Published August 18, 2008, revised on May 13, 2023 and a version placed on academia.edu.
---
Magic Island, Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)
Fiji (photo from trekearth.com)
Not the same place...
2008 text, revised in 2023
H.D. McDonald explains that God is considered the authority behind the New Testament. God has revealed himself, and therefore the revelation is a key to the Biblical authority. McDonald (1996: 139). J.R. McRay notes that the earliest list of New Testament books with the current twenty-seven appeared in A.D. 367, in a letter to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. McRay (1996: 141).
McRay writes that the formation of the New Testament canon did not come from a council. The council of Nicea in 325 did not discuss canon. McRay (1996: 141). At Carthage in 397 the council deemed the twenty-seven books canon, and that nothing else would be considered New Testament divine Scripture. These twenty-seven books were regarded by consensus as canon. McRay (1996: 141).
W.R.F. Browning explains that canon comes from the Greek word for 'rule' or 'standard'. In both the Old and New Testaments canon formation was gradual and controversial. Browning (1996: 57). Browning notes some New Testament era books were quoted by Church Fathers, although the texts were not canonized. Browning (1996: 57). Jesus Christ's teachings and story was passed along in oral tradition and then eventually written down in the Four Gospels, and sidelined rival versions. Browning (1996: 57). The Epistles from Apostles and their scribes were preserved by the churches and soon formed a collection along with the Gospels. Browning (1996: 57).
Am I overly concerned with the possibility that some inspired texts have been excluded from the New Testament canon? No. The twenty-seven books contain the same core Gospel and theology. Contrary texts have been weeded out by Church Fathers.
Even if an inspired text is missing from the canon, and God has willingly allowed this, which I doubt, the current canon, along with the Hebrew Bible, provides correct history and teaching concerning the Old Testament, the Gospel, primary theological issues, and in my view, with key secondary theological issues.
From:
religion facts
The Importance of Ancient Manuscripts
As seen in the section on Christian texts, the New Testament plays a very central role in Christianity. For most Christians, the New Testament is not only a precious record of the life of Jesus and the apostles, but a divine revelation to mankind on matters of salvation. Christians of all denominations consider the Bible to be the primary authority in determining doctrine, ethics, church structure, and all other religious issues.
This strong reliance on the New Testament is based in part on the religious belief that it was divinely inspired. But it also based on the belief that it is an accurate historical record written by eyewitnesses (and associates of eyewitnesses) who experienced the lives of Jesus and the apostles firsthand. But some have challenged this traditional view, arguing that it was written much later, long after Jesus' original followers were dead and Christianity had transformed into a different religion than the one taught by Jesus of Nazareth.
The debate really comes down to the question: When was the New Testament originally written? And this question leads to another important question: Even if it was written at an early date, how do we know the New Testament that exists today is the same as the original? How do we know the modern translations aren't full of human errors, additional content, or the interpretations of countless human scribes?
Both of these questions are answered within the fields of paleography and textual criticism, which seek to analyze ancient manuscripts of the New Testament to determine their date and accuracy.
The article that follows provides an overview of the most important New Testament manuscripts that have been discovered and outlines the process used to analyze those manuscripts.
The Role of Textual Criticism
No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes."
It is the task of textual criticism, therefore, to study and compare the available manuscripts in order to discern which of the variations conforms the closest to the original. Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, a prominent modern textual critic, describes the role of textual criticism this way:
The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. In other instances, however, the critic can arrive at a decision based on more or less compelling reasons for preferring one reading and rejecting another.
Paleography: Dating Ancient Manuscripts
Of course, the reliability of a given manuscript is based in large part on its age: earlier manuscripts are more likely to be accurate reflections of the original, so they are given more weight than later copies. It is therefore important for textual critics to know the dates of the manuscripts they are analyzing.
Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used in determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's."
The Earliest Extant Manuscripts
Fortunately, textual critics and paleographers have a large number of ancient manuscripts at their disposal, many of which have been found within the last century. Nearly the entire New Testament exists in manuscripts dated to before 300 AD. Other important manuscripts date to the fourth and fifth centuries.
The manuscripts dating from 100 to 300 AD are almost entirely papyrus fragments. These fragments are named with a "P" followed by a number. The vast majority of them were found in Egypt in the twentieth century, and are now kept in various museums and libraries throughout the world, including at Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna.
The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John's greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible.
In addition to the early papyrus fragments, a large number of parchment manuscripts have been found that date from 300 AD onward. These are usually named for the place in which they were discovered and are abbreviated by a letter or sometimes a number. The manuscripts A/02 (Codex Alexandrinus), B/03 (Codex Vaticanus), and Sin./01 (Codex Sinaiticus) contain nearly complete sets of the New Testament. By comparing these to the earlier papyrus fragments, they have been shown to be quite reliable.
Codex Vaticanus (B), the earliest of the great parchment manuscripts at about 300 AD, has resided in the Vatican since the middle ages and remains there today. It is one of the most important manuscripts for textual criticism.
Codex Sinaiticus (Sin.) dates to about 350 AD. It was discovered in 1844 in a monastery on Mount Sinai by a Russian. After some resistance, he persuaded the resident monks to allow him to take it to St. Petersburg. On Christmas Eve, 1933, the Soviet government sold it to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds. It was put on permanent display in the British Library, where it still resides, along with other early biblical manuscripts.
Codex Alexandrinus (A), dating to circa 450 AD, was transferred from the Christian library in Alexandria to the British Library in the seventeenth century, where it still resides today. The Catholic Encyclopedia details its history:
Codex A was the first of the great uncials to become known to the learned world. When Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria, was transferred in 1621 to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he is believed to have brought the codex with him. Later he sent it as a present to King James I of England; James died before the gift was presented, and Charles I, in 1627, accepted it in his stead. It is now the chief glory of the British Museum in its manuscript department and is on exhibition there.
British Museum Pamphlet on the Codex Sinaiticus
Philip W. Comfort, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts.
C.C. Edgar, Select Papyri.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (1992). Full text is available online at Questia Online Library.
Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Paleography.
E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (1987).
G. Cavallo & H. Maehler, Greek bookhands of the early Byzantine period, A.D. 300-800 (1987).
Leighton Reynolds, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature.
C.H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands (1956). On the dating of manuscripts with the aid of contemporary documents.
J. Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1974). W.H.P. Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (1939).
H.J.M. Milne & T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (1938).
D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (1992). On the idiosyncratic manuscript D.
C.H. Roberts, Manuscript Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (1979).
G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (1956): on P46
The divine inspiration of Scripture was noted as important. God revealed the Gospel message. The New Testament is not full of mythological stories of clearly fictional characters, but actual people that existed. Some of these received revelation from God, and some knew Jesus Christ personally.
The same group of people discussed within the New Testament, is also the group that produced the Scripture, and therefore New Testament is historically grounded on eyewitness testimony, and associates of eyewitnesses.
Since every manuscript contains scribal errors, we can conclude the copies are not equal to the original inspired letters. This does not mean that we have to abandon the Biblical idea of inspired Scripture. I hold to the concept of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God for teaching, and training.
Scribal errors do not equate with theological errors, and therefore they do not eradicate or change the New Testament’s essential doctrines.
There are enough New Testament documents extant that scholars would know if certain schools of manuscripts contained serious differences in theology from other schools. This is why as Christians we do not need to take seriously the claims of critics that state that lost or hidden New Testament era documents from the group of eyewitnesses contradict the ones found in the New Testament.
The manuscript evidence supports the fact that there are scribal errors in the documents, but does not support the idea of major theological differences between different groups of manuscripts.
My theory of inspiration would include the idea that God inspired the original New Testament documents written by those within the group of Christ and the Apostles. Since the documents would eventually physically disintegrate, God would have to use supernatural means to maintain the original documents. The idea of God using some kind of supernatural force field to maintain the documents as good as new does not seem in line with how God works in our world over a long period. God allowed the originals to be destroyed or lost, and instead maintained his Scripture through copying.
Magic Island, Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)
Fiji (photo from trekearth.com)
Not the same place...
2008 text, revised in 2023
H.D. McDonald explains that God is considered the authority behind the New Testament. God has revealed himself, and therefore the revelation is a key to the Biblical authority. McDonald (1996: 139). J.R. McRay notes that the earliest list of New Testament books with the current twenty-seven appeared in A.D. 367, in a letter to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. McRay (1996: 141).
McRay writes that the formation of the New Testament canon did not come from a council. The council of Nicea in 325 did not discuss canon. McRay (1996: 141). At Carthage in 397 the council deemed the twenty-seven books canon, and that nothing else would be considered New Testament divine Scripture. These twenty-seven books were regarded by consensus as canon. McRay (1996: 141).
W.R.F. Browning explains that canon comes from the Greek word for 'rule' or 'standard'. In both the Old and New Testaments canon formation was gradual and controversial. Browning (1996: 57). Browning notes some New Testament era books were quoted by Church Fathers, although the texts were not canonized. Browning (1996: 57). Jesus Christ's teachings and story was passed along in oral tradition and then eventually written down in the Four Gospels, and sidelined rival versions. Browning (1996: 57). The Epistles from Apostles and their scribes were preserved by the churches and soon formed a collection along with the Gospels. Browning (1996: 57).
Am I overly concerned with the possibility that some inspired texts have been excluded from the New Testament canon? No. The twenty-seven books contain the same core Gospel and theology. Contrary texts have been weeded out by Church Fathers.
Even if an inspired text is missing from the canon, and God has willingly allowed this, which I doubt, the current canon, along with the Hebrew Bible, provides correct history and teaching concerning the Old Testament, the Gospel, primary theological issues, and in my view, with key secondary theological issues.
From:
religion facts
The Importance of Ancient Manuscripts
As seen in the section on Christian texts, the New Testament plays a very central role in Christianity. For most Christians, the New Testament is not only a precious record of the life of Jesus and the apostles, but a divine revelation to mankind on matters of salvation. Christians of all denominations consider the Bible to be the primary authority in determining doctrine, ethics, church structure, and all other religious issues.
This strong reliance on the New Testament is based in part on the religious belief that it was divinely inspired. But it also based on the belief that it is an accurate historical record written by eyewitnesses (and associates of eyewitnesses) who experienced the lives of Jesus and the apostles firsthand. But some have challenged this traditional view, arguing that it was written much later, long after Jesus' original followers were dead and Christianity had transformed into a different religion than the one taught by Jesus of Nazareth.
The debate really comes down to the question: When was the New Testament originally written? And this question leads to another important question: Even if it was written at an early date, how do we know the New Testament that exists today is the same as the original? How do we know the modern translations aren't full of human errors, additional content, or the interpretations of countless human scribes?
Both of these questions are answered within the fields of paleography and textual criticism, which seek to analyze ancient manuscripts of the New Testament to determine their date and accuracy.
The article that follows provides an overview of the most important New Testament manuscripts that have been discovered and outlines the process used to analyze those manuscripts.
The Role of Textual Criticism
No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes."
It is the task of textual criticism, therefore, to study and compare the available manuscripts in order to discern which of the variations conforms the closest to the original. Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, a prominent modern textual critic, describes the role of textual criticism this way:
The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. In other instances, however, the critic can arrive at a decision based on more or less compelling reasons for preferring one reading and rejecting another.
Paleography: Dating Ancient Manuscripts
Of course, the reliability of a given manuscript is based in large part on its age: earlier manuscripts are more likely to be accurate reflections of the original, so they are given more weight than later copies. It is therefore important for textual critics to know the dates of the manuscripts they are analyzing.
Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used in determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's."
The Earliest Extant Manuscripts
Fortunately, textual critics and paleographers have a large number of ancient manuscripts at their disposal, many of which have been found within the last century. Nearly the entire New Testament exists in manuscripts dated to before 300 AD. Other important manuscripts date to the fourth and fifth centuries.
The manuscripts dating from 100 to 300 AD are almost entirely papyrus fragments. These fragments are named with a "P" followed by a number. The vast majority of them were found in Egypt in the twentieth century, and are now kept in various museums and libraries throughout the world, including at Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna.
The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John's greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible.
In addition to the early papyrus fragments, a large number of parchment manuscripts have been found that date from 300 AD onward. These are usually named for the place in which they were discovered and are abbreviated by a letter or sometimes a number. The manuscripts A/02 (Codex Alexandrinus), B/03 (Codex Vaticanus), and Sin./01 (Codex Sinaiticus) contain nearly complete sets of the New Testament. By comparing these to the earlier papyrus fragments, they have been shown to be quite reliable.
Codex Vaticanus (B), the earliest of the great parchment manuscripts at about 300 AD, has resided in the Vatican since the middle ages and remains there today. It is one of the most important manuscripts for textual criticism.
Codex Sinaiticus (Sin.) dates to about 350 AD. It was discovered in 1844 in a monastery on Mount Sinai by a Russian. After some resistance, he persuaded the resident monks to allow him to take it to St. Petersburg. On Christmas Eve, 1933, the Soviet government sold it to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds. It was put on permanent display in the British Library, where it still resides, along with other early biblical manuscripts.
Codex Alexandrinus (A), dating to circa 450 AD, was transferred from the Christian library in Alexandria to the British Library in the seventeenth century, where it still resides today. The Catholic Encyclopedia details its history:
Codex A was the first of the great uncials to become known to the learned world. When Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria, was transferred in 1621 to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he is believed to have brought the codex with him. Later he sent it as a present to King James I of England; James died before the gift was presented, and Charles I, in 1627, accepted it in his stead. It is now the chief glory of the British Museum in its manuscript department and is on exhibition there.
British Museum Pamphlet on the Codex Sinaiticus
Philip W. Comfort, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts.
C.C. Edgar, Select Papyri.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (1992). Full text is available online at Questia Online Library.
Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Paleography.
E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (1987).
G. Cavallo & H. Maehler, Greek bookhands of the early Byzantine period, A.D. 300-800 (1987).
Leighton Reynolds, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature.
C.H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands (1956). On the dating of manuscripts with the aid of contemporary documents.
J. Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1974). W.H.P. Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (1939).
H.J.M. Milne & T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (1938).
D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (1992). On the idiosyncratic manuscript D.
C.H. Roberts, Manuscript Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (1979).
G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (1956): on P46
The divine inspiration of Scripture was noted as important. God revealed the Gospel message. The New Testament is not full of mythological stories of clearly fictional characters, but actual people that existed. Some of these received revelation from God, and some knew Jesus Christ personally.
The same group of people discussed within the New Testament, is also the group that produced the Scripture, and therefore New Testament is historically grounded on eyewitness testimony, and associates of eyewitnesses.
Since every manuscript contains scribal errors, we can conclude the copies are not equal to the original inspired letters. This does not mean that we have to abandon the Biblical idea of inspired Scripture. I hold to the concept of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God for teaching, and training.
Scribal errors do not equate with theological errors, and therefore they do not eradicate or change the New Testament’s essential doctrines.
There are enough New Testament documents extant that scholars would know if certain schools of manuscripts contained serious differences in theology from other schools. This is why as Christians we do not need to take seriously the claims of critics that state that lost or hidden New Testament era documents from the group of eyewitnesses contradict the ones found in the New Testament.
The manuscript evidence supports the fact that there are scribal errors in the documents, but does not support the idea of major theological differences between different groups of manuscripts.
My theory of inspiration would include the idea that God inspired the original New Testament documents written by those within the group of Christ and the Apostles. Since the documents would eventually physically disintegrate, God would have to use supernatural means to maintain the original documents. The idea of God using some kind of supernatural force field to maintain the documents as good as new does not seem in line with how God works in our world over a long period. God allowed the originals to be destroyed or lost, and instead maintained his Scripture through copying.
2023 text
In other words, there is no ancient, perfectly maintained, divinely or otherwise, set of ancient religious manuscripts based on the missing autographs, i.e. contrary to the views of some within the King James Only movement, and by many within Orthodox Islam.
Cited
The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible.
Cited
Sometimes these beliefs are also based on the view that the King James translation itself was inspired by God.
I snipped my citations from this website as I could not copy and paste...
There is no perfect, original version of the Quran extant...
---
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
MCDONALD, H.D. (1996) ‘Bible, Authority of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Ronald McJoker
MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Ronald McJoker
In regards to the preservation of Scripture, you made an interesting point that God preserved His Message through copies rather than by incredibly preserving the original texts which seems somewhat contrary to the way the world works.
ReplyDelete-Just a Thought-
Nowadays, more could be done to preserve original texts. For example, comic collectors can bag and board issues, or place them in sealed plastic cases.
ReplyDeleteThanks very much.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing this information to us.
I would like to add, Hermanutics is a good indicator to the validity of scripture. Not only does this process of interpretation refer back to the Old Testament, but within the New Testament. It allows for us to view customs and make comparisons that demonstrate a change.
My last two post were dealing with some of Isaiah 35:1. Happiness in the O.T. having taking on a new 'attitude' in the N.T. due to Christ having come, died and having been resurrected. In Philippians, "Rejoice" is seen in contrast to 'rejoice' in Isaiah 35. And Paul says in Philippians, be anxious for nothing, in contrast to the fear of dying in the grave of O.T. generations.
A little off topic. But, the idea is to be able to make these comparisons in our Bible as part of validating the Text.
Thanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteWonderful post.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this great stuff with us.
I and the family enjoyed the poster of McDonalds.
I thought it was hilarious.
Thanks, Preacherman.
ReplyDeleteYes, imagine the food Ronald McJoker would serve.
Hi Russ, your post reminded me of the scripture in Mt. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. Good post! Just curious has God ever put you in position to speak to an atheist?
ReplyDeleteThanks, very much, Tammy.
ReplyDeleteI have talked to some atheists. There was one atheist commenting on this blog several months ago.
Most non-Christians I meet in BC are secularists.
Russ:)
That's great! I beleive you would do well conversing with an atheist maybe even be used by God to possibly persuade Him that there is a God!
ReplyDeleteCheers, Tammy.
ReplyDeleteBy God's leading I can share what I have learned Biblically, theologically, and philosophically.
I reason God is leading me to help others, and to keep learning.
Russ:)
I'll have to come back and really read this when I'm not getting sleepy - but I love the Ronald McJoker :) I'm proud to say I haven't eaten under the arches in over three years!
ReplyDeleteBut Amanda, he could make you a McHappy meal.:)
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Russ
Funny Russ.
ReplyDeleteAmanda, Are you telling us that you began the boycott three years before American Family Association?
I know you just said you are getting sleepy. Post pone your answer for tomorrow. We'll be here. If you are polite and keep answering, you are at a disadvantage because Russ lives in British Columbia Canada. He stays up late too. You will end up suffering from something like jet lag.
Jim
Yes Jim, I am a horrible person to emulate, with my sleep apnea and all.:) I do funny hours.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I appreciate the comments.
Jim and Vicki
On commenting
Since I have my own blogs to work on, links to comment on, and new blogs to look for, I do not personally comment in archives often. I email out archived links from my blogs when someone like Dan wants to argue and I leave it up to my readers if they want to comment.
They may be too busy and trash the email. I do not take it personally.
Yes, I do not expect everyone to respond to me every time. By the way, I hope Dan takes the hint and does return. He is teetering on trolldom.
I mentioned scanning previously in emails, but will touch on it again. When I comment after scanning an article and getting an idea of what it is about, I may pick one idea from the work (overlooking others I have viewed) and deal with that concept. This allows me to write many accurate comments from blogs in a reasonable amount of time. If I was to read all the articles from 60+ blogs 3 or 4 times for near maximal understanding of entire posts, I would not be able to leave many comments, because of time restraints and fatigue, which would hurt many of us involved in networking who want comments. I would also likely receive fewer comments in return and fewer links.
I have told Jeff via private email several times my theory that comments generate interest and so when a stranger sees a blog with 0s by article comments they may think no one cares about this blog and so what should I? Good bye!
I would much prefer many comments with scan reads than very few comments with very thorough reads of let's face it, my numerous tedious, but I hope important articles. And besides who wants constant dialogue and debate with long comments, most of us do not have the time, and to be blunt, even when one knows more than the other person, it is still very time consuming to debate and often it is a big pain!
I hope this clarifies my views for you, Jim.
Cheers.
Russ:)
That is the creepiest McDonald's picture I have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteThe Dead Sea Scrolls are a testament to the fact that the Scriptures have been accurately preserved throughout the ages. The minor textual errors (often no more than the equivalent of forgetting to dot an "i") do not affect the doctrine one bit.
ReplyDeleteNo other book or collection of books in the world even come close to the Bible as far as manuscript evidence.
Even if we had no copies of Scripture in existence at all, most or all of it could be re-created just by the old Hymns and writings of the Church Fathers alone.
Archeology has proved the context of the Bible again and again. In fact, in some cases where the Bible and Archeology have conflicted (for example, where the Bible would name cities, and yet no archaeological evidence had been found of any such city up to that point), later archaeological finds have proven the Bible correct.
According to some, the existent Hebrew Matthew may be evidence that the Gospels were written in Hebrew before they were written in Greek.
Ronald McJoker: 'Mr. Jenkins, you deserve a break today at McJokers'.
ReplyDelete'At McJokers, we do it all for you, Mr. Jenkins.
According to some, the existent Hebrew Matthew may be evidence that the Gospels were written in Hebrew before they were written in Greek.
ReplyDeleteThat would be fascinating if true.
But, I will believe it when I see it, so to speak.:)
Thank you, Jeff.
Russ said,
ReplyDelete"The manuscript evidence supports the fact that there are scribal errors in the documents, but does not support the idea of major theological differences between different groups of manuscripts".
Certainly, I am not an etimologist or a contextual critic. However, I find your statement, above to be true. This is why I don't make theological complaints of the scripture. It is only natural to read the Bible and find it is consistent, theologically throughout.
My theological complaints have more to do with doctrinal issues. For example, Nazarenes beleive in the outgrowth of love from holiness.
I say, holiness is the result of our obedience to the two most important commands and the Holy Spirit.
We have had some brief discussion on certain words that I don't believe will ever be changed.
One word, is "command" from John 13:35. Jesus can not possibly be saying "A new command I give to you...". If it is first stated in Leviticus 19:18. So, with a closer look at the Greek word for this 'command' and understanding that Jesus was fulfilling the Law to grant as an account to those who will accept His becoming a sacrifice on our behalf, we can see that Jesus is asking only two things of us: Faith in Him, and Love for One Another.
And by the way, the last time I stated this, I did not feel that you read my intent correctly.
My intent is to state as Paul stated: "The only thing that matters, is faith (in Jesus Christ to save us) expressing itself in 'love' (Love for one another which moves us toward a separation from the ways of the world toward a standard that God had asked us to abide by).
God said, be holy as I Am Holy.
Jesus said, love is the fulfillment of the law.
Paul said the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself in love.
James said, faith with out works is dead.
Jesus said of the two most important commands, all of the Law and the prophets hang on these two commands.
So, the New Testament has confirmed Christ atoning work. However, it has amplified the importance of love as a command, or a new law. A new law in the way of saying, Christ gives us an account of His righteousness and commands us to do only two things:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Christ further states in Matthew 25, if you love the least of these brothers of His, then you have loved Him. If you have not loved the least of these brothers of His, you have not loved Him.
James ask, "how can you say you love God, but hate your broter?".
James refers to this as a "Royal Law".
I know I can go on in siting the many different verses that say that love is a necessity for holiness which leads to eternal life (Rom. 6:19-23).
In fact, Hebrews 12:14 says "without holiness, noone will see the lord". This is in reference to our personal interaction with one another, as it comes off of a statement of doing all you can to get along with one another.
Russ,
I fell into this mode of driving my point home. I guess because of your mention of Theological accuracy. If the Bible says so many things about how important love is, why are there so many opinions to what each of the above statements I in the bible says about love? And why do so many Christians prefer to argue the importance of love, being of holiness, rather than believe it? Is it because they feel incapable of love?
Thanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteWe are definitely told to love others, as in Matthew 22, and Mark 12. We are told this, in part, as our still sinful natures will tend to lead us not to love others as we love ourselves.
Sanctification is a process and one's love for God and others should grow as one turns from sinfulness.
And by the way, the last time I stated this, I did not feel that you read my intent correctly.
Jim, when bloggers write articles we are not always going to completely understand each other. As I have stated, work on clarity and learn and read from a variety of sources.
Many times my articles are not completely understood by my readers.
If we disagree with another, let us just state we disagree, and avoid dealing with whether or not so and so understood us. I state this because it seems to come up too much.
Sometimes, I will likely understand the basics of what someone is stating, but not every point. This could be because of lack of clarity. Sometimes I will disagree and make comments, and sometimes not.
My intent is to state as Paul stated: "The only thing that matters, is faith (in Jesus Christ to save us) expressing itself in 'love' (Love for one another which moves us toward a separation from the ways of the world toward a standard that God had asked us to abide by).
I do not agree that it is the only thing that matters Jim. As we grow in our love for God and others we should also grow in theological understanding of God.
Russ:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteIf you do not agree that this is the only thing that matters, you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with Paul.
If Paul were to come to this generation, I think he would need to take a course to understand what it was he intended for us to understand him saying. (I just thought it would be fun to say this. But true in some cases).
It must be my parenthetical statement that is throwing you off. Let's ammend that statement. Instead of saying (Love for one another which moves us toward a separation from the ways of the world toward a standard that God had asked us to abide by). Let's include love for God in this statement as well as love for others. Then, our desire to understand God is included in this statement.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteIf you do not agree that this is the only thing that matters, you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with Paul.
Nonsense Jim, nonsense. You are not academically qualified to make the statement.
And which statement of Paul is this in the Bible? Again you lack clarity. Please do not expect me to remember everything you have written on your blogs.
Paul does not state that the only thing that matters is love. Love is crucial in all things, yes. Love is crucial in understanding theology in a Christ-like way.
In 2 Timothy 2: 15
2 Timothy 2:15 (New International Version)
15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
Biblical and theological understanding is also important.
Your approach lacks a substantial education background, although I do respect your efforts. I reason you are depending too much on your own somewhat private Biblical interpretations and now are trying to defend yourself.
You are like a bulldog who won't give up. But, I am a bulldog as well and I reason that at this point our debating is fruitless.
Take my advice and learn more from others, Jim. I am not going to continue with this type of dialogue with you where you are determined to prove your agenda and then come at me with these incorrect statements.
We can stay linked, but I have had enough of your approach and unwillingness to back down in humility. Instead you charge.
So that is it.
Russ:)
Since the discussion is over, I am not publishing Jim's comment, but I am going to prove my point here.
ReplyDeleteJim states in the unpublished comment:
Russ,
In Galatians 5:6, Paul says, "the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself in love"
WRONG.
I am looking it up from my NASB, and it states:
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor circumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
From 'The Interlinear KJV-NIV Greek (1975):
Translated rough in text:
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision anything avails nor uncircumcision, but faith through love operating.
Jim is using the verse out of context.
The comparison is with faith in love in contrast to circumcision or not.
F. Ray Coad states concerning 5:6
It is the reality that matters, not the form of faith, when worked out into practical and tangible reality. Coad (1996: 1425).
COAD, RAY F. (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
We can never attain holiness by our own works. But by our faith in Christ, His holiness has been credited to us, and therefore, we become holy in position when we accept Christ by faith. This is how we get to Heaven: only because we have the righteousness of Christ attributed to us through faith.
ReplyDeleteAnd, we can only love others as Christ would have us love others (and God), after we have been made holy by the blood of Christ.
We can never attain holiness by our own works.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
I agree.
Romans 1: 17
Romans 4-5
Galatians 2
Ephesians 2: 8-10
Russ,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should post an article contrasting Antinomian Theology (free grace) vs. works salvation, since they are at opposite extremes, and are both fallacious.
A salvation prayer is not magic words; the heart attitude is what counts, not the words repeated.
There are false converts who went through the motions, but there was never any regeneration. There are also people who have grown up in the church, or who may have been baptized, or maybe their dad was a Pastor, etc., but they are no more children of God than the unbelieving Jews were spiritual children of Abraham.
At the other extreme, no amount of good works can ever make us holy.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned Galatians 2. Verse 21 is excellent. "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Maybe you should post an article contrasting Antinomian Theology (free grace) vs. works salvation, since they are at opposite extremes, and are both fallacious.
ReplyDeleteJeff, thanks, please feel free to post related.
Russ:)
The trouble is with many of these books, that were weeded out, is they are still giving rise and have been since time imemorial mostly, to heresies which remain rife, and at times there are resurgences of the same old heresies in an effor to question or cast doubt over the authenticity and authority of the Scriptures!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you; that so much trouble has been taken for God's Word to be perserved, over so long a time, its all perfectly within God's providence, and what He wanted preserved will be no matter what. This is one of those things, where it looks like man makes all the effor to do so, yet its very much under the rule of a Sovereign God. And His Word will be preserved no matter what. Time and history testifies to that too.
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteI've been busy trying to get ready for Sunday (it usually doesn't take me this long! :-) and just got around to reading this post.
This is the one area of Theological study (if that's what I can call it) that I really don't care for. I mean...I've tried to study these things out, but I get very board with it. Is that wrong? I can't even get through the cursory material contained in my various "intro" books.
It's not that I think a study of the manuscript evidence may shake my faith, or that it is not important...it just doesn't interest me at the moment. I believe that the manuscripts are reliable and that we have the preserved Word of God...and that's enough for me.
But I was able to get through your post :-) and, surprisingly, I did find it to be pretty interesting. Maybe I'll get out my books and see if I can actually finish some of the chapters dealing with manuscript evidence!
Oh...and I'm with Jeff...that is the "creepiest McDonalds picture" I've ever seen as well!
GGM
Thank you, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to Scripture:
I think we need to both accept the fact there are scribal errors in the copies, and that the originals were inspired by God in revelation and written by persons that experienced God supernaturally.
The Scripture is historical religious (academically speaking), documentation.
Happy weekend.
Russ:)
Thanks, GGM.
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert on manuscript evidence. Here Biblical studies meet archaeology I suppose, but some knowledge is important for theology and apologetics.
What I have learned fits nicely with my worldview.
Do not feel to bad, one day I was reviewing an earlier satire and theology article on this topic with a well-known local Old Testament scholar and expert on Biblical Greek and Hebrew, and he told me he could not remember much about it as he not looked at it in awhile. In reality, I can see that it is a discipline somewhat separate from linguistics. I had a New Testament Greek teacher that knew Greek manuscript evidence very well, that was clearly not a theologian. I have had a Dead Sea Scrolls professor who is likely one of the foremost experts in the world on Biblical manuscript evidence tell me several times, 'I am not a theologian'. He would not discuss theology in depth!
So, we all have a lot to learn, and I have a lot to learn!
Russ:)
Excuse the shameless plug ;-) But I posted a little on manuscripts tonight, mostly on the extra Biblical, Papist books.
ReplyDeleteThat is fine, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteRuss