In the valley of the blind.

continued:


Irenaeus continued the tradition. Irenaeus (ca. 135-200) as a boy or young man either saw and knew Polycarp and/or studied under him, became bishop of Lyon in 177. He wrote The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called (more popularly known as Against Heresies), wherein he stated:17

For we learned the plan of our salvation from no others than from those through whom the gospel came to us [the apostles]. They first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Writings, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ... So Matthew among the Hebrews issued a Writing of the gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the Church. After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the Lord...himself published the Gospel....



​

- Against Heresies 3.1.1


​

​

In Against Heresies Irenaeus is primarily addressing gnostic teachings. While there were diversity of beliefs, in general gnostics held that they possessed secret or esoteric teachings or traditions passed down from the apostles themselves ("apostolic tradition") or received by a succession from the apostles. To counter this idea, among his arguments, Irenaeus appealed to the genuine apostolic tradition, that which was written down in the New Testament and publically taught by the apostles and personally entrusted by them to the Church (3.4.1). Irenaeus referred to the ostensible or public teachings of the apostles in the Bible that were orally reinforced by them when given to their students, such as Polycarp. Thus, tradition here means the correct teaching, the correct interpretation of Scripture or the teachings of Jesus that he gave to his apostles and they in turn faithfully transmitted to their students (i.e., genuine apostolic succession). It is the correct teaching. In essence Irenaeus is saying this is what Christ taught his disciples and they taught their students (e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna), and they taught us. They told us this is what this passage means; this is how to interpret or understand this passage or teaching. Furthermore, it is the only teaching or meaning, or interpretation of what the apostles orally taught, or wrote in the New Testament. Therefore, there where no secret interpretations, meanings, or teachings that were only known by the "truly spiritual" or elite.



Thus, interestingly and appropriate for our discussion, in refuting gnostic teachings, beginning in the very next paragraph Irenaeus states:

But when they are refuted from the Writings they turn around and attack the Writings themselves, saying that they are not correct, or authoritative, and that the truth cannot be found from them by those who are not acquainted with the tradition [the secret gnostic teachings]. For this [they say (in Richardson text.)] was not handed down in writing, but orally....



​

- Against Heresies 3.2.1


​

​

But when we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders in the churches, they oppose the tradition, saying they are wiser not only than the elders, but even than the apostles, and have found the genuine truth.



​

- Against Heresies 3.2.2


​

​

The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their mad ideas. Even if the apostles had known of hidden mysteries, which they taught to the perfect secretly and apart from others, they would have handed them down especially to those to whom they were entrusting the churches themselves. For they certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit....



​

- Against Heresies 3.3.1


​

​

Irenaeus then states that "since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches" (3.3.2), then as an example proceeds to list in order the successors of the apostles Peter and Paul of the Church at Rome with a direct linage back to them (3.3.2-4). Then Irenaeus remarks:

In this very order and succession the apostolic tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has come down even to us. This is a full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present, and is handed on in truth.



​

Similarly Polycarp, who not only was taught by apostles, and associated with many who had seen Christ, but was installed by apostles for Asia, as bishop in the church in Smyrna--I saw him myself in my early youth--survived for a long time, and departed this life in a ripe old age by a glorious and magnificent martyrdom. He always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church continues to hand on, and which are the only truths. The churches in Asia all bear witness to this, as do those who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time....



​

- Against Heresies 3.3.3-4


​

​

Lastly, I note, and particularly fitting for our discussion Irenaeus' remarks that:

So the apostolic tradition is preserved in the Church and has come down to us. Let us turn, then, to the demonstration from the writings of those apostles who recorded the gospel, in which they recorded their conviction about God, showing that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth, and in him is no lie....The apostles, being disciples of the truth, are apart from every lie.



​

- Against Heresies 3.5.1


​

​

These individuals were trustworthy witnesses, honest men who sacrificed much, often their very lives for the beliefs. They had no reason to lie or suffer or die for what they knew to be untrue, nothing to gain everything to lose. They had every reason to rethink or recant their position, particularly because not only was the early Church marked for persecution, but often especially the leaders. To say the least, it was costly to be a disciple of Christ.



Fifth, in light of the character and testimony of the biblical writers and their successors, a well-established principle of historical and literary research is relevant to our discussion of the authenticity and trustworthiness of the biblical text. John W. Montgomery states: "...historical and literary scholarship continues to follow Aristotle's eminently just dictum that the benefit of doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself."18 In other words, a document and its claims are to be accepted at face value unless sufficient objective evidence is presented to discredit it. Montgomery continues: "This means that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies."19

Sixth, there is a similar legal principle to the historical and literary dictum just discussed that pertains to the issue of the biblical text's trustworthiness. Attorney Montgomery brings this principle to bear on our concern:

In a court of law, admissible testimony is considered truthful unless impeached or otherwise rendered doubtful. This is in accord with ordinary life, where only the paranoic goes about with the bias that everyone is lying. ... The burden, then, is on those who would show that the New Testament testimony to Jesus is not worthy of belief. Let us place the Gospel testimony to Jesus under the legal microscope to see if its reliability can be impeached.20



​

Montgomery's point is that the New Testament writer's credibility is impeccable and would stand in any just court of law.



Seventh, we need to consider the legal principle known as the "ancient documents" rule as it relates to our topic. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) who among his many achievements and credentials served as Royall and Dane Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and became recognized as the foremost North American authority on common law evidence, and which The Dictionary of American Biography says produced "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure," applied this principle to the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in the New Testament. (For an in-depth treatment of the authenticity and trustworthiness of the four gospels from the legal perspective see his classic, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice.

Simon Greenleaf notes in The Testimony of the Evangelists the accepted rule of evidence relative to ancient documents, the "ancient documents" rule: "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."21 Greenleaf also states:

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of the law is the judgment of charity. It presumes that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings.22



​

Thus, based on legal reasoning and evidence Greenleaf (and Montgomery) conclude that the New Testament documents are authentic and trustworthy.(23)



Eighth, the discipline of textual criticism has some light to shed on the question of whether the biblical text was tampered with by the early Church. For example, in discussing the issue of variant readings the scholar John Wenham has some thoughts that have important implications for our topic--in this case the New Testament. Based on variant readings of the texts,24 instances of differences of readings or wording of Greek manuscripts (the vast majority are insignificant, e.g., the spelling of a name, use of different pronouns, different word order or transposing words), Wenham writes:

The interesting and important thing about the late-second-century text is this: at that early date there was already a wide diversity of variants. These variants were of course mostly quite minor in character, but they show that there had been no recent systematic editing of the documents to make them conform to some standard version.25



​

Furthermore, Wenham believes that many of these variants go back to the first century and reasons, "Thus the very existence of variants is itself powerful evidence against a systematic, tendentious alteration of the manuscripts in the very early stages of the history of the text."26 He then proceeds to quote the textual critic G. D. Kilpatricks' comments relative to his point: "Kilpatrick also declares that, in spite of our detailed knowledge of first- and second-century Greek, `no one has so far shown that the New Testament is contaminated with the grammar or orthography [spelling] of a later period.'"27



Thus, from the minutely detailed study of the grammar and vocabulary of the early Greek texts of the New Testament there is no evidence to support the claims that the biblical text was tampered with by the early Church. The objectively verifiable evidence says just the opposite.

Conclusion ​

There is no objective evidence that the biblical text has been tampered with by the Jews or the early Church. There is no manuscript evidence, no archaeological evidence, no eyewitness--or otherwise--testimony, no support from the writings of the early Church, nor any evidence from the study of textual criticism to substantiate witches' or other occultist's or critics subjectively based claims of a tampered Bible.

On the other hand, there is overwhelming objective evidence to support the conclusion that the biblical text was not tampered with by the early Church, but has been faithfully transmitted down through the centuries to us today and is indeed a reliable historical document of the first order.

The problem here is not a tampered with or corrupted biblical text or teachings of the Old or New Testaments, but with those who will not accept the clear teaching(s) of the Bible.

The only reason people have for believing that the Bible has been tampered with by the early Church (or anyone else) it that it clearly does not teach what they believe and practice. The Bible does not concur with their views or feelings. Therefore, they conjecture that it must have been tampered with by the early Church. This is a textbook case of circular reasoning--assuming the very thing you are suppose to or are trying to prove.

Just about anyone can assert just about anything, but this does not constitute proof of the claim. Proving it is another matter. For instance, just about anyone can file a lawsuit, but proving their case is a different issue. So it is with this charge.

Therefore, in light of the evidence, in light of accepted scholarly archaeological, historical, legal, literary, logical, and textual facts and principles, I affirm the authenticity and trustworthiness of the biblical text and acceptance of all that it teaches. Indeed, the Bible contains the definitive counsel concerning the meaning and purpose of life.

The Trustworthiness of the Bible
Was It Tampered With By the Early Church?
​

by
Craig S. Hawkins
​

​

 

A nice 'cut and paste' job by bandit....

Well done ..A fine example of religious method..

Occam

 

There seems to have been a bit of a disagreement when Jesus died between his brother and one of the disciples as to which way Jesus teachings should go.

I would dearly like to know what his brothers interpretation of Jesus teachings were.

If you know, please advise...

Thanks

 

Occam, from your reply I can only come to the conclusion that you did not read the post. Reguardles of where it comes from or if I "copied and pasted" it is fact. You call it a religious method. Well, I am not a religious person. I do not follow a religion nor do I worship one. I believe in what Jesus Christ did and what He stood for. I name Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. You make a thread calling for proof in what I believe. I give you so many examples and the best you can do is not read it and then write a smart ass reply. Now that I have called you out you will likely read it and do your best to google up something to refute it. Better get busy, there are a lot of God hating websites out there for you to read up on.

 

Also, while your waiting for occam to come back, I've been to the site, and I was just wondering as you are trained to answer these questions....

Who is God and where is he?

also would still like to know what Jesus brother thought about which way his teachings should go....I think it was along the Jewish line...

 

I also think you would enjoy the debate going on here...It gets more interesting as it goes on:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=11506

 

God is only a he when you need God to be. God can be a tree for you to pee on too. What you need, God will be, even if it is simply a tree to pee.