6 ms·

If you want to define Christianity as a set of precepts derived from the teachings of Christ then you must define the teachings of Christ. This seems like an im

by tps5 10y ago

If you want to define Christianity as a set of precepts derived from the teachings of Christ then you must define the teachings of Christ. This seems like an impossible task to me. Not only is there the issue of discovering what's been lost in translation, but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries. Entire books could have conceivably been lost. Forgeries could have been adopted. Even if you disregard all that, is there really an objectively correct way to read Christian (or any) scripture? I'd say no. My view is that religions are like languages. What defines a language is what is widely spoken and widely understood within some community. It doesn't matter whether a word has been recorded in a dictionary. It can be said to be part of the language if it is used and understood. By the same token, I would define religions as they are practiced, not based on some interpretation of what has survived from the texts. Based on that view, there isn't (and never has been) a monolithic Christian religion. Instead there are many fragmented communities that have varying rituals/practices. Some of these practices are quite widespread (mainstream) and some are not. I understand the desire to base our understanding of religions on the texts. But I can't see any coherent way to do it.

learc83 10y ago
> but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries There has actually been surprisingly little editing mostly because there are thousands of very old NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. There are scribe errors and even some editing, but the sheer number of ancient examples is enough to reach consensus.
- zeven7 10y ago
  This is exactly right. The New Testament is one of the most well preserved texts from antiquity that we have.
- y4mi 10y ago
  "surprisingly little editing" "Just 100 years after its writing" ... Because a verbal recollection about a controversial topic is so trustworthy and surely haven't been 'edited'. Remember how many 'facts' there are about Holocaust deniers? And this is happening with actual evidence to the contrary around.
  - learc83 10y ago
    The OP was referring to editing over the centuries. Implying that there were many changes over time. The early sources show that this isn't the case. Yes, there is no way to prove that something wasn't edited in the intervening century. However we do have many early sources. If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have. This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects?
      - learc83 10y ago
        >This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. Yes it is possible that alternative versions of the books of the New Testament existed, but were destroyed or not preserved. However, it is likely that if this were the case, we would have references to these alternate versions. We have many writings from early church leaders discussing canonical and heretical texts. These writings don't mention that there were heavily edited versions of the New Testament texts when discussing heretical texts. They do mention that there were additional texts that they considered heretical. >If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects? There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. There is plenty of room for variety from different interpretation of the same text. Various heresies arose and were condemned as heresies, but they were mostly based either on differing interpretations or a different view was to what texts they considered canonical. No early Christian heresy that I'm aware of depending on an alternative version of the books of the New Testament.
        flukus 10y ago
        > There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. Protestantism came about long after the bible, early christian sects didn't have a bible. There are many books that never got accepted as canon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels , possibly many differing versions of the same books. And there were many early sects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_t... . The further down you go the messier things get but there was more diversity in early christianity than modern christianity.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  I don't think there is much doubt in the accuracy of the versions of the New Testament books we have today compared to their original editions. The main contentions are over the authorship and their history. The Epistle to the Hebrews was attributed to Paul, but this was called into question even when it was being selected for inclusion in the canonical list. Half of the other Pauline epistles are considered by many modern scholars to be fake. There are known to be other gospels and epistles that were in circulation in the second and third centuries, and the oldest surviving manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas is roughly contemporaneous with the oldest surviving of the canonical gospels. So why is the Gospel of Luke more authoritative than the Gospel of Thomas? The short answer is those who the modern Christian churches choose to believe are authoritative found one more in agreement with it than the other (note that this does not pass judgement on whether or not that belief is historically accurate).
nvahalik 10y ago
> This seems like an impossible task to me. It is not. Scripture defines the teachings of Christ. > Not only is there the issue of discovering what's been lost in translation, but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries. Entire books could have conceivably been lost. Forgeries could have been adopted. This gets into an area called textual criticism. I'm half-asleep right now so hopefully what follows will make sense... 1. Consider for a moment that the Bible is the most validated work of antiquity that humanity possesses[1]. The thing is, if you can look at the evidence and yet say "we don't know" then you (in order to be consistent) have to admit that you basically "don't know" about anything that you don't have exact photocopies of the originals. 2. If you understand the Christian claims surrounding scripture (and here, importantly is preservation) then you must understand that that doubt you have doesn't exist within our beliefs. 3. Based on what I understand, the Bible was essentially transmitted through time using something that instantly brought to mind the idea of bittorrent. We actually know when and where changes were made and we have gotten back to the original text in all but a handful of instances. And in the instances where there is a textual variant—it doesn't change any of the doctrines or core tenants of the faith. There are thousands of copies of the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved. Some of these copies were done under the threat of death (persecution). Scribal errors can be found because we have so many. BTW this stands in stark contrast with a book like the Quran which doesn't have sort of historical manuscript tradition. There were likely changes to the Quran by Uthman but we don't know what they were because they were destroyed... so keep that in mind. > Even if you disregard all that, is there really an objectively correct way to read Christian (or any) scripture? I'd say no. Sure there is. Jesus makes claims you either have to accept or reject. There is a very clear line. [1]: https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
- flukus 10y ago
  > The thing is, if you can look at the evidence and yet say "we don't know" then you (in order to be consistent) have to admit that you basically "don't know" about anything that you don't have exact photocopies of the originals. For most notable events in history we have much more evidence than just text. Caesars writings may not have the same scrutiny but we've got coins with his face on them from around Europe. Christianity had little impact on the world for the first couple of centuries.
coldtea 10y ago
>If you want to define Christianity as a set of precepts derived from the teachings of Christ then you must define the teachings of Christ. This seems like an impossible task to me. Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them". If Christ existed, but had e.g. completely different teachings, then it would be irrelevant to know them (as pertaining to Christianity). (It would be interesting to know them, of course, but it wouldn't be the "real Christianity". Christianity is defined by its history: the scripts it was based upon, and what the churches calling themselves christian did.). That's because Christianity caught on and was adopted for the specific message we know. Not just because some Christ person spoke those things, but for their content (as we know it). It's just like if someone comes and says "the real KFC recipe by the kernel is actually with marmalade and fish-oil". Even if that's true, what KFC is to people is what they've known to eat for all those decades, not merely a generic placeholder than can hold any value as long as it proves to be more historically accurate than the previous.
- tps5 10y ago
  You took this completely out of context. I was responding to someone who was arguing for an objectively correct way to interpret Christian scripture that leads to a set of behaviors that defines Christianity. I agree with most of your argument, and it's pretty similar to what I wrote. But: > Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them". How do you define "as we know them?" It seems to me that you're supposing that there's some "overall message" to Christianity that exists within the modern population of Christians. I don't agree with this, and I see no coherent way to discover what that message would be. But if you want to define a religion in this way, you have to take on that task. I think that Christianity should be defined by "what is practiced as Christianity today," within each community that sees itself as Christian. Therefore, my argument goes, there isn't a single coherent "Christendom." Instead, there exists a highly fragmented population of Christians, across which practices and beliefs significantly differ. My argument is that none of these Christian communities is any more correct than the others. I think that's a pretty mainstream interpretation of modern Christianity. I don't think I'm really reaching here.
  - 10y ago

by tps5 10y ago

learc83 10y ago

> but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries There has actually been surprisingly little editing mostly because there are thousands of very old NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. There are scribe errors and even some editing, but the sheer number of ancient examples is enough to reach consensus.

zeven7 10y ago
This is exactly right. The New Testament is one of the most well preserved texts from antiquity that we have.
y4mi 10y ago
"surprisingly little editing" "Just 100 years after its writing" ... Because a verbal recollection about a controversial topic is so trustworthy and surely haven't been 'edited'. Remember how many 'facts' there are about Holocaust deniers? And this is happening with actual evidence to the contrary around.
- learc83 10y ago
  The OP was referring to editing over the centuries. Implying that there were many changes over time. The early sources show that this isn't the case. Yes, there is no way to prove that something wasn't edited in the intervening century. However we do have many early sources. If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > If there were large edits made during this time we would expect to see more variation in the early sources we do have. This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects?
    - learc83 10y ago
      >This assumes there was no selection bias in what was preserved. Yes it is possible that alternative versions of the books of the New Testament existed, but were destroyed or not preserved. However, it is likely that if this were the case, we would have references to these alternate versions. We have many writings from early church leaders discussing canonical and heretical texts. These writings don't mention that there were heavily edited versions of the New Testament texts when discussing heretical texts. They do mention that there were additional texts that they considered heretical. >If they agreed so well then how would you explain the huge variety in early christian sects? There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. There is plenty of room for variety from different interpretation of the same text. Various heresies arose and were condemned as heresies, but they were mostly based either on differing interpretations or a different view was to what texts they considered canonical. No early Christian heresy that I'm aware of depending on an alternative version of the books of the New Testament.
      - flukus 10y ago
        > There are hundreds of protestant sects today, yet nearly everyone uses identical copies of the Bible. Protestantism came about long after the bible, early christian sects didn't have a bible. There are many books that never got accepted as canon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels , possibly many differing versions of the same books. And there were many early sects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_t... . The further down you go the messier things get but there was more diversity in early christianity than modern christianity.
jcranmer 10y ago
I don't think there is much doubt in the accuracy of the versions of the New Testament books we have today compared to their original editions. The main contentions are over the authorship and their history. The Epistle to the Hebrews was attributed to Paul, but this was called into question even when it was being selected for inclusion in the canonical list. Half of the other Pauline epistles are considered by many modern scholars to be fake. There are known to be other gospels and epistles that were in circulation in the second and third centuries, and the oldest surviving manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas is roughly contemporaneous with the oldest surviving of the canonical gospels. So why is the Gospel of Luke more authoritative than the Gospel of Thomas? The short answer is those who the modern Christian churches choose to believe are authoritative found one more in agreement with it than the other (note that this does not pass judgement on whether or not that belief is historically accurate).

nvahalik 10y ago

> This seems like an impossible task to me. It is not. Scripture defines the teachings of Christ. > Not only is there the issue of discovering what's been lost in translation, but also the existing texts have been heavily edited over the centuries. Entire books could have conceivably been lost. Forgeries could have been adopted. This gets into an area called textual criticism. I'm half-asleep right now so hopefully what follows will make sense... 1. Consider for a moment that the Bible is the most validated work of antiquity that humanity possesses[1]. The thing is, if you can look at the evidence and yet say "we don't know" then you (in order to be consistent) have to admit that you basically "don't know" about anything that you don't have exact photocopies of the originals. 2. If you understand the Christian claims surrounding scripture (and here, importantly is preservation) then you must understand that that doubt you have doesn't exist within our beliefs. 3. Based on what I understand, the Bible was essentially transmitted through time using something that instantly brought to mind the idea of bittorrent. We actually know when and where changes were made and we have gotten back to the original text in all but a handful of instances. And in the instances where there is a textual variant—it doesn't change any of the doctrines or core tenants of the faith. There are thousands of copies of the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved. Some of these copies were done under the threat of death (persecution). Scribal errors can be found because we have so many. BTW this stands in stark contrast with a book like the Quran which doesn't have sort of historical manuscript tradition. There were likely changes to the Quran by Uthman but we don't know what they were because they were destroyed... so keep that in mind. > Even if you disregard all that, is there really an objectively correct way to read Christian (or any) scripture? I'd say no. Sure there is. Jesus makes claims you either have to accept or reject. There is a very clear line. [1]: https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

flukus 10y ago
> The thing is, if you can look at the evidence and yet say "we don't know" then you (in order to be consistent) have to admit that you basically "don't know" about anything that you don't have exact photocopies of the originals. For most notable events in history we have much more evidence than just text. Caesars writings may not have the same scrutiny but we've got coins with his face on them from around Europe. Christianity had little impact on the world for the first couple of centuries.

coldtea 10y ago

>If you want to define Christianity as a set of precepts derived from the teachings of Christ then you must define the teachings of Christ. This seems like an impossible task to me. Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them". If Christ existed, but had e.g. completely different teachings, then it would be irrelevant to know them (as pertaining to Christianity). (It would be interesting to know them, of course, but it wouldn't be the "real Christianity". Christianity is defined by its history: the scripts it was based upon, and what the churches calling themselves christian did.). That's because Christianity caught on and was adopted for the specific message we know. Not just because some Christ person spoke those things, but for their content (as we know it). It's just like if someone comes and says "the real KFC recipe by the kernel is actually with marmalade and fish-oil". Even if that's true, what KFC is to people is what they've known to eat for all those decades, not merely a generic placeholder than can hold any value as long as it proves to be more historically accurate than the previous.

tps5 10y ago
You took this completely out of context. I was responding to someone who was arguing for an objectively correct way to interpret Christian scripture that leads to a set of behaviors that defines Christianity. I agree with most of your argument, and it's pretty similar to what I wrote. But: > Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them". How do you define "as we know them?" It seems to me that you're supposing that there's some "overall message" to Christianity that exists within the modern population of Christians. I don't agree with this, and I see no coherent way to discover what that message would be. But if you want to define a religion in this way, you have to take on that task. I think that Christianity should be defined by "what is practiced as Christianity today," within each community that sees itself as Christian. Therefore, my argument goes, there isn't a single coherent "Christendom." Instead, there exists a highly fragmented population of Christians, across which practices and beliefs significantly differ. My argument is that none of these Christian communities is any more correct than the others. I think that's a pretty mainstream interpretation of modern Christianity. I don't think I'm really reaching here.
- 10y ago