Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:33:45 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject: Re: Evolution of the scriptures...

 > Lately I have been railed at by a non believer.  He told me
 > that the scriptures had been written and re-written so many
 > times, and had been edited and manipulated by man so much, that
 > they bear little or no relationship to the original text.
 >
 > Could one of you scholars help me?
 >
 > I would like to know just how much of scripture we know is
 > original, and what is the historical evolution of what we now
 > call the bible.  Any answers, either via this group, or email,
 > is greatly appreciated.  Any documentation would also be
 > helpful.
 >
 >   Jeffrey A. Dilcher mktjadx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

You might find some useful material in my essays on the opening
chapters of Matthew and Luke and on the Gospel of John. You can
obtain them by sending the following messages to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.
 GET INFANCY PART1
 GET INFANCY PART2
 GET JOHN PART1
 GET JOHN PART2

Parts of the Bible have a clearer history than others. In the New
Testament, for example, Paul's letters to churches are unlikely to
be forgeries, because it would be difficult to get away with a
forgery here. If someone forged a letter from Paul to Corinth during
Paul's lifetime, the Church at Corinth would probably reply, and
Paul would write back saying, "I never said that!" and so the
deception would be uncovered. If someone forged such a letter after
Paul's death and put it into general circulation, the members of the
church at Corinth would say, "If Paul wrote that to us during his
lifetime, why has no one here ever heard of it?"

Moreover, four of Paul's letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and
Galatians) deal at length with the question of the terms on which
Gentiles are to be admitted to fellowship with the Church. It is
clear that such a question would be settled one way or another quite
rapidly. The Church could not continue for long with thie question
unanswered, or with some congregations admitting Gentiles and others
not. It is clear that Paul's opinion prevailed, and prevailed
decisively, well before his death. After this happened, there would
be no reason for anyone to forge letters dealing with the subject.
Indeed, for the victorious party to do so would only serve to remind
the Church that the question had once been seriously disputed, a
reminder that would not serve the cause of harmonious acceptance of
the Pauline position.

In particular, Galatians is a very difficult letter to imagine
anyone's having either the motive or the ability to forge. It is a
letter written in anger, by a man who sees his life's work in danger
of being sabotaged, and who finds himself being personally attacked
by those from whom he had expected loyalty and support.  His
credentials as an apostle have been challenged. The response one
finds in Galatians is exactly the sort of blustering, outraged,
badly organized defense that one would expect from an innocent man
unexpectedly accused. It would require a master writer to forge it
convincingly, and who would want to?

Notice that none of these arguments applies to letters written to
individuals. Someone forging a letter from Paul to Titus after the
death of both of them might perhaps get away with it. Similarly,
these arguments do not apply to the non-Pauline letters in the New
Testament, most of which are addressed to a somewhat vague target.
Now, one could ask, as regards 2 and 3 John, who would want to forge
them. Moreover, the style of 1 John is close enough to that of the
Gospel of John that if one is genuine the chances are that both are
genuine.  But if you are asking about Jude or 2 Peter, I reply that
if I can persuade someone that he ought to accept the authority of
the Epistles of Paul and that of the Four Gospels, I am not going to
worry too much about whether he believes that the Epistle of Jude is
genuine.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU