Currently I'm working on lectures for a class I will be teaching at work. And I'm way behind schedule. Fortunately, once these are done, I should be able to reuse them for years.
In the meantime, I hope y'all will enjoy the fruits of some other folks' labor:
4The Right-Brain Thinker’s Guide to Bible Study: 10 Creative Steps
415 Tools for Exegetical Research
4Compare Scripture to Scripture (with specific advice on using the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge)
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Master
Jesus Christ
God incarnate
Prophesied of old
Worker of miracles
Among the multitudes
Died for our sins
Rose in victory
Appeared to many
Ascended to heaven
Interceding with the Father
Preparing a place
Returning to judge
God incarnate
Prophesied of old
Worker of miracles
Among the multitudes
Died for our sins
Rose in victory
Appeared to many
Ascended to heaven
Interceding with the Father
Preparing a place
Returning to judge
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Can We Trust the Gospels? 1.1
The Manuscript History
I want to briefly double back on our trip through Can We Trust the Gospels? to elaborate on a point that apparently wasn’t as clear as I thought.
I wrote that we can be confident that there were no significant changes in the Gospels early on because “…unless someone was actually able to track down and destroy all the originals, any changes in the Gospels would show up in the manuscript history. No changes like that appear.”
Vinny responded: “We don’t see the changes in the manuscript data from the first 100 years because there is virtually no such data.”
It took me a while to see that Vinny, and perhaps others, weren’t clear on what I was saying. (Sorry, everybody.) So let me go into a bit more detail.
Propagating Changes
When a document is copied by hand, it’s almost certain that a mistake will be made. And sometimes changes aren’t “mistakes” but intentional. Either way, once a change has been made to a text, there is a fork in the manuscript (ms) chain.
Both the original ms and the one with the change will be copied later. Each copy of the original will, hopefully, transmit the original message intact (though in reality there will be other errors).
Each copy of the changed ms will contain that change as well as any other errors.
As the copies are copied, we will see two groups form. The first will be based on the ms that was not changed; the second will be based on the corrupted text.
In the case of Greek NT manuscripts (mss), the two major families are the Alexandrian and Western textual traditions. At some point in the distant past, there were changes on one side of the Mediterranean than didn’t occur on the other; we see that by comparing the mss.
Protecting the Text by Criticizing It
When textual critics compare the various mss of the NT, they try to work backwards to determine what the originals probably said.
Though we might be tempted to say that we can’t see back beyond that 100 year gap between the autographs and the oldest extant mss, that’s not entirely true.
If someone making a copy of Matthew in 102AD inserted something – a story, a miracle, a phrase – there would be copies of Matthew that didn’t have the insertion. Though we would have neither the corrupted nor uncorrupted copies, we would see the change in later mss – the “children” of those earlier copies.
Modern textual scholars would be able to see this corruption. And they would do their best to filter it out by comparing with all the other mss.
Our Modern NT Text
I’ve never seen evidence of any great period of creativity and liberty with the NT text, but I can’t say I spend a lot of time pouring over Greek manuscripts.
But I can say that those that do are very certain about what the vast majority of the NT is supposed to say. Those parts that are really uncertain do not affect anything important. As Roberts put it, “If you actually took out of the Gospels every word that was text-critically uncertain, the impact on your understanding of Jesus would be negligible” (p34-5).
This has been a brief and oversimplified look at this topic. For a slightly more detailed look, I recommend An Introduction to Textual Criticism. A broader collection of references can be found at NTGateway.
I want to briefly double back on our trip through Can We Trust the Gospels? to elaborate on a point that apparently wasn’t as clear as I thought.
I wrote that we can be confident that there were no significant changes in the Gospels early on because “…unless someone was actually able to track down and destroy all the originals, any changes in the Gospels would show up in the manuscript history. No changes like that appear.”
Vinny responded: “We don’t see the changes in the manuscript data from the first 100 years because there is virtually no such data.”
It took me a while to see that Vinny, and perhaps others, weren’t clear on what I was saying. (Sorry, everybody.) So let me go into a bit more detail.
Propagating Changes
When a document is copied by hand, it’s almost certain that a mistake will be made. And sometimes changes aren’t “mistakes” but intentional. Either way, once a change has been made to a text, there is a fork in the manuscript (ms) chain.
Both the original ms and the one with the change will be copied later. Each copy of the original will, hopefully, transmit the original message intact (though in reality there will be other errors).
Each copy of the changed ms will contain that change as well as any other errors.
As the copies are copied, we will see two groups form. The first will be based on the ms that was not changed; the second will be based on the corrupted text.
In the case of Greek NT manuscripts (mss), the two major families are the Alexandrian and Western textual traditions. At some point in the distant past, there were changes on one side of the Mediterranean than didn’t occur on the other; we see that by comparing the mss.
Protecting the Text by Criticizing It
When textual critics compare the various mss of the NT, they try to work backwards to determine what the originals probably said.
Though we might be tempted to say that we can’t see back beyond that 100 year gap between the autographs and the oldest extant mss, that’s not entirely true.
If someone making a copy of Matthew in 102AD inserted something – a story, a miracle, a phrase – there would be copies of Matthew that didn’t have the insertion. Though we would have neither the corrupted nor uncorrupted copies, we would see the change in later mss – the “children” of those earlier copies.
Modern textual scholars would be able to see this corruption. And they would do their best to filter it out by comparing with all the other mss.
Our Modern NT Text
I’ve never seen evidence of any great period of creativity and liberty with the NT text, but I can’t say I spend a lot of time pouring over Greek manuscripts.
But I can say that those that do are very certain about what the vast majority of the NT is supposed to say. Those parts that are really uncertain do not affect anything important. As Roberts put it, “If you actually took out of the Gospels every word that was text-critically uncertain, the impact on your understanding of Jesus would be negligible” (p34-5).
This has been a brief and oversimplified look at this topic. For a slightly more detailed look, I recommend An Introduction to Textual Criticism. A broader collection of references can be found at NTGateway.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Myth of Christian Divorce
For whatever reason, I’ve seen a resurgence of talk about American born-again Christians divorcing at the same rate as non-Christians.
It’s a terrible scandal that should shock us into re-examining how we approach life, morality, and religion.
And it may not be true.
Here’s the short version:
Barna’s group explains how they determine who is “born-again” and “evangelical” for the purposes of their surveys. It involves how they answer certain questions:
Many people in this country know the “right” answer to all of those questions, yet they don’t allow Christianity to affect their lives. John MacArthur said, “they don’t love the Word of God.” He’s probably right.
A few years ago Christianity Today ran an article describing people who love Jesus but hate church. They’ve had bad experiences with the church or simply don’t like to be told how to live. They know how to answer the questions to be “born-again,” maybe even “evangelical,” according to Barna, but they don’t let those alleged beliefs change how they live.
In their defense, lately Barna & co. has started talking about “Casual Christians”:
It’s a terrible scandal that should shock us into re-examining how we approach life, morality, and religion.
And it may not be true.
Here’s the short version:
Barna’s group explains how they determine who is “born-again” and “evangelical” for the purposes of their surveys. It involves how they answer certain questions:
“Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.Anything missing there? Yep. One simple question can quickly separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak: “Do you regularly attend church?”
“Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.
Many people in this country know the “right” answer to all of those questions, yet they don’t allow Christianity to affect their lives. John MacArthur said, “they don’t love the Word of God.” He’s probably right.
A few years ago Christianity Today ran an article describing people who love Jesus but hate church. They’ve had bad experiences with the church or simply don’t like to be told how to live. They know how to answer the questions to be “born-again,” maybe even “evangelical,” according to Barna, but they don’t let those alleged beliefs change how they live.
In their defense, lately Barna & co. has started talking about “Casual Christians”:
A Casual Christian can be all the things that they esteem ... and never have to publicly defend or represent difficult moral or social positions or even lose much sleep over their private choices as long as they mean well and generally do their best.These are the people who live just like every other American. We can’t say for sure who’s “really” saved, but among those who obviously take their faith more seriously, divorce (among other ills) is not as common.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Video Review: Skeeter and the Mystery of the Lost Mosquito Treasure
I’m always looking for things that will both entertain and educate or edify my kids, so I picked up a (review) copy of Skeeter and the Mystery of the Lost Mosquito Treasure (DVD).
The story is of a mosquito named Skeeter who, through a treasure-hunting adventure with his cooler and more popular brother, learns to appreciate the things that make him unique. It’s typical kids’ movie fare.
Did the kids like it? Well, the three-year-old wandered off about two minutes into the cartoon (not counting the opening live-action scene with Max Lucado). The five-year-old got a little restless at one point, but she got into it in the end.
Can the parents stand it? It’s ok. I’m sure we’ve all seen some kids videos that made us wish for an early death. This isn’t that bad. That’s not to say parents will love it, but it’s not bad.
Any cause for concern? There was no violence or scary scenes. I am mildly concerned about one scene where two of the characters talk to God and God talks back. Audibly. I wouldn’t want my kids to think that’s normal, but it’s not a terribly big deal.
So is it any good? The show is a little too blunt with the moral of the story. As for the story and music, well it’s no Veggie Tales (of course, sometimes neither is Veggie Tales), but it’s not bad. If you’re in that place where you really need your kids to watch something different, this is worth picking up.
3 out of 5 stars
The story is of a mosquito named Skeeter who, through a treasure-hunting adventure with his cooler and more popular brother, learns to appreciate the things that make him unique. It’s typical kids’ movie fare.
Did the kids like it? Well, the three-year-old wandered off about two minutes into the cartoon (not counting the opening live-action scene with Max Lucado). The five-year-old got a little restless at one point, but she got into it in the end.
Can the parents stand it? It’s ok. I’m sure we’ve all seen some kids videos that made us wish for an early death. This isn’t that bad. That’s not to say parents will love it, but it’s not bad.
Any cause for concern? There was no violence or scary scenes. I am mildly concerned about one scene where two of the characters talk to God and God talks back. Audibly. I wouldn’t want my kids to think that’s normal, but it’s not a terribly big deal.
So is it any good? The show is a little too blunt with the moral of the story. As for the story and music, well it’s no Veggie Tales (of course, sometimes neither is Veggie Tales), but it’s not bad. If you’re in that place where you really need your kids to watch something different, this is worth picking up.
3 out of 5 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)