antwoord

Die Nuwe Ateïsme

Udo — Sun, 29 May 2011 14:23:52 +0000

deur Johan Erasmus

In die laaste dekade of so het daar ŉ baie prominente beweging begin onstaan, genaamd die “nuwe ateïsme”. Figure soos Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins en Christopher Hitchens is konstant in die media besig om hul ateïstiese boodskap met groot passie te verkondig. Hulle impak is duidelik as ‘n mens in ag neem dat elkeen van hulle al verskeie boeke geskryf het en word een na die ander deur die New York Times as top verkopers aangewys. Die groot kenmerk van hierdie beweging is egter nie dat hulle enige nuwe argumente teen die geloofwaardigheid van teïsme in die algemeen of teen die Christelike geloof spesifiek, bring nie. Dit het eerder te make met die geweldige aggressie waarmee hierdie boodskap verkondig word.

Met die geweldige blootstelling wat die “nuwe ateïste” kry, is dit nie verbasend dat hul idees oorspoel tot in Suid Afrika nie. As jy vandag op universiteite se kampusse reg oor die land seminare hou om die intellektuele integriteit van die Christelike geloof voor te hou, dan kom ‘n mens gedurig in kontak met aanhangers van die nuwe ateïsme. Op die internet is hul teenwoordigheid dikwels dominant en al meer jongmense vind hulle idees aantreklik.

Dit is juis weens die geweldige momentum wat die nuwe ateïsme oor die laaste dekade gekry het, dat ons gedink het dit is baie relevant om vir Steve Hurlin te nooi om by Rietvallei Gereformeerde Kerk met die teologie studente van die Noordwes-Universiteit (Potchefstroomkampus) op hul wêreldbeskouingstoer te kom gesels. Steve is natuurlik self ŉ aanhanger van die nuwe ateïsme.

Steve se aanbieding was ‘n goeie voorbeeld van die nuwe ateïstiese agenda en hy het die Christelike wêreldbeeld met baie passie probeer weerlê. Sy argumente het al die hoofstroom besware ingesluit, maar wat die meeste uitgestaan het was sy besware teen die historiese Jesus, die probleem van kwaad en lyding, die oorsprong van geloof en die geweld wat ons in die Bybel sowel as in die naam van Christus al oor die eeue heen gesien het. Hierdie argumente word ook in sy boek, The Courage to Doubt in detail beskryf.

Wat Steve se storie soveel meer treffend maak is die feit dat hy self in die bediening was en dat hy, so vertel hy, uiteindelik nie meer ŉ denkende persoon kon wees en óók in die bonatuurlike kon glo nie. Volgens Steve is enige gerespekteerde wetenskaplike vandag ŉ ateïs en is dit onmoontlik om akademies kredietwaardig te bly en aan ŉ Godsbeeld vas te hou. Sy aanbieding het baie emosionele elemente gehad en dit was duidelik dat sekere tragiese gebeurtenisse in sy lewe bygedra het tot sy verwerping van die Here.

Ek is seker baie Christene kan egter vra waarom ons so ŉ ‘vyand’ van die Christelike geloof by ‘n kerk laat optree.

In die eerste plek moet ons besef dat die Bybel baie duidelik is dat ons ŉ antwoord moet kan gee vir waarom ons glo. Verder, as Christus die waarheid is, dan het ons niks om voor bang te wees nie, ons glo dat die Christelike waarheid sal seëvier in konfrontasie met enige besware. Die Skrif gee ons as gelowiges daarom vrymoedigheid om na mense soos Steve te luister, maar ook die opdrag om daardie besware te weerlê. Die onmiddellike doel van hierdie gesprek was egter nie om Steve op sy argumente aan te vat nie, maar eerder om die teologie studente bloot te stel aan die tipe argumente waarmee hulle te doen mag kry wanneer hulle in die bediening sou staan.

Baie van dit wat Steve gesê het, het die gemoedere van meeste mense in die gehoor hoog laat loop, maar uiteindelik was dit goed dat studente téén hul reaktiewe emosies veg en vir ‘n slag net behoorlik luister na wat iemand met ander oortuigings te sê het. Trouens, ŉ groot gedeelte van Steve se eie woede teenoor die geloof het te make met die feit dat hy in die verlede baie seer gemaak is deur Christene. Wat iemand soos Steve glo is die oortuiging van baie mense vandag en Christene kan nie bekostig om hulself maar net daarvan te isoleer of te ignoreer nie. As Christene ‘n invloed wil hê in die lewens van mense dan moet ons hulle pyn, vrae en besware ernstig opneem, sonder om summier ontsteld te raak oor wat hulle sê.

Ons het wel na afloop van Steve se aanbieding met sekere van sy besware geworstel en die meeste mense wat teenwoordig was, het hopelik darem die indruk gekry in watter rigting daar wel antwoorde op sy vrae is. Ek kan met baie eerlikheid sê dat Steve se argumente nie werklik gesofistikeerd is nie. Hy voer byvoorbeeld aan dat Jesus van Nasaret nooit bestaan het nie. Dit is ŉ baie naïewe siening en word vandag deur selfs die sekulêre akademici verwerp. Ook Steve se logiese argument oor die probleem van kwaad en lyding teen God se bestaan, word vandag byna glad nie meer gebruik deur ateïstiese denkers gebruik nie. Dit is grootliks weens die werk van die Christen-filosoof, Alvin Plantinga, wat die onderliggende tekortkominge aan hierdie argument filosofies gedemonstreer het. Wat van Steve se stelling dat geen ernstige wetenskaplikes vandag nog gelowiges kan wees nie? Wel, in Suid Afrika is daar briljante wetenskaplikes soos Prof. George Ellis (Universiteit van Kaapstad) wat deur meeste denkers as een van die top kosmoloë in die wêreld beskryf word. Selfs in die geledere van die Gereformeerde Kerk was Dr. Stoker ‘n A-graad akademiese navorser (dit beteken hy was in die top 10 in sy veld in die wêreld!). Ek kan nog lank aanhou om name te noem van Christen filosowe en wetenskaplikes by van die wêreld se top akademiese instellings vandag met Christelike oortuigings sowel as akademiese kredietwaardigheid. Trouens, ek dink nie daar was ‘n beter tyd in die geskiedenis as nou om na die filosofie, wetenskap en Nuwe Testamentiese historiese navorsing te kyk en beïndruk te wees met die oorweldigende getuienis vir die waarheid van die Christelike wêreldbeeld nie!

Ons hoef dus nie bang te wees om vrae te vra nie en ons hoef nie bang te wees om met mense soos Steve verhoudings te bou nie. Inteendeel, dit is ons opdrag om dit te doen, om diegene wat anders dink en glo as ons, met deernis en respek te hanteer. Net dalk kan die Heilige Gees ons dan gebruik om sulke mense na die Here toe te lei.

Debate Review: Christian Muslim Relations in a Postmodern Age

Udo — Mon, 23 May 2011 12:12:03 +0000

by Udo Karsten

AntWoord in collaboration with the IPCI organised two debates between John Gilchrist and Yusuf Ismail (visit the IPCI) on the topic “Christian/Mulsim relations in a postmodern age” held on 14 and 15 May. At each debate there were between 200 and 300 people attending. The debates itself were a discussion about the various areas of mistrust existing between Islam and Christianity. There was quite a bit of irony in the different approaches and its immediate implications. The following is my impression of what occurred.

