|
Post by john316 on Jun 29, 2008 12:32:06 GMT -5
Hi Everyone I would like to knw what everyone thinks about the process of the NT Canonization. I personally refer to the AV(KJV) Bible. But I have done some research in church history which gives some insight on the NT canonization councils. Why did some books which we know in the NT today(like Hebrews) take long to get accepted. Also there seems to be an accusation, that verses like Mark 16:9-20, John 7:50 - 8:11, 1 John 5:7 which explicitly mentions the trinity and another accusation that the book of Acts which we have today is 10% larger than the original Acts. There is a link I am going to post at the bottom which is from a Islamic website that gives a table of all the councils that we may know. Please tell me how reliable this link is. Please help. This is very important in our apologetics work. I know that Lord has dealt with me marvelously in my life. I am able to shine his light in front of men so that His name is glorified. Please help us defend the gospel www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/canonages.htmlThx.
|
|
|
Post by john316 on Jul 10, 2008 21:03:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Jul 17, 2008 11:41:17 GMT -5
The KJ when it was first released also contained the Apophraca (don't believe I spelled that right). I remember actually cutting that section out of an old Oxford Bible once thinking it was just an addition by Rome.
I recently bought a copy of it and have found much insight into the history of the time, as well as insight into the abomination of desolation.
Whether this is Biblical, or extra-Biblical literature such as the writings of early Christians or Josephus, we can learn something.
As for book like Hebrew and James, both of which Martin Luther had difficult thinking they should be cannonized, I believe they were "too Jewish" for many who had already seen themselves are "replacing" Israel. Antisemitism also runs into our theologies still today, as many Christians, although in principle that Jesus and the Apostles were Jews, think of them all as ditching Judaism to start a new thing called the Church. While the fact is that all the Apostles were Jews, worshipping in Judaism, they recognized that Jesus was their long awaited Messiah. We have no Christianity except that Judaism is the Root. We are not a new tree, but are mere branches grafted into the religion of the Apostles. That religion was a Messianic Judaism from those of the Pharisee's. They believed in all the books of the OT and in resurection of the dead, in oppostion to Saducee's who really only focused on the first 5 books of the Bible and did not believe in life after death.
Jesus would have been a Pharisee, if grouped into one or the other camps, but had issue with many Pharisee additions under oral laws which contradicted the written torah. He didn't take issue to all oral laws though. Jesus also kept Channakah! Yes, the NT says so in John 10:22, when we look there we find Jesus at the feast of dedication (look up definition in Strongs #1456) and it was winter.
As to the scriptures which some say are in question, we have what is called the majority text, or Byzantine versions which is what was translated to the KJ; and a couple minority texts found in Alexandria (Eygpt) which is what the NIV was translated from. Some versions of Scripture use both texts and try to blend them. Most of the texts match very well, they differ in many other areas. So what do we do? I looked at this at asked myself "Where did Paul write all His Epistles to?". The answer is the Byzantine area, none went to Alexandria. The I asked "Where did Paul take all His missionary visits?". Same answer. Then I pondered which group of people would recognize if Paul's teachings didn't match his writings? Certainly, if the Byzantine wasn't authentic, it would have been in use widely through the areas Paul was a missionary too. The fact that most texts by far (over 90%) recovered are of this type is why they are called Majority Text. I also found that Alexandria was a hot bed for the gnostics who are known to teach book like Barnabas. I have read that book and also found much antisemitism. So I use the KJ, but verify the translation, by always double checking the Greek word definitions in Strongs as well as look carefully at the grammatical tenses, using AMG's Word Study Bible.
The OT is not as nearly a problem. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that the base text, Hebraic text, has not changed. Text samples from 700 years before Jesus, look almost exactly as they do today. This is because the copying of the OT is an art performed by hand still today by Scribes. Synogogues today (whether Judaism or Messianic Judaism) still use scrolls. These allow the words to appear on the same layout, section by section, today, as they did when Jesus rolled them out and read about Himself from Isaiah, without one jot or tittle removed.
I believe both OT and NT are inspired by God, but feel the OT translations are more reliable, and obviously are much more similar (excluding paraphrases like the Message).
|
|
|
Post by john316 on Jul 19, 2008 0:01:48 GMT -5
well there is some textual variation(if that is the right terminology i am using) in the mss which explains why we have different versions and causes a lot of division in the church. and gives rise to factions like JWs. In any case how do you validate the authencity of certain passages in the bible like the ones I mentioned. Are they added as this website claims or were the originals lost and later retrieved. Go to biblegateway and read the passages in the NIV and you have a sidenote saying something like this: the earliest and MOST RELIABLE MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT HAVE Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11 or 1 John 5:7 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016&version=31
|
|
doug
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by doug on Aug 14, 2008 19:11:35 GMT -5
Here are some quotes from my unpublished book in a section dealing with canonicity of the New Testament. 'The concept of canonization is often misunderstood because part has to do with determining which texts are ‘apostolic’, and a lesser part has to do with the circulation and the collecting of these apostolic texts. Consequently, the critics confuse people by stating that the canon evolved over centuries...'
'...the critics treat the texts of Paul different than they do the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Critics allow that Paul’s letters (well, most of his epistles) are genuine and were copied and circulated among the churches Paul had established while he was still alive. This means that many churches already had a collection of apostolic writings from a very early date. Notwithstanding, the critics are more comfortable shifting the focus back to the gospels. For them, the question has moved from ‘how did the Jesus of history become the Christ of faith’ to ‘how did the four gospels get selected from seventeen or more other ‘gospels’ and other texts to become part of the New Testament canon?’ '
'the critics hold that the early church had no concept of apostolicity, but that this criterion gradually developed out of political motives to settle the canon a few centuries later. Again, the critics think that in the first few centuries of the Church’s existence, it never regarded any of its texts as having canonical -meaning apostolic- authority. This allows critics to redefine the Scripture canon so that they can now dismiss some of Paul’s letters, including other books of the New Testament; on top of that, the critics have reinterpreted the canon to allow canonical status to several recently discovered gnostic texts. All Christians and pastors ought to be aware of the danger of the subtle attack on the apostolicity of the Bible texts.'
'However, the critics argue that the Church developed both its theology and a canon of Scriptures as a reaction to the diversity of gnostic sects and the canon of Marcion. (33) The critics allege that Marcion was the first to develop a canon of authoritative writings in the early Christian community. Marcion was an anti-Semite who developed his own list of books around 135 AD. Incidentally, the critics always see the Church as determining its identity and beliefs and its writings in reaction to something.'
'Another way the critics reinterpret the origin of the Bible canon relates to their insistence that the Church was such a diverse and pluralistic group which included Christians, Gnostics and other heretical groups...The critics give the impression that gnostic texts were commonly interspersed with the Bible texts among the churches. Fisher complained that ‘other gospels circulating in the early Christian church were not included in the official canon of the Bible.’ (34) They imagine that a few church fathers like Justin and Irenaeus were among a minority in the Church who disapproved of the Gnostics.'
'Finally, when did the canon get settled, according to the general agreement among critics? Actually, the only general consensus among them as to the date is sometime in the fourth century, nearly 300 years after the crucifixion. This view has even seeped into some churches today.'
'The entire New Testament and the tradition of the early Church so closely link Jesus to the apostles that the critics ought not to think they can discover the historical Jesus without reference to discovering the historical apostles.'
'Then, of course there are five occasions in the New Testament where the word myth is used by its writers. In every case, the writers clearly distinguish between the gospel message and myth. It is a little more than ironic that the very epistles which make the distinction are not seen as genuine by the critics. Yet, this is what the critics do; if a verse or series of texts supports their theory, they conclude them to be authentic and historical...Again, it caught my notice when I discovered that the epistles which most clearly distinguish between the gospel and myths are rejected as spurious by the critics. This is unusual since these letters are as frequently quoted by the earliest bishops as also they do from the other epistles.'
'Also, the intense persecution suffered by the early Christians is one of the strongest proofs against the bold fiction that the New Testament was merely written to communicate ‘faith’ rather than history. Not only does the Bible testify to these persecutions, as we have seen, but we have also read from Tacitus that Nero nailed Christians to crosses, fed them to wild animals for entertainment, and turned them into living torches to illuminate his orgies. Is it at all likely that multitudes would give their lives for someone in whom they had no interest regarding that person’s biographical details?'
'Perhaps, the funniest evidence for our defense that the apostles intended their readers to trust in the historical reliability of their message comes from Stanton’s own admissions. Although he took pains throughout his entire book to prove the exact opposite, he stated, ‘The evangelists, on the other hand, are all clearly convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God and they either assume or intend that their readers should share their convictions.’(p.4) Again, he wrote, ‘They all believe that God raised Jesus from the dead ‘on the third day’. They have written their gospels in the light of that conviction.’ (p271) Stanton is probably the most highly regarded liberal Bible critic in the entire world at the time I am writing and he cannot even be publicly consistent with his views; if he knows what his own views actually are! There is no doubt that with all the efforts Stanton made to discredit the gospels, the gospels still have the power to force a true confession out of him that the gospel writers and their original readers clearly had a biographical interest in Jesus Christ. '
'We will look at evidence why a late dating of 70AD for the first gospel is unnecessary. It is here that a great fissure opens up in another pillar of the critics’ theory. Earlier, the so-called scholars gave some reasons for a late or 70AD dating of the first gospel. One reason critics allege was that the writers of the gospels wanted to minimalize the interference of surviving eyewitnesses. However, Paul did not seem worried about such interference given that he wrote at the same time Jesus’ apostles were still alive, with the exception that John’s brother had been executed. Those same scholars never disputed the existence of Peter, John, or James the brother of Jesus, and it was probable that Mary was still alive when Paul wrote. Yet, Paul was officially accepted as one of the apostles from the time of the Jerusalem Council in 50AD. Not one of Jesus’ closest followers corrected any of Paul’s assertions that Jesus was the Christ foretold by Moses and the Prophets. By admitting that Paul’s letters were written allegedly twenty years earlier than the gospels, the critics fail to explain how Paul could have preached Jesus Christ without his being contradicted by thousands of eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and preaching. Why would Paul have been received as an apostle at all upon the supposition that the other apostles did not identify Jesus as the Christ? In any case, since Paul began writing about Jesus as the Christ during the height of the eyewitness period, then there is no necessity for a late dating of the gospels. Not only that, but a witness aged thirty-three in 33AD would have been only seventy years old in 70AD and a twenty-five year old witness in 33AD would have been only sixty-two, thirty-seven years later. An eighteen year old witness would have been only fifty-five years old in 70AD. There would have been hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses still alive in 70AD. Apparently, John had lived until 98AD!'
'Next, Jesus did not really predict anything in his apocalyptic Olivet Discourse that was not already held to some extent by many Jews in his day. To illustrate, several years before the American Civil War occurred, the impending threat was easily predicted by many due to the general political and religious climate at the time. Are we to take predictions of the Civil War and say they were made after the fact? In the Talmud, we read, "Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple.. the doors of the Hekal (temple) would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself (Predict thy own destruction) ? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars" (The Soncino Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, vol. III Toma, p. 186) Also, the Qumran community, or whoever produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, also recorded their interpretations of ancient prophecy that the Romans would come and wipe out the city and its temple. The commentary on Habakkuk reads, that the Kittim, meaning the Romans, ‘will destroy the city and all who live in it…“the city” refers to Jerusalem.’ The Jewish historian Josephus also recorded, ‘one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity…on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!”...This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe, to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, -“Woe, woe, to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.” (Wars 6.5.3) Since it is certain, with actual evidence, that many Jews believed that God would judge Jerusalem before its destruction occurred, it establishes the possibility that the gospels may have been written years prior to 70AD. Hence, it is not academically certain that the gospels only began to be written from that date. '
'While I was finishing the first draft of this article, I discovered that the liberal critics on the very recent National Geographic program on the Gospel of Judas are now suddenly allowing a date as early as 60AD for Mark’s gospel. Pagels was interviewed on this and the other recent video series I mentioned earlier. Since the critics were so sure about one date and they are now as sure about a revised dating, how can their opinions be trusted at all? '
'I pointed out from the New Testament writers that there was a transition of leadership from the apostles to the early bishops, and that the authority of the apostles derived from the Lord Jesus himself. The Christian testimony is: that which was manifested by the Lord Jesus was preached by the apostles. Not only so, it was also preserved by the primitive or early successions of bishops, to paraphrase Athanasius’ letter to Serapion. Just as the Lord chose a group of men to fulfill a mission, this same group also chose and cultivated suitable leaders. Given, the apostles would have chosen leaders they believed were also chosen by the Holy Spirit. Also, the apostles would have chosen presbyters and deacons who had both moral integrity and a strong confidence in the gospel of the apostles. We know the details of these qualifications by reading Paul’s pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus. Further, the New Testament does not merely place emphasis on the risen Christ or upon the apostles alone, but also upon the first line of bishops who were placed over the churches. From Christ, through the apostles, to the first bishops we are given a strong chain extending from God himself into human history. The critics are scandalized and irritated by this three-fold chain. Yet, its existence prevented the seeding and development of heretical doctrines in the early Church in that time period. That which is called Christian orthodoxy is contained in it. The critics want that chain broken, slandering the early Fathers concerning alleged interpolations and reinterpretations of the Gospel; but, Irenaeus replied to the critics in his own day, ‘the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these heretics, agree with this aforesaid translation (the Septuagint/Greek translation of the Old Testament); and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical announcements, just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.’(452) This Irenaeus also argues that apostolic doctrine was delivered and preserved, rather than developed or produced, saying that it ‘has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailments in the truths which she believes.’(508) '
'Yet, Pagels’ reply to the same question is more revealing: ‘the gospels of the New Testament are a lot easier to read than most of these secret gospels.’ After she revealed that the gnostic texts were secret, she emphasized that they ‘are probably not meant to be publicly read. They were meant to be ‘advanced level teaching’, so they don’t have the same function as the gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke.’ Ironically, as she spoke those very words, the video image accompanying them showed a robed teacher reading out of the Judas text to several families; children were attentively listening to the ancient preacher. That is, the dramatization was in direct contradiction to Pagels’ narration. However, her admission that gnostic texts are secret esoteric writings demolishes the myth that they were generally circulated among the Churches as the gospels indeed were.'
That should be good for now. Job awaits.. Peace, Doug
'
|
|
doug
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by doug on Aug 15, 2008 0:14:42 GMT -5
Dear readers, even if the extant scraps of papyrus and manuscript fragments may not show that certain disputed passages are canonical, we still have the testimony of the early fathers. It is clear that the longer passage of Mark was known to Irenaeus who testifies to its existence before the Alexandrian type texts which textual critics allege are the most ancient and complete. It must be remembered that the persons who first invented the theories of NT interpolations were motivated by Pan-German rationalism who hated Jews. New Testament criticism arose from people who were motivated by German nationalism. This was not friendly to either Jews or Christians, in my opinion, and I believe there is a wealth of proof for this easily found on the internet. peace, Doug
|
|