Historicity of Jesus

[Free]

I am only debating this for the love of the argument, as well as in the defense of history.

I see now how it could be in defense of history. Is it because Christ myth theory discredits and disrupts scholarship in the field of history?

That discredits scholarship in the field of history, and undermines its usefulness for more beneficial purposes.

Actually no. It neither discredits nor disrupts the scholarship at all.

No, it does not discredit scholarship, as it tries to but fails continuously.

Then how is it defending history, to debate against it in an Internet forum?

How is it not? You're reading it, aren't you? So are others. 

The defense is against the "attempt" to discredit scholarship, not that the scholarship has actually been discredited. It has not.

[jimhabegger]

Specifically, what on that weblink can you dispute in relation to what they said in relation to Mark using the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures?

I'm not disputing what anyone said about Mark using the Septuagint. What does that have to do with anything I said?

[Free]

Specifically, what on that weblink can you dispute in relation to what they said in relation to Mark using the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures?

I'm not disputing what anyone said about Mark using the Septagint. What does that have to do with anything I said?

You attempted to discredit the source with the following statement:

ETA:

The Jesus Seminar? The Jesus Seminar? Sweet Jesus!

[jimhabegger]

I am only debating this for the love of the argument, as well as in the defense of history.

I see now how it could be in defense of history. Is it because Christ myth theory discredits and disrupts scholarship in the field of history?

That discredits scholarship in the field of history, and undermines its usefulness for more beneficial purposes.

Actually no. It neither discredits nor disrupts the scholarship at all.

No, it does not discredit scholarship, as it tries to but fails continuously.

Then how is it defending history, to debate against it in an Internet forum?

How is it not? You're reading it, aren't you? So are others. 

The defense is against the "attempt" to discredit scholarship, not that the scholarship has actually been discredited. It has not.

You might have misunderstood what I meant about discrediting scholarship in the field of history.

[Free]

I am only debating this for the love of the argument, as well as in the defense of history.

I see now how it could be in defense of history. Is it because Christ myth theory discredits and disrupts scholarship in the field of history?

That discredits scholarship in the field of history, and undermines its usefulness for more beneficial purposes.

Actually no. It neither discredits nor disrupts the scholarship at all.

No, it does not discredit scholarship, as it tries to but fails continuously.

Then how is it defending history, to debate against it in an Internet forum?

How is it not? You're reading it, aren't you? So are others. 

The defense is against the "attempt" to discredit scholarship, not that the scholarship has actually been discredited. It has not.

You might have misunderstood what I meant about discrediting scholarship in the field of history.

Explain.

[Aractus]

I searched on that page, and didn't find anything about God's promise to David, or even any mention of David at all. I didn't mean that I never see anyone discussing any relationships between the NT stories and the OT ones. I meant that I never see anyone discussing some of the ones that I've found, that I wasn't looking for.

ETA:
The Jesus Seminar? The Jesus Seminar? Sweet Jesus!

I didn't say anything about David/a specific reference, I said HB references are very widely known and talked about.

Yes that paper is by the late Spong a fellow of the Jesus Seminar. It's a good introduction as to how the HB has been used to form the narrative. It's incomplete because Spong doesn't discuss other external texts like Homer, but it's still a good starting point.

[jimhabegger]

One reason that I'm thinking of the gospel stories as being about a real person and his followers is because of the many relationships between them and Old Testament stories that I keep finding, that I wasn't looking for, and that I never see anyone discussing. One example is what I've already said, about him claiming to be the king that God told David he would send, saying "I will be his father, and he shall be my son."

Mark used the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures (not the "Old Testament" since that didn't exist) in creating his narrative. It's discussed all the time, if you want a starting point try here.

I searched on that page, and didn't find anything about God's promise to David, or even any mention of David at all. I didn't mean that I never see anyone discussing any relationships between the NT stories and the OT ones. I meant that I never see anyone discussing some of the ones that I've found, that I wasn't looking for.

I didn't say anything about David/a specific reference, I said HB references are very widely known and talked about.

I know that. I wasn't saying that I never see people discussing HB references.

ETA:
(ranting into empty space) Why can't I ever find any Bible believers who have any interest in searching in the Bible itself, to see for themselves what their god might be saying to them; and why can't I ever find anyone else discussing what the Bible says, who has any interest in searching in the Bible itself, to see for themselves what its compilers and editors might be trying to make it say?

