Scientology

Jacob Saulwick, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on November 19, 2009, reports that the Church of Scientology potentially faces an enquiry following a series of accusations in Parliament against the group by Senator Nick Xenophon. Kevin Rudd expressed concern about Scientology, but will examine letters tabled by the Senator before further considering an investigation.

Senator Xenophon will move for an enquiry on the basis of these letters. The Greens support the move, which would include questions of religion-based tax exemption enjoyed by Scientology, and various aspects of consumer protection and OH&S legislation in relation to the group.

Scientology sources say an enquiry would waste of time and money, arguing that former members of religous groups are prone to unreliable accusations.

Accusations include --

• Charges going into hundreds of thousands of dollars to remain in the church.
• Routinely obstruction of ordinary medical treatment (but not abortions) for church staff.
• Pressure on female staff to have abortions, including "forced abortions''.
• "Confinement and torture'' of members.
• Obstruction of police investigation of a death
• Inaction over reports of sexual abuse by its members

Allegations of questionable practices by the Church of Scientology go back over many years, and the group has faced investigations in a number of countries, though it has been recognised as a bona-fide religion in Australia. It is reportedly risky to criticise the organisation, with some claiming they have been threatened with litigation for posting complaints or accusations.

At this point, however, the letters in Senator Xenophon's possession remain unsubstantiated allegations, and the Government has three options: to enquire whether the charges have any substance, to decide that the charges have no substance, or to remain agnostic on these questions while awaiting further complaints, if any.

The Scientologists' arguments that an enquiry is not worth having, either from the point of view of cost or from the point of view of alleged unreliability of the complainants, do not hold water, though.

To dismiss a complaint merely because it came from a former member of an organisation would be both illogical and contrary to the principles of justice.

Even if, on average, people who withdraw from a religion are particularly prone to bias, that says nothing about the reliability of any individual complainant. Furthermore, if one complainant out of the eight who have approached Mr Xenophon can establish a substantial case, that is sufficient to justify appropriate action, while to deny a hearing to a genuine complainant because some other complainants are unreliable witnesses would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

The Scientologist response is also puzzling considering the gravity of the charges. If they have no substance, surely to attack the credibility of accusers rather than to request a speedy enquiry in order to clear the organisation's reputation serves only to increase suspicion of the Scientology organisation.

Letter from Rodrigo de Rato

Rodrigo de Rato has just written to me. He works for the International Monetary Fund, as Managing Director, no less, of a section charged with pressuring banks to pay out monies owed to beneficiaries of wills, winners of lotteries, and creditors under contracts.

Like all such well-established officials, he has an e-mail address where I can contact him at any time -- it is with live.com, as one would expect. No hotmail or gmail here! i am so glad that the MD has such a personal interest in me as to write directly; though he would have instilled even greater confidence in me had he used my real name, and not addressed me as undisclosed-recipients.

The more paranoid among us who stand to receive vast sums might be tempted to question the occasional infelicitous sentence or strange capitalisation of a word, but there is no need. No less a personage than Mr Ban Ki-Moon (UN Secretary General) is involved, and my $12,500,000 will be wired to me, or delivered in a wheelbarrow, from the most trustworthy JP Morgan Chase bank.

I wonder how many of us undisclosed-recipients there are who are all owed precisely $12,500,000? Very interesting...

But, lest I still hold some concerns, his letter assures me, "Note that the above fund has been cleared from terrorist or fraud related activities." I am already breathing more easily.

Of course, sums of money this large can't be just transferred willy-nilly around the world. I have to provide "...full name, direct telephone numbers, contact address, Occupation and age for reconciliation with information forwarded to the bank by this office." And I will have to pay a $US550 insurance charge as well. No doubt those who pay up will find there are delays, and additional charges... and a couple of burly Nigerians at the door if they make a fuss.

Sadly, these rats catch too many people, and the simple underlying reason is greed. People think, "Here is an offer of undreamt of wealth! I may have no right to it, but these people will give it to me, so who am I to argue?"

