.

.