[jimhabegger]

Sorry, I did it again, duplicated a post instead of editing it as I intended to.

Oh. I get it now. It's from clicking on the first button, thinking that it's the "Edit" button, after the "Edit" button is gone. Maybe I should give up correcting trivial errors in what I posted hours ago.

In the post above, "to see for themselves what its compilers and editors might be trying to make it say?" should be "to see for themselves what its authors, compilers and editors might be trying to make it say?"

[Minimalist]

why can't I ever find anyone else discussing what the Bible says, who has any interest in searching in the Bible itself, to see for themselves what its compilers and editors might be trying to make it say?

Because few of us have knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew and even if we did we do not have original documents but copy after edited copy and we don't know who wrote what and when and what the final redactor decided we should see or not see.

Really, this stuff is a load of crap.

[jimhabegger]

why can't I ever find anyone else discussing what the Bible says, who has any interest in searching in the Bible itself, to see for themselves what its compilers and editors might be trying to make it say?

Because few of us have knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew and even if we did we do not have original documents but copy after edited copy and we don't know who wrote what and when and what the final redactor decided we should see or not see.

Thanks. That doesn't really explain it for me, what I was wondering about, but thanks for trying.

[Minimalist]

I'll re-phrase.

Why would I waste my time looking for facts in a book which I consider factless?

[Free]

why can't I ever find anyone else discussing what the Bible says, who has any interest in searching in the Bible itself, to see for themselves what its compilers and editors might be trying to make it say?

Because few of us have knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew and even if we did we do not have original documents but copy after edited copy and we don't know who wrote what and when and what the final redactor decided we should see or not see.

Really, this stuff is a load of crap.

I translated some of the Gospels from the Greek, with emphasis on John. I was quick to learn that the translations we see out there were actually copycats of each other with just enough subtle differences to hide the fact they were copies of each other.

But the biggest thing I noticed was the word choices used for interpretation and then translation by the authors of the King James. I could see where they would use the simple "a" as a determiner in my translations, but then not use it in places where it should obviously be used to agree with the context. For example, in Joh 10:33 you see this:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 

But it actually should be this:

Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a god. 

The reason you know it should be that is the reply given by Jesus as shown below:

Joh 10:34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, "I said, Ye are gods?"

John 10:34 has Jesus responding to an accusation of regarding himself to be a god, evidenced by partial quote of Psalm 82:6. If they had accused him of being the God, Jesus would not have responded with a defense of "gods." And all that follows continues that defense.

My point: Christians who think Jesus was God got a hold of it and twisted it to their liking.

[Minimalist]

You make a good point when we are dependent on translations and the inherent biases of translators, Free.

But sometimes, it isn't even bias it is just opinion.  There's a quote by Marcus Tullius Cicero which in Latin goes :  "Inter arma enim silent lēgēs."

Even my rudimentary Latin would make "laws are silent in war."  It sounded so similar to a comment attributed to Gnaeus Pompey some years earlier that I went looking for exact translations of the quote.

To my surprise, I found about a dozen ways that supposed Latin scholars had rendered those five words into English.  It was a lesson in the inherent problem of translating ancient languages into modern English.

[Bucky Ball]

It's very difficult to explain why Paul had a christophany outside of this context. The disciples it's not hard to explain - people see their dead loved ones, it happens, it's a well known and well documented phenomenon. But strangers seeing a dead person they never met is something that is, to say the least, highly unusual. The only possible way that Paul could have seen the risen Christ as he himself attests to, is because the early apostles ritualised the experience. I think Paul was essentially indoctrinated when he went to a religious ceremony probably to debunk the Jesus movement, and was totally unprepared to have a religious experience.

LOL. Yet another subject you're an expert in. Too bad you're not a scholar and speak, read or write no other languages.

So lets look at some words. Paul's letters were written in Greek In the second chapter of Luke, verse 34, the author has Simeon say, (to Mary and Joseph), "For this child is destined for the rise and fall of many in Israel. The Greek word used, is "anastasin". The Greek word here, is used, as anyone would normally use it in Greek, as in the "rising of the sun". Later, after cultural and historical overlay, when "anastasin" is used, the word's meaning has TWO different meanings. A normal one, and a religious one. So there is an intra-gospel example of the post event cognitive change. There also is a good example we know of from Paul and the Gospel of John. When Jesus gets up from the table, at the Last Supper, he (in the Greek), is said to "egeiretai", he "gets up". (For those who know Latin, the similarity is obvious.) When Paul uses this same verb in 1 Corinthians, 15:12, it's translated "For if our message is that the Anointed has been raised up, (exalted), how can you possibly be saying there is no such thing as the resurrection of the dead". Thus without the later religious overlay, the phrase SHOULD be translated as "he is gotten up from among the dead". This "gotten up" is equivalent to the way a Greek would have said "I *got up* this morning". (ie got up from a bed). It DOES NOT mean, I "rose from the dead" this morning. It's a raising of (relative) "position" with respect to a previous position. Exalted. Just as any Apocalyptic Jew would think, "exaltation", .... just like all the other Jewish apocalyptic heroes were "exalted".

When Paul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Paul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuses, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham". There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Paul's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blindings", "and then seeings" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Paul's blinding and then "seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Paul. Paul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corintians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light" (ie the Lord)". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually.

Everything in the gospels written about the resurrection is consistent with the concept of (Jewish) "shades". They are afraid of what they see, they don't recognize him. Even at the end "they saw, but they doubted". If you are actually seeing a human body, you know what you are seeing. They can't be seeing a "resurrected" human body, they were having an "experience of the resurrected Jesus" ... not the same at all.

BTW, this coming weekend, Bart Ehrman has a webinar on the "divinity" of Jesus, how he may have thought of himself, and how others may have seen him. I may watch it later. I'm not hoping for much. In Hebrew culture, there were many "divine beings" (in the heavenly host) but that did not mean they had ANY equivalence with Yahweh. For a Jew that was totally impossible. It is not possible any early disciple thought of him as equivalent to Yahweh. When the Witch of Endor conjures the shade of Samuel for Saul, (only witches could see a shade), Saul asks what she is seeing. She replies "I see a DIVINE being, coming up, put of the earth". This subject of divine beings in Hebrew culture has been a topic in many doctoral dissertations in the last few years. Also the divinity of Jesus is different in each gospel. In Mark he is raised up to divine status, from NO prior divine status, .. in Matthew and Luke he gives up divine status, ("empties himself") to just be human, and takes up divine status again later, and in John, (with it's Gnostic influence) he always was God, takes on human form while remaining divine, and drops the polluted human form, and goes back to just being divine. And just a reminder, in Hebrew culture, a "son of God" meant nothing other than a "righteous man", and there were many, ... politicians, generals, other leaders and famous men. It did not mean what it came later to mean for Christians. I'm not sure how well Ehrman understands ancient Hebrew culture, and in many ways, I see him as retaining a lot of his prior fundamentalism. So we'll see.

[mordant]

To my surprise, I found about a dozen ways that supposed Latin scholars had rendered those five words into English.  It was a lesson in the inherent problem of translating ancient languages into modern English.

Indeed. And it gives them all the more room to abuse the text to make it say what they want. I recall whole points of doctrine hinging on things like a passage in the original Greek being in the aorist tense (which has no direct equivalent in English or probably any language I've heard of except maybe Sanskrit), hence, IIRC, denoting a past event that does not impact the present. Which would give you a license to treat it as information rather than having any practical influence on how one should live. As if not only the words were "inspired", but the grammar.

No wonder they were so obsessed with the notion of inerrancy. If you could prove a point based on a grammatical construct, and believe the words were inspired to be written in just that fashion, you could win your argument. Not being trained in Greek myself, I'll never know how many of those constructs were simply ignored when inconvenient!

[Minimalist]

Correct, Mord.

There's a phrase in the second "Josephan" reference to the godboy which goes 'Iesou ton legomenou christo' in Greek and which can be translated accurately it seems any number of ways., such as:

Jesus "called Christ"
         "known as Christ"
          "was known as Christ"
         "was called Christ"
          "is called Christ"
           "who is called Christ"
           "that is called Christ"
           "so-called Christ"
           "named Christ"

Precision was less important than the concept being conveyed.  But inerrant?  I think not.

[Minimalist]

There's a useful site called Biblegateway where you can get side by side comparisons of bible verses as translated in the various bibles that these morons swear are "inerrant."

Here's their entry for Isaiah 45.7.   Much like beauty the meaning of this horseshit seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

KJ21
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.

ASV
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

AMP
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.

AMPC
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

BRG
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

CSB
I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

CEB
I form light and create darkness, make prosperity and create doom; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

CJB
I form light, I create darkness; I make well-being, I create woe; I, Adonai, do all these things.

CEV
I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the Lord, do all of this.

DARBY
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

DRA
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

ERV
I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the Lord, do all these things.

EHV
I am the one who forms light and creates darkness, the one who makes peace and creates disaster. I am the Lord, the one who does all these things.

ESV
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

ESVUK
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.

EXB
I make the light and create the darkness. I bring ·peace [prosperity; wholeness; C Hebrew shalom], and I ·cause [create] ·troubles [disaster; calamity]. I, the Lord, do all these things.

GNV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

GW
I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the Lord, do all these things.

GNT
I create both light and darkness; I bring both blessing and disaster. I, the Lord, do all these things.

HCSB
I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things.

ICB
I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause troubles. I, the Lord, do all these things.

ISV
“I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the Lord, who does all these things.

JUB
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this.

KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

AKJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

LEB
I form light and I create darkness; I make peace and I create evil; I am Yahweh; I do all these things.

TLB
I form the light and make the dark. I send good times and bad. I, Jehovah, am he who does these things.


MSG
I form light and create darkness, I make harmonies and create discords. I, God, do all these things.

MEV
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.

NOG
I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, Yahweh, do all these things.

NABRE
I form the light, and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe; I, the Lord, do all these things.

NASB
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.

NASB1995
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

NCB
I form the light and create the darkness; prosperity and disaster depend upon my will; I, the Lord, do all these things.

NCV
I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause troubles. I, the Lord, do all these things.

NET
I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things.

NIRV
I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord.

NIV
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

NIVUK
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

NKJV
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’

NLV
I make light and I make darkness. I bring good and I make trouble. I am the Lord Who does all these things.

NLT
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.

NRSV
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things.

NRSVA
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things.

NRSVACE
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things.

NRSVCE
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things.

OJB
I form ohr, and create choshech; I make shalom, and create rah; I Hashem worketh all these things.

TPT
I create light, and I make it dark. I make bliss, and I create adversity. I am Yahweh who does all these things.’

RSV
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things.

RSVCE
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things.

TLV
I form light and create darkness. I make shalom and create calamity. I, Adonai, do all these things.

VOICE
I form light and create darkness; I make what is good, happy, and healthy, and I create woe. I, the Eternal One, make them one and all.

WEB
I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create calamity. I am Yahweh, who does all these things.

WYC
forming light, and making darknesses, making peace, and forming evil; I am the Lord, doing all these things.

YLT
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'

The concept is more or less the same but the pious fuckers certainly do not agree on the wording!

[mordant]

There's a useful site called Biblegateway where you can get side by side comparisons of bible verses as translated in the various bibles that these morons swear are "inerrant."

Here's their entry for Isaiah 45.7.   Much like beauty the meaning of this horseshit seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Which is exactly why in my view the notion of inerrancy and inspiration is a complete fail.

It is not just that the translations sometimes are conflicting and so unclear. It is that people get entirely different interpretations from the SAME translation. Even if we allow for the sake of argument that god somehow magically inspired the original texts just the way he wanted them, we don't have a single original text. We have copies that are (at the least) many generations removed from that. We have the situation that for most people throughout most of history, they weren't even literate, and a few elites controlled their understanding of the holy books and what parts they paid attention to.

So inerrant inspiration, even if true, is a terrible means of accurately conveying information.

Since god is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, if he REALLY wanted people to have a unified and accurate understanding of himself and his claims on them, he could simply install that information and understanding into them at birth. No revelation needed.

[Minimalist]

As with the Search for the so-called Historical Jesus, this happy horseshit about inerrancy is a fairly late arrival on the scene.  It would appear that the argument started, much as with HJ, after the enlightenment threw the biblical story into the shitter.  Did you know that it was not until the year 2000 that the Southern Baptists added this bit of blather to the Baptist Faith and Message statement?

Second, the 2000 revision of the BF&M removed the assertion that the person of Jesus Christ was to be the exegetical standard by which the Bible was to be interpreted,[9] and replaced it with the last sentence in the quotation below.

