Thoughts on the NT and it's writers

[RevKidd]

First let me premise this thread by stating that I am not trying to debate or argue anything. I would like some thoughts and opinions on the NT and it's authors intent and canonization of the NT.

Let me start with this. The NT as a whole. Do you think that as the authors of the NT, they meant for their works to be Cannonized and to be elevated to the same level as the OT? That is how the NT is viewed today.

However would the Authors believe their writings to be of the same "Holy" level.

I certainly believe that they were inspired. However does that justify cannonization if that were not the intent?

When we read the NT scripture, we find that all reference to scripture is that of the OT and not the letters themselves.

Frankly, even within myself I ask, does this change anything at all, and if it does what?

I think understanding the true context of the scripture of the NT is very important when interpreting it and trying to understand it.

 

[cyberlizard]

i will say they did not expect their writings to be set in stone as it were....

the old testament shows the hand of God on it in keeping its text safe (the hebrew text that is), and from my reading there are less than 20 changes in the MSS they have found so far (most being minuscule letter changes) leading to no major changes to doctrine.

The NT on the other hand, well, that's a whole other story, multiple manuscripts, multiple changes, many changes are doctrinal.

i ask which has God chosen to keep watch over... new or old, and this begs the question.... why?

to be truthful, the current accepted canon is de-facto because most people are not bothered where their bible came from and they certainly are not bothered which manuscripts it is based on. Of all the people i have spoken to in various churches (and thats a lot), there are extremely few who even read the blurb at the front of the bible which explains things like this. Its like people some how think the book simply fell from the sky in whole and without error.

Makes you want to cringe!


Steve

 

[RevKidd]

Its like people some how think the book simply fell from the sky in whole and without error.

Makes you want to cringe!


Steve

I guess you said what I have been thinking "in a nutshell". Most people do not realize that the canon of the NT was taken from plethora of texts and letters. And then we have to have "faith" that those who sorted out and threw out certain letters were "inspired", when in fact it may not have been the goal of God to cannonize a NT.

And some people have a hard time with the thought that their "Holy Bible" is really only 50% Holy.

I think it was Chuck Swindoll who said "We should never have a higher view of Scripture than that of Christ". And really that thought really has me thinking.

What was Christ's view of Scripture? (and really the only scripture he would have preached or taught on is the OT) Christ was the one who broke the rules. He had a very different perspective on scripture then the current day religious leaders.

 

[CShephard53]

First let me premise this thread by stating that I am not trying to debate or argue anything. I would like some thoughts and opinions on the NT and it's authors intent and canonization of the NT.

Let me start with this. The NT as a whole. Do you think that as the authors of the NT, they meant for their works to be Cannonized and to be elevated to the same level as the OT? That is how the NT is viewed today.

However would the Authors believe their writings to be of the same "Holy" level.

I certainly believe that they were inspired. However does that justify cannonization if that were not the intent?

When we read the NT scripture, we find that all reference to scripture is that of the OT and not the letters themselves.

Frankly, even within myself I ask, does this change anything at all, and if it does what?

I think understanding the true context of the scripture of the NT is very important when interpreting it and trying to understand it.

I think so. Why? Because I'm fairly sure they would not have minded people critiquing their work to find out what fits with the overall message God sent.

 

[cyberlizard]

What was Christ's view of Scripture? (and really the only scripture he would have preached or taught on is the OT) Christ was the one who broke the rules. He had a very different perspective on scripture then the current day religious leaders.

in all truth Jesus taught the same message as the Old Testament prophets - which was 'repent', he taught them same message as john the baptist, which was 'repent' and jesus himself taught, 'repent'. The apostles taught, call on the name of YHVH, which is 'repent and be immersed'.


sowhere it became 'invite jesus into your heart'.....

a few weeks ago i noticed this little verse at the end of Luke which I had never noticed before.... it reads 'then he opened their minds, so that they could understand the Tanakh, telling them, 'here is what it says: the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day... and in his name, repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins...'

it does not say the cross or the shed sacrifice was for the forgiveness of sin, but REPENTANCE. Somehow we have interpreted thorugh the years (especially the TV evangelists) that all we need to do is invite jesus into our heart and everything will be okay....

I say this, if you have wronged someone, before or during your life as a believer and you have not made real and actual restitution, then you have not repented. Saying sorry is not enough. Repentance is a verb which demands not only turning around but making restitution.

Now we wonder why there are so few 'believers' who live like it.


Steve

p.s. the cardinal teaching of the pharisees also was 'repent', but the scribes and sadducees certainly did not see it that way!

 

[TimRout]

While it is difficult to argue that NT writers knew they were generating documents that would one day become part of the biblical canon, there is some evidence to suggest Peter viewed examples of Paul's work as inspired Scripture on par with OT documents [2 Peter 3:14-16]. Each NT document carries the original intent of the human author within its pages, yet this is far less significant than the intent of the ultimate author – God. Thus, whether the NT writers knew they were authoring Scripture is irrelevant.


As to the allegation that the NT has undergone multiple doctrinal changes over time, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. The most current scholarship clearly demonstrates no significant change in the text from earliest to latest mss. Additions prevalent in later mss do not impact major doctrinal themes. The NT is the best preserved ancient literature in existence.

 

[cyberlizard]

While it is difficult to argue that NT writers knew they were generating documents that would one day become part of the biblical canon, there is some evidence to suggest Peter viewed examples of Paul's work as inspired Scripture on par with OT documents [2 Peter 3:14-16]. Each NT document carries the original intent of the human author within its pages, yet this is far less significant than the intent of the ultimate author – God. Thus, whether the NT writers knew they were authoring Scripture is irrelevant.


As to the allegation that the NT has undergone multiple doctrinal changes over time, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. The most current scholarship clearly demonstrates no significant change in the text from earliest to latest mss. Additions prevalent in later mss do not impact major doctrinal themes. The NT is the best preserved ancient literature in existence.

the argument only hold true for critical apparatus texts. If you do not have a critical greek text (such as NestleAland's) and only have the MSS themselves you will see many marked changes. Also age does not make a MSS better, (older ones do tend to be less accurate, but being newer (i.e. closer to the apostolic age) does not guarantee it either. everything places a part, document age, geographical location when copied, church history at time of copying, and a host of factors.

I would recomment anything by Metzger or Bruce on this subject.

But the above quote raises a good point... the new testament is better attested to than other greek scripts, but for someone in the world at large does know this fact (which is sad).

One failing in churches on the whole is that no one generally does bible studies on the validity of bible translations, manuscript evidence and the like as they probably do not see it as relevant. Not many people who read their NIV know what manuscript is based on, people just presume the bible they have is accurate and impartial (how wrong people can be).


Steve

 

[CShephard53]

in all truth Jesus taught the same message as the Old Testament prophets - which was 'repent', he taught them same message as john the baptist, which was 'repent' and jesus himself taught, 'repent'. The apostles taught, call on the name of YHVH, which is 'repent and be immersed'.


sowhere it became 'invite jesus into your heart'.....

a few weeks ago i noticed this little verse at the end of Luke which I had never noticed before.... it reads 'then he opened their minds, so that they could understand the Tanakh, telling them, 'here is what it says: the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day... and in his name, repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins...'

it does not say the cross or the shed sacrifice was for the forgiveness of sin, but REPENTANCE. Somehow we have interpreted thorugh the years (especially the TV evangelists) that all we need to do is invite jesus into our heart and everything will be okay....

I say this, if you have wronged someone, before or during your life as a believer and you have not made real and actual restitution, then you have not repented. Saying sorry is not enough. Repentance is a verb which demands not only turning around but making restitution.

Now we wonder why there are so few 'believers' who live like it.


Steve

p.s. the cardinal teaching of the pharisees also was 'repent', but the scribes and sadducees certainly did not see it that way!

That last part, about repentance- prove it.

 

[TimRout]

the argument only hold true for critical apparatus texts. If you do not have a critical greek text (such as NestleAland's) and only have the MSS themselves you will see many marked changes. Also age does not make a MSS better, (older ones do tend to be less accurate, but being newer (i.e. closer to the apostolic age) does not guarantee it either. everything places a part, document age, geographical location when copied, church history at time of copying, and a host of factors.

I would recomment anything by Metzger or Bruce on this subject.

But the above quote raises a good point... the new testament is better attested to than other greek scripts, but for someone in the world at large does know this fact (which is sad).

One failing in churches on the whole is that no one generally does bible studies on the validity of bible translations, manuscript evidence and the like as they probably do not see it as relevant. Not many people who read their NIV know what manuscript is based on, people just presume the bible they have is accurate and impartial (how wrong people can be).
Steve

Your dispreference for earlier mss seems to suggest a Byzantine slant, and possibly an affection for the Textus Receptus. May I assume you're a KJV advocate?

 

[MrPolo]

I see no way around an authoritative body through whom God has revealed what is Scripture or not. Therefore, whether a NT writer "thought" he was writing Scripture or not cannot be the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves do not provide the table of contents.

 

[cyberlizard]

Your dispreference for earlier mss seems to suggest a Byzantine slant, and possibly an affection for the Textus Receptus. May I assume you're a KJV advocate?

no! my personal slant is for a critical text and mostly i use nestleAland.

my bible of choice is Complete Jewish Bible for devotional/general read. For everything else I am a nerd and use interlinear scripture analyser.

sorry to be a bore.

Steve

p.s. i seriously dislike the KJV (and not just because of the archaic language),

 

[cyberlizard]

That last part, about repentance- prove it.

i take it you mean the bit about the pharisees or p'rushim.

i can in some ways see why you would think i say this, as on the whole the NT appears as put down of the Pharisees, however they were not all that bad. After all Paul says he was and remained at the time of writing it a Pharisee, a Hebrew of Hebrews. The Greek of this text is clear. All the phrase is written in the present active, so Paul did not stop being a Pharisee after his finding of Messiah. It is also interesting how people major on the Pharisees but pretty much ignore the Torah teachers/scribes (sopherim) and the Sadducees.

let me suggest you remove the blinkers in your reading of the NT and look at sources.

quick and dirty list

Brad Young: Meet the Rabbis, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, The Parables, the Jewish background to the Lord's prayer
Marvin Wilson: Our father Abraham
David Flusser: Understanding the difficult words of Jesus
John Bowker: Jesus and the Pharisees
James Charlesworth: Jesus with Judaism
Clemens Thoma: A Christian Theology of Judaism
Jeremias: Parables of Jesus



p.s. if you believe these things you would qualify as a card carrying member of the affiliation.... belief in the authority of scripture, believe in the Messianic figurehead, believe in supernatural beings, belief in the resurrection of the dead, belief that repentance is the key to forgiveness, belief that mercy should triumph over legalism, believe in the resurrection of the dead and the afterlife.

if you believe all these things you qualify!


pps Alexander (the famous one) once said, 'do not be afraid of the pharisees, but of those who ape them'. i.e. the hypocrites within their ranks.

Jesus also taught the disciples to follow the teaching of the Pharisees (as they sit on Moses seat) but do not practice like they do (cause lots of them are hypocrites) (is the bulk of the church any better).

Jesus problem with the pharisees was not with what they believed, but how some of them practiced their belief.

hope this helps

Steve

 

[billychum]

in all truth Jesus taught the same message as the Old Testament prophets - which was 'repent', he taught them same message as john the baptist, which was 'repent' and jesus himself taught, 'repent'. The apostles taught, call on the name of YHVH, which is 'repent and be immersed'.




Hope it's OK. to jump in here. I've noticed that Paul is not mentioned here in your list of those calling for repentance. Why do you think that is?

Billy <><

 

[TimRout]

no! my personal slant is for a critical text and mostly i use nestleAland.

my bible of choice is Complete Jewish Bible for devotional/general read. For everything else I am a nerd and use interlinear scripture analyser.

sorry to be a bore.

Steve

p.s. i seriously dislike the KJV (and not just because of the archaic language),

No accusations intended. I'm not a big fan of the KJV either. It just seemed odd that you would imply significant theological variation between mss, if indeed that was your intent. Variations tend to be minor and, with a few noted exceptions, do not generally impact major theological themes.

That said, I take it you view NA/UBS as reliable. So do I.

 

[cyberlizard]

in all truth Jesus taught the same message as the Old Testament prophets - which was 'repent', he taught them same message as john the baptist, which was 'repent' and jesus himself taught, 'repent'. The apostles taught, call on the name of YHVH, which is 'repent and be immersed'.




Hope it's OK. to jump in here. I've noticed that Paul is not mentioned here in your list of those calling for repentance. Why do you think that is?

Billy <><

Paul is in the list, i include him and treat him no differently from any of the other apostles.

Steve

 

[billychum]

First let me premise this thread by stating that I am not trying to debate or argue anything. I would like some thoughts and opinions on the NT and it's authors intent and canonization of the NT.

Let me start with this. The NT as a whole. Do you think that as the authors of the NT, they meant for their works to be Cannonized and to be elevated to the same level as the OT? That is how the NT is viewed today.

However would the Authors believe their writings to be of the same "Holy" level.

I certainly believe that they were inspired. However does that justify cannonization if that were not the intent?

When we read the NT scripture, we find that all reference to scripture is that of the OT and not the letters themselves.

Frankly, even within myself I ask, does this change anything at all, and if it does what?

I think understanding the true context of the scripture of the NT is very important when interpreting it and trying to understand it.

I think that maybe questions along these lines would have probably been asked during the cannonization of the OT. I guess at some point someone had to make a decision and from what little I know about the process I believe that it wasn't taken lightly. I too have to ask myself "what would it change" I trust the scriptures but at the same time I see nothing wrong with reading through a critical lense.

Billy <><

 

[billychum]

Paul is in the list, i include him and treat him no differently from any of the other apostles.

Steve

Thanks for clairifying

Billy <><

 

[NostalgicGranny]

x

 

[beamishboy]

the argument only hold true for critical apparatus texts. If you do not have a critical greek text (such as NestleAland's) and only have the MSS themselves you will see many marked changes. Also age does not make a MSS better, (older ones do tend to be less accurate, but being newer (i.e. closer to the apostolic age) does not guarantee it either. everything places a part, document age, geographical location when copied, church history at time of copying, and a host of factors.

I would recomment anything by Metzger or Bruce on this subject.

But the above quote raises a good point... the new testament is better attested to than other greek scripts, but for someone in the world at large does know this fact (which is sad).

One failing in churches on the whole is that no one generally does bible studies on the validity of bible translations, manuscript evidence and the like as they probably do not see it as relevant. Not many people who read their NIV know what manuscript is based on, people just presume the bible they have is accurate and impartial (how wrong people can be).


Steve

Yo folksies!!!

Guess what? I had the same problem a couple of years ago about the canon of scriptures. About your recommendation, I have read FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament.

Basically, the books of the New Testament are the best record that the church could gather to tell us the teachings of Jesus. But of course, they aren't perfect. I had a lot of problems with some books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, etc and I spoke to my vicar about it. My vicar told me that it's best not to say these things in front of old people because they don't like "clever answers" from youngsters particularly if the youngster is an altar boy (and I've been an altar boy for more than half my life). Hehe.

He tells me that not really accepting these books won't affect the basic tenets of our faith. But talking about it can cause problems if people aren't going to listen to the facts. Anyway, I figured if scholars like FF Bruce (who's as evangelical as anyone can get) think in this way, it shouldn't be too bad.

I feel strongly that Hebrews should not be in the canon. Nobody knows who wrote it and half the church made the mistake of thinking it was by St Paul and included it in the Pualine corpus for a long time. The other half of the church didn't accept it. Later, when the church tried to unify, they decided to just accept it. There was an early church father who encouraged the other branch of the church that didn't accept it to do so. It's all in Bruce and Metzger's books.

FF Bruce also showed me that many prophecies quoted in the N.T. are incorrect. They follow the Septuagint which was inaccurate and you can actually check them in your Bible. You'd be horrified to see how different the O.T. prophecies are compared to a repeat of these prophecies in the N.T.

Despite all these imperfections, the authors show that the church did its best when canonising the books to choose the best and most accurate and to discard the trash but popular writers today try to resuscitate the trash and confuse people. Some of this trash were Gnostic works which are heresy.

My vicar tells me that I shouldn't discuss these things with my aunt. My aunt became a fundamentalist (she became a Baptist) after living in America for years. She believes in biblical inerrancy and will go berserk if she reads what I've posted. She thinks we in the CoE will burn for being in the wrong church and she says the altar boy's robes I wear and the sash belong to the Devil! My parents think she's weird. When two verses in the Bible clearly contradict each other, she will try to see how she has "misread" or "misunderstood" them. Topics on how we got our canon are taboo to her because "we've already got the Holy Bible from God and how dare we try to see how each book of God's word became canonised? That'd be questioning God's authority!" And if you ask her how she knew all 66 books were from God, her reply would be "Because they're in the Holy Bible".

My vicar says that in these things, it's important to have harmony. But since the OP is on this subject and you mentioned the same two authors whose wonderful books I've read (I've underlined the important bits and can give you the page numbers too!) and since the likes of my Aunt aren't likely to chance upon this thread, I thought I'd post this. Hehe.

 

[TimRout]

Yo folksies!!!

Guess what? I had the same problem a couple of years ago about the canon of scriptures. About your recommendation, I have read FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament.

Basically, the books of the New Testament are the best record that the church could gather to tell us the teachings of Jesus. But of course, they aren't perfect. I had a lot of problems with some books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, etc and I spoke to my vicar about it. My vicar told me that it's best not to say these things in front of old people because they don't like "clever answers" from youngsters particularly if the youngster is an altar boy (and I've been an altar boy for more than half my life). Hehe.

He tells me that not really accepting these books won't affect the basic tenets of our faith. But talking about it can cause problems if people aren't going to listen to the facts. Anyway, I figured if scholars like FF Bruce (who's as evangelical as anyone can get) think in this way, it shouldn't be too bad.

I feel strongly that Hebrews should not be in the canon. Nobody knows who wrote it and half the church made the mistake of thinking it was by St Paul and included it in the Pualine corpus for a long time. The other half of the church didn't accept it. Later, when the church tried to unify, they decided to just accept it. There was an early church father who encouraged the other branch of the church that didn't accept it to do so. It's all in Bruce and Metzger's books.

FF Bruce also showed me that many prophecies quoted in the N.T. are incorrect. They follow the Septuagint which was inaccurate and you can actually check them in your Bible. You'd be horrified to see how different the O.T. prophecies are compared to a repeat of these prophecies in the N.T.

Despite all these imperfections, the authors show that the church did its best when canonising the books to choose the best and most accurate and to discard the trash but popular writers today try to resuscitate the trash and confuse people. Some of this trash were Gnostic works which are heresy.

My vicar tells me that I shouldn't discuss these things with my aunt. My aunt became a fundamentalist (she became a Baptist) after living in America for years. She believes in biblical inerrancy and will go berserk if she reads what I've posted. She thinks we in the CoE will burn for being in the wrong church and she says the altar boy's robes I wear and the sash belong to the Devil! My parents think she's weird. When two verses in the Bible clearly contradict each other, she will try to see how she has "misread" or "misunderstood" them. Topics on how we got our canon are taboo to her because "we've already got the Holy Bible from God and how dare we try to see how each book of God's word became canonised? That'd be questioning God's authority!" And if you ask her how she knew all 66 books were from God, her reply would be "Because they're in the Holy Bible".

My vicar says that in these things, it's important to have harmony. But since the OP is on this subject and you mentioned the same two authors whose wonderful books I've read (I've underlined the important bits and can give you the page numbers too!) and since the likes of my Aunt aren't likely to chance upon this thread, I thought I'd post this. Hehe.

While I'm not a fundamentalist, per se, I am a conservative evangelical. I'm afraid I have to side with your aunt on this one. Your view of Scripture is in need of some work. As for your Vicar...find a new teacher; this guy is leading you astray. The doctrine of Scripture is the first of five definitive theological convictions that determine whether or not a person is an authentic, born again Christian. Those who reject inerrancy are in danger of rejecting Christ. Perhaps it would be helpful to read Norm Geisler's work "Inerrancy", or G.L. Archer's "The Witness Of The Bible To Its Own Inerrancy".