In the first century, the Apostle Paul wrote:
"Now brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as it from us, as though the Day of Christ had come." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)
While we don't know exactly how some had concluded that the Day of Christ had already come and gone or even how some didn't believe Jesus had even come in the flesh (2 John 1:7) when he was just in town, we do know the problem of fake letters aplenty had to be addressed by someone of genuine and recognizable authority, whether it was actually them or someone writing as if they were.
Let's first consider that 2 Thessalonians, a book that worries about fake letters, itself is considered by many scholars to be pseudepigraphy, false writing, forged and a deep fake along with several other letters in the NT attributed to both Paul and Peter but not written by them.
According to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.
"Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon," says Ehrman.
"Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians, he adds. Contradictory views, discrepancies in the language, and the choice of words among the books attributed to Paul are all evidence of this forgery," the author asserts.
(Note: Along with the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were also originally anonymous gospels whose names were affixed decades later and not eyewitnesses or personal accounts of anything...well, deep fakes are as old as writing. No Gospel speaks in the first person. There is no "And then Jesus said to me". The Gospel accounts are not written as first-person narratives, and there are no direct statements in the Gospels suggesting they were written by people at the scene. )
"But why would an author claim to be an Apostle when he wasn't? The answer is pretty obvious, according to the scholar.
In the early centuries of the church, Christians felt under attack from all sides. 'They were in conflict with Jews and pagans over the validity of their religion ... but the hottest debates were with other Christians, as they argued over the right thing to believe and the rights ways to live,' said Ehrman. Thus Christians aiming to authorize views they wanted others to accept wrote in the name of the Apostles, 'fabricating, falsifying and forging documents,' says Ehrman.
'If your name was Jehoshaphat and no one had any idea who you were, you could not very well sign your own name to the book,' explains Ehrman. 'No one would take the Gospel of Jehoshaphat seriously. If you wanted someone to read it, you called yourself Peter. Or Thomas. Or James. In other words, you lied about who you really were,' Ehrman concludes. According to the scholar, the idea that "writing in the name of another" was a common, accepted practice in antiquity is wrong. Forgery was considered just as deceitful, inappropriate and wrong as it is today." Forgeries in the Bible's New Testament?
So there's that... Nothing new to see here.
However, Deeply Fake Prophet Thiel goes on to worry about himself being deeply faked, discredited, or scandalized. However, he does seem deeply faked already.
"Yes, computer technology and artificial intelligence can make very convincing fakes. More deep fakes are coming. Some will be used for the purpose of deceit and character assassination. I expect that the time will come when deep fake technology will be used to make it seem like I, and others in the CCOG say and/or do things, that we did not say or do. Actually, I mentioned that in a recent sermon." Daily Mail: An AI company is using deepfake technology to seamlessly dub your favorite actor’s dialogue; COGwriter: Dangers of ‘deep fakes’
I'm personally not convinced anyone would bother to take the time to deeply fake something about Prophet Thiel mostly known as "Prophet Who?"
Now to be sure, Deep Fake technology will lead to about as much skepticism about anything we see in the future as can be imagined. Perhaps that's the point. One can claim what is real is deeply fake or what is deeply fake is real. Depends on the need. Like 2 Thessalonians warning about fake letters "as from us" when itself is one. In our time, like a Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, or Bob Thiel claiming to be what they actually are not and deeply faked even if they fail to recognize it as being so.
16 comments:
Another trash the bible article by our own Deep Fake atheist.
Why in the bloody hell would anyone ever want to deep fake Bob Thiel? He is already a nonsensical buffoon. Bob thinks too highly of his unimportant self.
to deep fake Bob Thiel?
You can be fairly certain it's fake Bob if he makes an actual prediction. Lack of arm waving, sidetracking, convoluted speaking, with new curtains and bookcase would also suggest he's a fake.
Poor Bob. Does anyone take him seriously?
5:34
How is it a trash article? Prove your point to us. Lashing out in anger like you did makes you look like a fool. Defend your stance and tells us why you believe what you do if you even can.
11.12 PM
Did you read the article? Eg, "at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.." As has been pointed out umpteen times, and ignored umpteen times by Dennis, his anti-bible and anti-belief-in-God crusade belongs on another blog.
This is another example of the WCG ruling elite believing that the rules only apply to the little people.
Last night after we had sex I asked my wife if she was faking it...
and she said "no, I really was asleep."
1112: I understand your rancor. Being committed to the Bible as a faith document is much different than being knowledgeable about its historical context and scholarship about the Bible. I did it too back in the day. Myself as one of the "ruling elite" is asinine and simply reflects your own projection of your experiences with others.
Dennis
As others have pointed out to you on this blog, "once a minister, always a minister." Since you've barely lived in the little peoples world, it's understandable that you fail to perceive this.
In short, most folk believe in the Bible more than they know about the Bible. It's just that simple.
Absolutely true. They hate Armstrongism so much, that if Antichrist would write an article that could be used against Armstrongism, they would love it and promote it. Pitiful. It is one thing to point out the errors of Armstrongism, it is another thing to use everything, no matter how rubbish it is, to attack just about everything that belongs to Armstrongism. You did not criticize Armstrongism when YOU were part of it but now it is ALL evill, and you are ALL righteous and good. Shame on you.
Anon 325 Remember Churchill, relating to his enemies Hitler and Stalin, alluded to making deals with Satan.
But, I agree, what I consider a platform for voicing critique of Armstrongism and troubleshooting their problems can descend into a grievous rant.
Except for the occasional use of satire and sarcasm, I try to keep comments observational and as factual as possible, and rely on peer-review for correction.
And taking his agnosticism into consideration, I find Prof. Ehrman to be an excellent NT scholar.
Dennis:
I submitted a lengthy response to your post but apparently did not press the send key. I will try to reconstruct what I said in a brief form. I had a look at Ehrman's article about 2 Thessalonians. Only subscribers could see the whole text so I just saw only part but enough of it. It seemed to me he selected a single line of reasoning out of many and pursued that because it was compatible with his status as an unbeliever. There are other options that have just as much merit.
For instance, Paul, Silvanus and Timothy could have had an understudy with a flair for language write the letter after they briefed him. This seems likely since it is a joint letter from three leaders. They could have then reviewed the writing before it was circulated. This would account for any discrepancies between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians. Dr. Peter Enns has observed that use of an understudy or scribe was not uncommon circa First Century.
Another part of Ehrman's analysis I did not like is his hypothesis that there was so much internecine combat between various congregations in the Christian movement that forgery was common. Had there been a welter of forged epistles this would lead to a greater emphasis on establishing the bona fides of any given epistle. When the provenance of the epistle were established, its credentials would enter into the tradition of the church. And these recognized credentials would function like a "chain of custody" throughout the future of the document. For this reason Athanasius sought the view of the church in creating the canon. One might also ask, "Where are all these many artful forgeries?"
The rigor of the "facts of publication" was not then what it is now. In the last analysis, the important comparison to be made between two epistles is not sentence structure, vocabulary or idiom but in the realm of thought. Both 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians are Christian epistles that draw upon apocalypticism and Late Second Temple Judaism. If both are well within the Christian genre, it really does not matter if the methodology employed in the creation of the documents differs. Without a time machine we cannot peer into that process. But Ehrman makes presumptions about this that he cannot possibly know.
And the probability of substantive alternatives to forgery diminishes Ehrmans view from being pre-emptive to being just political.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I understand the different perspectives and there are plenty. I personally like most of Ehrman's perspectives. However, he is not just coming up with new things. These concepts are pretty commonly understood among most biblical scholars with no need to believe the Sunday school versions or make up apologetics about things one can only speculate on and can't possibly know such as how something "could" have been done another way. True, it could, but that is not supported by the evidence. Very often the need to believe gets in the way as well as the many faith restrictions that prevent honest inquiry.
Forged is an excellent presentation as well as Misquoting Jesus and Ehrman's other books.
Personally, once one grasps the big picture as to the Gospels not being eyewitness accounts and not written by those whose names are affixed etc, the door gets opened to seeing things as they were and are and not how we were taught or wish them to be.
Together with Paul's writings coming first before any Gospels were ever penned, his not knowing anything about Gospel Jesus or quoting him when it would have served him well to do so is very telling.
My view, for now, is that the story of Gospel Jesus is a literary construct. Bart still believes there was a Jesus in history but not as presented by the church who evolved him into something he himself would not recognize. I have my doubts about the existence of a literal Jesus and if there was one, the Gospels do not represent him accurately in the least. But that's just me and several million others so inclined.
Huge topics of course and one that calls for individual decisions on what it all means or doesn't mean to them. The New Testament is made up of man breathed documents. Many did not make the cut. Some got in that are suspect. Some are authentic to the person who wrote them.
Only about 3% of the population in Jesus time could even read. Fewer yet could write much less put together coherent texts. It might be good to ask why the Gospels are all written in Greek and pretty good Greek at that. Galilean fisherman did not write in Greek and even the NT calls them ignorant and unlearned men, which was true. Acts 4:13 Being bold does not equate with being educated enough to write books in high Greek such as I and II Peter. He simply did not write them. And that is fairly well accepted by mainstream theologians not educated in denominational colleges or Sunday School.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. I see your point. Ehrman did make a point, opposite of yours, that it was common to have someone write for you. He says that was not common and like forgeries, not an acceptable way to be credible and authentically oneself. And too, there are many "Gospels" written by the Apostles which are known not to have been. The Gospel of Peter, of Judas, Of Philip, of Mary Magdalene etc, all not taken seriously and all not by those familiar Apostles. I suggest a good read of "Forged" for a nice overview.
The polite word for forgeries in theology is "pseudopigrapha" but it means forgeries.
And too...this posting was about Bob Thiel worried he'd be deep faked someday to mislead people from his true churchness etc. Of course, it stirred up my views on fakery through all of Biblical and church history. So sorry about that! lol
Dennis (7:32)
You cite a number of things that are circumstantial but are not necessarily connected with an incontrovertible or revealing conclusion. For instance, what conclusion must one unavoidably make because the Synoptics were not eyewitness accounts? Perhaps, the eyewitness accounts did exist at one time and were passed along in "The Sayings of Jesus" or Q. This is both reasonable and plausible. So where is Q today? Maybe once it was incorporated into the Synoptics it did not receive good curation. That is speculation on my part but this is a field of study where speculation abounds.
Methods and constructs do not matter as much as the fact that these diverse elements of writing accumulate to an integrated system of belief. In the realm of thought they are a whole whatever the diversity in the circa First Century "manual of style." It is all a very messy process but the product is what is of interest. If everything were laid out systematically, as if the early Christian writers had a New York publicist, I am not sure that would assuage any doubts or make the product any more viable.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Post a Comment