Browsed by
Category: Bible Canon

IS THE BOOK OF JONAH HISTORY OR FICTION?

IS THE BOOK OF JONAH HISTORY OR FICTION?

How does the Bible picture the modern church?Critical scholars say the book of Jonah is fiction. 

“A light satire, with no prentions to being historical . . . This fictional form is unique in the prophetic tradition”—Catholic commentary on Jonah

“There are convincing reasons why the book cannot be historical”—Dictionary of the Bible, by John L McKenzie

“Jesus replied, ‘Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. The people of Nineveh will stand up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, for they repented of their sins at the preaching of Jonah. Now someone greater than Jonah is here–but you refuse to repent'”—Matthew 12:39-41 NLT (also, see Matthew 16:4 and Luke 11:29,30,32). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, regarded the book of Jonah as historical, and beneficial. So did Bible writers Matthew and Luke. read more

The Fixed New Testament Text – a Huge Problem for Trinitarianism!

The Fixed New Testament Text – a Huge Problem for Trinitarianism!

The fixed New testament Text has been a huge problem for Trinitarianism.

“Command certain people not to teach false doctrines”—1 Timothy 1:3 NIV

Since the Trinity Doctrine is said to be the main, or primary, teaching, of Christianity, why is it so disputed down to this day?

Accurate history tells us that:

(1) Various Trinities were taught and believed in many pagan religions prior to Jesus, going all the way back to ancient Babylon, 3,000 years before Christ!

(2) The Bible’s Old Testament canon closed about 400 BCE, saying nothing about any Trinity, or Trinitarian ideas..

(3) The Bible’s New Testament canon closed about 100 CE, also lacking any mention of any Trinity, or Trinitarian ideas.

(4) The Greek New Testament Master Refined Text became even more strongly fixed than ever during the latter part of the 20th century, with the publication of the Nestle-Aland (N-A) 26th Edition (now in its 28th Edition) and the United Bible Societies’ (UBS) 3rd Edition (now in its 5th Edition). These two independently done Greek Texts are now identical. They are based upon collation and critical anaylsis of the 5,800 extant New Testament manuscripts, some of which are dated to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries CE.

(5) The integrity of the New Testament (NT) Text we have today is so far greater than anything else from ancient times that there is nothing anywhere close to it in textual integrity. This is what we would expect from “the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

(6) It can truly be said of Christianity that it is a textually based religion. It is “written down,” “with paper and ink” (John 21:25; 2 John 14 NLT). The popular myth that the text of the Bible has been changed through handwritten copying and recopying through the centuries is unsupported by the facts.

(7) It was accurately predicted that “men will come forward perverting the truth” (Acts 20:30 NAB). However, the fixed Biblical text has served as a powerful safeguard against doctrinal changes.

(8) The Trinity doctrine, as we know it today, with the three in one idea, did not even appear on the scene until late in the 4th century CE, and was greatly disputed then, and it still is.

From the Bible we learn that:

(1) Jesus based his teachings upon the scriptures. “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44 NIV), which is the way the entire Old Testament was referred to in those days.

(2) The early Christian Church based its decisions upon the Scriptures—Acts 15:12-18

(3) The early individual Christians based their teachings entirely on the Scriptures— “He reasoned with them from the Scriptures . . . they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:2,3,11 NIV). Also see Acts 28:23.

(4) Teaching “different doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3 ESV), or “false doctrines” (1 Timothy 1:3 NIV), was/were not allowed.

(5) Teaching “a different Jesus”, or “a different gospel” was not allowed—2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT; Galatians 1:6 NIV; NAB

(6) Going “beyond what is written in the scriptures” was not allowed—1 Corinthians 4:6 GWT

(7) “Speculations” were not allowed—Timothy 1:4 NIV

(8) The Church was to “test” (1 John 4:1 NIV), and “weigh carefully, what is said” ( 1 Corinthians 14:29 NIV)

(9) The fixed text of the Bible, especially the New Testament, serves as a safeguard against “all kinds of strange teachings” (Hebrews 13:9 NIV)

(10) A false doctrine might take hold for a while, but the Bible’s fixed text tends to bring the true Biblical teachings back into focus. “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers in the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV). This is the reason for the huge controversy over Trinitarian doctrine today. A false doctrine, such as the Trinity, is developed through a ‘distortion of the scriptures’ (2 Peter 3:15,16).

(11) “The faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones” (Jude 3 NAB) was in written form with the completion of the New Testament by the end of the 1st century. This, and other scriptures, implies that there is nothing “add to” it (Proverbs 30:5,6 NIV). In fact God has preserved his word, like nothing else has ever been preserved. “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV). This fixed New Testament text serves as a safeguard against any doctrinal changes. It is true that unscriptural doctrinal changes, such as the Trinity, have been made, but “because of the truth,” “those who love the truth,” (2 John 1,2reject them, and stick with what the Bible itself teaches.

This fixed text of the Bible, especially the New Testament, is why the Trinity is so disputed, and is, in fact, contradicted, by the Bible itself.

Not one aspect of the Trinity doctrine is found within the Biblical text itself.

Some c=&0=& translations=&1=& rendered in=&2=& (KJV),=&3=& in a way that seems to support the Trinity doctrine. This is because they were based on texts composed from manuscripts that had spurious changes.

For example, the words “testify in heaven: the =&4=&were added to 1 John 5:7,8These words have been used to “prove” the Trinity doctrine. However, textual criticism revealed that these words are not in any Greek manuscript prior to the 14th century, so they are obviously spurious.

The KJV translation of 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifested in the flesh,” was based on a corrupted text, which would seem to support the Trinity doctrine. Discoveries of older, more accurate Greek manucsripts, combined with modern textual analysis revealed that the most ancient copies read: “Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is =&5=&

John 1:1 is a favorite go-to “proof text” of Trinitarians. The usual translation in English is: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  However, Koine’ Greek language doesn’t have the indefinite articles “a” and “an.” The Greek of John 1:1 reads, “the Word was with the God, and the Word was divine” (AAT). This is a big difference! Jesus was with THE God, that is, Almighty God, in heaven, prior to his coming to earth. The footnote to John 1:1 in the New American Bible (NAB) is quite informative: “Was God: lack of a definite article in Greek signifies predication rather identification.” Predication describes something about the subject. Jesus is godlike, but he’s not Almighty God. Once again, the Greek text, rather than Trinitarian spin, helps us to get the correct understanding. John 1:18correctly translated, is a big help to understanding John 1:1“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father; He has explained Him” (NASB). Since lots of people saw Jesus, he could not be God, because, “no one has ever seen God” (1 John 4:12 NIV). Jesus is called “God”, but he is begotten, meaning he was created. He did not exist prior to his creation. His “origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2 NIV). Trinitarians don’t like this, so many translations render John 1:18 differently. But the Greek text trumps biased translations.

John 8:58 is usually rendered as, “before Abraham was born, I am” (NIV). Trinitarians claim this connects Jesus to being the “I am” of Exodus 3:14However, the Greek is more accurately rendered as “I existed before Abraham was born” (AAT), or the slightly less accurate, “before Abraham was even born, I have always been alive” (NLT margin).

Acts 20:28 is often translated in a way that indicates that God died for our sins: “The church of God, which He purchased with His own blood” (NASB). However, since “No one has ever seen God” (1 John 4:12), and he is “eternal” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV), and “the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7 NAB), the Greek text of Acts 20:28 is better translated as: “The church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (NRSV).

The fixed New Testament text helps with Romans 9:5“Theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever” (NAB). This is often translated with Trinitarian bias, such as, “the Messiah, who is God over all” (NIV). The NAB footnote clarifies the Greek,  by explaining, “However, Paul’s point is that ‘God who is over all’ aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every =&6=&The usual translation of, “the Messiah, who is God over all,” contradicts the Trinity doctrine anyway, because, “in this Trinity . . . none is greater, or less, than another. But the whole three Persons are . . . coequal” (Athanasian Creed). If Jesus was God over all, that would include being “over” the Father and the holy Spirit.

Another Trintarian favorite is Philippians 2:5,6“Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God” (NKJV).  The Greek text, however, reads: “Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not =&7=&

Titus 2:13 is usually rendered as “of our great God and savior =&8=&which makes it appear that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. However, since Paul offered greetings “from God the Father and Jesus Christ our savior” (NAB), it is obvious that Paul did not mean that Jesus is Almighty God. The more accurate translation is, “of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ” (NAB; NRSV margin).

2 Peter 1:1 is likewise rendered as though Jesus Christ is Almighty God in most translations: “Through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ”. However, the Greek is more accurately translated as: “the righteousness of our God and the savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1 NAB margin; NRSV margin; KJV; ASV; Weymouth; Aramaic Bible in Plain English).

The=&9=& renderings=&10=& modern refined Greek Texts, such as the N-A and UBS, upon which many modern=&11=&

The Early Acceptance of Revelation

The Early Acceptance of Revelation

 

The Book of Revelation is without doubt the most complicated, controversial, and esoteric of the entire Bible! Some even doubt that it should even be in the Bible at all, and assert that its place in the Bible Canon was controversial from the start. This is false. Why? The early acceptance of Revelation by the Christian Church is proof that the book is divinely inspired.

  • We have early, widespread and consistent reception of Revelation. Papias (c 125), Justin Martyr, Irenaus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen all accepted Revelation as authentic. That’s impressive! Every one of these accepted Revelation as inspired, on the basis that John, the apostle was the recorder. B W Bacon was so impressed with the initial widespread acceptance of Revelation, that he wrote: “There is no other book in the entire NT whose external attestation can compare with that of Revelation, in nearness, clearness, defintiteness, and positiveness of statement” (The Making of the New Testament, 190).
  • Objections to Revelation were later and limited. Gaius in the early 3rd century rejected Revelation, thinking it was a forgery of the apostate Cerinthus. This is the first real objection.
  • Objections to Revelation were not on any historical basis. Gaius rejected the literal millennnial reign of Christ, so he thought the reference in chapter 20 of such had to be a product of the apostate Cerinthus.
  • Any such objections were resolved early. It was accepted by the synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), by Philastrius of Brescia (c 385), Rufinus of Aquuilia (c 404), Jerome ( c 414), and Augustine (c 426). They accepted Revelation as authentic because it was accepted by the early Christians as authentic.
  • There are many quotations from Revelation by early writers, who quoted it as being authentic.
  • The writings of the Apostles were viewed as authentic (Jude 17,18; 2 Peter 3:15,16).
  • read more

    Apocrypha – Inspired by God or Invented by Humans?