In their haste to make off with the loot, people fail to notice the gigantic warning signs all over these scams. Then they get their fingers burnt, and some TV current affairs program plays violins while telling the story of the battlers being robbed. But who mentions that it is a case of amateur thieves being done by professionals -- and not particularly clever ones, at that?

The mediaeval Catholics listed greed as one of the seven deadly sins; like all sins, it certainly turns around and bites us when we yield to it.

I hope Mr de Rato slips into his own trap one day and gets squeezed until he realises that he needs to rethink his life's goals.

Meanwhile, feel free to delete his e-mail if he writes to you.

GLOBAL WARMING & COPENHAGEN TREATY

Some people are getting tied in knots over the Copenhagen Treaty. One e-mail I have received is addressed to those who are "thinkers and not just sheep." It suggests that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is about to sign the Treaty on our behalf, and appeals to readers to "...google (sic) Lord Monckton and read all about world governance and what that will mean for Australians."

The conspiracy to which they direct us is in Lord Monckton's head, when he tells us that Obama (Rudd isn't far behind) is poised to sign away US sovereignty to some yet-to-be-created One World Government with vast enforcement powers against any who wish to withdraw.

The writers also appeal to us to give our friends Professor Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven & Earth as a Christmas gift, and allege that global warming theory is a religion, being fed to an unwitting public.

Monckton may have been Thatcher's Science Adviser, but that only confirms complaints from the science community that science was brought into a parlous condition during those years. Perhaps I went too far in comparing him with Erich von Däniken, or Dan Brown with his Da Vinci theories, but he certainly played fast and loose with the Copenhagen process. Yet it is such a typical method for those who wish to mislead: insert a comment here or a heading there, read two passages which don't belong together, or use bold type to create visual links where there are no logical links… Even Plimer is worth more attention, and that’s saying a lot.

The argument against Monckton
Here’s why Monckton’s argument is mischievous garbage…

(1) No one really knows what the final treaty will look like: that’s why the leaders are meeting. They will have various draft documents as guidelines, but there will be a lot of discussion and debate before a final result is achieved – assuming that one is achieved anyway. The various drafts (of which the one Monckton refers to is but one) are similar to Union Ambit Claims: they cover a lot more ground than the final paper will. The idea is to make sure that participants don’t miss something important, and have some idea of what is possible and what is not.

(2) What will be signed cannot be binding on any Government until it is ratified by that Government. No single leader can unilaterally cede sovereignty, except in a dictatorship; and what dictator would do that? This is why there are Constitutions.

(3) Governments are notorious for signing treaties and then failing to ratify them, as well as for ratifying them and failing to act on them in good faith – as many Third World countries are well aware when it comes to commitments to overseas aid by the wealthy countries.

(4) It is hardly conceivable that a majority of countries would ratify (through their Governments) a treaty which gave them no withdrawal option – and, to date, there has been no indication that any party has been considering a binding treaty of that kind. It would be unprecedented in the modern world.

Historically, countries have withdrawn from treaties without greater penalty than loss of international standing. At worst, individual nations might institute some kind of trade embargo or severance of diplomatic ties to a recalcitrant nation.

(5) Monckton’s only true suggestion is that a treaty will involve some kind of ceding of sovereignty: as all treaties do. Such ceding can go no further than the terms of the treaty as ratified by the parties.

How negotiated settlements work
The situation is like what might happen in a conflict between neighbours, except that it is carbon dioxide and methane rather than stones being flung.

Assume that my neighbour is troubled by my habit of throwing stones across the fence at his windows when he plays his stereo loudly.

To ease negotiations, he and I go to the pub and nut out an agreement. But my wife has told me, “Make sure you tell him he can’t play any kind of music after dark!” Similarly, his wife's instruction is: “Tell him not to bang the fence with a stick when we are having parties, either!”

At first each of us is horrified at the other's conditions.

