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

An unwelcome Turning Point

An inquest is just finishing in Sydney into the death of Rebekah Lawrence, who became highly distressed after attending a four day seminar run by a group known as Turning Point. During and for several days after her course, she displayed symptoms of psychosis. On her final day alive, she became abusive towards fellow workers, took off her clothes, and plunged to her death from an upper floor of her workplace.

Psychologists and psychiatrists in evidence before the inquest have been very critical of the techniques used by Turning Point, particularly when staff lacked training to deal with extreme reactions to the experience. It has also emerged that Mrs Lawrence is not the only person to have suffered an extreme reaction after a Turning Point seminar and end her life.

Adele Horin's article in the Sydney Morning Herald, You can't change habits of a lifetime in a weekend of self-help classes (22 August) contains a lot of wisdom about "self help" groups like Turning Point, but misses some important issues.

As T.S. Kuhn and several others have pointed out, most change does come through a crisis, often described in terms of conversion or paradigm shift; there is a period of confrontation with and resistance to the new, followed by a stage of brokenness where a person undergoes re-orientation, and then the person enters the new understanding and altered behaviour patterns.

As a born-again Christian (Goulburn Street Open Air Campaigners, 1962) I am well aware of how this works. Conversion may alter one's orientation in a flash, but the transformation may take a little longer. I suppose that the scientists who, in a crisis-type paradigm shift, abandoned the phlogiston theory of heat in favour of modern molecular energy theories still had to do a lot of work on what that actually means in practical terms.

Adele mentions the transformations which born-again Christians go through.

She writes, "To experience ''a permanent shift in the quality of your life'' as Landmark promises is theoretically possible after a single mind-blowing weekend, I suppose. After all, born-again Christians are transformed after an even briefer encounter session with Jesus. But real transformation, say from being an angry person into a calm and considered one, mostly takes years of committed effort, the acquisition of specific skills and self-understanding - and even then success is not assured."

What she does not pick up on is that, while groups like Turning Point have adopted many of the practices of American evangelism -- and it is clear that she is not attempting to draw comparisons here -- there are some very basic differences.

Most evangelical churches today have been influenced by psycholgical and sociological theories and have modified their practices accordingly. So I find it useful to think back to how things were around the time I was converted, when most every day, garden-variety Christians still saw psychology as anti-Christian mumbo-jumbo and hadn't even heard of sociology.

The little Baptist church which I began attending around the time I was converted did not have members with a highly analytical mindset. But we had some rough theories about conversion.

First, we were a little suspicious of the sudden convert. After all, Jesus said that the seed which springs up rapidly is most likely to die off rapidly, because it has no depth of soil. Yes, there were out-of-the-blue conversions which lasted, but they were rare.

On the other hand, we did expect fairly significant changes in a convert. If you were converted, then things must necessarily change. We relied on a mistranslated verse: If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature, the former things have passed away: everything has become new. A new convert was not just someone who had repented and believed, but was transformed into a new mode of existence. That had to show!

The reality is that this verse, accurately translated says something like, If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation... that is, it is not so much that I have changed my kind, but that I have begun living in a new realm, with all the attendant difficulties and adjustments which face anyone who moves to unfamiliar territory. Once again, a process.

We were also adept at noticing people "under conviction" -- going through a struggle about whether or not to commit to Christ. That is, we knew that the conversion experience was the culmination of a process.

The second thing is that we knew that even the dramatic, life changing conversion needed support. That support was not an endless round of evangelistic services, though the Sunday when someone did not come to a personal faith was rare. But much of church life revolved around getting together for a social night or the monthly fellowship tea, being part of the choir or spending Saturday in a working bee at the Protestant Homes. A changed lifestyle, a changed community and encouragement to look outward as well as self-assess all remain part of the healing process.

Also, we knew the value of one-on-one support. A weakness was an unwillingness to refer people to counselling outside the church (not that much was available); a strength was that we recognised that everyone struggles and needs a friend from time to time. Knowing that you are being prayed for and will probably be asked next week, "How are you going?" is a powerful incentive to keep on the path!

Sadly it seems that too many of these self-help groups lack the broader insights that have informed churches for centuries. And the result is too many Rebekah Lawrences.

The Netbook Phenomenon

I don't own a netbook, nor am I likely to in the near future. But I think that they are saying something about people's attitudes.

For those who are unfamiliar with these devices, they are tiny laptop computers. Where the average business laptop has about a 15" screen, netbooks have a screen half the size or slightly bigger. 12" is generally considered the upper limit.

But netbooks have other distinctive features. They generally have no CD/DVD drive, no more than 1GB of memory, and a not very large hard drive. Most use a single core processor running at below 1.7GHz. Most full-sized laptop computers have a DVD drive, 3 or 4GB of memory and dual core processors running at over 2.0GHz.

The idea behind the netbook is that it is capable of running basic programs (word processor, spreadsheet, basic photo editing) and, above all, of using the Internet. It is designed for travellers and people who make light use of a computer. And most are small enough to slip into a briefcase leaving plenty of room for a packed lunch.

The netbook phenomenon is important because it points to a shift in values.

People still go for the big, powerful computers, just as they still go for big, powerful cars. But a backlash is developing. People are beginning to realise that small works fine, that you don't necessarily need all the features and the "just in case" add-ons. Simple, straight-forward and, above all, portable, works fine. The Toyota Corolla offers some advantages over the Ford Fairlane.

Part of the reason is that extra power doesn't gain you much. In the 1950s, a Jaguar Mk VII capable of 160kph could cruise near that speed for hundreds of kilometres on the derestricted back roads, which was a great advantage over cars like my little Austin which struggled to reach 110 with a tail wind.

Today, the little 1.5litre sedan probably achieves 160 given a push, but only on the freeways is it permitted to reach 110 -- the same as the Jaguar driving alongside it.

Similarly, with computers, when the limiting factor is often disk speed or even the user's typing speed, how much processing speed do we really need? Is "grunt" more important, or a battery which lasts through the day? How often do we really need our CD drive?

With the netbook, the answer is coming down on the side of moderate speed, durable batteries, and plugging in a CD drive when it's necessary.

The netbook phenomenon suggests that, in technology, some people are beginning to accept E.F Schumacher's view that "Small is beautiful".

On the other hand, as the growth of netbook ownership is mainly as a second computer, we need to ask ourselves whether owning 1-1/2 computers is really the definition of smallness. Not that I should talk, of course.

When Jesus sent his disciples out, he told them not to take spare sandals or extra cash -- in effect, he told them to travel light, and discover that God is dependable. There is a radicalism in his approach from which we can all learn. His attitude coloured the early church's approach to poverty, where they sold off property to provide more resources to give to those who lacked. It was also very much the attitude of the early Franciscans, and a value prized by the evangelist, John Wesley.

Of course, for some people, the laptop and projector are part of the basic equipment; for others, that is mere indulgence. But the issue remains: are we acquiring and depending on goods because they are vital to what we do, or because we feel unprotected without them?

Top - Report of death exaggerated

They are now saying that Noordin Top was not killed in the recent siege. Indonesian authorities have withdrawn earlier reports.

The threat remains.

As I said yesterday, though, the threat does not end with the removal of one terrorist, no matter how important to the project.

Keep praying for our world!

Top is dead

ABC News reports that Indonesian authorities have confirmed the death of wanted Muslim terrorist, Noordin Top in a shoot-out in central Java. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/08/2650105.htm

I suppose that our first reaction is joy and relief that one of the leading terrorism threats has been ended. As someone who appreciates and values pacifism, but have never been able to make a personal commitment to it, I do believe that there are times when violence can only be stopped by violence. In a similar way, Christians were leading participants in the assassination plot against German terrorist, Adolf Hitler.

I don't think it is contradictory also to feel an element of disappointment, even grief, at this death. For all that I think Top had to be defeated, that any person has to be killed to end his career is an indication that we have failed to find a better solution.

Similarly, in the middle ages, when Europe and Asia Minor faced waves of invading Muslim armies, a Christian soldier who killed in battle, even defending the life of a fellow Christian, still had to perform penance for three years. The need for fighting was recognised, but the failure implicit in killing anyone for any purpose was also acknowledged.

This was in stark contrast to the Muslim belief that any soldier who died in battle would go straight to heaven without passing Go.

But I also wonder what has been achieved. Yes, Top is gone, and the leading explosives expert of south-east Asian terror is no longer able to ply his trade. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking that Muslim terrorism is drawing to an end.

Unlike the Communist terrorism of the 1960s and early '70s, the goal of Muslim terror is not easily satisfied. The Baader-Meinhof groups and such were looking for comparatively limited changes: changes in policy, release of certain prisoners, statements and acknowledgements.

Muslim terror has much broader and less achievable goals: the overthrow of all other systems until the world is under Muslim domination.

How do you stop your actions if your goals are non-negotiable and non-achievable? You either abandon the entire project, or you never abandon it. There is little middle ground.

I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists, of course -- far from it.

But peace-oriented Muslims battle to be heard or to convince their more aggressive neighbours that there is an option withing Islam.

The problem is that people are more likely to change their positions through conversion than through modification of a viewpoint. So it is harder in some ways for a follower of violent Islam to change within Islam than for that person to convert to a different world-view which rejects violence.

Perhaps we Christians need to be more outspoken about the alternatives we can offer.

Gwen died the other night

There was an item in the Sydney Morning Herald. An elderly woman had been killed when struck by a car at the corner of Illawarra and Warren Roads, a few blocks from where I live. She was, according to the story, crossing with a green light. The car which struck her trapped her underneath, and she was carried some 25 metres before the car stopped. She was dead when the body was retrieved, and unrecognisably disfigured.

I wondered who it might be. The woman's age was given as 70 - 80, and her clothing was described. I thought of some of the women in boarding houses around that area who dress similarly.

Then John, one of our deacons, told us, "It was Gwen who died the other night."

Gwen had been to our church once, on the last Sunday in July, when we had our Church Anniversary and fellowship lunch. I don't think she attended the service -- if she did, she wasn't there for much of it -- but that's OK. John had invited her. She lived near him, and he thought she would like the company and friendship.

I was busy after the service, packing things away, chatting to various people. Gwen slipped under my radar. But I found her later, passing along the corridor between the church and the hall, and I introduced myself. I sat with a different group of newcomers at another table, so I didn't talk further to Gwen, but other people did.

A few hours more than a week later, she was dead.

When that kind of thing happens, you ask yourself all kind of "what if?" questions. Would things have been different if I had done something different? I have to answer, "Things probably would not have been different."

But there are implications.

First, I think we did some things right. Someone found Gwen and invited her to a gathering. There are so many lonely people, so many who are at a loose end much of their time. It is always good when they are drawn in and welcomed in some way.

We included her without requiring any "payment". We work on a "donate if you can" system for our normal church meals, but it is never made a big feature. On this occasion, the meal was special, so there was no obligation to contribute.

But there were other aspects of not requiring payment. Gwen was a little lacking in social skills -- she probably hadn't had much reason to practice them for a long time. But she was still welcomed. She didn't have to "clean up" first.

But did we do anything wrong?

Perhaps so. I am unaware that anyone had actually shared the gospel message with her. Ours is not a church to buttonhole people and not let them get away without being evangelised first. But, as we had welcomed her gently, perhaps we should have found some gentle way of letting her know that God loves her, that Jesus died for her, that simple trust is all she needed to become a child of God.

Knowing John, if he ever reads this, I would not be at all surprised if he said, "Of course, I shared the gospel with her. I gave her a tract to read, and I talked to her." That's John. All I mean is that, if something like this happened, no one told me.

Above it all is an issue of the kingdom of God. We want people to belong, to have a family, a community, a "nation", a role in life, oriented around being God's kind of people. Obviously, they can't find that without being told of it. But, whenever we make life better for someone, whenever we ask them in rather than cast them out, whenever we include, we have revealed a glimpse of God's kingdom. We did something good for Gwen: when the next Gwen comes along, I hope we will do more.

More about Fiji

Tensions between the 300,000-strong Methodist Church in Fiji and the military government continue to grow.

Kim Cain, of Ecumenical News International, writes that just singing hymns in Fiji could destabilise a whole government.

The Fijian Methodist Church's annual conference, which usually brings together up to 1000 church leaders for a week of discussion, celebration and singing, is the supreme decision-making body for the Methodist church.

However, the military government of interim prime minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama has attempted to stop the Conference from taking place in late August. Two top Methodist Church ministers and a paramount chief were charged with defying the Public Emergency Regulation over the conference plans.

Paramount Chief Ro Teimumu along with church president, Rev. Ame Tugaue, and secretary general, Rev. Tuikilakila Waqairatu, were granted bail on 23 July after being held in custody for two days. They were ordered to appear in court in three weeks.

Bail conditions included surrender of travel documents and bans on holding any meetings for 21 days. The two ministers are not to be seen in public or to conduct anything that might be construed to be a meeting.

It is believed to be the first time a Fijian government has clashed so openly with the Methodist church, which has a local reputation for moderation, conservative social values and harmony.

About one third of Fiji's almost one million people are Methodists.

In the days prior to the conference up to 10 000 singing Fijians normally gather for the nation's biggest social gathering: the Fijian choir hymn singing contest. Now church members say the government has also banned the choral feast, fearing it will lead to further political instability. But in a show of religious conviction and support for their church leaders that may have political reverberations for Bainimarama's fragile hold on power, it is rumoured that many more choirs plan to come to Suva to sing their hymns of God's power and might.

Ecumenical News International reports that between 20 000 and 50 000 Fijian Methodists plan to flock to the national capital, Suva, to ensure the hymn singing - and the church conference - goes ahead. "The tension is growing and there is a great deal of anger," an Australian church leader in regular contact with Fijians told ENI.

"People are concerned that it will just take a clash between a couple of angry young people and the military for violence to erupt, he said. "While there may be only two roads into the area around the airport and the military may think they can control the area, many are concerned that 50 000 people will be beyond their capacity and then they may resort to violence," he stated.

Meanwhile Methodist church leaders are reported to be finding alternative leadership structures to deal with the muzzling of their president and general secretary, whose strict bail terms prevent their from talking to more than one person at a time.

At this stage, the church is determined to hold its annual conference. ENI has learnt that many church members will still attend the location of the conference, even if church leaders call the gathering off. Radio New Zealand reports that Fijian church leaders fear that the government monitors their electronic communications - telephone and email.

As the stand off between the church and the military grows, the national assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia, which includes former Methodists, has pledged its "prayerful support" for the Fijian church, sending an envoy to Suva as a sign of support for the Methodists.

This is a situation calling for the prayerful support of Christians world-wide.

This blog is adapted from an article in Insights, the official publication of the Synod of New South Wales and the ACT, part of the Uniting Church in Australia. Last modified July 28, 2009 and republished by Rowland Croucher on Facebook.

Carbon trading and Apocalyptic conditions

There's been some discussion going on about global warming.

A friend remarked that carbon trading, in his opinion, is a farce, a global tax hike to reduce government debt after "years of uncontrolled spending." He sees the current Labor government as mainly to blame.

I responded that I believe carbon trading to be a farce, but not for the reasons he suggests. I see it as a licence for big polluters to keep polluting, which also shifts responsibility from the polluting companies to the third world where carbon sinks are cheap.

However, I can't see that carbon taxes have anything to do with tax hikes as a revenue-raising technique, particularly as they were mooted back when Australia was making quite a bit out of the mining boom, before the Global Financial Crisis struck. And, even if I expect these measures to be ineffective and more a sop to businesses than a genuine solution, surely they have everything to do with trying to ensure that we have a world fit to occupy when our children and grandchildren are trying to live their lives.

I told my friend that there is little hope of getting the developing world on board unless we are willing to take the first steps.

He then responded that climate change might be a natural earth cycle that nothing man does changes.

I can't see that that changes anything in terms of our response. Even if there is an underlying natural cycle, since industrialisation we have been pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

The problem now is that the world is entering a positive feedback cycle where greenhouse conditions run out of control. It’s the old Coke in the sun thing: heat a bottle of soft drink, and the gas comes out of solution. The same thing happens to greenhouse gases dissolved in ocean water or trapped in peat bogs and northern tundra. The hotter these get, the more carbon dioxide and othr gases are expelled and re-enter the atmosphere.
So, even if there is a natural cycle, what we do is now pushing it over the edge. We risk a run-away event.

All these things remind me of the plagues (desertification, locusts, run-away heat) in Revelation: people still didn’t repent, even when they saw others succumb.

Isn’t that human, and isn’t that happening now?