    Apocrypha – Inspired by God or Invented by Humans?

    What is the source of the Apocrypha?

    “I shall bring my work to an end here too. If it is well composed and to the point, that is just what I wanted. If it is worthless and mediocre, that is all I could manage”—2 Maccabees 15:37,38 NJB

    The writer of the Apocryphal book 2 Maccabees, in effect, seems to admit that he is not inspired by God.

    The Apocrypha is accepted as being genuine by some people and some large religious organizations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, today, but rejected by many others. Some of it is included in various versions of the Bible, but is absent in most. The Apocryphal books accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church are: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 =&0=&

    Is it inspired by God, or invented by humans? Let’s examine some evidence to see if we can find the answer.

    Apocrypha
    Is the Apocrypha inspired by God or invented by humans?

    The Jews knew of the Apocrypha, but NEVER ACCEPTED any of it as canonical. For the Jews, any books written after Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi’s time (such as the Apocrypha) were not considered inspired. They considered the canon closed after this time (by circa 400 BCE or before).

    Jesus said “Whoever serves me must follow me.” (John 12:26 NIV) He spoke against those who “nullify the word of God by your tradition.” (Mark 7:13 NIV) What did Jesus consider the Old Testament (OT) to be?

    “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44 NIV) What books were included in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (the Writings)? There were 24 by their count; 39 by our count today.

    The Law contained  five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

    The Prophets was composed of eight books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (as one book).

    The Writings included eleven books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (one book) and Chronicles.

    Notice that no Apocryphal books are included in these three OT sections! Jesus and the New Testament (NT) writers quoted from all three of these OT sections, but THEY NEVER QUOTED FROM THE APOCRYPHA! Since most of the NT quotes of the OT are from the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX), the absence of even a single quote by Jesus or NT writers from any of the numerous Apocryphal books speaks volumes!

    The above Scriptures were kept at the Temple according to Deuteronomy 31:24-26, 1 Kings 22:8-13 and Josephus, down to the time of its destruction in 70 CE. But the APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WERE NEVER KEPT AT THE TEMPLE.

    Following Jesus means accepting the same OT books that he accepted as inspired, which are the 39 books of the OT from Genesis to Malachi, but not including “cleverly devised stories” such as the Apocrypha. (2 Peter 1:16 NIV)

    In fact, early Christians (and we today) were commanded not “to devote themselves to myths,”  which would certainly include the Apocrypha, since it’s full of myths! (1 Timothy 6:3-4 NIV)

    The Septuagint is the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and was in Greek. There is no evidence that the Septuagint originally included the Apocrypha. There is no evidence that the apostles made use of the Apocrypha. The NT does not quote it.  There is solid evidence against it. Inspired scriptures told Christians “not to concern themselves with myths,” which would rule out the Apocrypha for Christians. (1 Timothy 1:4 NAB) Also, the Apostles preached: “Admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in faith, instead of paying attention to Jewish myths,” which precludes Apocryphal writings from Christians. (Titus 1:13-14 NAB)

    The Apocryphal books were never “taken out” of the Septuagint, as some claim, because they were never there to start with. When the Apostle Paul was “trying to convince [the Jewish leaders in Rome] about Jesus from the law of Moses and the prophets,” he was using the 24 (our 39 today) OT books. (Acts 28:23 NAB)

    Luke 24:44 proves that Jesus and the early Christians did not accept the Apocrypha, since these books were not included in “the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.”

    The Jewish Council of Jamnia (90 CE) explicitly excluded all Apocrypha. The canon they accepted were the 22 books that both Josephus and Jerome said were inspired (our 39 today), and none of the Apocrypha! The Jews were aware of the Apocrypha, but did not accept any of it as inspired.

    The expressions below include the 39 OT books, but none of the Apocrypha:

  • “The Law or the Prophets.” (Matthew 5:17 NJB) The entire OT – but no Apocrypha.
  • “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” (Matthew 23:35 NJB) From the beginning to the end of the OT, as arranged in Jewish Bible – but no Apocrypha.
  • “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets.” (Luke 24:27 NIV) The entire OT – but no Apocrypha.
  • “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44 NIV) The entire OT – but no Apocrypha.
  • read more

    Evidence of Early New Testament Canon by Circa 100 CE

    Evidence of Early New Testament Canon by Circa 100 CE

    Although it is popular to do so, we should not measure the existence of the New Testament (NT) canon (authoritative, or inspired, books) just by the existence of lists, which came into being somewhat later than the NT canon’s coming into existence. When we examine the way the NT books were viewed and used in the very early days of Christianity, we can determine the de facto existence of a functioning canon by about 100 CE.

    NT canon
    Did it take until the fifth century to finalize the NT canon?

    The views expressed here are admittedly a little different than the traditional, or orthodox, view of how the NT canon, in particular, and the Bible as a whole, came into acceptance. The views presented here actually stand in stark contrast to modern-day populist scholars, like the agnostic Bart Ehrman.

    “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17). The NT canon was not revealed by humans, but by God.

    The books of the Bible did not become the Word of God because people decided it to be so. A book became canonical if it was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21). Inspiration by God, and not humanly contrived lists, determines canonization.

    “That by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:3-5). Canon (inspired books of the Bible), prophecy, and revelation were revealed by the holy Spirt, not man-made councils.

    The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon. However, the NT canon was settled long before then –  not by any council’s decision, but by the same holy Spirit that inspired the Bible in the first place (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21).

    “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) The NT canon was accepted as the word of God by the early church, shortly after each book was written, which was long before the RCC came into existence in the 4th century.

    There is no evidence that any book in our canon today gradually gained acceptance over time. There were no stages of acceptance for each individual canonical book.

    “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people ” (Jude 3). This body of truth, or faith, contained in the New Testament, was delivered “once for all” time, being completed prior to 100 CE, according to the evidence.

    “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which is ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15,16). This gives scriptural status to all 14 of Paul’s letters, by placing them as having equal status with the Hebrew Scriptures. Why can we say this?

    Since Peter wrote to the “exiles scattered throughout [5] provinces” or regions (1 Peter 1:1), it is reasonable that Peter was referring to the entire collection of Paul’s letters available at the time. Peter probably knew all but possibly one or two of Paul’s letters that were available at the time. Not only would this mean that Peter was well aware of Paul’s writings, but as a leading apostle, he affirmed them. It’s obvious that Paul’s letters had a widespread reputation. From this we can infer that they were circulating possibly as a corpus, or body, in the 60’s. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100’s, and Polycarp in the mid 100’s show familiarity with Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Hebrews – eleven of Paul’s letters! The Chester Beatty papyrus 46, dated to around 200 CE, is a collection of most of Paul’s letters, including Hebrews. The facts solidly prove that the Pauline corpus was circulating early, long before the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) councils of the latter part of the 4th century.

    From this platform of Paul’s 14 letters circulating as scripture from the 60’s on, we can verify the rest of 13 NT books.

    “For the Scripture says… ‘The worker deserves his wages.'” (1 Timothy 5:18) Paul apparently quotes from Luke 10:7, which says “…for the worker deserves his wages”, and also quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, calling both “Scripture”. This quote of 1 Timothy 5:18 gives scriptural status, or acknowledges the scriptural status, of Luke’s writings, namely volume 1 – Luke, and volume 2 – Acts.

    Since Luke and Acts comprise Volumes 1 and 2 of Luke’s history (“my former book” – Acts 1:1), we can conclude that they both were circulating as scripture in the 60’s. Polycarp cites some verses in Luke, in the mid-100’s.

    “Remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.” (Jude 17) The word of the apostles was authoritative. The New Testament was written by four apostles directly chosen by Jesus, namely, Matthew, John, Peter and Paul. Four other close associates of the apostles, namely, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude, wrote the rest of the New Testament.

    In the 60’s, when Jude wrote his letter, the apostles and their very close associates’ writings were considered authoritative. Papias and Justin Martyr referred to Matthew and Mark’s books, with Mark named as Peter’s secretary.

    “The church in Babylon, also chosen, sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son” (1 Peter 5:13). Mark was a very close associate of Peter, apparently his secretary, writing the book of Mark. So Mark’s book had apostolic authority.

    Polycarp and Justin Martyr in the mid-100’s referred to 1 John and John, respectively. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred c. 110 CE, makes clear references to John’s writings.

    The Muratorian fragment of c. 170 CE named 23 of the 27 NT books as authentic. Only Hebrews, James and Peter’s 2 letters were omitted. This proves widespread circulation and approval of, and for, the 23 books some time prior to this. Since the Muratorian document is fragmentary – omission from it does not imply non-acceptance.

    John and Peter’s status as prominent apostles gave them outstanding authority, and their writings would have been received as such.

  • 1 Corinthians 15:7 – “Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” Jesus appeared to James, his half-brother.
  • Acts 15:13 – “James spoke…”
  • Acts 15:19 – “It is my judgment…”
  • Acts 15:22 – “Then the apostles and elders… decided….” James, Jesus’ half-brother, was the spokesman.
  • Acts 21:18 – “Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.” James was the leader of the important Jerusalem church.
  • Galalatians 1:19 – “I saw none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord’s brother.”
  • Galatians 2:9 – “James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars.”
  • read more

    Mark – Peter’s Eyewitness Gospel

    Mark – Peter’s Eyewitness Gospel

    The Gospel According to Mark
    Is Mark’s Gospel an early memoir of the Apostle Peter?

    The early church is unanimous that the Gospel According to Mark was written by John Mark. (Acts 12:12; Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 13:13; Acts 15:37; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24)

    Papias – c. 140 quotes an earlier source saying:

    1. Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received his information. (1 Peter 5:13) Peter regards Mark with such warmth and affection that he calls him his son.
    2. This information didn’t come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of Jesus, but as the preaching of Peter – preaching directed to the needs of Christian communities. Mark accurately preserved this material and arranged and shaped it.

    The title “According to Mark” appears in all the ancient canonical lists and many ancient manuscripts, and is thought to have been added very early in the history of the text.

    Early church fathers all affirm Mark wrote the Gospel:

    • Papias (140)
    • Justin Martyr (150)
    • Iranaeus (185)
    • Origen
    • Tertullian
    • Clement of Alexandria (195)
    • Eusebius (326) – quotes Papias saying “elder” (John) attributed to Mark

    Second and third century books falsely claimed apostles as authors rather than secondary figures such as Mark.

    “A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” (Mark 14:51-52) The “young man” here may be Mark. “Linen” clothes were a sign of wealth. He was from a wealthy family in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:12-13)

    Possible evidence of Mark as Peter’s “interpreter” is the simplified chronological order of events in Mark that mirrors Peter’s rehearsal of those events in Acts. (Acts 3:13-14; Acts 10:36-43)

    Peter’s eyewitness accounts include many descriptive scenes in Mark, which are lacking in other gospels. For example:

  • Mark 1:20 – “Hired men” worked for Zebedee.
  • Mark 1:40 – Leper entreating Jesus “on bended knee.”
  • Mark 5:5 – Demonized man “slashing himself with stones.”
  • Mark 13:3, 26 – Great prophecy given on Mount of Olives “with the temple in view.”
  • read more

    Bible Authenticity – Is the Bible Reliable?

    Bible Authenticity – Is the Bible Reliable?

    Is the Bible reliable?
    Can the Bible be trusted?

    Is the Bible reliable? Does it contain myths, or are the stories true? Did the writers simply write down stories they had heard from other people, or did they experience the things firsthand that they wrote about?

    The Bible is not made up of cleverly devised fables or myths. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:16 NAB).  Many of the Bible writers were actually eyewitnesses of their written accounts.  “But we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16 NAB; see also 1 Peter 5:1) Eyewitnesses also handed down their accounts to others who carefully researched these things. (Luke 1:1-3) Still others studied and pondered. (Ecclesiastes 12:9-10) But none came from human will. (2 Peter 1:21)

    All scripture was inspired by God: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16,17 NIV).  The Bible ‘thoroughly equips the servant of God.’ It does not need to be supplemented, as though it were not complete. The Bible alone contains 

    “the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones” (Jude 3 NAB).  read more

    Paul–The Old Testament, Luke, and the Old Covenant

    Paul–The Old Testament, Luke, and the Old Covenant

    In Pursuit of Paul the Apostle (DVD)

    Some modern Christians believe the Old Testament (OT) was simply the word of man and is fallible. However, the Apostle Paul viewed the Old Testament as the infallible word of God. How did Paul view the Old Testament, Luke and the Old Covenant? Below, we will use scriptural quotations followed, by comments to show why this is true:

    “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God read more

    Origin of the Old Testament Canon of Books

    Origin of the Old Testament Canon of Books

    Escribano

    Where did the Old Testament canon of books come from? The term “canon” is used to describe the list of books approved for inclusion in the Bible. It stems from a Greek word meaning “rod,” as in a straight stick that serves as a standard for measuring. Hence, to speak of the biblical canon is to speak of authoritative books, given by God, the teachings of which define correct belief and practice. Obviously, only books inspired by God should be received as canonical. The Bible before you includes 39 books in the Old Testament (OT). Are these the right books? Who wrote them? What were their sources of information? These questions are asked by friends and foes of biblical faith. ThIs article touches on such issues with an aim to bolster confidence in the Old Testament Canon of books as the “inspired” “word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13 NLT; 2 Timothy 3:16 NLT).

     Sources for the Earliest Histories of the Old Testament Canon of books

    Genesis chapters 1-11 are referred to as “primeval history” because they cover events that occurred far back in the shadows of earliest time. Genesis chapters 12-50 are in turn called “patriarchal history” since they recount the lives of Israel’s founding fathers from Abraham down to Joseph. From the creation of the world to Joseph’s establishment in Egypt, all the events retold in Genesis occurred long before Moses was born. This is significant because the Bible and long-standing Jewish tradition assert that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch). Most likely he composed them between 1the late 1500’s and early 1400’s BCE, while he and the Israelites traveled outside of Canaan. Many events in Exodus through Deuteronomy coincided with Moses’ lifetime, and so he authored these largely as an eyewitness. But what about Genesis? How did Moses know details about events and people that preceded him by many centuries?

    Some suggest Moses knew the ancient histories because God revealed them to him supernaturally. In this scenario, God’s inspiration of Moses would include God supplying Moses with historical details about far gone people, places, times, and even conversations—information Moses would not have known had God not told him. This possibility cannot be ruled out in principle since God is capable of working such miracles, but careful analysis reveals the Pentateuch nowhere hints that the historical narratives were given to Moses in this manner. For instance, Genesis never says anything like, “The word of the Lord came to Moses, saying, ‘This is the history of Abraham.'” Instead, the Genesis narratives about Abraham and other historical figures read like straightforward accounts that have been handed down in the usual way: through oral and written records, with the oral records presumably originating soon after the events occurred. In this case, we would add that God superintended the transmission of the early oral and written accounts so that Moses received reliable histories worthy of inclusion in Genesis.

    That Moses possibly used such sources may seem surprising at first. People often assume the Bible is the product of divine dictation, but it is more accurate to view Bible composition as having involved both supernatural and natural means, with the result that the original Bible manuscripts were fully reliable and stemmed simultaneously from divine inspiration as well as regular human approaches to writing. This model is supported by Luke 1:1-4, where Luke says he did a lot of research before writing his Gospel. A similar example is found in Numbers 21:14, where a quote is lifted from the now lost “Book of the Lord’s Wars.” From these examples we see that Bible writers were free to draw reliable historical data from non-biblical sources. Thus it seems Moses was able to write about historical events that occurred long before his birth by drawing upon information found in pre-existing sources, all while God’s Spirit inspired him in penning Genesis.

    How did these written sources come down to Moses? For the primeval history, it is reasonable to suggest that from earliest times people passed down carefully preserved oral accounts about key events and significant persons. Later, when elementary writing arose, many of these would have been committed to writing. The transfer to written format may have happened earlier than is commonly supposed. Rudimentary alphabets are known to have circulated in the early second millennium b.c., and with the discovery of the Palermo Stone we have solid evidence that the Egyptians wrote detailed historical records (in hieroglyphic text) at least as far back as 2600 BCE, a time that predated Moses by over 1,100 years. The rich details inscribed on the Palermo Stone reach back toward the very dawn of Egypt, naming kings from 3100 BCE and even earlier. In light of this example it is fitting to suppose that key remembrances of early human history were preserved and passed down to later generations.

    That the very earliest writings have not survived to our day is no surprise, for they would have been rare to begin with and would have perished long ago as the acids of time worked their destruction. But they survived long enough to bequeath vital facts to later societies who learned to write the histories in more permanent formats. Some of the greatest modern archeological digs have uncovered ancient nonbiblical texts that resemble the biblical accounts of Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel. These texts date from 1600 BCE and earlier, and in broad strokes they corroborate Genesis. Their points of departure from Genesis may reflect corruptions that slipped in as cultures pulled farther and farther away from knowledge of God. By contrast, people who kept alive a faith like Noah’s preserved the stories uncorrupted, and it is these accounts that came down to men like Moses in later generations.

    As for the patriarchal histories, it goes without saying that men such as Abraham would pass down close accounts of their remarkable experiences with God. Once God interrupted Abraham’s life and promised to create a nation through him, he knew his life was unique. This heritage was repeatedly confirmed to his descendants as God kept up His habit of revealing Himself and confirming His covenant of blessing. Somewhere down the line Abraham’s descendants began writing down these stories. This may have begun most earnestly with Joseph, the son of Israel who became a great political figure in Egypt. Writing was a very old art in Egypt by the time Joseph ascended to power. Having achieved a royal-like status and having married a well-placed Egyptian, Joseph and his family would have had every opportunity to learn the Egyptian writing craft. As a chief bearer of Abraham’s lineage, Joseph would have been keen to preserve the family traditions and the link to the one true God.

    In the years after Joseph’s death, the Hebrews grew in number but came to be suppressed by the Egyptians. This suppression highlighted the need to preserve the histories. One theory holds that one of the Israelite families, possibly the Levites, became the official preservers of the old stories. If so, these materials would have been available to Moses (a Levite) when he became leader of the Hebrews. This inheritance, plus God’s commission of Moses and the fact that he was raised and educated in Pharaoh’s household, put Moses in a fine position to write an early history of humankind from the Hebrew perspective. A possible exception would be the portions of the creation accounts (Genesis 1-2) that could not stem from human eyewitness testimony. These accounts bear close resemblance to visionary revelations that were later given to prophets such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as John in the book of Revelation. Hence, it is plausible to suggest that God gave Moses a revelatory vision for the first two chapters of Genesis. But in his writings generally, whether he was making use of oral accounts, written histories, or relying on God’s Spirit for the unveiling of the creation accounts, Moses often wrote more than he knew. In other words, Moses could not plumb the depths of everything he wrote, for an Author greater than he breathed profundity and prophecy into the works of his pen.

    Who Wrote the Books and When?

    The Old Testament canon of  books do not have copyright dates on them, and few of them explicitly identify their author. Nevertheless, by aid of biblical testimony and Jewish history we know the approximate time at which the books were composed. We also know in many cases who the author was, or who was likely to have been, chiefly responsible for a book’s content. For thousands of years now scholarly people of faith have studied the matter and have concluded that the Old Testament Canon of books and their earliest recipients have reliably portrayed the authorship and dates for the sacred writings, yet today critics say the Old Testament canon books were written many hundreds of years after the dates and authors traditionally assigned to them. For instance, it is claimed that the Pentateuch was actually written nearly 1,000 years after Moses. In its extreme version, this theory even says men such as Moses and Abraham never existed; they and their histories were allegedly invented by priests who sought to provide hope-inspiring stories during the tough years when the Hebrews were exiled in Babylon in the sixth century BCE.

    Such theories are chiefly built on the slim supports of (1) skepticism, which presupposes that God does not exist and/or that the Bible is just a human book, and (2) the occasional anachronisms scattered throughout the early portions of the Old Testament Canon of books. Skepticism is itself a faith of sorts, for the assertions that God does not exist, or did not inspire the Bible if He does exist, cannot be proven from the data at hand. Ironically, skeptics, who insist we should form beliefs only on the basis of evidence, contradict their own mantra. But what about the anachronisms found in the Old Testament canon of books? It is true that the Pentateuch occasionally includes such things as place names or vocabulary that did not belong to the era described. In other words, some of these only came into usage hundreds of years after men like Abraham died. Skeptics take this as proof that the books (and all the stories they contain) originated much later than popularly believed, and that the priests who invented these stories occasionally slipped up and placed contemporary names and words into ancient settings.

    But this radical theory is firmly against the evidence. In reality, the early Old Testament canon books consistently bear the mark of ancient contexts—contexts that suit times long before national Israel arose. For instance, the laws, customs, and political situations described in the Pentateuch fit very naturally with the second millennium b.c. and earlier. This is proven by the discovery of many nonbiblical texts and artifacts from that era. It is unlikely that unethical priests a thousand years or more removed from the historical situations described in the Pentateuch could have gotten things so right. Also, the concerns that dominated the Hebrew mindset during the Babylonian exile are not addressed by the Pentateuch. Hence, how could priests hope to encourage their downtrodden fellow Hebrews in Babylon by inventing stories that bore no semblance to their situation? Further, it is unimaginable that the mass of Hebrews would fall for such a ruse, choose to base their entire worldview on false histories passed off on them by a band of inventive clergymen, and then succeed in selling the hoax to their children for generations to come. So what should we conclude about the anachronisms? Simply this: in the years after the Pentateuch was written, inevitable changes in place names, vocabulary, and political situations made these Old Testament canon books harder to comprehend. To alleviate this problem, priestly guardians of the sacred oracles updated the texts at key junctures to reflect contemporary word usage and geopolitical situations. Such changes as these (e.g., Judges 1:10; 1 Samuel 9:9) would have been undertaken soberly and with great care to preserve the meaning and intention of the holy text. Thus, under strict guidelines the books underwent helpful editing, with the result that the texts remained accessible with the passage of time.

    On the whole, however, virtually all the scribes who ever touched the sacred scrolls did so only to read them, or copy them word for word. Literary copying was an important skill in the ancient world since there was no means of rapid duplication, such as modern printing presses or photocopiers. Believing that the writings in their care were authoritative and inspired by God, the Hebrew scribes took exceptional care when copying the scrolls.

    In conclusion, we can be confident in the traditional beliefs about the date and authorship of the OT books. We can also rest assured that the books were carefully copied and preserved, and that all editorial updates of the books were done in a strictly conservative fashion.

    Do We Have the Right Books?

    Are the 39 books of our Old Testament canon really the ones God meant for us to revere? The first step to answering this question is to address the issue of collection: who was it that originally collected the sacred writings together? Solid evidence indicates that the priests undertook this duty. In Deuteronomy 31:24-26, Moses commanded that the book of the law be kept with the ark of the covenant, where the Ten Commandments were stored. This put Moses’ writings at the very center of Jewish religious life just as soon as they were complete. Further, in Deuteronomy 4:2 we read the command to preserve the commandments of God faithfully. Taken together, these passages indicate that the priests were to keep charge of God’s written revelations, and that these were to be safeguarded against perversion.

    Since Moses was the author of the earliest biblical books, and since Moses himself charged the priests with the duties to store and protect God’s words, the high value of identifying, collecting, and protecting the sacred writings was established when the Pentateuch originated. When other prophets and holy men arose in Israel subsequent to Moses and were given revelations by God, their teachings (whether written by them or by their close associates) would have been gathered quickly by the community of the faithful. At some later point the books came to be stored at the Jerusalem temple. We know this because in a time of national backsliding the unused books collected dust in the temple’s storerooms (2 Kings 22:8-13). At a much later time in history the books were still kept in the temple, for Josephus (a reputable Jewish historian) received the Scriptures from his Roman benefactors who had sacked the temple in 70 CE.

    We have seen that the Jews identified, collected, and preserved the sacred writings as a matter of course. Next we must ask if or when they believed the production of sacred writings had ceased. Josephus is helpful for elucidating this matter. He tells us ( Against Apion 1.37-43) that the Jews widely recognized that the succession of the prophets ended in the time of Artaxerxes, when Latter Prophets such as Haggai and Malachi fell silent and left no successors. Hence, says Josephus, books written after about 400 BCE were not regarded as Scripture, even if they were valuable on other terms. In 164 BCE Judas Maccabaeus reconsolidated the Scriptures in the temple after the fires of the Antiochene persecution died out, and it appears that the scrolls were harbored there in a long stretch of safety that did not end until the abovementioned Roman aggressions. There can be no doubt of the identity of the Scriptures held at the temple throughout this time: there were 22 books (or 24, depending on how they were divided and counted), and they were lumped into three major divisions: the Law (Pentateuch), the Prophets, and the Writings. Though we divide them into 39 books rather than 22 or 24, the Protestant Old Testament canon of books is identical to those books that were safeguarded at the temple before the time of Christ. The two most significant religious bodies in Israel (Pharisees and Sadducees) both accepted this body of books as the canon of Scripture, though one often hears it mistakenly asserted that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch.

