Newly found Christian relics may be fakes

The new find of supposed ancient Christian writings may well be a fake. You may have seen the recent story on the BBC news about the discovery of writings from the first century in a cave in Jordan. This story and subsequent retellings of it contained lots of speculation about the find: Have we found proof that Jesus resurrection was some sort of trick? Have we found some others stories about Jesus that are not in the Bible? The fact is that this find has not even been authenticated yet and the process of authentication takes a long time.

What do we know for certain? A Bedouin from Jordan claims to have found umpteen lead tablets in a cave a few years ago. However they are now in the possession of an Israeli who says that they have been in their family for a hundred years. The tablets have some writing on them and are bound together with wire in book form. The writings have been examined and photographed. But they have not yet been totally deciphered. The few words and symbols that we do understand indicate that they might be from the first century.

The director of the Jordan Department of Antiquities thinks that they could be early Christian writings and might even be more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls. David Elkington an expert who is investigating these relics and trying to get them to a museum in Jordan is quoted by the BBC as saying that they could be "the major discovery of Christian history".

What the BBC failed to mention is that the Israel Antiques Authority dismiss the idea that this find is of any value. A report in the Jewish Chronicle said that experts “absolutely doubted their authenticity”. Church Mouse - a Christian blogger on current affairs whose judgement I trust - gives us some insight in the way that media works, “…in each re-telling,” he says, “the critical bits are left out and some additional piece of speculation is added in”.

But what if these relics aren't fakes? Is it possible these writings could have a profound impact on the Christian faith? Could they prove the Bible wrong? Could they lend credence to other writings that have been discovered such as the alternative Gospels?

I was interested to see in a recent post Scot McKnight pointing to a book Who Chose The Gospels. This book investigates the idea that the four gospels were not accepted until the council of Nicea. The thought that for hundreds of years other Gospels were competing for acceptance sounds intriguing. But the evidence actually indicates that the four we have now were accepted very early on and the others regarded as the work of false teachers.

I would suspect that any writings that are too different from traditional beliefs similarly could be dismissed as the work of Christian sects that were never accepted. But I still think that archaeological finds can help us understand the historical, linguistic and cultural context of the Bible. Writings such as the alternative gospels may well be worth reading along with other writings from the time.

If and when this find is authenticated and deciphered it is possible we could gain some new insight into the world of first century Christians but I doubt it will shake Christianity in the way some have suggested.

Update: It now looks almost certain that they are fakes. Here is Church Mouse's recent post.

have we misunderstood the word ‘rhema’?

One of the major Pentecostal denominations has a very different understanding of this word to many evangelicals and charismatics. And I think they may have a point.

One of the Greek words for “word” in the New Testament is logos another is rhema. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says that rhema (as distinct from logos) is not the whole of the Bible but individual scripture that the Spirit brings to our remembrance. I have been reading ‘Post Charismatic?’ - an excellent critique of some of the excesses in the charismatic movement. In this book Rob McAlpine describes rhema like this:

Many Christians are familiar with the concept of a ‘rhema word’ from Scripture, even if they have not used that term to describe it. From across the denominational spectrum, stories are told of reading a well known passage of Scripture, when suddenly, a certain verse or phrase seems to jump off the page, and the reader knows without doubt that the Holy Spirit is speaking through that verse or phrase. It is a ‘now’ (rhema) word that is found in the ‘written’ (logos) word of God.

McAlpine then goes on to show how rhema has been used by the Word of Faith movement to mean words spoken in faith that call things into existence. He then explains the dangers of this idea of positive confession and shows how this is not what the Bible teaches. But in doing so he also argues that this distinction between logos and rhema is inappropriate and that these two words are used almost interchangeably in the Bible.

In arguing that the common distinction between logos and rhema does not do justice to the Biblical text he quotes from an Assemblies of God Position Paper on Positive Confession. Here is McAlpine’s quote in bold which I have set in context to show more of the Biblical justification in the paper.

A distinction is generally made… between the words logos and rhema. The first, it is claimed, refers to the written word. The second, to that which is presently spoken…. [However] …the distinction is not justified by usage either in the Greek New Testament or in the Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament). The words are used synonymously in both.

In the case of the Septuagint both rhema and logos are used to translate the one Hebrew word dabar which is used in various ways relative to communication. For instance, the word dabar (translated, word of God) is used in both Jeremiah 1:1 and 2. Yet in the Septuagint it is translated rhema in verse 1 and logos in verse 2.

In the New Testament the words rhema and logos are also used interchangeably. This can be seen in passages such as 1 Peter 1:23 and 25. In verse 23, it is “the logos of God which . . . abideth for ever.” In verse 25, “the rhema of the Lord endureth for ever.” Again in Ephesians 5:26 believers are cleansed “with the washing of water by the rhema.” In John 15:3 believers are “clean through the logos.”

The distinctions between logos and rhema cannot be sustained by Biblical evidence. The Word of God, whether referred to as logos or rhema, is inspired, eternal, dynamic, and miraculous. Whether the Word is written or spoken does not alter its essential character. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

I left Assemblies of God 25 years ago. A quick look at some of their other position papers reminds me that I wouldn’t agree with everything they say. But looking at the verses here this argument sounds sensible.

As this appears to refute such a popular idea I just wondered if anyone out there had any thoughts on this and what the implications might be.

Update: I've recently added a review of 'Post Charismatic?' on my new blog CharisMissional here. I would highly recommend buying this book.

Thank God for Darwin?

Earlier this year we celebrated Darwin’s 200th birthday and next month it is 150th anniversary of the publication of his famous book ‘The Origin of Species’. So it is not surprising that I keep coming across references to the evolution creationist debate when surfing Christian sites. But what I do find surprising is the number of Christian posts that are so positive about evolution. perhaps it just reflects my own interestest. I don't know.

Anyway here are a few of the links that I have found:

Here is a very positive and thoughtful review of the 2009 film Creation which examines Darwin’s relationship to the church in a sensitive way.

The review also has a link at the end to some resources that can be used to host some sensible discussions about the movie.

Nick Spencer author of God and Darwin discusses the relationship between Darwin’s ideas and the Christian faith in this podcast.

Here is an interview with Michael Dowd about his book Thank God For Evolution, which uses evolution to discuss the nature of sin.

And finally, here are some quotes from Charles Foster’s The Selfless Gene - a book that David Matthew rates as outstanding book. It makes a very convincing case for evolution that cannot be easily dismissed by Christians and sees it as compatible with the Bible. If you’re interested you can download a PDF of David Matthew’s notes too.

Of course there still are a lot of fundamentalist seven day creationism ideas out there too. But I am more and more drawn to the idea that evolution as a sound scientific basis and is compatible with a level headed view of Biblical Christianity.

Is the Bible the Word of God?

There is an interesting discussion on this following this cartoon at ASBO Jesus. I would certainly say that no one version is more inspired than another.

I would also add that literal interpretations must give way to responsible hermeneutics. We must appreciate, for example, the symbolic nature of the book of Revelation and also think carefully about the style of the creation narrative. Too much energy has been wasted debating creationism - Indiana Jones like explorers are even trying to find Noah’s Ark!

I agree that God speaks to us today through the Bible and points us to Jesus who is the word of God. But should we call the Bible itself the word of God too?

On top of this the doctrine of inerrancy has been a big red herring for many Christians. I like David Matthew’s notes on the book Spiration of Scripture that show us we can reject inerrancy and still call the Bible the word of God.

So is the Bible the word of God? Even though I would call Jesus the word of God and I don't think we should always take the Bible literally and I wouldn't agree with inerrancy, I still think that ultimately my answer is... 'Yes! the Bible is the word of God'.

What would you say?

Related Post: Fear, Faith and Change: part of a series on the Awareness Course that compares how Islam interprets Quran with how Christians interpret the Bible.

Update: Here is a good article by Aaron Rathburn. Aaron is a blogger who is connected to the same network of churches that I am: Biblical Inerrancy From The Bible or Enlightenment?

Fear, Faith and Change

This week on the Awareness Course we were looking comparing what Christian believes about the authority of the scriptures and comparing that with Islam and Judaism. Apparently a major difference is that Islam sees the Quran as the ultimate authority. Every word is believed to be the word of God hence they read it in its original language and revere the actual books themselves. Interpretations or Sharia decide what is the correct meanings and application of the scripture i.e. what is Halal – the right thing to do. Similarly our Old Testament particularly the Torah is treated similarly by the Jews.

However these interpretations tend to be very literal whereas usually when Christians interpret the Bible we would tend to approach it differently. For instance we would attempt to understand the style of writing, take into account the context of a verse in the whole Bible and attempt to understand the cultural context in which it is written. We would then apply our understanding of these principles with an awareness of our ever changing cultural context. Though it is scary this means that we are forever journeying in our faith re-applying it to new cultural contexts in are ever changing world.

As Christians rather than saying that our ultimate authority is the Bible many would tend to say that our ultimate authority is Jesus. We would use the Bible as a sign post to point us and others to Christ rather than a finishing post. Of course we love the Bible and it is very dear to us but we do not exalt it to a place of authority above God himself. But rather than simply using our logic to prove points of doctrine from texts in the Bible we are thrown back on God himself to discern how to apply the Bible to our situations that will involve relating to people who may be living very differently from ourselves.

BTW you might be interested in David Matthew's notes on this book that challenges the idea of the inerrancy of scripture.