Gilchrist was much more conciliatory in his demeanor towards Muslims, emphasising the need for Christians to love Muslims and not to resort to demonising or rousing suspicion towards Islam, even in the face of fanatics and extremists on the fringe of Islam. In the second debate, Gilchrist said he wanted to help Muslims understand the central message of Christianity, and how Muslims should be able to relate to it since they shared the Old Testament history prior to the coming of Jesus. He therefore took great pains of explaining the historical run-up of an expected Messiah in the Old Testament and how the person of Jesus in the New Testament fulfilled and made sense of that expectation. Without Jesus the Old Testament is like a good story building up to a climax, but then ending abruptly and confusingly (this, Gilchrist told, was the impression that a Jew himself once confessed to him). In all of this Gilchrist made it very clear that the uncompromising theological difference between Islam and Christianity remains the person and work of Christ (i.e., the deity and salvific attainment of Jesus on the cross), but, said Gilchrist, it was not the aim of these debates to defend those views.

Ismail’s approach began with an exposition of how the Western world (and in particlular the secularised Christian culture in the West) attempted to exploit the fundamentalist fringe of Islam that created much of the deep mistrust between Muslims and Christians in general. In the second debate, however, he launched into a full attack on Christianity, emphasising the absurdity of the Trinitarian doctrine, the biased distortion and tampered nature of the Gospels in the New Testament and the untenable view of Christ’s divinity. In the end Ismail told Christians that Muslims’ theological distrust towards Christians and Christianity concerning these issues, can be resolved if Christians merely realised, as some other Christians (sic) do, that you can be a Christian without the concocted notion of the incarnation, i.e., that God had a Son or that God somehow became flesh in Jesus. He suggested that if Christians can do that, then both Christians and Muslims will be able to realise that they actually worship the same God and that there is opportunity for much harmony and community.

The irony of the differences in the approaches of these two debaters for me was this: For Gilchrist the way forward in dissolving some of the mistrust in Christian/Muslim relations was to encourage Christians and Muslims for a better understanding of each others beliefs – without compromising or minimising the fundamental differences. For Ismail the way forward in dissolving some of the mistrust was to encourage Christians to give up their core beliefs on the basis of what some unbelieving or liberal scholars say (the same scholars who would view the doctrines of Islam equally absurd). In comparison I simply had to wonder whose approach merely perpetuated further mistrust and whose actually aimed at bridging some of the gaps needed for respectful dialogue.

To order these debates in a set of 2 DVDs for R60 (+ R20 postage), please email antwoorde@yahoo.com

Vir verdere ondersoek – Deel 11/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:25:02 +0000

Winkelsmidt, hier is ‘n lys van boeke en artikels wat ek aanbeveel as jy belangstel om verder bietjie navorsing te doen.

Eerstens is ‘n lys van vyf baie toeganklike boeke wat ek ten sterkste aanbeveel as jy ‘n beter konteks wil kry van die aanhalings wat ek gebruik het en meer spesifieke wil sien wat die data en argumente is waarvolgens bepaalde gevolgtrekkings gemaak is. As ek egter slegs een boek vir iemand kon aanbeveel wat bogenoemde sake rakende die betroubaarheid van die Nuwe Testamentiese geskrifte baie goed in leketaal toelig, dan sal dit die eerste boek in hierdie lys wees (daarin is ook drie uitstekende hoofstukke wat die kwessie oor die mitiese gode aanspreek en na voorbeelde kyk):

Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture, J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace
Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy
Misquoting Truth: A Guide To The Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, Timothy Paul Jones
A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed, James D.G. Dunn
Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Mark D. Roberts

Nog ‘n paar boeke wat ek kan aanbeveel is die volgende (in toenemende graad van tegniese materiaal):

The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel (beginner)
The Case for the Real Jesus, Lee Strobel (beginner)
The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce (sien hier)
Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Eds)
The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest For the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, Luke Timothy Johnson
Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods, Darrell L. Bock
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig L. Blomberg

Dan het ek ook ‘n paar skakels na artikels aangeheg wat ‘n paar sake oor die betroubaarheid van die Nuwe Testament aanspreek:

Mark D. Roberts het ook ‘n paar baie interessante artikels op sy webwerf. Die volgende skakels het betrekking op wat hier bespreek is:

Hier is weer daardie skakels na artikels rakende die kwessie van die mitiese gode wat jy mag sinvol vind:

Parallelmania! (Soek na die vierde subtitel in Mike Licona se resensie van Brian Flemming se DVD, The God Who Wasn’t There)
Defending the New Testament
Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?
Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
Was the story of Jesus stolen from that of the Persian deity Mithra?
Ending the Myth of Horus (Hierdie artikel is slegs 4 bladsye lank en die res is kommentaar en interaksie tussen verskeie forumlede. Dis insiggewend om ook van die kommentaar te lees, maar wees gewaarsku dat van die ouens se opmerkings redelik banaal en vulgêr is. Let egter veral op die verskil in styl tussen Consigliere en Nunyabiz.)
Was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? (’n Baie lang, maar insiggewende artikel)

Gaan na:

God se belangstelling in mense – Deel 10/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:17:12 +0000

Winkelsmidt, jou laaste stelling is soos volg:

Daar is geen bewyse van enige bonatuurlike wese wat ‘n direkte invloed of belangstelling het met die mens op aarde.

Behalwe vir persoonlike ‘getuienis’ waar sekere gebeurtenisse toegeskryf word aan ‘n God of bonatuurlike wese, is daar geen bewyse dat dit die geval is. Die feit dat sekere gebeurtenisse ‘onwaarskynlik’ is, beteken nie dat dit ‘n wonderwerk is. Ek self het in die verlede sekere positiewe gebeurtenisse aan God toegeskryf, en negatiewe gevalle aan ’Sy wil en plan’ maar daar is geen bewyse dat daar enige ‘invloed of plan’ is van ‘n bonatuurlike wese. Dit is natuurlik glad nie endemies aan die Christelike geloof nie, en meeste ander gelowiges sal ook die positiewe en negatiewe aspekte van hulle lewe aan ‘n God toeskryf.

Persoonlike getuienis oor God se betrokkenheid is inderdaad subjektief. Ek stem ook saam dat nie alle onwaarskynlike gebeurtenisse summier aan God se voorsienigheid/betrokkenheid toegeskryf moet word nie. Maar gegewe die werklikheid van God se bestaan, moet ‘n mens ook nie summier ‘n spesifieke onwaarskynlike gebeurtenis as ‘n toevalligheid probeer weg verklaar nie. Verder dink ek dat daar ‘n goeie saak daarvoor te maak is dat iemand se subjektiewe ervaring nie ‘n struikelblok is om God se betrokkenheid in die wêreld te ervaar nie, maar juis ‘n voorvereiste. Kom ek verduidelik wat ek hiermee bedoel.

Dit is vir my redelik om te veronderstel dat as God bestaan en Hy, wanneer dit by mense kom, primêr geïnteresseerd is om in ‘n verhouding met mense te staan, dan is die manier waarop hy in ‘n spesifieke persoon se lewe werksaam is omdat daar ‘n verhouding bestaan, nie noodwendig toeganklik is vir die analises en nuuskierigheid van ander mense nie. In lyn met wat ek vroeër genoem het, dink ek dat God permanent verskuil bly vir die persoon wat maar net sy of haar intellektuele nuuskierig oor God se bestaan wil bevredig, maar nooit daarin geïnteresseerd sou wees om ook in ‘n verhouding met Hom te staan nie. Ek dink nogal die verhouding tussen ‘n glanspersoonlikheid en ‘n steelfotograaf is ‘n gepaste analogie. Die filmster weet byvoorbeeld dat die paparazzi eintlik net belangstel in die foto’s of storie wat van haar aan die dagblaaie verkoop kan word. Die filmster voel daarom geen verpligting of selfs behoefte om die fotograwe toe te laat om haar persoonlik te leer ken nie. Inteendeel, sy doen moeite om haar privaatheid te beskerm omdat sy weet dat daar nie regtig in haar as persoon belanggestel word nie.

Ek dink dat dit in ‘n groot mate dieselfde is met God: God se openbaring van Homself is op ‘n basiese manier daar vir almal om te sien (Romeine 1:19-21) – en te ontken – maar God se betrokkenheid kan dikwels slegs onderskei word (‘n subjektiewe ervaring) deur diegene wat werklik na Hom soek (Hebreërs 11:6).

(Let wel dat ek nie ontken dat daar iets soos selfmisleiding is nie, dat ‘n mens allerlei dinge en gebeure aan God kan toedig waarmee Hy niks te doen het nie. Ek ontken ook nie dat God in die lewens van mense wat ander godsdienste volg, werksaam is nie. Maar ek dink steeds dat Hy daar betrokke is slegs in die mate waarop iemand werklik opsoek is na Hom.)

Ook hier dink ek nie die Christelike wêreldbeskouing word enigsins bedreig deur die onvermoë van baie mense om God se persoonlike betrokkenheid in die wêreld, in die lewens van mense, te kan onderskei nie. Iemand se eie subjektiewe verhouding met God is ‘n integrale deel van hoe daardie persoon God se leiding en betrokkenheid ervaar.

________________________

Ek weet bogenoemde is ‘n mondvol, maar tree gerus met my in gesprek oor waar dinge nie vir jou sin maak nie. Soos ek aan die begin genoem het, ek stel werklik belang in waarom jy sekere idees verwerp. Maar miskien moet ons daarom ook op ‘n stadium bietjie gesels oor jou eie wêreldbeeld, die wêreldbeeld waaruit jy bepaalde idees van die Christelike wêreldbeeld verwerp. M.a.w. wat spesifiek glo jy oor die aard van die wêreld waarin jy woon, waar dit vandaan kom, wat ons doel op aarde is en hoe ons veronderstel is om te leef.

Ek sien uit om van jou te hoor.

Baie groete

Udo

“Those who believe they believe in God, but without passion in the heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt and even at times without despair, believe only in the idea of God, and not in God himself.” (Madelein L’enge)

Gaan na:

Die storie van Jesus en ander mitiese stories – Deel 9/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:06:10 +0000

Die storie van Jesus en ander mitiese stories

’n Laaste saak wat vrae laat ontstaan oor die egtheid van die storie oor Jesus, is die beweerde parallelle in elemente van die storie oor Jesus en in elemente oor allerlei heidense gode in die antieke wêreld. Is dit dan nie redelik om te dink dat as daar sulke parallelle bestaan en as hierdie stories van die gode ouer is as die storie oor Jesus, dan is die storie van die Goddelike Jesus waarskynlik ook maar net ‘n mitiese storie wat grotendeels deur die ouer stories beïnvloed is nie?

In antwoord op hierdie vraag kan dit egter in geen duideliker terme gestel word nie dat wat hier vir soetkoek deur kritici aangebied word, by nadere ondersoek ongegrond is. Die bewerings van parallelle en beïnvloeding is meestal desperate teorieë wat deur byna geen navorsing ondersteun word nie. Hier is wat Wallace en kie hieroor te sê het:

“The alleged parallels between pagan gods and Jesus Christ do not argue that the Christian proclamation was based on fiction. That some modern authors continue to suggest that the gospel is based on myth is irresponsible at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. When Nash wrote his book, The Gospel and the Greeks (first published in 1992; second edition, 2003), he had to justify flogging a horse that was already mortally wounded. He gave the reason that, “even though specialists in biblical and classical studies know how weak the old case for Christian dependence was, these old arguments continue to circulate in the publications of scholars in such other fields as history and philosophy.” Remarkably, the ancient statements about the mystery religions were systematically examined by Christian August Lobeck in 1829. Bruce Metzger does not mince words in assessing Lobeck’s accomplishment of revealing the real nature of the mystery religions: “A great deal of rubbish and pseudo-learning was swept aside, and it became possible to discuss intelligently the rites and teachings of the Mysteries.” Perhaps it is time to get out the broom again.”

In die slotwoorde van sy artikel, Was The New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? kan ‘n mens die teoloog, Ronald Nash (waarna in die vorige aanhaling verwys is) se ergerlikheid hoor:

“Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would describe them as “prejudiced irresponsibility.”But in order to become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work through material cited in the brief bibliography.”

Boyd en Eddy lys vier aspekte wat hulle tot die gevolgtrekking bring dat die mites van ‘n sogenaamde “sterwende en opgewekte god” min verband hou met die storie oor Jesus of dat die beweerde parallelle die historisiteit van Jesus op enige manier in twyfel trek:

“1. To begin, the very category of ancient “dying and rising gods” has been called into question by most contemporary scholars. In short, when each of these myths is analyzed in detail, it turns out that either there is no actual death, no actual resurrection, or no actual “god” in the first place. As J. Z. Smith notes, “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”

2. Even if we grant that certain pagan myths parallel the story of Jesus’s resurrection in some respects, this doesn’t itself mean that the story of Jesus’s resurrection is not historical. Indeed … if it’s true that God is a God who loves, who became a human, and who died for our salvation, and if it’s true that we are made in his image, then we should expect that an intuition pointing in this direction, expressed through legend and myth, would be found among people at different times and places.

3. The presence of pagan parallels might negatively affect our estimation of the historicity of the Jesus story if it could be demonstrated that there was a line of historical influence flowing from one or more of the pagan myths to the early followers of Jesus. The vast majority of scholars agree that this is entirely implausible, however, and for good reason.

For one thing, there is simply no evidence for a line of influence from pagan stories to the early Christians. Indeed, with the exception of Osiris, all the written accounts of these myths date after the birth of Christianity. Moreover … we have no reason to suppose that monotheistic Galilean Jews in the first century would have found anything attractive about these sorts of pagan stories. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that their revulsion toward these sorts of stories made them more, not less, staunch in their monotheistic Judaism.

4. Scholars agree that ancient myths surrounding the ostensive death and resuscitation of a god were associated with seasonal vegetation cycles. They express the wonder of the death-rebirth cycle of fall and winter by telling of things that happened “once upon a time” in the mythic past. The Jesus story, however, could hardly be more different from this. Jesus’s birth, ministry, death, and resurrection are located not in a “once upon a time” mythic past but in recent history – i.e., when Augustus was emperor of Rome, Quirinius was governor of Syria, Pilate was governor of Palestine, Herod was king of the Jews, and Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin (see, e.g., Matt. 2:1; 27:2; Mark 15:1; 15:43; Luke 2:1-2; John 19:38.) There is no precedent for telling a story of a supposedly dying and rising god in identifiable history, let alone in recent identifiable history, let alone in a Jewish environment that was intrinsically hostile to such stories.”

Aansluitend by die laaste punt, sê die skrywers van Reinventing Jesus die volgende:

What is often overlooked when one considers parallels and dependence is whether Palestinian Jews of the first century A.D. would have borrowed essential beliefs from pagan cults. Remember that the church was at first composed almost entirely of Jews. Two factors need to be considered. First, there is so far no archaeological evidence today of mystery religions in Palestine in the early part of the first century. Norman Anderson asserted, “If borrowing there was by one religion from another, it seems clear which way it went. There is no evidence whatever, that I know of, that the mystery religions had any influence in Palestine in the early decades of the first century.” Second, the first-century Jewish mind-set loathed syncretism. Unlike the Gentiles of this era, Jews refused to blend their religion with other religions. Gentile religions were not exclusive; one could be a follower of several different gods at one time. But Judaism was strictly monotheistic, as was Christianity. As the gospel spread beyond the borders of Israel, the apostles not only found themselves introducing people to the strange idea of a man risen from the dead; they also came face-to-face with a polytheistic culture. But they made no accommodation on this front. Instead, John instructed his readers, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21), and Paul commended the Thessalonian church because they had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). This was the Jewish and Christian mind-set.

Om te beklemtoon dat die kritici se aansprake geen werklike gronde het nie, haal ek weer vir Ronald Nash aan:

“I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

(1) Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a “Last Supper” in Mithraism or a “baptism” in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word “savior” with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. “A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ….Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone.” This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ’s death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, “It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction.” It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.

Soos met die Gnostiese evangelies (ander stories oor Jesus wat deur die vroeë kerk verwerp is as oneg) kan dit iemand net goed doen om self te gaan nalees oor presies wat hierdie Griekse, Romeinse en Egiptiese mites werklik sê en of dit werklik met die storie van Jesus vergelyk kan word.

Hier is ook ‘n paar skakels na artikels rakende die kwessie van die mitiese gode wat jy mag sinvol vind:

Parallelmania! (Soek na die vierde subtitel in Mike Licona se resensie van Brian Flemming se DVD, The God Who Wasn’t There)
Defending the New Testament
Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?
Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
Was the story of Jesus stolen from that of the Persian deity Mithra?
Ending the Myth of Horus (Hierdie artikel is slegs 4 bladsye lank en die res is kommentaar en interaksie tussen verskeie forumlede. Dis insiggewend om ook van die kommentaar te lees, maar wees gewaarsku dat van die ouens se opmerkings redelik banaal en vulgêr is. Let egter veral op die verskil in styl tussen Consigliere en Nunyabiz.)
Was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? (’n Baie lang, maar insiggewende artikel)

Gevolgtrekking

Kan ek dus met sekerheid bo redelike twyfel sê dat die storie oor Jesus werklik gebeur het? Ja, volgens die getuienis kan ek en doen ek. Het ek daaroor intellektuele sekerheid bo alle twyfel? Nee, ek het nie, maar dis omdat die aard van ‘n historiese ondersoek ‘n mens nie daartoe kan dwing nie. Dit is egter waar in byna enige navorsingsveld, en nie net die geskiedenis nie, dat dit onderworpe is aan kritiek. Maar, net soos by die geval met die getuienis oor God se bestaan, het ek a.g.v. my verhouding met hierdie Jesus wat uit die dood opgestaan het, eksistensiële sekerheid wat my intellektuele sekerheid vêr oorskadu.

Hoe beïnvloed my oortuiging dat die Nuwe Testament histories betroubaar is my siening dat dit ook as die Woord van God beskou kan word. Wel, as Jesus werklik is wie hy gesê het hy was en wat ander gesê het hy was, en as Jesus gedoen het wat die skrywers in die Nuwe Testament oor hom geskryf het, dan was Jesus werklik God se openbaring van Homself (‘n persoon met beide ‘n menslike en Goddelike natuur deelagtig). In daardie geval maak dit sin om te redeneer dat die Nuwe Testament geïnspireer om as ‘n onfeilbare (betroubare en gesagvolle) getuienis daarvan te dien en daarom aanvaar ek dit as die Woord van God.

Ek dink daarom glad nie dat enige van bogenoemde kritiek die Christelike wêreldbeskouing in gedrang bring dat God Homself spesifiek aan die mens geopenbaar het nie. Al die getuienis in die storie oor Jesus laat my dink dat die beste verduidelik daarvoor in hierdie openbaring van God van Homself gevind kan word.

Udo

Gaan na:

Ander tweede eeuse stories oor Jesus – Deel 8/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:02:01 +0000

Ander tweede-eeuse stories oor Jesus

Dit bring ons by die vraag van ander stories oor Jesus en hoe ons weet dat daar nie dalk baie selektief te werk gegaan is in die vroeë kerk oor watter stories ingesluit is en watter nie. Dit moet egter van die begin af duidelik gestel word dat die gesag van die boeke in die Nuwe Testament nie eers 300 jaar na die geskryf daarvan deur die kerk bepaal is nie. Bruce Metzger, ’n ekspert in tekskritiese studies, skryf in Canon of the New Testament die volgende:

“The Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.”

Op ’n ander plek merk Metzger op:

Neither religious nor artistic works really gain anything by having an official stamp put on them. If, for example, all the academies of music in the world were to unite in declaring Bach and Beethoven to be great musicians, we should reply, “Thank you for nothing; we knew that already.” And what the musical public can recognize unaided, those with spiritual discernment in the early Church were able to recognize in the case of their sacred writings through what Calvin called the interior witness of the Holy Spirit. This testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, however, does not create the authority of Scripture (which exists already in its own right), but is the means by which believers come to acknowledge that authority.

Die skrywers van Reinventing Jesus verduidelik dat daar van die vroegste tyd in die vroeë kerk se geskiedenis klem gelê is op die gesag van sekere geskrewe dokumente:

“The canon of the New Testament was a list of authoritative books “that imposed themselves as such” upon the early church. As early as the label Scripture was applied to any books of the New Testament, the four Gospels and Paul’s thirteen letters were included. As well, Acts, 1 Peter, and 1 John were generally undisputed. The same can be said for the most part for Hebrews and Revelation. By the end of the fourth century, the canon was effectively, though not officially, closed in the West. In the East, certain influential voices argued for a canon of twenty-seven books, but some writers dissented. It is important to realize that their dissent did not move in the direction of a larger canon but a smaller one. Only a few books on the edges of the canon were disputed. These same writers rejected outright the heretical books, if they discussed them at all.”

In Reinventing Jesus word daarop gewys dat daar al vroeg reeds lyste van gesagvolle boeke was. Die skrywers wys op een van die eerste lyste waarvan ons weet wat deur Marcion in ongeveer 140 n.C. opgestel is en wat se implikasie dit het vir die meriete in ander stories oor Jesus:

“…[E]ven though Marcion was a heretic whose views were largely compatible with Gnostic teaching, which was gaining a foothold at this time, he only included parts of our New Testament in his list. To be sure, he edited these books heavily to suit his own purposes, but why didn’t he include such works as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary or the Acts of Peter? Marcion was certainly exposed to Gnostic ideas, so why didn’t he include any Gnostic writings in his list? The most likely inference is that they did not yet exist. And even if some of them did exist, they would not have been regarded as authentic because of their obviously recent vintage. Marcion easily could have edited any Gnostic work for his own purposes, just as he did the New Testament books. Indeed, his job would have been considerably easier, since he would not have had to cut out nearly as much material! The fact that he used only New Testament books for his truncated canon, and mutilated those copies, suggests that even a radical heretic like Marcion knew that these books were already highly regarded.

After Marcion, other canon lists started to appear. The Muratorian Canon was composed in the latter part of the second century, most likely in Rome. Although the copies of the Muratorian Canon are all fragmentary, most of it can be made out. The list includes the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, Revelation, 1 John, and either 2 John or 3 John or both. Thus, at least twenty-one or twenty-two books are listed as authoritative before the end of the second century.”

Ten spyte van die feit dat daar wel ’n dispuut was oor die gesag van ‘n aantal boeke (omtrent sewe in die Nuwe Testament), sê Craig Blomberg dat “no debate seems ever to have surrounded the acceptance of the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen letters with Paul’s name in their opening lines, 1 Peter, or 1 John.”

Inteendeel, dit lyk asof daar vroeg reeds ‘n standaard was waaraan ‘n gesagvolle boek moes voldoen. Wallace en kie verduidelik:

“It is important to note that the age of a work was a determining factor in canonicity. A book that was perceived to have been written after the time of the apostles was categorically rejected. As time went on, and as memories of the age of certain books died out, canonical claims were made for some of the second-century documents. But in the earliest canon lists, these books were absent (in Marcion’s list) or were explicitly rejected (in the Muratorian Canon) as being recent works and therefore non-apostolic.”

Craig Blomberg gee drie kriteria waarvolgens die vroeë kerk tussen gesagvolle en nie-gesagdraende boeke onderskei het :

“…[T]hree criteria prevailed for sifting the canonical from the non-canonical. First and foremost was apostolicity—authorship by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle—which thus, for all practical purposes, limited the works to the first hundred years or so of Christian history. Second was orthodoxy or non-contradiction with previously revealed Scripture, beginning with the Hebrew Scriptures that Christians came to call the Old Testament. Finally, the early church used the criterion of catholicity—universal (or at least extremely widespread) usage and relevance throughout the church. This excluded, for example, the Gnostic writings, which were accepted only in the sects from which they emanated.”

Ek dink dus Timothy Jones is korrek wanneer hy sê dat “Testimony that could be connected to eyewitnesses of the risen Lord was uniquely authoritative among early Christians.”

Dit alles wys daarop dat die boeke wat nie deur die vroeë kerk aanvaar is nie, vir goeie rede so gedoen is. Volgens Wallace en sy medeskrywers kan daar klem geplaas word op veral die volgende drie redes:

“(1) They are late, sometimes many centuries later than the canonical Gospels. (2) Although some were popular among the masses, the patristic writers condemned them as unworthy descriptions of the real Jesus. They were seen to be hokey and palpably untrue. (3) They usually included docetic ideas – that is, that Christ only appeared to be human – or even Gnostic ideas. As such, they did not see Jesus in any sense as a real human being who developed naturally, but as a supernatural being who was born already with powers of mature thought and the ability to do miracles, even malicious miracles. Thus, these gospels were unorthodox in that they greatly diminished the humanity of Jesus while elevating his deity.”

Die prentjie wat hierdie ander stories oor Jesus skets, is een waarin hy nie regtig mens is nie. In teenstelling hiermee sê Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code dat “Any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible.” Hierop reageer Wallace en kie soos volg:

“[S]uch statements are terribly misleading, having next to nothing to do with the evidence. For one thing, the vast majority of rejected gospels emphasized Jesus’ divinity over his humanity, rather than the other way around. This hardly supports Brown’s argument! For another thing, these gospels came later – often centuries later – than the canonical Gospels. So how could they have been considered for the canon if they didn’t even exist by the time the four Gospels were recognized as authoritative?”

Hulle gaan voort om te sê:

“…[T]he evidence for authenticity within these apocryphal books is disappointing at best. The material is secretive, the Jesus in view floats above the earth, and he discourages marriage as a valid lifestyle choice of a disciple. His relation to women is ascetic in the extreme, to the point that they need to be changed into men in order to become his disciples. None of the apocryphal works have credentials that would demand a first-century production. They are, in fact, all works from the second century or later. And as such, when they claim to be written by an apostle, they are already on thin ice because of the church’s view of pseudepigrapha.”

“As we have seen, the canonical Gospels were all anonymous works to begin with. But many of the apocryphal gospels claim apostolic authorship. This marked difference suggests that they were trying to get on the fast track to acceptance by the church. Since they were not first-century documents, something had to be done to give them an edge. Claiming to be written by an apostle was just the ticket. But in due time, the church was able to sniff them out and declare them heretical or, at least, noncanonical.”

Aangaande die aard van hierdie ander stories oor Jesus, som Wallace en kie later op soos volg:

“The vast majority of apocryphal works that were rejected were not rejected because they had too low a view of Jesus – a too human and earthly Jesus – but because the Jesus they envisioned could hardly be called human in any sense. His deity was so pronounced that even his footsteps made no marks in the sand! Such hyperembellishments of the canonical Christ cannot be reasonably believed to represent the real, historical Jesus.

By contrast, the canonical Gospels were accepted from the earliest periods, were not given to bizarre embellishments, and proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth as both man and more than a man. If Constantine had really picked the Gospels to go into the New Testament, wanting only those that elevated Jesus to the heavens, he must have been singularly incompetent because he left out all the juicy tales! The four Gospels, on the other hand, have the earmarks of authenticity due to their age, their use in the churches, and their conformity to the truth of the gospel as it was known, both in oral tradition and in the New Testament letters that were emerging when the Gospels began to be penned.”

So, was daar ander stories oor Jesus? Ja beslis, maar dit was juis omdat hierdie stories so duidelik ‘n doelbewuste poging was om ‘n ander Jesus in die plek van die historiese Jesus daar te stel, dat dit verwerp is as oneg! Mense kan gerus aangemoedig word om boeke soos die Evangelie van Tomas, die Evangelie van Judas, die Evangelie van Petrus, die Evangelie van Maria, die Evangelie van Fillipus en ander te lees, en dit dan te vergelyk met die vier kanonieke Evangelies. Die kontras is skryend. Soos dit in Reinventing Jesus beskryf word: “[These other stories] are sensational, bizarre, secretive, and unorthodox.” Bruce Metzger skryf:

“One can appreciate the difference between the character of the canonical Gospels and the near banality of most of the gospels dating from the second and third centuries. Although some of these claimed apostolic authorship, whereas of the canonical four two were in fact not apostolically titled, yet it was these four, and these alone, which ultimately established themselves. The reason, apparently, is that these four came to be recognized as authentic – authentic both in the sense that the story they told was, in its essentials, adjudged sound by a remarkably unanimous consent, and also in the sense that their interpretation of its meaning was equally widely recognized as true to the apostles’ faith and teaching. Even the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, both of which may preserve scraps of independent tradition, are obviously inferior theologically and historically to the four accounts that eventually came to be regarded as the only canonical Gospels.”

Udo

Gaan na:

Skrywers se vooroordele in die stories oor Jesus – Deel 7/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 08:55:53 +0000

Die vooroordele van die skrywers van die stories oor Jesus

In ‘n ondersoek na die moontlikheid of die stories oor Jesus nie grotendeels opgemaak is of verdoesel is nie, sou ‘n mens wou weet watter rol die vooroordele van die skrywers self kon gespeel het. Daar is alreeds daarop gewys dat die aard van mondelingse tradisie inherent ‘n kontrolerende funksie het vir dit wat in herinnering geroep sou word en wat uiteindelik neergeskryf sou word. Tog is dit duidelik dat elk van die stories van Jesus vanuit ‘n bepaalde perspektief geskryf is, met bepaalde teologiese motiewe en voorveronderstellings. Is dit dan nie ten minste moontlik dat hierdie faktore ‘n skeefgetrekte prentjie sal skets van wie die historiese Jesus was en wat hy gedoen en gesê het nie? As deel van ‘n antwoord op so ‘n vraag maak Boyd en Eddy die volgende opmerking:

“Obviously, determining the extent to which an author’s biases and agendas distort his or her reports is crucial to evaluating the author’s historical trustworthiness. No one disputes that the Gospel authors were in fact biased. They were not trying to give a disinterested, objective account of Jesus’s life. Rather, the Gospels were written by passionate devotees to help people “believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God,” so that “through believing [they] may have life in his name” (John 20:3]). In other words, they were evangelists, not academic historians.”

Later gaan hulle voort om te sê:

“If there’s anything that has become clear in our postmodern world, it’s that everybody experiences the world, thinks about the world, and communicates about the world from a biased perspective. Try as we might, there is no unbiased reporting. Yet we don’t customarily dismiss reports as unreliable for this reason. Yes, biases color the truth, but they don’t necessarily undermine the truth. So, unless one is willing to conclude that humans can never reliably report events because of their inevitable biases, it’s hardly fair to dismiss the reliability of the Gospels because of their particular biases.”

Craig Blomberg sê dieselfde op die volgende manier:

“Although it is widely believed that theological motives impugn historicity, such a belief rests on a patently false dichotomy. As already noted, ancient history was not written according to today’s standards of scholarly detachment. If sayings of Jesus relevant to the later church must be discounted, then so must the words of the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and the Jewish historian Josephus, when they help to promote Roman or Jewish causes. In such cases, we would be left with almost total agnosticism about ancient history, a conclusion few scholars are prepared to promote.

The fallacy, of course, is to imagine that telling a story for a purpose, even in service of a cause one believes in passionately, necessarily forces one to distort history. In our modern era, some of the most reliable reporters of the Nazi Holocaust were Jews passionately committed to seeing such genocide never repeated. In this case, it is the appalling later revisionism of those who claimed the Holocaust never happened that has distorted history, not the testimony of those passionately caught up in the events of the time.”

Die volgende opmerking van Allen D. Callahan is ook insiggewend:

“…[E]ven though we’re concerned about the gospel literature as being shot through with all kinds of tendencies and all kinds of biases and exaggerations and however we want to characterize these things, those guys who were responsible for that literature couldn’t sit down and write anything that they wanted to about Jesus…. Among other things, they were writing for an audience, or audiences, who already knew something about Jesus; there was a market out there for their literature, and in order to engage that market, they really had to write about somebody that people knew about. They wanted to tell more about a figure about whom people already knew. And so they couldn’t say any old thing.”

Udo

Gaan na:

Verskille in die stories oor Jesus – Deel 6/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 08:51:51 +0000

Verskille in die stories oor Jesus

Hierdie is ’n belangrike punt omdat kritici aanvoer dat die verskille in die (geskrewe) stories oor Jesus en wat hy gesê het, ‘n aanduiding is dat dit grootliks ‘n opgemaakte storie is. Maar so ‘n siening is ‘n blatante ontkenning van die aard of selfs bestaan van ‘n mondelingse tradisie waarbinne die stories oor Jesus hul neerslag gevind het. En buitendien dui variasie in ‘n vertelling tog nie summier daarop dat iets nie werklik gebeur het nie (daarvan kan enige hof getuig). Inteendeel, dis eerder wanneer al die getuies oor ‘n spesifieke saak presies dieselfde storie vertel dat ‘n mens (soos die regter of jurie in ‘n hof) snuf in die neus kry.

Die skrywers van Reinventing Jesus bevestig hierdie kenmerk van variasie in die mondelingse tradisie soos volg:

“Many scholars point out that ancient historians were not concerned with quoting the very words of a person but were very much concerned with getting the gist of what he had to say. This is almost surely the case with the Gospel writers as well. For now, we simply need to point out that the Gospels don’t always record the words of Jesus (or others) in exactly the same way – even for sayings that must surely have been uttered on only one occasion (e.g., Jesus’ cry from the cross or the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism).”

Ook die Nuwe Testamentikus, Darrell Bock, redeneer dat “each evangelist retells the living and powerful words of Jesus in a fresh way for his readers, while faithfully and accurately presenting the ‘gist’ of what Jesus said. I call this approach one that recognizes the Jesus tradition as ‘live’ in its dynamic and quality.” (In die artikel, The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?)

In Lord or Legend? merk Boyd en Eddy op hoe die aanklag van teenstrydighede in die Nuwe Testament dikwels meer sê oor die voorveronderstellings van die kritici as dat dit werklik ‘n onoorkomelike struikelblok is vir iemand met ‘n ingeligte perspektief oor die samestelling daarvan van mondelingse na geskrewe vorm. Hulle wys op die volgende:

“…[O]ne attempts to resolve contradictions within and between documents only if he or she believes it’s at least possible the works in question are generally trustworthy. If, instead, one has already concluded that a set of documents are not generally trustworthy, then the appearance of contradictions simply confirms what one assumes he or she already knew: namely, that the documents in question are not reliable. Indeed, in the case of the Gospels, many critics assume that attempts to reconcile apparent conflicts are always theologically motivated (namely, trying to defend a conception of biblical inspiration) and thus cannot be judged as representing good, historical-critical scholarship.

The prejudicial nature of this skeptical stance is shown in the fact that, from a strictly historiographical perspective, the level of apparent conflicts between the Gospels is relatively normal. Rarely in history do we find multiple witnesses to an event that do not contain apparent contradictions. As Gilbert Garraghan explains in his Guide to Historical Method, “Almost any critical history that discusses the evidence for important statements will furnish examples of discrepant or contradictory accounts and the attempts which are made to reconcile them.”

…[I]t is clear that by the standards of a modern, literary paradigm, the Gospels indeed contain contradictions. What we have been arguing, however, is that evaluating them by these modern standards is anachronistic. Judged by the conventions and constraints of their own orally dominant cultural context and read sympathetically with an imaginative appreciation for the wider oral tradition they were written to express and feed back into, the Gospels are shown to exhibit the sort of broad internal consistency that suggests that the authors intended to faithfully record the essential aspects of Jesus’s life and that they were successful at doing so.”

Dit is belangrik om te verstaan wat die implikasies is van die mondelingse tradisie vir ‘n betroubare weergawe daarvan in geskrewe vorm. Die volgende dele uit Reinventing Jesus verduidelik waarom die betroubaarheid van die stories oor Jesus nie regtig te betwyfel is nie:

“…[T]he interval between Jesus and the written Gospels was not dormant. The apostles and other eyewitnesses were proclaiming the good news about Jesus Christ wherever they went. This, of course, would have happened both in public settings and in private meetings. People hungry to know about the Lord would inquire of the apostles. The stories about Jesus and the sayings of Jesus would have been repeated hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times by dozens of eyewitnesses before the first Gospel was ever penned.

The period of oral proclamation involves some implications for the accuracy of the written Gospels. If the earliest proclamation about Jesus was altered in later years, then surely first-generation Christians would know about the changes and would object to them. It would not even take outsiders to object to the “new and improved Christianity,” since those who were already believers would have serious problems with the differences in the content of their belief. Not only this, but the rapid spread of the gospel message meant that there were no longer controls on the content. That is, once the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, the apostles were no longer in a position to alter it without notice. And the gospel indeed spread from day one of the church’s existence – the Day of Pentecost – since Peter proclaimed the message to Jews who had travelled from as far away as Rome (Acts 2:9-11). So, if there was some sort of conspiracy – or a faith that “overpowered their memories,” as the Jesus Seminar argues – then it had to have been formulated before the Day of Pentecost.

The problem with this hypothesis is twofold. First, it is hardly conceivable that the apostles could have forgotten so much about the “real” Jesus in a matter of fifty days after his crucifixion and allowed their faith in him to overpower their memories of him. Second, they were not the only witnesses to Jesus Christ. Hundreds of other followers of Jesus knew him well, had seen his miracles, and had heard his messages. What Jesus taught and what Jesus did were not things done in secret. This hypothesis is so full of holes that no scholar holds to it.

As we mentioned … their recollections were not individual memories but collective ones – confirmed by other eyewitnesses and burned into their minds by the constant retelling of the story. Thus, both the repetition of the stories about Jesus and the verification of such by other eyewitnesses served as checks and balances on the apostles’ accuracy. Memory in community is a deathblow to the view that the disciples simply forgot the real Jesus.”

1 Korintiërs 15:3-7 is seker een van die beste voorbeelde van hoe mondelingse tradisie bewaar gebly het deurdat dit van een groep Christene na ‘n ander oorgedra is. In ‘n kort tyd na Jesus gekruisig het daar ‘n mondelingse tradisie ontstaan oor die kruisiging en opstanding van Jesus – en dit skynbaar deur ooggetuies van die gebeure. Hier is wat Paulus in 55 n.C. skryf in sy eerste brief aan die Korintiërs:

“Die belangrikste wat ek aan julle oorgelewer het en wat ek van julle ontvang het, is dit: Christus het vir ons sonde gesterf, volgens die Skrifte, Hy is begrawe en op die derde dag opgewek, volgens die Skrifte. Hy het aan Sefas verskyn, daarna aan die twaalf, en daarna aan meer as vyf honderd broers tegelyk, van wie sommige al dood is maar die meeste nou nog lewe. Daarna het Hy aan Jakobus verskyn en toe aan al die dissipels.”

Dit is veral die woorde, “wat ek aan julle oorgelewer het en wat ek van julle ontvang het” wat ‘n baie sterk aanduiding is van so ‘n mondelingse tradisie.

Timothy Paul Jones in sy boek, Misquoting Truth: a guide to the fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus kom tot die volgende gevolgtrekking oor of die stories van Jesus grootliks opgemaak is:

“So, is Ehrman correct when he implies that the earliest Christian changed the stories of Jesus with ‘reckless abandon’? And did two decades really pass before any clear tradition about Jesus’ resurrection emerged, as Ehrman implies?

As far as I can tell, the historical evidence suggests the precise opposite: Within months of Jesus’ death, a consistent oral account of Jesus’ resurrection emerged among his followers. What’s more, this tradition did not change from person to person, like a game of telephone gone terribly wrong. To the contrary, the tradition remained relatively unchanged throughout the first two decades of Christian faith.

Certainly, there were times when the focus of certain stories about Jesus changed from one context to another; the different New Testament authors, for example, refined and remolded certain traditions to emphasize their relevance for certain audiences. Yet the crucial facts of these stories remained remarkably consistent as they spread year after year across hundreds of cultures and social contexts.”

Udo

Gaan na:

Gaping tussen die gebeure en die neerskryf daarvan – Deel 5/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 08:47:03 +0000

Die gaping tussen die gebeure en die neerskryf van daardie gebeure in die stories oor Jesus

Tweedens is daar die vraag na hoe betroubaar die oorspronklike getuienis oor die lewe van Jesus behoue gebly het voordat dit vir die eerste keer deur die evangelie-skrywers neergeskryf is. Die antwoord op hierdie vraag lê grootliks in die mondelingse tradisie van kulture soos die in eerste eeuse Palestina.

Gregory Boyd en Paul Eddy in hul boek, Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, verduidelik soos volg:

“We shall shortly argue that the case for accepting the early church tradition regarding the authorship and relatively early dating of the four Gospels is stronger than many suppose. But first we want to suggest that not too much hangs on this. That is, even if we grant that the Gospels were written between AD 70 and 100, as many scholars maintain, and even if we grant that we don’t know who wrote these works, this still doesn’t warrant the conclusion that these authors were not in a position to pass on reliable history.

In this regard it’s important to recall … three things that recent orality studies have taught us. First, orally dominant communities typically are invested in accurately preserving the memory of events that shape their communal identity. They have genuine historical concerns. Second, while tradents entrusted with the task of retelling a community’s oral traditions are allowed creative flexibility in how they express traditional material, the community as a whole typically assumes responsibility to ensure that the tradent’s creative performance doesn’t alter the substance of the tradition he or she is passing on. So it is, as many orality specialists now argue, that orally dominant communities typically evidence the ability to reliably transmit historical material for long periods of time-in some cases, for centuries. And third, the role of writing in orally dominant communities is not to express an individual’s novel perspectives on some matter (such as it is with modern writing) hut, as with oral performances, to recall and creatively re-express the community’s tradition. They are written with an oral rather than a literary register.

Putting these three considerations together, it should be clear that, whoever they were and whenever they wrote, we have reasons to accept that the Gospel authors were in a position to transmit reliable reports about Jesus. Unless we arbitrarily assume that the early Christian communities were remarkably atypical for orally dominant communities, the sheer fact that the Gospel authors wrote as tradents of an early church tradition should incline us to accept this much. Had these authors expressed a vision of Jesus that was substantially inconsistent with the church’s oral tradition, the community never would have accepted them. And as we’ve argued … there is no reason to think the early Christian community’s orally transmitted vision of Jesus would have substantially morphed in the time prior to the writing of these works. Indeed, sixty years is not a significant stretch of time by the standards of oral traditions. In fact, within this time frame, it is more likely that we are dealing with “oral history” rather than “oral tradition” per se.

In summary, while we don’t need to accept the traditional authorship and early dating of these works to believe they were in a position to pass on reliable history, the evidence that they were written by the authors attested by the early church tradition and at a relatively early date only strengthens the case for their trustworthiness.”

Craig Blomberg beaam die mondelingse tradisie:

“Careful studies of ancient Jewish culture and surrounding nations demonstrate that oral traditions held sacred were preserved with remarkable care. The New Testament world was an oral culture, producing prodigious feats of memory. Rabbis at times had memorized the entire Scriptures (our Old Testament). Such abilities did not preclude the freedom to retell stories with all kinds of minor variation in detail so long as the point of each story or teaching was left intact. The alleged tendency of traditions to develop from simple to complex has been repeatedly refuted; if anything, there was a slight tendency to abbreviate more lengthy narratives…There is not a single piece of hard data demonstrating that early Christians felt free to create out of whole cloth sayings of Jesus which He never spoke. The most common way this assumption has been defended is by the idea of prophecy: New Testament prophets spoke in the name of the risen Lord and their words were allegedly later intermingled with those of the historical Jesus. But while such practices may have occurred with other gods or historical figures in nearby cultures, every reference to the words of Christian prophets inside and outside the New Testament canon makes it clear that they were not confused with the words of the earthly Jesus.”

James Dunn, nog ’n bekende Britse professor, verduidelik hoe die mondelingse tradisie oor Jesus in ‘n mondelingse kultuur sou kon onstaan het in sy boek A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed:

“…[T]he Jesus tradition was a way of remembering Jesus, showing how Jesus was remembered, and enabling us today still to share in these rememberings. My threefold thesis can be summed up simply. First, Jesus made an impact on those who became his first disciples, well before his death and resurrection. That impact was expressed in the first formulations of the Jesus tradition, formulations already stable before the influence of his death and resurrection was experienced. Second, the mode of oral performance and oral transmission of these formulations means that the force of that original impact continued to be expressed through them, notwithstanding or rather precisely because the performances were varied to suit different audiences and situations. As its lasting form still attests, the Jesus tradition was neither fixed nor static, but living in quality and effect. And third, the characteristic features running through and across the Jesus tradition give us a clear indication of the impression Jesus made on his disciples during his mission. As that doyen of British NT scholarship, C. H. Dodd, put it in his last significant book: “The first three gospels offer a body of sayings on the whole so consistent, so coherent, and withal so distinctive in manner, style and content, that no reasonable critic should doubt, whatever reservations he may have about individual sayings, that we find here reflected the thought of a single, unique teacher.”

Die feit dat die stories oor Jesus eers later neergeskryf is, word dus baie sterk onderlê deur die aard van ‘n mondelingse kultuur in daardie tyd en word geensins daardeur ondermyn nie. Dunn verduidelik:

“For no hypothesis is more vulnerable to reductio ad absurdum than the hypothesis of an exclusively literary explanation for the Synoptic tradition. Was there no Jesus tradition known and used and circulated before Mark (or Q) wrote it down? Of course there was. Was the tradition wholly inert until Mark gave it life by writing it down? Of course not. Did Mark have to seek out aging apostles or rummage for scraps in boxes hidden away in various elders’ houses in order to gather unknown, unused tradition and set it out in writing? Of course not. Was the tradition gathered by Mark known only to Mark’s church or circle of congregations? Surely not. And once Mark had gathered the tradition into his Gospel, did that mean that the tradition ceased to be oral? Of course not. Or again, when Matthew received Mark’s Gospel, are we to assume that this was the first time Matthew or his church(es) had come across this tradition? Of course not. …in an oral culture, tradition – oral tradition – is communal memory. A group’s tradition is the means by which the group affirms and celebrates what is important about its origins and about its past. …envisage little groups of disciples and sympathizers, their identity as a group given by their shared response to Jesus himself or to one of his disciples/apostles – little groups who met regularly to share the memories and the traditions that bound them together, for elders or teachers to tell again stories of Jesus and to expound afresh and elaborate his teachings.”

Dit is, soos Dunn dit stel, “a priori compelling to deduce that the Jesus tradition began as a matter of verbal formulation as the disciples talked together about the impact Jesus had made severally upon them.”

Vir Dunn is daar nie regtig ‘n ander teorie wat sin maak van die konteks waarbinne die geskrewe tradisie oor Jesus se lewe gestalte gekry het nie:

“…[W]e simply cannot escape from a presumption of orality for the first stage of the transmission of the Jesus tradition. In a society that was so illiterate and where the great bulk of communication must have taken place in oral mode, it would be ludicrous either to assume that the whole history of the Jesus tradition was literary in character from start to finish or to make any thesis regarding the process of its transmission dependent in effect on such an assumption. I say this in response to various recent claims either that the Jesus tradition took literary form from the first, or that all differences between parallel traditions, no matter how great, can be explained in terms of literary redaction. As indicated earlier, I do not for a moment deny that differences within the Synoptic tradition can be explained in terms of the literary paradigm. My question is whether they should be so explained, and whether in so doing we do not lose sight of important features of the Jesus tradition, the way it was regarded and handled, and what that tells us about the earliest communities that preserved it.”

Aansluitend by hierdie laaste gedagte sê Dunn die volgende:

“In recognizing the oral character of the early Jesus tradition, we have to give up the idea of a single original form from which all other versions of the tradition are to be derived, as though the “authenticity” of a version depended on our ability to trace it back to that original. In so saying, again, I do not mean that it is impossible to envisage or speak of the originating impact of Jesus himself. Quite the contrary. What I mean is that from the first the original impact was itself diverse in character. What I mean is that the form of the tradition itself was from the first multiform. This also means that variation in tradition does not of itself either indicate contradiction or denote editorial manipulation. Variation is simply the hallmark of oral tradition, how the Jesus tradition functioned.”

Udo

Gaan na:

Ooggetuies in die storie oor Jesus – Deel 4/11

Udo — Tue, 03 May 2011 08:42:13 +0000

Winkelsmidt, ek reageer vervolgens stelselmatig op elk van die volgende stellings.

Die Nuwe Testament is geskryf te lank na die gebeurtenisse, deur mense wat nie ooggetuies was nie.
Daar is veelvoudige belangrike teenstrydighede in die Bybel, insluitende hoof stories soos die kruisiging en opstanding.
Die boeke wat ons vandag in die Nuwe Testament het was 300 jaar later gekies uit vele ander boeke, meeste waarvan vir ons ‘n heel ander storie sou vertel het.
Daar is te veel vergelykings tussen die storie van Jesus en ander ouer gode, veral Horus om te dink dat die Bybel storie nie beïnvloed is deur die ander nie.

Ooggetuies in die stories oor Jesus

Eerstens wil ek opmerk, eintlik net terloops, dat waar daar nie ooggetuies is nie en waar gebeure eers lank na die gebeure geskryf is, dit glad nie beteken dat dit waaroor verslag gedoen word, daarom noodwendig vals sou wees nie. As dit die geval was, dan sou ‘n mens moes sê dat daar groot gapings regdeur die geskiedenis is waaroor ons absoluut niks kan weet nie. Die meeste historici sou egter aanvoer dat dit ‘n baie simplistiese gevolgtrekking is in ‘n ondersoek na wat in die geskiedenis gebeur het. Daar is verskeie kriteria wat in ‘n historiese ondersoek inaggeneem word wat nie afhanklik is van ooggetuie of resente verslaggewing oor die gebeure nie.

Tog sou ‘n mens kon dink dat as daar nie ooggetuies is nie, te same met die feit dat ‘n rekord van gebeure eers lank daarna geskryf is, dan is daar ten minste ‘n moontlikheid dat die skrywer van ‘n verslag oor daardie gebeure, op die ou end sy feite verkeerd het. Hoewel ek sal saamstem dat daar so ‘n moontlikheid is, is dit, soos ek reeds gesê het, geensins vir my ‘n uitgemaakte saak dat dit in enige spesifieke geval ‘n noodwendigheid sou wees nie. Met spesifieke verwysing na die stories oor Jesus is die waarskynlikheid van grootskaalse (al is dit nie-bedoelde) wanvoorstelling egter vir my onbeduidend klein as ‘n mens noukeurig ondersoek instel na getuienis rondom ooggetuies en die aard van die omstandighede waarin die stories oor Jesus uiteindelik geskryf is.

Eerstens die kwessie van ooggetuies. Dit is ‘n algemene feit dat ons nie direk vanuit die vier evangelies self weet wie verantwoordelik was vir die skryf daarvan nie. Dit is die getuienis van die vroeë kerkvaders wat die skrywers daarvan as Matteus, Markus, Lukas en Johannes identifiseer. Volgens hierdie getuienis was Matteus die dissipel van Jesus wat ook Levi genoem is, die tollenaar in Matteus 9:9-10 en Markus 2:14-15. Markus, op sy beurt, was wel nie ‘n dissipel van Jesus nie, maar ‘n metgesel van Petrus (1 Pet. 5:13) en ‘n neef van Barnabas (Kol 4:10) (sien ook Hand 15:38-40, Filemon 24 en 2 Tim 4:11). Lukas was ook nie ’n dissipel van Jesus nie, maar ’n metgesel van Paulus (Kol 4:14, 2 Tim 4:11 en Filemon 24). Ook die skrywer van die Johannes-evangelie word vroeg in die tweede eeu deur die kerkvaders as die “geliefde dissipel” van Jesus geïdentifiseer (sien ook Joh 21:7,24, 13:23-24, 19:26,35).

Die rede waarom kritici hierdie tradisionele outeurskap van die vier evangelies ontken, het hoofsaaklik te make met die feit dat ons nie volgens die evangelies self kan sê wie die skrywers daarvan was nie (te same met sommige navorsers se laat datering vir die skryf daarvan). Kritici gaan dan verder en voer aan dat die vroeë kerk eenvoudig die name aan hierdie evangelies toegedig het om kredietwaardigheid daaraan te verleen (soos wat verskeie ander tweede-eeuse skrywers probeer doen het – soos die evangelies van Tomas, Petrus, Judas, Maria, Fillipus, en ander). Die bekende Nuwe Testamentikus, Craig Blomberg, maak egter hieroor die volgende opmerking in ‘n artikel, Who Does the Jesus Seminar Really Speak For?:

“It is not likely that the church would have ascribed two of these three [first] Gospels to men who were not among the original twelve apostles (Mark and Luke), and the other one to the notorious ex-tax-collector (Matthew), unless there was strong reason for believing them to be the original authors. Modern-day objections to these ancient traditions have all been adequately answered in a variety of published works… Early Christian tradition…usually attributes [John's gospel] to John the apostle, one of Jesus’ closest followers, so that here we have reputable eyewitness testimony. In each case, the four Gospels were most probably written by people in a position to know and accurately preserve Jesus’ teaching – Matthew and John because they had personally accompanied Jesus; Luke because he had talked with eyewitnesses and engaged in careful historical research (Luke 1:1-4); and Mark (again according to the church fathers) because he had ministered together with Peter in Rome (cf. also 1 Pet. 5:13).”

Udo

Gaan na: