Reply to : Brolga
'morning, Brolga.
Had a quick look at it and I don't think we need to become overly concerned one way or the other. The message is still there. After all, the writings are just copies of the originals and human frailty does exist.
And I'd pretty much agree with you. But I suppose it best if I begin with a few observations. First, it seems to me that many people (both Christians and ex-Christians alike) hold to the slightly weird concept that the Bible somehow descended to earth from heaven on a golden thread--
untouched by human hands, and requiring
nothing in the way of human agency. I would suggest that such a view of the transmission of Scripture is best relegated to the doctrinal equivalent of Microsoft's Recycle Bin', given that it's nothing more than naive rubbish. Sadly, the same sorts of people who believe the 'golden thread' stuff above
also tend to make a fair amount of noise about 'inerrancy' (or rather, one
very specific theory of inerrancy). People such as these often fail to construct for themselves, a
'layered' approach to their Christian faith and beliefs. Instead of concentric circles working from core beliefs outwards to peripheral beliefs, everything is 'flattened' out and one dimensional. In other words, they basically lack a
taxonomy of belief. This particular approach to faith frequently lends itself to what some people call a 'fragile faith': something is challenged or apparently contradicted, the net effect being that the Christian's faith doesn't simply
bend a little, it
shatters completely! "If this passage
isn't in the Bible, then the Bible
must be wrong, then God mustn't really exist, then Jesus rotted in the grave", etc. etc. The group of Christians most often afflicted by such a shallow approach to Christianity are
fundamentalists, and it's
former fundamentalists who tend to become the most strident and vocal critics of orthodox Christianity. Ithink it quite a pity that such people didn't exercise their brains a little better when they were
yet Christians
But to be fair, fundamentalism itself doesn't really promote honest enquiry or research.
I have always had the thought, if Paul had not come on the scene, whether things would be much less confusing in Christianity today had it been left to the Apostles (Peter etc) to carry on the work. They where the ones that Jesus spoke to the most while he was on earth.
Nope. Paul's theology is
perfectly orthodox in what he states, just as Peter's theology is perfectly orthodox in what he states. But the question that must be asked is this: why should it somehow be
necessary for Paul and Peter to share an
identical theology? After all, they were addressing
different communities each of which had
different needs.
However, anticipating Sott's comment on the subject. I'm sure there is a clear explanation.
There are several rather clear explanations that addresses the above 'storm in a teacup': some are philosophical, some are theological and some are strictly textual.
From a textual basis, it's important that we appreciate that there exists
two principle and competing text types or forms in which the book of Acts appears, one of them being about a quarter
longer than the other. And there's good evidence to suggest that the same author may have actually 'published'
both! 
Now, within the two principle text types of forms there exists literally
hundreds and hundreds of variant readings. This is a simple fact and reality when ancient documents were copied
by hand over an extended period of centuries. Next it's important to acknowledge that Acts, as a biblical book, wasn't particularly well known, represented or appreciated in the Christian Church during its first two centuries. Consequently, it wasn't so carefully copied as were, for example, the Gospels (which have far fewer variant readings). Further, it's true that Church tradition ascribes Acts to Luke, and Luke
specifically states in the prologue his gospel, that {1} many other Christians had written accounts of what had happened, and {2} that he had consulted them during his own investigations. So Luke used
human sources when he penned both his gospel and the Acts (there is no 'golden thread' here).
Now if I might change tack a little. 'History', as accepted and understood by the 1st century Greco-Roman world, does
not correspond
in toto to 'history' as accepted and understood by the 21st century western world. In the ancient world primary sources (both verbal and written) were used far more freely than they are today, 'facts' in and of themselves were much less concrete (and important) than was the way in which they were applied, and for what, precisely, they were used to promote and/or defend. So modern, western fundamentalist Christians (and ex-Christians) often apply some
very anachronistic thinking when they approach Scripture. My own perspective is that Christian Scripture is supposed to be: "...useful for
teaching,
rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness", why? "...so that the Christian might be
properly and fully equipped for service." Does Christian Scripture serve this end? I would boldly suggest, 'yes, it indeed
does'.
A closing question:
why impose an artificial and wholly modern
philosophical standard to a work that was penned in a time, culture and situation so thoroughly removed from our own? And secondly,
why reject the Bible message simply because one might harbour a doubt or two about a few passages, here and there?
Neither makes much sense to me.
God bless,
Ian