The change was made over concerns that some groups were elevating the recorded words of Jesus [10] in Scripture over other Scriptural passages (or, in some cases, claiming that Jesus' silence on an issue held priority over other passages explicitly discussing a topic, an example being homosexuality). The traditional SBC view is that all Scripture is equally inspired by God.[11]
 
Article I. The Scriptures. The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

And the sheep said "Baaaa" and insisted it had always been that way!

[Bucky Ball]

Inerrancy has a long history, and it got even more interesting relatively recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

For the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy from 1970's turns out a sizable group of scholars objected,
and those who voted for it were mostly fundy preachers, and not scholars.

[mordant]

As with the Search for the so-called Historical Jesus, this happy horseshit about inerrancy is a fairly late arrival on the scene.  It would appear that the argument started, much as with HJ, after the enlightenment threw the biblical story into the shitter.  Did you know that it was not until the year 2000 that the Southern Baptists added this bit of blather to the Baptist Faith and Message statement?

Second, the 2000 revision of the BF&M removed the assertion that the person of Jesus Christ was to be the exegetical standard by which the Bible was to be interpreted,[9] and replaced it with the last sentence in the quotation below.

The change was made over concerns that some groups were elevating the recorded words of Jesus [10] in Scripture over other Scriptural passages (or, in some cases, claiming that Jesus' silence on an issue held priority over other passages explicitly discussing a topic, an example being homosexuality). The traditional SBC view is that all Scripture is equally inspired by God.[11]
 
Article I. The Scriptures. The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

And the sheep said "Baaaa" and insisted it had always been that way!

Many fundagelical dogmas are fairly recent. The notion that life begins at conception was called by one wag "the doctrine that's younger than a MacDonald's Happy Meal" because it was not a Thing until after the latter. In the 1960s, it was common for Christianity Today (a rag founded by none other than Billy Graham) to express ambivalence about the Thorny Question of whether a fetus is a person. The Bible, after all, is silent on the topic.

We just get so used to these endlessly repeated Shibboleths that they seem like they've been around forever.

Hell, fundamentalism itself has its roots in the 1830s with the teachings of Darby. It's less than 200 years old.

All that said, inerrancy was part of my indoctrination in the 1960s and 70s. In those days we regarded the Southern Baptists as "too liberal", lol

[Minimalist]

There was no need for fundamentalism prior to the enlightenment.  Hell, back then they just fried anyone who disputed their horseshit.

[Bucky Ball]

As with the Search for the so-called Historical Jesus, this happy horseshit about inerrancy is a fairly late arrival on the scene.  It would appear that the argument started, much as with HJ, after the enlightenment threw the biblical story into the shitter.  Did you know that it was not until the year 2000 that the Southern Baptists added this bit of blather to the Baptist Faith and Message statement?

Second, the 2000 revision of the BF&M removed the assertion that the person of Jesus Christ was to be the exegetical standard by which the Bible was to be interpreted,[9] and replaced it with the last sentence in the quotation below.

The change was made over concerns that some groups were elevating the recorded words of Jesus [10] in Scripture over other Scriptural passages (or, in some cases, claiming that Jesus' silence on an issue held priority over other passages explicitly discussing a topic, an example being homosexuality). The traditional SBC view is that all Scripture is equally inspired by God.[11]
 
Article I. The Scriptures. The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

And the sheep said "Baaaa" and insisted it had always been that way!

Many fundagelical dogmas are fairly recent. The notion that life begins at conception was called by one wag "the doctrine that's younger than a MacDonald's Happy Meal" because it was not a Thing until after the latter. In the 1960s, it was common for Christianity Today (a rag founded by none other than Billy Graham) to express ambivalence about the Thorny Question of whether a fetus is a person. The Bible, after all, is silent on the topic.

We just get so used to these endlessly repeated Shibboleths that they seem like they've been around forever.

Hell, fundamentalism itself has its roots in the 1830s with the teachings of Darby. It's less than 200 years old.

All that said, inerrancy was part of my indoctrination in the 1960s and 70s. In those days we regarded the Southern Baptists as "too liberal", lol

There are oblique references to abortion in the Bible, (or causing the demise of a fetus), .... and it's not anything approaching "infanticide".
The penalty, (not gonna bother to find them), was a small payment to the woman's husband, as I recall, and the deciding factor was whether the baby was "fully formed" or not. If not "fully formed", it was not such a big deal.

[Minimalist]

I don't know, Buck.  Sometimes this god asshole seems quite giddy about it!

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”

Psalm 137.9