I blogged a while back about the insipid Newsweek article castigating the Bible for all sorts of things, released just in time for Christmas. My original post directed readers to the rebuttals of Michael Kruger and Dan Wallace. Now a third New Testament scholar, Darrell Bock, has weighed in on the essay — in four installments, no less. Here’s Darrell’s series:
Responding To Newsweek’s Take on the Bible, Part 1 On the Base Biblical Text- Do We Really Know What We Have?
Responding to Newsweek’s Take on the Bible, Part 2 Translation Issues and Constantine
Responding to Newsweek’s Take on the Bible, Part 3 On Three Kings and Claims about Differences and Contradictions
Responding to Newsweek’s Take on the Bible, Part 4 More Claims of Contradictions and Conclusion
Enjoy.
The enemies of Scripture are often as convinced of their claims ahead of time, as the fundamentalists. This is what happens when abstract education replaces the real submersion into the depths of holy culture. The latter won’t usually get you tenured.
Definitely going to read this when I get the chance.
Recently I got suckered into a Facebook argument (I know…) over some OT stuff. Someone then lectured us on how Constantine/Nicea changed the Bible.
After going through the basics the person countered to me “I’m a history major(!!!)with an emphasis on Rome, Constantine, etc…”
They then told me how everyone(!) agrees that Nicea formed the canon, etc.
The crazy part is I don’t doubt they have higher education. I mean angry atheists basically invented the myth of the “Dark Ages” and people are still only now unlearning it. *sigh*
Your history major apparently never read the published canons of the Nicea event — which make clear that the books of the NT were not chosen by Constantine or anyone else at this event. The truth is that Constantine ordered the clerics at Nicea to make copies of the sacred books from the apostolic/NT era and distribute them as a collection (i.e., make copies and send them to various places in the empire). That order left the clerics in a pickle … there wasn’t a complete consensus on the books for such a collection (canon). They had to make the list or else disobey the emperor. The solution was a simple one in the end: those books that basically everyone in Christianity could agree upon as being sacred were put into what is now known as the NT (i.e., outliers that were disputed didn’t make the cut). The result was an overwhelming consensus document.
A good academic (but readable) book on this is: Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament
http://www.amazon.com/Constantines-Bible-Politics-Making-Testament/dp/0800637909/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421867653&sr=1-1&keywords=constantine%27s+bible
Oh yeah I basically said as politely as possible point out an actual document that says Nicea was about canon formation and they just deflected. This person wasn’t an acquaintance so I didn’t push much harder. The issue was in Deuteronomy (they made you marry your rapist!?!?) and in two sentences they were talking about Nicea/Constantine.
Thanks for the book recommendation I’ll have to check that out. Canon stuff has never been especially interesting to me. Guess I’ll force feed myself. (: