Eric Wilson: Welcome. There are many who after leaving the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses lose all faith in God and doubt that the Bible contains his word to guide us to life. This is so sad because the fact that men have misled us should not cause us to lose trust in our heavenly father. Still, it does happen all too often, so today I've asked James Penton who is an expert in religious history to discuss the origin of the Bible as we have it today, and why we can trust that its message is as true and faithful today as it was when originally penned.
So without further ado, I will introduce Prof. Penton.
James Penton: Today, I'm going to talk about problems of understanding what the Bible really is. For generations within the broad Protestant world, the Bible has been held in the highest regard why most believing Christians. Besides this, many have come to understand that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the word of God and our inerrant, and they often use second Timothy 3:16, 17 in which we read, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
But this does not say that the Bible is inerrant. Now, the Bible was not always regarded as the sole basis of authority by which Christians were to live. In fact, I remember as a boy in Western Canada seeing Roman Catholic posts, statements to the effect that, 'the church gave us the Bible; the Bible did not give us the church.'
Thus it was that authority to translate and determine the meaning of texts within the Bible that was left entirely with the church of Rome and its pontiffs. Curiously, however, this position was not taken as dogma until after the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation at the Catholic Council of Trent. Thus, Protestant translations were outlawed in Catholic countries.
Martin Luther was the first one to accept all the material in the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, although he arranged them differently than did the Jews and because he did not regard the 12 minor prophets as one book. Thus, on the basis of the 'sola scriptura', that is the 'Scriptures alone doctrine', Protestantism began to question many Catholic doctrines. But Luther himself had difficulty with certain books of the New Testament, especially the book of James, because it did not fit with his doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and for a time the book of Revelation. Nevertheless, Luther's translation of the Bible into German established the basis for the translation of the Scriptures in other languages as well.
For example, Tindall was influenced by Luther and began the English translation of the Scriptures and laid the basis for later English translations, including the King James or Authorized Version. But let us take some time to deal with certain aspects of the history of the Bible prior to the Reformation that are not generally known.
First, we don't know exactly why or by whom the Hebrew Bible was formerly canonized or what books were to be determined to be included within it. Although we have pretty good information that it was during the first century of the Christian era, it must be recognized however that much work in organizing it had been done shortly after the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity, which took place in 539 BC or immediately thereafter. Much of the work of using certain books in the Jewish Bible is attributed to the priest and scribe Ezra who emphasized the use of the Torah or first five books of both the Jewish and Christian Bibles.
At this point we should recognize that beginning about 280 BC, the large Jewish expatriate population living in Alexandria, Egypt began to translate the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. After all, many of those Jews could no longer speak Hebrew or Aramaic both spoken in what is today Israel. The work that they produced came to be called the Septuagint version, which also came to be the most quoted version of the Scriptures in the new Christian New Testament, beside the books that were to become canonized in the Jewish Bible and later in the Protestant Bible. The translators of the Septuagint added some seven books that often do not appear in Protestant Bibles, but are regarded as deuterocanonical books and are therefore present in Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Bibles. In fact, Orthodox clergymen and scholars often regarded the Septuagint Bible as superior to the Masoretic Hebrew text.
In the later half of the first millennium CE, groups of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes created a system of signs to ensure proper pronunciation and recitation of the biblical text. They also attempted to standardize paragraph divisions and maintain proper reproduction of the text by future scribes by compiling lists of the Bible's key orthographic and linguistic features. Two main schools, or families of the Masoretes, Ben Naphtoli and Ben Asher, created slightly different Masoretic texts. Ben Asher's version prevailed and forms the basis of modern biblical texts. The oldest source of the Masoretic Text Bible is the Aleppo Codex Keter Aram Tzova from approximately 925 A.D. Although it is the closest text to the Ben Asher school of Masoretes, it is survived in an incomplete form, as it lacks almost all the Torah. The oldest complete source for the Masoretic text is the Codex Leningrad (B-19-A) Codex L from 1009 A.D.
While Masoretic text of the Bible is an outstandingly careful work, it is not perfect. For example, in a very limited number of cases, there are meaningless translations and there are cases in which earlier Dead Sea biblical sources (discovered since World War II) agree more with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic text of the Jewish Bible. Furthermore, there are greater significant differences between the Masoretic text of the Bible and both the Septuagint Bible and the Samaritan Torah which differ in the lifespans of the pre-flood figures of Noah's day given in the book of Genesis. So, who can tell which of these sources is the earliest and therefore the right one.
Certain things need to be taken into consideration concerning modern Bibles, in particular with regard to the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament. In the first place, it took the Christian church a long time to determine which books should be canonized or determined as proper works reflecting the nature of Christianity and also inspired. Note that a number of the books of the New Testament had a hard time in being recognized in Eastern Greek speaking parts of the Roman Empire, but after Christianity became legalized under Constantine, the New Testament was canonized as it exists today in the Western Roman Empire. That was by 382, but recognition of the canonization of the same list of books did not take place in the Eastern Roman Empire until after 600 A.D. However, it should be recognized that in general, the 27 books that were ultimately accepted as canonical, had long been accepted as reflecting the history and teachings of the early Christian church. For example, Origen (of Alexandria 184-253 CE) seems to have used all of the 27 books as Scriptures that were later officially canonized long before Christianity was legalized.
In the Eastern Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, Greek remained the basic language for Christian Bibles and Christians, but in the western part of the empire which gradually fell into the hands of Germanic invaders, such as the Goths, Franks the Angles and Saxons, the use of Greek virtually disappeared. But Latin remained, and the primary Bible of the Western church was Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the church of Rome opposed the translation of that work into any of the vernacular languages that were developing over the long centuries that are called the Middle Ages. The reason for that is that the church of Rome felt that the Bible might be used against the teachings of the church, if it fell into the hands of members of laity and members of many nations. And while there were rebellions against the church from the 11th century forward, most of them could be wiped out with the support of secular authorities.
Yet, one important Bible translation came into being in England. That was the Wycliffe translation (John Wycliffe Bible translations were done into Middle English circa 1382-1395) of the New Testament which was translated from the Latin. But it was outlawed in 1401 and those who used it were hunted down and killed. It was therefore only as a result of the Renaissance that the Bible began to become important in much of the Western European world, but it should be noted that certain happenings had to take place much earlier that were important to biblical translation and publication.
As for the written Greek language, about the year 850 A.D. a new type of Greek letters came into being, called “Greek minuscule. Before, the Greek books were written with unicals, something like ornate capital letters, and have no br between words and no punctuation; but with the introduction of the minuscule letters, words began to be separated and punctuation began to be introduced. Interestingly, much the same thing started to take place in Western Europe with the introduction of what was called “Carolingian minuscule.” So even today, Bible translators who want to check ancient Greek manuscripts are faced with the problem of how to punctuate the texts, but let us move on to the Renaissance, for it was at that time that a number of things took place.
First of all, there was a great awakening to the importance of ancient history, which included the study of classical Latin and a renewed interest in Greek and Hebrew. Thus, two important scholars came to the fore in the later 15th and early 16th centuries. These were Desiderius Erasmus and Johann Reuchlin. Both were Greek scholars and Reuchlin was also a Hebrew scholar; of the two, Erasmus was more important, for it was he who produced a number of recensions of the Greek New Testament, which could serve as the basis for new translations.
These recensions were revisions of text based on careful analyses of original Christian Greek biblical documents that served as a basis for many of the translations of the New Testament into various languages, especially German, English, French and Spanish. Not surprisingly, most of the translations were by Protestants. But as time went by, some were also by Catholics. Fortunately, all this was shortly after the development of the printing press and it therefore became easy to print many different translations of the Bible, and to distribute them widely.
Before moving on, I must note something else; that was that in the early 13th century Archbishop Stephen Langton of Magna Carta fame, introduced the practice of adding chapters to practically all Bible books. Then, when the English translations of the Bible took place, the earliest English translations of the Bible were based on those of the martyred Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. After Tyndale’s death, Coverdale continued the translation of the Scriptures which was called the Matthew Bible. In 1537, it was the first English Bible to be published legally. By that time, Henry VIII had removed England from the Catholic Church. Later, a copy of the Bishops’ Bible was printed and then came the Geneva Bible.
According to a statement on the Internet, we have the following: The most popular translation (that is English translation) was the Geneva Bible 1556, first published in England in 1576 which had been made in Geneva by English Protestants living in exile during Bloody Mary's persecution. Never authorized by the Crown, it was particularly popular among Puritans, but not among many more conservative clergymen. However, in 1611, The King James Bible was printed and published although it took some time to become popular or more popular than the Geneva Bible. However, it was a better translation for its beautiful English, its terseness, but it is outdated today because English has changed greatly since 1611. It was based on the few Greek and Hebrew sources that were then had; we have many more today and because some of many English words used in it are unknown to people in the 21st century.
Okay, I will follow with this presentation with the future discussion concerning modern translations and their problems, but right now I want to invite my colleague Eric Wilson to discuss some of the things I've presented in this short overview of the history of the Bible.
Eric Wilson: Okay Jim, you mentioned minuscule letters. What is a Greek minuscule?
James Penton: Well, the term minuscule really means lowercase, or small letters, rather than the big capital letters. And that's true of the Greek; it's also true of our own system of writing or printing.
Eric Wilson: You also mentioned recensions. What are recensions?
James Penton: Well, a recension, that's a term that really people should learn if they're interested in the history of the Bible. We know that we have none of the original manuscripts or writings that went into the Bible. We have copies of copies and the idea was to get back to the earliest copies that we have and perhaps, in a variety of forms that have come down to us, and there are schools of writing. In other words, minuscule writings or not minuscule writings, but rather uncial writings that appear in early Roman times, and this made it difficult to know exactly what writings were in the time of the apostles, let's say, and so Erasmus of Rotterdam decided to make a recension. Now what was that? He gathered all of the known manuscripts from ancient times that were written in Greek, and went through them, studied them carefully and determined which was the best evidence for a particular text or Scripture. And he recognized that there were some scriptures that had come down in the Latin version, the version that had been used throughout hundreds of years in Western societies, and he found that there were instances that were not in the original manuscripts. So he studied these and created a recension; that is a work which was based on the best evidence that he had at that particular time, and he was able to eliminate or show that certain texts in the Latin were not correct. And it was a development which aided in the purifying of the biblical works, so that we get something closer to the original through recensions.
Now, since Erasmus’ time in the early 16th century, many, many more manuscripts and papyri (papyruses, if you will) have been discovered and we now know that his recension was not up-to-date and scholars have been working ever since really, to purify the scriptural accounts, such as Westcott and Hort in the 19th century and more recent recensions since that time. And so what we have is a picture of what the original biblical books were like, and those appear generally in the latest versions of the Bible. So, in a sense, because of recensions the Bible has been purified and is better than it was in Erasmus’ day and certainly better than it was in the Middle Ages.
Eric Wilson: Okay Jim, now can you give us an example of a recension? Perhaps one that cause people to believe in the Trinity, but has since been shown to be spurious.
James Penton: Yes, there are couple of these not only with respect to the Trinity. Perhaps one of the best ones, aside from that, is the account of the woman caught in adultery and who was brought forward to Jesus to judge her and he refused to do it. That account is either spurious or its sometimes called “a roaming or moving account,” which appears in different parts of the New Testament and, in particular, the Gospels; that's one; and then there is what's called the “Trinitarian comma,” and that is, there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. And that has been proven to be spurious or inaccurate, not in the original Bible.
Erasmus knew this and in the first two recensions that he produced, it didn't appear and he was facing a great deal of upset from Catholic theologians and they didn't want that to be taken out of the Scriptures; they wanted it in there, whether it should have been or not. And, finally, he broke down and said well if you can find a manuscript that shows that this was present, and they found a late manuscript and he put it in, in the third edition of his recension, and of course it was under pressure. He knew better, but at that time anyone who took a stand against the Catholic hierarchy or, for that matter, many Protestants, could end up of being burned at the stake. And Erasmus was too bright a man to recognize this and of course there were many who came to his defense. He was a very tactful individual who often moved from place to place, and he was very interested in purifying the Bible, and we have we owe a lot to Erasmus and now it's really being recognized just how important his stance was.
Eric Wilson: The big question, do you feel the differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, not to mention other ancient manuscripts, invalidate the Bible as God's word? Well, let me say this to start out with. I don't like the expression which is used in churches and by ordinary folk to the effect that the Bible is God's word. Why do I object to this? Because the Scriptures never call themselves “God's word.” I believe that God's word appears in the Scriptures, but it has to be remembered that much of the Scriptures has nothing to do with God directly, and is an historical account of what happened to the kings of Israel, and so forth, and we also have the devil speaking and also many false prophets speaking in the Bible, and to call the Bible as a whole “God's Word” is, I think, mistaken; and there are some outstanding scholars who agree with that. But what I do agree with is that these are the Holy Scriptures, the holy writings that give us a picture of mankind over time, and I think that's very, very important.
Now does the fact that there are things in the Bible that seem one to contradict the other, does that destroy our understanding of this series of books? I don't think so. We have to look at the context of every quotation from the Bible and see if it contradicts so seriously, or that they contradict one another so seriously, that it causes us to lose faith in the Bible. I don't think that's the case. I think that we have to look at the context and always determine what the context is saying at a given time. And often there are fairly easy answers to the problem. Secondly, I believe that the Bible shows a change over the centuries. What do I mean by this? Well, there is a school of thought which is referred to as “salvation history.” In German, it's called heilsgeschichte and that term is often used by scholars even in English. And what it means is that the Bible is an unfolding account of God's will.
God found people as they were in any given society. For instance, the Israelites were called upon to enter the promised land of Canaan and destroy the people that were living there. Now, if we come to Christianity, early Christianity, the Christians did not believe in taking up the sword or fighting militarily for several centuries. It was only after Christianity was really legalized by the Roman Empire that they began to participate in military endeavors and became as harsh as anyone. Before that, they were pacifistic. The early Christians acted in a very different way from what David and Joshua, and others had acted, in fighting with the pagan communities around about and in Canaan itself. So, God permitted that and often we have to stand back and say, “well what are you all about God?” Well, God answers this in the book of Job when he says: Look I created all of these things (I'm paraphrasing here), and you weren’t around, and if I allow someone to be put to death, I can also bring that person back from the grave, and that person can re-stand in future. And Christian Scriptures indicate that that will happen. There will be a general resurrection.
So, we can't always question God's point of view in these things because we don't understand, but we see this unraveling or moving from very basic concepts in the Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures to the prophets, and ultimately to the New Testament, which gives us the understanding of what Jesus of Nazareth was all about.
I have deep faith in these things, so there are ways that we can look at the Bible, which makes it comprehensible as expressing God's will and his divine plan of salvation for mankind in the world. Also, we have to recognize something else, Luther stressed a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's going a bit far because the Bible is a book of metaphors. In the first place, we don't know what heaven is like. We can’t reach into heaven, and even though there are a good many materialists who say, “well, this is all there is, and there's nothing beyond,” well, maybe we’re like the little Indian fakiers who were blind Indian fakiers and who were holding on to various different parts of the elephant. They couldn't see the elephant as a whole because they didn't have the ability, and there are those today who say well humankind is incapable of understanding everything. I think that's true, and therefore we’re served in the Bible by one metaphor after another. And what this is, the will of God is explained in symbols that we can understand, human symbols and physical symbols, that we can understand; and therefore, we can reach out and understand God's will through these metaphors and symbols. And I think that there's a lot of that that is necessary to understand what the Bible is and what God's will is; and we’re all imperfect.
I don't think I have the key to all of the truths that are in the Bible, and I don't think any other man does. And people are very presumptuous when they think that they have God's immediate direction to tell what the truth is, and it's unfortunate that both the great churches and many sectarian movements within Christendom try to impose their theology and their doctrines on others. After all, the Scripture in one place says that we have no need of teachers. We can, if we attempt to learn patiently and understand God's will through Christ, we can get a picture. Although not a perfect one because we’re far from perfect, but nonetheless, there are truths there that we can apply in our lives and should do. And if we do that, we can have great respect for the Bible.
Eric Wilson: Thank you Jim for sharing these interesting facts and insights with us.
Jim Penton: Thank you very much Eric, and I'm so glad to be here and work with you in a message for many, many people who are hurting for biblical truths and the truth of God's love, and of Christ's love, and the importance of our Lord Jesus Christ, for all of us. We may have different understandings from others, but God will ultimately reveal all of these things and as the apostle Paul said, we see in a glass darkly, but then we will understand or know all.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Chester on 2021-01-07 08:29:09
Thank you Eric and James for a very interesting history lesson! I’ve always been interested in the gospel account of the woman brought to Jesus for committing adultery. I used to think it such a wonderful example of our Lords compassion and a superb lesson on forgiveness. When it was removed from the ‘silver sword’ version of the bible, I wondered why. In fact I told an old friend (still a JW) about its removal he was quite shocked too and didn’t believe it until he checked in his own bible.
The WT rely heavily on the Sinaiticus (330-360 CE) and Vaticanus (300-325 CE) and there is all manner of debate on these two manuscripts about their validity, and debate about the motive of Wescott and Hort in their deliberations.
It seems that there was much talk about that account by the early church fathers, for instance (quote from Wikipedia)
“ According to Eusebius of Caesarea (in his Ecclesiastical History, composed in the early 300s), Papias (circa AD 110) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it. In the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum, composed in the mid-200s, the author, in the course of instructing bishops to exercise a measure of clemency, states that a bishop who does not receive a repentant person would be doing wrong – "for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?' She said to Him, 'No, Lord.' And He said unto her, 'Go your way; neither do I condemn thee.' In Him therefore, our Savior and King and God, be your pattern, O bishops.”
So have you any thoughts on why people were talking about the lesson Jesus gave, before the two manuscripts mentioned were even written?
Just on a personal note, the whole reason I left the JW religion was its lack of love and forgiveness and judgemental attitude and yet this account just sounds like the complete opposite and encourages forgiveness, it sounds very Jesus like.
Take care!
ChesterReply by rusticshore on 2021-01-08 12:06:18
Hebrews 10:26
Comment by Fani on 2021-01-08 05:13:22
Merci pour tout ce travail.
Oui, il ne faut pas confondre la Parole de Dieu avec l'histoire partielle de l'humanité racontée dans la Bible.
Pour moi, la Parole de Dieu est l'enseignement pur du Christ transmis en partie dans les évangiles.
Parfois, même les apôtres ont ajouté des pensées personnelles. Paul dit dans 1 cor 7 : 12 ”Et aux autres, je dis, oui moi, non le Seigneur : Si un frère a...”
Paul ne prétend pas dans ce cas apporter la Parole du Seigneur, mais c'est sa pensée qu'il n'impose pas.
Parfois même Dieu a fait des concessions concernant sa loi pour tenir compte de l'imperfection humaine. Exemple pour le divorce (Mathieu 19 : 8 "C’est parce que vous avez le cœur dur que Moïse vous a permis de divorcer de vos femmes, mais au début il n’en était pas ainsi".
Dieu a permis mais ce n'était pas sa Parole ; Christ a rétabli la Parole de Dieu dans ce cas.
Comme Chester, je pense que l'épisode de la femme adultère correspond bien à l'esprit de Christ.
Luc 24 : 25 il y a, en effet, encore beaucoup d’autres choses que Jésus a faites ; si jamais on les écrivait dans le détail, le monde lui-même, j’imagine, ne pourrait pas contenir les rouleaux écrits.”
Beaucoup d'autres miracles, paroles de Jésus ont dû être transmis oralement parce qu'il était impossible de tout noter. Il était coutumier à cette époque de transmettre un savoir oralement.
Beaucoup d'hommes ne savaient pas lire mais tous pouvaient entendre.
Des évènements vivants dont beaucoup ont été témoins se suffisaient à eux mêmes sans avoir besoin de tout écrire.
Lorsque ces événements s'imbriquent parfaitement avec l'esprit du Christ, je pense qu'on peut en tirer leçon.
Je ne rejette pas l'histoire de la femme adultère.
Je ne dis pas qu'elle fait partie du Canon biblique. Je n'en sais donc rien.
Ça me paraît bien compliqué de connaître quels sont les écrits sacrés.
Pourquoi ?
Faut il faire tant de recherches pour connaître la volonté de Dieu ?
Non, je ne crois pas.
Peut être que cela souligne l'importance du FOND du message du Christ et non se perdre dans des détails en oubliant l'essentiel.
Dieu aurait pu faire en sorte que les originaux soient préservés. Il ne l'a pas fait.
L'ESPRIT de la lettre est donc plus important que la lettre.
Mathieu 23 : 23 "Malheur à vous, scribes et pharisiens ! Hypocrites ! Parce que vous donnez le dixième de la menthe, de l’aneth et du cumin, mais que vous avez laissé de côté les points les plus importants de la Loi, c’est-à-dire la justice, la miséricorde et la fidélité."
Vraiment merci encore.
NicoleReply by Frankie on 2021-01-20 15:22:36
Thank you for very good comment Nicole, nice thoughts. I think you captured very well the correct way of perceiving the Bible by emphasizing the importance of understanding the substance and spirit of biblical message emphasized in Matt. 23:23.
Frankie
Comment by rusticshore on 2021-01-08 08:39:41
I certainly do not believe that the "Word of God" is inerrant. I still put faith in it, although I am carefully working on attempting to identify the errant portions, if ever that can be definitively done and achieved....even by the scholars themselves.
In addition, one cannot ignore the obvious contradictions, though some consider them minor, others significant...such as the resurrection narrative alone in the synoptic gospels. There is significant differences in the gospels as it regards this alone. For me... I try to remember that these were different authors with varying opinions....however, there are clear differences in the narratives, and that is not so desirable.
Also, I do not believe it can be ignored that there are clear "forgeries" that have been identified by scholars through the OT and NT. For instance, many scholars agree that Daniel did not write chapters 7-12...but those were written some 300 yrs later (approx'). Isaiah chapters 47-55 it is believed to have been written by someone other than Isaiah.
Or take, for example the pseudepigraphal writings (dated within 200 yrs of Jesus), but not written by the actual person it is ascribed to (I.e. Paul). There are those in the field of biblical scholarship that believe, based on grammatical and syntax use and variations that Paul did not write Ephesians, nor Colossians, nor 2 Thessalonians, nor 1st and 2nd Timothy, nor Titus. But that these clearly point to someone else writing in Paul's name (unnamed, hence the word "forgeries").
So I believe the biggest question of all would be.... If these are indeed forgeries, which I believe they are based on my research, are they - or can they still be inspired?
These are topics which are most certainly worth consideration.
*Thanks for article, and the historical content of it.
Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-14 17:02:17
Hello Rusticshore. Firstly I would like to better understand what you mean when you use the term “inerrant” with reference to the Bible? Because if I understand you correctly, how can you at the same time say “you still put faith in it”? It seems a bit contradictory if not unwise to implicitly trust the Bible as Gods Word if you think it is so flawed that the accounts found therein could be spurious, contradictory or otherwise untrustworthy!
Secondly could you quote one of those “obvious contradictions” around the resurrection narrative in the gospels, as they are not "obvious or clearly different” to me and many others.
With regard to extra canonical writings such as the “Apocrypha”, you do not need to be a biblical scholar to recognise these as forgeries and non inspired books. The fantastical nature of the writings, much of the writings are misogynistic, the huge contradictions with the other canonical books, the anachronistic flaws, and the writing styles are easily recognisable as not belonging in the canonical writings. The early Church Fathers knew which books were in circulation in their day for decades and centuries and already accepted as part of the inspired scripture and the origins were tracible. There may have been no need to “canonise” the books of the bible except for the fact that so many attempts were being made to introduce forgeries to “muddy the waters” with regard to inspired scripture. And as stated in scripture much more has been written, so much so that the world could not contain it! John 21:25. But what has been preserved is the “bare bones” of what is required for us to understand Gods will, purpose for mankind, how to live the best life and to seek the kingdom and salvation. The writings we have at present are harmonious, coherent, good for up building in the faith, answer any questions we may have with regards to salvation and Gods will for mankind. A revelation from God, that fills the needs for mankind at present.
Other writings do not come close to canonical writings in accomplishing the same as they are not inspired and do not, and cannot inspire as a result.
You quote “expert” opinions with regard to forgeries etc but if you do so why not go all the way and quote Bart Erhnam, a bible critic who thinks the bible has zero credibility and is himself an agnostic. What criteria have you used in your selected quotes of “experts” and why should you or we trust them?
The Bible is inspired by God or not, it cannot be somewhere in the middle it just does not make sense to consider it otherwise.
Simple scribal errors, minor variations etc are not a door way to open the “flood gates” for hyper criticism of the scriptures as a whole. And if there are “issues” they should be dealt with methodically, comprehensively, and using all of the available information and not just a one sided affair such as making broad sweeping statements as you have in your comments above.
I may have mischaracterised what you are trying to convey in your comments above but they certainly have caused me to question them.Reply by rusticshore on 2021-01-14 19:09:17
Alithia - How can I (or anyone, for that matter) put faith in the bible when they feel it has error's and contradictions? Easy. The scriptures do not tell us that God reached out of heaven with his hand and literally manipulated man to write his word, word-for-word. It tells us that "men spoke" (1 Peter 2:21,22) as they were "carried along" by the holy spirit, as I am certain you know. Just as a conductor conducts a symphony and assists them along, nor more is he responsible if the violinist purposely decides to play a note at a higher range, changing the sound.... whether done purposely or accidentally.
The fact remains, there are clear forgeries in the bible. "Who" it is in the field of biblical scholarship does not matter as it pertains to being a professed Christian, atheist, agnostic or whatever. Fact is fact based on the proof presented. This is universally accepted and followed in any school of study! Should one care whether or not an evolutionist who is a scientist has discovered incredible design behind the molecule, yet still accepts evolution as their preferred belief? If a scientist proves, for instance, that three oxygen molecules make up ozone, should we discredit the scientist because he/she hates science?
As mentioned in my earlier statement, of which you profoundly disagree - I have been working the last few years on this subject. And I take into consideration a number of reliable works from old and new testament scholars on the PROOF. And as stated, the question remains.... does a forgery of any particular bible book mean it cannot be inspired? I did not answer the question. But I believe the answer must be a definitive YES, it (or, they) can. Why not!
Next time you wish to challenge my motive, or experience on the subject, I highly recommend you do your due diligence and study the subject as invasively as I have. Otherwise, it may be easily dismissed as fanciful rhetoric with a hint of sarcasm.
I gave you a negative for being obtuse and impolite.
Peace.Reply by rusticshore on 2021-01-14 19:25:03
In the above quote of 1 Peter 2:21,22 . . . For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (ESV)
Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-15 02:14:37
Dear brother Rusticor, I apologise if you took my approach as being obtuse and impolite I did not intend it to be. However we are admonished to take up the sword of the spirit in our spiritual warfare. Yes spiritual warfare! The sword is an offensive weapon, and I went on a spiritual offensive. It may appear as a juxtaposition, but I am unapologetic for wielding the spiritual sword as I think necessary.
So further on your analogy of a musical conductor I think this is a dis-analogy. For example when God purposes for men to know what his word is, He makes sure it is delivered in exactly the manner he intended it. For example we have the occasion where the 10 commandments were written by the finger of God! Yes God did reach out of heaven with his hand, not manipulate men to write his word rather he wrote it himself! So I do not imagine when the Scriptures say men who are carried on by Holy Spirit would be any less controlled by God to ensure that the words or message they dictate are exactly as he intended them. I can hardly imagine God in heaven thinking drat’s! That’s not what I meant to be written! Brrrrr, this will take centuries for the real message to get through and understood!
And brother, with regard to being obtuse, I must say I struggled to understand the point you were making in the last three paragraphs about science, study, evolutionists and molecules etcetera. Could you please explain in another way the point you were making, due to my limited mental ability to grasp the point you were making.
I did not disagree that there have been attempts at forgery and spurious versus being identified, however these are so minuscule and readily apparent that no one should balk at the thought that the Bible is anything less than the word of God, its teachings are inerrant, and we can have implicit faith in it because it has come down to us in a reliable form to a degree of originality and purity that we can trust our lives with it. (In fact the reliability and accuracy is astonishingly miraculous!) And not particularly because we need to use our academic discernment, help from any number of scholars, critics, historians, poets, linguists or other academic disciplines.
Yes all of the above have been involved in the processes of producing the bible as we have it today. But I think of Jesus who said that the "stones would cry out". Luke 19:40. Inanimate matter could be caused to praise Jesus and glorify God! Yet God dignified mankind to have a role in disseminating his word in written form. I am sure that God had matters well in hand in the first instance and throughout history thereafter. And if he did not use inanimate stones, obviously he has used living breathing humans to make corrections, identify minor errors or omissions.
God has given us the scope within which we can use our mental powers and use discernment, but I think in this environment of hypercriticism, we may give ourselves to much license and we could overstep the mark, and merit the wrath of God if we start to pontificate and decide what should or should not be part of the scriptures and make proclamations in that regard as you have. Revelation 22:19. Proverbs 30:6.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-15 10:01:47
Thank you for those insights into the Apocrapha. It would be great to have an article on that subject. Volunteers???
Reply by rusticshore on 2021-01-15 15:22:53
Great idea.
In addition to the key differences that exist between known writings of Paul vs alleged forgeries as it relates to grammatical differences..Perhaps whomever may -
1) Draw the difference between NT Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha
2) Analyze if the writer of Mark was from Palestine by certain passages - most certainly Mark was...was the writer?
3) What schools, if any have been determined to exist by archaeological facts as it pertains to Mark, John, Matthew, Peter and their hometowns? In addition, in ancient times, "whom" generally were educated to read? Was reading and writing taught simultaneously, as it is today?
4) In what manner would "unlettered" (unschooled) people have the ability to seek a Scribe to transcribe?
5) And a plethora of other significant details that may be associated with a meaningful and unbiased approach to understanding this topic.
Eric - I would hit the red minus to spare you the time... But not permitted.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-15 17:04:16
"Eric – I would hit the red minus to spare you the time… But not permitted."
There is no need for that. It demeans you.
Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-18 06:04:01
Dear Rusticshore. I am educating myself with regards to the "lost writings" or Apocrypha as they are described. I am bewildered at this point by the volume of material and the fantastical nature of the writings! Such as from the book of Enoch where it describes Noah's birth. At birth he has white hair, immediately stands up and praises God! Wow wee wow. From your comments above are you suggesting that it should be questioned "whom may be educated" to adjudicate on the veracity of such accounts?
The OT apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, the NT apocrypha and the many and sundry "lost books" like "The Infant Jesus gospel etc all typically read like a sci-fi science fiction novel rather than scripture. My goodness "The infant Jesus gospel" Jesus; as a youngster just keeps on killing people in a childish tantrum! Teachers, school mates, play mates and just about anyone who he feels like on a whim. Yep curses them and they drop dead!
I was wondering what your personal view is of these writings? Do you see value in them? Do you think they belong in the canon? Which ones and how would you decide?
I am compiling information and I was wondering in what context I could present it. I have listened to many different views to date and briefly your views would be appreciated.
Your brother in the faith Alithia.Reply by rusticshore on 2021-01-18 19:37:57
Brother . . . I tend to agree with the score of expert scholars on this subject of the OT apocrypha, as well as the NT apocryphal writings. Indeed, there is far too much in the way of information on this subject, in my estimation, to simply engage in a typical BP commentary . . . not to suggest much research doesn't typically accompany BP commentaries! But the OT and NT apocryphal writings are quite extensive.
But as it pertains to specific NT apocryphal writings - this subject has taken many scholars years upon years of intense study and grammatical evaluation. Whilst I believe the early church forefathers were correct in omitting a sum of the OT and NT apocryphal writings, I do not subscribe to these as having validity at this stage . . .but like you said - the amt of time and books involved is enough to send anyone into a whirlwind of doubt and even confusion. You mention the early years of Jesus, as highlighted in certain apocryphal writings (book of Enoch of the OT, which I have read in full) . . . I believe those to be fraudulent, yes - as most. So, I understand your bewilderment.
That being said, I have focused more on specific writings in the NT biblical record. I have concluded (for myself) that there are writings of an apocryphal nature - but more along the lines of the NT pseudepigraphal writings (pseudonymous writings - basically the same thing in many respects) that contain significant variations in the grammatical text (to known and accepted writings of the credited author) that cannot be ignored. I believe I highlighted several of those in my initial commentary. I believe delving into both the OT and NT apocrypha will take many months, and very well may be nothing more than drilling a hole in water - for lack of a better term, because of the broad nature of research involved in those.
When it comes to the NT Epistles and Gospel, let us be clear, there were those during the Greco-Roman era's which were highly opposed to writings in the name of someone else, and in fact considered by some as reprehensible. But there were those who also believed it was, as with many various books of antiquity, something of an acceptable nature. Pseudonymous approaches to literature of antiquity is nothing new under the sun (as I am sure you know). This was the only point I was making. I was not supporting the typical OT and NT apocryphal writings if that's how I made it sound. If I did . . . that was not my intent.
As it pertain to someone you highlighted in a previous message to me, that is, Bart D Ehrman - I believe he sheds incredible light on the topic as it pertains to the grammatical side of things associated with the various books I had previously mentioned, primarily by Paul and the "unlettered and ordinary" ones. The grammatical differences are compelling.
Our Father (Jah) uses whatever means is necessary to accomplish His will . . . at least to the extent He see's necessary - such as in the case in using the ancient Assyrians to attack Jerusalem, only to destroy them soon after., in addition to other biblical examples. Bart D Erhman has been a formidable debater on the subject of the Trinity, with a definitive and comprehensive approach as to "how" the Trinity became doctrine, how Jesus became God - often lecturing worldwide on the topic, even in the venue of Trinitarian churches - (imagine that!). His three-part series on "How Jesus became God" is worth exploring, and extremely educating. I wonder, may our Father use such ones in the effort to reveal truth, and work to give the historical content of incredibly important topics as the Trinity, resulting in overturning "strongly entrenched things," ... even as an agnostic? I say yes. That is open to opinion.
Whatever you do in your effort to engage this research . . . I beg God's speed be with you! I do not envy you . . . but there are few as qualified as you.
Your Brother,
JohnnyReply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 00:25:27
Nice response Rusticshore, Thanks for confirming what my initial findings are! Your analogy of drilling a hole in the water is a good one. I think as you say, that one can't use a very broad brush across the whole lot to make a point. One needs to examine each one on its own merits. And of course this wouldn't just take months but possibly years!
So I think my approach is for a summary and a schematic outline of the situation rather than drilling down in each book as this appears to be a case of; "there is no end to the number of books and they can be tiresome and wearisome"!
I don't think one should be ignorant about such things as they have occupied considerable time as to their value, however it does not take long to see where the priorities should be when spending time delving into spiritual content.
Even the apostle Paul must have known enough about what he described as; "Fables, tales, and stories that women tell". Referring obviously to the Gnostic and other such ideas that were common at the time. He knew sufficient about them to dismiss them and to be able to encourage the Christians not to be influenced by them. So he must have known sufficiently about them to refute them as a defence of the faith. So I suppose if this is an issue we may take some time to familiarise ourselves with such content so as to know how to answer each one who asks of us a reason for our faith in comparison to the things that might be found in the Apocrypha.
Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-15 18:43:01
Hello Meleti, If only as motivation to become more knowledgeable around the subject, I would like to have the opportunity to compile some of the available information on the subject. ( Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha writings) for future presentation if accepted.)
Hopefully they include the Narnia series by C.S Lewis as I have already read them.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-15 21:04:17
Excellent, Alithia. We can release the info in an article and perhaps even do a video on it.
Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-16 03:58:03
On to it, just need some time to cover the content and produce a summary.
Love to all of the brotherhood from Alithia.
P.S It is nice to see someone of Dr Pentons age still producing worthy content. I can only aspire to having a sharp mind at that age! Well done brother Penton.
Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-20 17:59:51
Thank you Alithia for your comment full of thoughts that I like, especially those in last paragraph. A stubborn effort to explain every detail in the Bible using our limited intellect and lack of information can be trappy. You certainly know why.
Every one of us knows own problematic texts that he/she does not understand or may consider it as incorrect. How many churches in the world have doctrines that contradict each other? How many scholars with different opinions exist? Some even go so far as to declare as incorrect certain passages of Bible or simply omit them because of their human thoughts or doctrines. If everyone were right, how much of the Bible would be left?
Here is my experience. Some time ago, my ex-JW brother claimed that fornication is not a sin. He even wrote a biblical reasoning for it. He did not hesitate to mark special passages from Paul's letters as uninspired because of this, and he tried to prove this using other quotations from Bible, mostly from OT. I had several hot discussions with him, proving to him that 1 + 1 = 2. In the end I did something that I would not even dream of. I wrote a detailed treatise on six A4 pages, where I biblically substantiated that fornication is a sin, while I also omitted Paul's quotes that he marked as unscriptural. In vain, but at least I fought.
Everyone understands things up to certain individual level. (John 16:12). Constantly questioning the Bible, based on our lack of information compared to God, contributes to a loss of trust in God's word and ultimately to a loss of faith. That's why it is trappy. We must realize that unless the Lord comes, we will never understand everything (1 Cor 13:12). Therefore, if someone claims that the Bible contains an error here or there, they should think carefully about what they are saying.
Good verses in the end of your comment. Love to you and all. Frankie