So we talk it over. In the end, I agree that classical music is OK after dark, but no heavy metal. He agrees that I can bang the fence up to three times in an hour if he runs the stereo too loudly. That is, he agrees to cede sovereignty to some extent over music, and I agree to cede sovereignty to some extent in respect of banging the fence as well of as throwing stones.

But I certainly have to go home and get my wife’s agreement before we all shake hands over the fence, and my neighbour will need to sell the final agreement at home, too.

Final comments
Monckton is a peer, and therefore a member of the House of Lords. He should have some idea of how Government works. If he doesn’t, he has no right to go about, claiming expertise; if he does, he is mischievous to make these statements.

Personally, looking at what he has said, I think he is pitching propaganda to the US's strong representation of dispensational fundamentalists, many of whom are convinced of the impending implementation of a single world Government. While I share some of their beliefs, I have to add that, for a variety of reasons not worth going into here, they are particularly vulnerable to Monckton's kind of misinformation.

It is one thing to dispute the validity of climate change science; it is another to use misinformation and to manipulate paranoia in order to gain political support.

Some responses to Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens has recently been in Sydney, appearing on the ABC's Q&A program, and being interviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald, as well as being a speaker in the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

I have responded mainly to the interview in the Herald, addressing some of Hitchens' errors and those of his followers:

ILLOGIC

First, Hitchens argues from particular wrongs committed by some religious people to a general blanket condemnation of religion. This is a breach of simple logic. It is in the same class as the false syllogism, "My dog is black, therefore all dogs are black."

Yes, some religious people do evil. And some doctors are paedophiles. Is medicine evil? Religion is a framework: how people use it varies. Paedophile doctors can use the internet as a framework for a paedophile circle. Is the fault in the framework, or in how people use it?

There is probably some truth in the idea that some religions are more prone to harbouring a particular kind of evil than others are. Catholicism's tendency to attract paedophiles possibly indicates that a celibate priesthood provides a good disguise for such people, while Islam's early spread through military campaigns almost certainly fuels the terrorists who hide within that religion. Some forms of Protestantism are influenced by the belligerence of people like John Knox and are prone to intransigence and argumentativeness. But even these concessions do not demonstrate that all religious people are like that, in fact they weaken Hitchens' arguments even further.

IS ATHEISM A RELIGION?

In the various discussions of Hitchens, debate arises over whether atheism is a religion or not.

As a teenager, I was a theist in that I believed it most probable that God exists, but it had no consequences for how I should relate to him, to other people, or to the environment. Therefore I was a non-religious theist.

So it is true, but disingenuous, to claim that atheism is not a religion, because "Hitchkinsism" - and most modern atheism - is a far more worked-out philosophy than the mere atheist statement, "God does not exist." This is clear from the writings of people like Hitchens and Dawkins (hence "Hitchkinsism"). They believe that atheism is at the heart of saving the world, socially, environmentally, intellectually... They believe that atheism must conquer all other worldviews. They believe that their brand of atheism is the key to unlock world peace, and that believers must be removed in order for this to happen.

LEGITIMATION OF PERSECUTION

It troubles me that followers of Hitchens, Dawkins and other radical atheists push these negative descriptions of believers so fervently. And their leaders don't ever seem to correct their calls for the removal of belief with any kind of appeal for toleration of the kind I regularly see from, say, Christians, when talking of atheists.

I hasten to add that most atheists I know are unlikely to murder believers in their beds. They are, like most believers, moral people. In fact, it is mainly those of a Hitchensesque bent -- strident atheists -- who use against religious people, particularly Christians, similar arguments to those used against Jews 70 years ago. It may seem mere intellectual debate to describe believers as war-mongerers, unintelligent, paedophiles, suicide bombers, circumcisers of females and so on. But it is actually far more sinister.

From a sociological viewpoint, what they are doing is isolating a group or groups in order to define them as non-persons. And history demonstrates that this is often the prelude to violence against the isolated group. Good people will deplore the violence, but, "...after all, these people sort of bring it on themselves." Aggression towards believers is legitimated by this use of language.

The movie, The Fisher King, demonstrates how legitimation works. Geoff Bridges' shock jock character didn't pull the trigger, he just made it possible for a deranged shooter to justify his own actions.

We all must take responsibility for our words and accusations, the more particularly if we have a wide audience.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

Hitchens claims that religious people believe that religion is the sole key to knowing right from wrong.

Contrary to Hitchens, this is actually (from an evangelical Protestant point of view) a mark of false religion and erroneous thinking, St Paul specifically addresses it in his letter to the Romans. Some Jewish Christians in that church considered themselves superior to Gentile Christians because Jews have the law. Paul points out that the law does no more than make us aware of our failure.

Let's think about this false view. If God, the creator of all, is the source of morality, then human beings should have an innate moral capacity. It is part of our human nature quite apart from whether or not a person believes in God. Empirically, we can see that unbelievers mostly act ethically, and so do believers. The reason is that it is built into us. In addition, we know that society goes better if we do right rather than wrong.

So it is in our own interest to act ethically. Doing good is good for ourselves and those close to us, at the very least. And how can self-interested action gain us heavenly rewards? That idea treats God as a celestial whore, dispensing favours to the one who does most good, to the one who is the best payer. Trying to gain heaven through doing good is just plain unethical!

Hitchens should admit, though, that religious thinkers have often been at the forefront of ethical thinking. Jesus, for example, corrected his Pharisaic co-religionists by pointing out that the mere fact of refraining from an evil deed when one really wants to do it does not make a person truly holy. Christianity was moving towards an anti-slavery position even before Lanfranc (Bishop of Canterbury) tried to repress it in around 1100AD, or the Quakers (about 1650) decided to disfellowship any member holding slaves.

But the bottom line is that Christianity is not about doing right to gain points with God. It is about how a loving God has stepped in to rescue from despair, failure and destruction all who, acknowledging their sin and failure, repent and trust in Jesus Christ's finished saving work.

CHURCH, STATE AND ATHEISM

Hitchens is reported in the Herald article as arguing that Church and State must be separated. The link between the Church of England and the English Government is certainly a lot closer than the links between any church and the Australian Government, nevertheless, I mainly agree with him.

I hasten to add that total separation is neither possible nor practical. Believers live within and participate in their States.

To remove their voting rights or to prevent their holding Government positions or being elected to Parliament would be undemocratic and probably lead to civil war.

To prevent religious people from commenting on social and political issues would rob the State of vital information for the running of Government, just because churches, synagogues and mosques are in touch with what people think, what is happening in their communities, what the vital issues are.

To force religions out of welfare, education, health care, and half a dozen other fields would cause the collapse of the institutions in these fields, many of which are run by religious bodies.

However, I point out that the Anabaptists, from their beginnings in 1525, tried to live out radical separation of church and state. In England, the Baptists, in 1612, began campaigning, through pamphlets, preaching, and other methods, while the Quakers (1640s) followed the Anabaptists. That great scholar of The Enlightenment, John Locke, in his post Glorious Revolution (1688) writings perhaps did little more than copy his religious antecedents.

The missing link — to bananas

I decided to add the following to my earlier post about science and religion.

Humans and chimpanzees have over 98% of their DNA in common. But we also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas.

A writer in New Scientist magazine recently remarked that this fact does not make humans a kind of advanced banana; nor does it make humans a kind of advanced chimpanzee. Since the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” in the 1920s, there has been a serious breakdown in relations between science and religion, but much of the debate has been as silly as arguing whether or not humans are bananas.

Humans, apes and monkeys all share “building blocks” from the bin marked Primates. However, these blocks are assembled differently between humans and chimpanzees. So we share a family resemblance because God has been remarkably economical in reusing components in the making of humans; yet we are also uniquely human and not just "Chimps version 2.0".

This has theological implications.

Although there is clear evidence of biological processes which led to the appearance of humans, it is also clear that humans have always been humans: similar to, but different from the apes.

So science is right to categorise us as being in the same group as the apes; Christianity is right to insist on our uniqueness as God’s creation.

But, most importantly, we are capable of rational response to God, something quite different from biology; and it is that, supremely, which most makes us human.

Observations concerning Genesis

I've been watching, and avoiding participation in, a Facebook discussion about interpretations of Genesis. My avoidance is because I believed that the discussion would have been inappropriate to the particular context.

So I decided to provide a more fitting context as well as broadcast my views, such as they are, more widely than to my Facebook friends. I am opening the topic for discussion rather than attempting to provide a definitive statement, because I am not sure that we can really do that.

My first observation is that a person's salvation does not depend on his or her views about the creation. Salvation is soleley on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ. I make that observation because some of the talk I hear almost suggests that you can't be saved if you don't hold to six-day creationism. And that is a heresy. We need to be very clear about that. To require something of a person other than trust in Jesus is to subtract from his finished work, and that is grievous error. I also point out that there never has been an agreed consensus about how to interpret the creation accounts, which is quite different from, say, the doctrine of the Trinity.

My second observation is that the early chapters of Genesis are open to many interpretations. Six-day creationism is entirely possible and was held for centuries until questions were raised in the 19th Century about how this book fits in with scientific observations. More recently, Bernard Ramm has suggested (on the basis of analysis of the Hebrew) that the days of Genesis are not literal 24-hour periods, but merely a schema to describe how God both formed and previously shapeless and empty creation. The point to remember is that these are both interpretations. Neither says that Genesis is irrelevant or that it should be discarded. They seek to understand the text. That is something we all must do.

My third observation is that science and religion deal with different questions. Science deals with "what?" and "how?", religion deals wih "who?" and "why?" Science can't, for example, tell us about God, because God, by Judaeo-Christian definition, stands outside the creation. If he could be directly detected or subjected to testing, he would be less than God. On the other hand, the Bible can't really provide all the evidence needed to get anywhere near full answers to the big scientific questions. It is not that kind of book.

My fourth observation is that the Hebrew of Genesis seems very literal and then suddenly subverts the literalism, such as by having God remove "a rafter" or "a beam" from Adam's side to make Eve, or the use of almost barn-yard language about the Spirit of God in chapter 1. It doesn't mean that the passages are not largely literal, but it does mean that caution should be exercised.

My fifth observation is that young earth varieties of creationism fail to provide convincing answers to the complexities of scientific data from a range of disciplines. Everywhere you look, the data points towards an old earth, with life forms coming and going in an amazing variety. Those who hold to this group of interpretations seem to believe that those who hold evolutionary views essentially reject the idea that God did it. This is a serious misrepresentation of the position. For example, one way of understanding the creative process is that, in the most minute changes of molecular chemistry, God did it. For example, the fusion of two chromosomes -- reducing the 48 in apes to the 46 in humans -- is one of the mechanisms by which we are differentiated from apes. Analysis of the structure of the DNA reveals that a fusion has taken place. Is there any reason to suggest that this is not the work of God? Some of the anti-evolutionary views circulating these days verge on the heresy of deism: the view that God started everything going and either left it to its own devices or only gives it all a push every now and then.

My sixth observation is that what can broadly be described as theistic evolutionary theories have difficulty in accounting for death and decay before the Fall. They may, themselves, also fall prey to a kind of deism of their own if they fail to recognise the tiny steps by which change occurs.

My seventh observation is that "Intelligent Design" is not answer to the science-v-religion debate. Because it relies on the idea of a Designer, it ultimately falls foul of the same problem noted under my third observation, that an observable divine Designer would be less than God. It is entirely appropriate for people from a theological or philosophical perspective to seek evidence of design in the creation and feed that evidence into an understanding of God, but it is not a question which science should consider or is capable of considering.

My eighth observation is that vocal minorities on the various sides of the debate seem more interested in gaining power and sole recognition than they are in exploring questions of truth. They are often led by people with limited theological or scientific credentials (some with limited credentials in both fields) who are happy even to threaten and bully those with whom they disagree in the hope of obtaining capitulation and agreement. That is a far from Christian approach and should be resisted.

My ninth observation is that strident argument on these topics unnecessarily obstructs communication of the gospel with people of a scientific bent. Ultimately, we want them to trust in Christ. How they end up thinking about creation is very far down the line. The current heat of argument serves to drive them away and harden them against the Lord who died for them, and God will not hold us guiltless.

Personally, I suspect that Bernard Ramm is on the right track, but I am concerned that the good news of a God who created us, who loves us and who sent his son for us sould be recognised as far more important than working out an integration of Genesis with scientific creation theories.

The one position I do reject is Scofield's, though I respect his effort to relate science and the Bible. There is no evidence at all in the Bible for a dinosaur-destroying cataclysm and recreation between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

A letter to John about the Bible

G'day, John!

Your dad tells me you have been discussing the Bible with your friends.

I'd suggest that you get hold of The Lion Handbook of the Bible and look around for anything else on the history of the Bible. There's also a good overview of the arguments for Christianity called, from memory, God Actually, by an Australian author, which might be useful to have.

THE OLD TESTAMENT
It is helpful to consider the history of the Old Testament separately from that of the New. The Jews used to destroy tatty scrolls, so, until the mid 20th century, the earliest available Old Testament scrolls dated from the 10th Century. In 1949, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, so we now have first-century evidence for Old Testament texts.

One important fact from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries is that what this desert sect used around the time of Jesus is scarcely different from the present-day Old Testament. The differences are the kinds of thing you would expect in anything hand-copied.

This discovery is not as world-shattering as you might think, because there was already independent evidence for the Old Testament in such things as the Greek Septuagint translation of about 200BC, and odd quotations elsewhere (some even in the New Testament) which probably reflected a Hebrew tradition rather than the Greek translation. Still, it is good to get direct confirmation.

However, it is hard to be sure about the early history of the Old Testament. There are a few markers along the way. We do know that, in the 8th Century BC, a Bible scroll was discovered in the Temple during a clean-up. Apparently the Bible hadn't been in use for some decades at that time. How much of today's Old Testament the scroll contained, we don't know, but it was probably the Pentateuch.

There is also clear evidence that parts of the Old Testament originally existed in separate documents which were later joined together. For example, the early chapters of Genesis almost certainly existed as four different documents at one time. Scholars call them, J, E, P and D (Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomistic.) For example, Chapter 2 is Jahwist, because it uses the name Yahweh (Jahweh) for God, whereas Chapter 1 is Elohist, because it uses the title, Elohim, for God.

Many other parts of the Old Testament show evidence of having been compiled from earlier separate writings. For example, the Psalms were clearly written by a number of authors and later compiled into a hymn book.

Some Christians are embarrassed to find evidence of an editor's hand, and that embarrassment plays right into the hands of critics, like Muslims who claim that the Koran was dictated word-by-word to Mahomet. We believe that the God who inspired the original writers is powerful enough to guide the hand of an editor as well. Some books, like the Pentateuch (the first 5 books) have to have been edited, because Moses could not have written about his own death!

It is likely that the Old Testament as we know it appeared in three stages: first, the Pentateuch, which was lost but rediscovered in the Temple in the time of the kings, then the Psalms were added followed by the earlier prophets; finally, the books such as Daniel and Esther were added.

Remember that the Old Testament was written on scrolls, and, in the first century, these scrolls mostly contained one book, or two or three short ones. The “codex” form (book form) was not invented until around the end of the first century, and may well have been a Christian invention, as an easier way to carry the Bible around,

So the Old Testament is not really a single book.

Of course, the Catholics and Orthodox are suspicious of Protestants for omitting the Old Testament Apocrypha. These are writings found in the Septuagint, and used among Alexandrian Jews around 200 years before Christ, but not found in the Hebrew Bible. At the time of the Reformation, Christians still argued about exactly what books should be in the Old Testament, and Protestants settled on the Jewish tradition rather than the Greek one.


NEW TESTAMENT
The history of the New Testament is somewhat simpler. All the books were written between the mid-40s and the end of the first century (not too many people still argue that Revelation and some other writings appeared in the mid-second century.)

Many scholars date the New Testament books to the mid first century, with some, like Bishop John A.T. Robinson (who was far from being an Evangelical) arguing that every part of the New Testament was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

Robinson argued that the destruction of the temple was seen by early Christians as proof that, when Jesus died, that superseded the need for the Temple sacrifices, yet not one New Testament writer even mentions that the Temple was gone. He also finds some other internal evidence for early dating of the New Testament. However, not everyone agrees with him.

I think that Mark is definitely pre-70AD, and Matthew and Luke are probably from the same era, but John may be from around 80 AD. Matthew almost certainly comes from an Aramaic original, written perhaps 10 years before the Greek version. I also think that Hebrews was written before 70 AD. The writer spends well over half the book contrasting the Temple practices with Christianity, yet never once mentions that the Temple has been destroyed.

We know that Paul's letters to the churches are also pre-70AD, but maybe not his letters to Timothy and Titus. Revelation is probably also from close to the end of the 1st Century, say, 90 – 100 AD.

In the early days, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas and a few other books were possible candidates for inclusion in the New Testament alongside the books we have today, but they were never widely accepted. During the second century, there were also many Gnostic writings like the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. The Gnostics combined some Christian teachings with ideas from Greek philosophy and/or Eastern religions. These were rejected by mainstream Christianity, and only ever found favour among Gnostics. None of them were based in history like the Gospels are.

Muslims often put forward the so-called Gospel of Barnabas as being the original book of the Gospel, and say that the four records of the gospel found in the New Testament are corrupted writings based on that source. However there is no known Greek text for it, and it seems to have been written in Spain in the 16th Century. It was probably written to support Muslim claims that Islam is the true successor to Christianity. Remember that Islam was very strong in much of Spain until the later 1400s.

One very strong support for the New Testament as we know it is the Gothic translation by Wulfila in the latter fourth century (about 380AD). There is no complete copy these days, but there are several partial copies which contain only books found in today's New Testament. If other books had formed part of the New Testament of the time, it should be expected that some parts of these books would have remained in the Gothic Bible.

People like Dan Brown argue that Constantine, at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, reinvented Christianity, forcing the omission of several books and rewriting others. The grain of truth is that Constantine paid for 50 copies of the New Testament to be made and provided to various churches, and that a collection of Gnostic writings was burned during the Council.

However, there are several reasons why Brown is wrong.

* Constantine hosted and opened the Council, but played no part in it, as he was not yet baptised, so could have no role in a Church council. The written records of the Council, made while it was being held, show this.
* The argument was who Christ is, not about the content of the New Testament. All parties agreed on what writings they disagreed about. They argued over how to interpret it.
* There were over 300 bishops and others at the Council, and it would not have been possible to push through a change in the New Testament.
* The Arian party (followers of Arius: they lost the argument) continued to have their own churches without any great conflict. When Wulfila (himself an Arian) produced a New Testament translation which any Gothic-speaking Catholic could have accepted, Arian bishops funded him. Because the Goths were outside the Roman Empire, no one had to be afraid of Government disapproval.

In the 15th and 16th Centuries, there was a growth of learning, and many old manuscripts were found. This was one of the foundations of the Reformation as well as of modern Biblical studies.

New translations were made from the Greek and Hebrew, and scholars began compiling and comparing the manuscripts. Obviously, manuscripts will contain errors, such as repeated or omitted words, and, occasionally, a writer will quote something similar from memory instead of checking the original, or will mishear what someone has dictated. The more manuscripts we have, the more able we are to detect and “repair” such errors.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, even more manuscripts became known, and we now have a better idea of the original manuscripts than ever. The King James Version/ New King James Version are largely built on the older compilations of Greek texts, and New English, New International and other recent versions rely on later scholarship. However, as the translators of the New King James Version admit, none of the variations between the different texts would alter any basic Christian doctrine.

Anyway, grab some of those books from Koorong, and see what you can find.

Cheers,

Peter