COUNTER-REBUTTAL TO "BIBLE ORIGINS"

by Travis Clementsmith

Brian Show attempted to demonstrate the fallibility in Robert Johnson's article because the "premises" were not true, that he does not substantiate his claims, and the intangible quality of the meaning behind "Word of God".  I have to admit, I agreed with much of what he said, via the way he said it. But, in doing so, he completely sidestepped the point of the article. While his comments may have meaning to studied theologians, which the vast majority of believers are not, what is generally taught to the masses is very different. This is the point Mr. Johnson takes issue with: The implications given to the masses, as opposed to the critical study of the few. Therefore, I will not dispute the validity of Mr. Show's objections as much as dispute his disputations.

"No one thinks the Bible fell from the sky as many Muslims seem to claim of the Koran and most don't hold to a divine dictation model of revelation in which God dictated word for word the contents of the Bible to some terrified scribe."

Oh really? I'm sure if one asked the common ardent Christian on the street if he/she thought Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, their answer would be in the affirmative. That many of the Old Testament personages got their other various laws and direction directly from God would not receive a high degree of scrutiny as well. The Catholic belief in the story of the Septuagint isn't too far off the human stenographer mark as well. During that event, the translation from the Hebrew Bible into Greek was pronounced authentic because seventy-two scribes, separated from one another, under divine inspiration, produced the exact same translation, not a word between them different. Maybe objective Bible analyzers can overlook this apparent "miracle", but the general Christian faith does not.

"Now, let me just say that this is false for the Council of Nicaea didn't involve disputes about the canon; it involved mainly a dispute about the theology of Arius, which raised in acute form the question of the real meaning and significance of Jesus Christ."

How unfortunate the resolution of the dispute is never given by Mr. Show. For this resolution formed the basis of how Jesus was to be regarded in comparison to God, or the Father. The Nicene Creed was adopted forming the basis of the orthodox concept of the Holy Trinity. The New Testament was then, during a number of years afterward, finally put down with full reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed. So, no, the Bible was not voted on there, but, what the Bible means (according to the orthodox), and thus what the "Word of God" means, was.

The problem I have with Mr. Show's "first phase" is the assumption that there were "apostolic witnesses" (those apostles in the Bible story). This goes back to Mr. Show's very problem with Mr. Johnson's article, that the premise isn't true. It assumes that many of the so-called Christian ideas, weren't in fact many different mystery schools, mythologies, and Gnostic traditions far preceding Christianity. That, Christianity, isn't in fact, an attempt to conglomerate many traditions into one, as Joseph Wheless relates, in Forgery In Christianity:

Cardinal Newman, commenting on Dean Milman's "History of the Jews," groups a number of these Paganisms in Christianity, and says that Milman arrays facts "admitted on all hands," to wit: "that the doctrine of the Logos is Platonic; that of the Incarnation Indian; that of a divine Kingdom Judaic; that of angels and demons (and a Mediator) Persian; that, the connection of sin with the body is Gnostic; the idea of a new birth Chinese and Eleusinian; that of sacramental virtue Pythagorean; that of Trinity common to East and West; and that of the rites of baptism and sacrifice equally ubiquitous"! (Newman, Essays, Critical and Historical, 7th ed., p. 231; as summarized by the Rt. Hon. J.M. Robertson in A History of Freethought in the XIXth Century, p. 145-6. London, 1929.)

I have no issue with anything Mr. Show presents that "phased in" after that.

"What was the criteria for choosing certain books rather than others? It seems that to be accepted into the canon the books had to possess apostolicity, that is, be written by an apostle or a close associate of one."

How is this determined after what must have been at least a century? I may as well claim Homer has the "Word of God"! There is no evidence outside of Biblical sources that the Apostles were real people, so this criterion is flawed. So by "apostolicity" should be "*believed, without proof of* being written by an apostle or a close associate of one."

"Another basic prerequisite for canonicity was conformity to what was called the 'rule of faith', or in other words, the congruity of a given document with the basic Christian tradition recognized as normative by the Church."

Now, one should understand that the Council of Nicaea was convened because Constantine saw his "One State Religion", with him at its head, starting to dissolve with the Arian controversy. So, the One Church was established to bind the opinion of the religion to one "infallible" doctrine. This is control for political purposes, nothing at all to do with the "Word of God". So the second prerequisite is nothing but a political body approving it, under the pretense of divine guidance.

"The other obvious test was its continuous acceptance and usage by the Church at large."

By the "Church", a general implication means the body of believers. However, in practicality, it means a select few within the priesthood. Many who signed the Nicene Creed, still did not agree with it. Later schisms and internal civil wars demonstrate very little was agreed upon. So, it was not continued acceptance as much as forced capitulation that led to conformity. Not a very "spiritual" evolution.

Mr. Johnson may have made some historical assumptions, but to say it is "fiction" is misleading. One event certainly does have its roots in past actions as well as its influence on future events. Using the Council of Nicaea as a focal point is not necessarily incorrect, though. Constantine, himself, attended the hearings to help mold a consensus (coerced may be a more accurate description) because he did not really care what the Church was going to conclude on, he just wanted uniformity to better control. That makes the Council at Nicaea focal, though not in of itself, total. While it may be incorrect to attribute all these things to events at the Nicene Council, it is correct to connect them with it.

Mr. Wolterstorff's quote involves a lot of supposition.

I believe Mr. Show has demonstrated the points he set out to prove. Too bad they had nothing to do with the premise of the article. His assertion that "most Christians do not believe the Bible to be the "Word of God" is simply not true. And, it was this point Mr. Johnson had a contention with. Again, Wheless, relates the opinion from the Vatican Council itself as noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE):

"The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man," says the Holy Ghost speaking through the Vatican Council (1870), thus confirming what I have above said, that "divine revelation" cannot be of Pagan myths already current and long known to everyone. The same Heavenly Instructor tells us what Revelation is: "Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature. The truths thus revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind -- mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. ... The Decree 'Lamentabili' (3 July, 1907) declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are 'truths which have come down to us from heaven' and not 'an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts.'" (Vatican Decrees, 1870; CE. xiii, 1.) And, asserts CE.: "The existence of revelation is as reasonably established as any historical fact"! (CE. xiii, 607.) Isn't CE. funny!

That the intrinsic "Word of God" resonates within each individual is not in question.