    What about the books of the Apocrypha? This is a diverse set of books—most of which were written between 200 BCE and early in the first century CE—that treat various aspects of Jewish religious and national life in the Intertestamental period, which ranged from 400 BCE. to the time of Christ. They offer important windows into the Jewish context, and some Jews of that time regarded them as valuable religious literature. However, they were never received as Scripture by mainstream Judaism, and even fringe groups such as the Essenes reckoned them valuable, but not scriptural. The books of the Apocrypha were never stored in the temple, a sure sign that they were not thought to be inspired by God. Please see the two articles on this site about the Apocrypha for more details about why these writings are not part of “All Scripture [that] is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16 NLT).

    This is not to say there were no struggles among the Jews about the identity of the canon. In fact, five of the books that were counted as canonical had a hard time winning unilateral acceptance. The books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, and Ezekiel were subjected to scrutiny because they seemed secular in outlook or else promoted teachings that initially seemed inconsistent with the Pentateuch. Jewish leaders debated the merits of these books from time to time, as Christian leaders would do in the centuries to come, but all in all their status in the canon was well established.  The Apocryphal books were added to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament canon of books) because Greek speaking Jews wanted access to Jewish holy books plus important non-biblical books. The early Church widely used the Septuagint, but the Apocrypha was rightly rejected. Seeing the need to clarify the status of the Apocrypha, the Reformers elected to separate it from the canonical books. Thus the Apccrypha came to be excluded from Protestant Bibles.

    Following Jesus’ example, early Christians adopted the Jewish consensus on the Old Testament canon of books. During His ministry Jesus showed that He was in line with the standard Jewish assessment of the canon by quoting from all three divisions of the OT. Furthermore, He demonstrated that the OT included many prophecies and veiled allusions to Himself, the Messiah. Thus, Christians learned to read the Jewish holy books with a view to seeing Jesus in them. In fact, for the first few decades of the church the majority of Christians had little access to the New Testament (NT) writings that were starting to emerge. The OT was the only Bible many of them knew, and they valued it greatly as they read it from a Christ-centered vantage point. Interestingly, they tended to hold the Apocrypha in high esteem as well—higher than most Jews did, in fact. A little background information helps us understand how this situation arose.

    Several centuries before Christ the Jews living in Alexandria commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. They did this because they increasingly spoke and read Greek rather than Hebrew. Known as the Septuagint, this Greek translation was the Bible of choice for many Jews and early Christians. In addition to the authoritative Holy Scriptures, the Septuagint included Greek translations of some key Jewish apocryphal books. The reason they were added is clear: Jews living in predominantly Greek-speaking areas wanted access to all the important Jewish writings, both canonical and noncanonical. As the early church grew and experienced ever greater tensions with traditional Judaism, Christian and non-Christian Jewish communities were increasingly isolated from one another socially and religiously. The Jewish assessment that the Apocrypha was noncanonical was also the view of the early Church. Additionally, early Christians noted that the NT authors most often quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew OT. In summary, the early church automatically adopted the Jewish OT canon, most often read the Septuagint version of the OT rather than the Hebrew.

    Jesus never quoted any of the books of the Apocrypha, and neither did His disciples in their writings. While Jude 9 on the surface seems to allude to an event described in a minor non-canonical book, nowhere in the entire New Testament is any book of the Apocrypha cited.In fact, there is no proof that Jude 9 alludes to anything in the Apocrypha, since he does not cite it as a source. Given the fact that neither Jesus nor his apostles quoted from the Apocrypha, it would be remarkable if early Christians trumped their example and counted these books as Scripture.

    Even the early Reformers included the Apocrypha in their English and German translations of the Bible, though they set it off in sections that were separate from the canonical OT books and introduced it with a note saying that throughout church history the Apocrypha had not been received as Scripture. Thus the Reformers initially kept alive the old tradition of packing the Apocrypha into the Bible, though as in a seatless balcony reserved for bystanders. As they continued to debate Roman Catholic leaders over the proper bases for doctrinal formation, the Reformers eventually concluded that for the sake of clarity the Apocrypha should be dropped altogether from the Bible. Protestant Bibles today rightly exclude the Apocrypha, signifying that they are nonbiblical.

    Conclusion

    We have solid reasons for believing that the Old Testament canon o books include only true history and that they were written by men who were appointed by God to deliver Spirit-inspired writings to humanity. Further, it is clear that the Jews of old received these books with awe and a sense of responsibility. Hence, the sacred books were identified, collected, preserved, and transmitted through the generations by men approved for such high tasks. The 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament canon are assuredly the books God would have us venerate as scriptural. The books of the Apocrypha are rightly excluded.

    ONE SOURCE: HCSB Study Bible

    How Did the Bible Come To Us?

    How Did the Bible Come To Us?

    Manuscript-Transmission

    How did the Bible come to us? Was it passed down through legends and folklore? Has it been copied and recopied so much that the original message is lost?

    “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work”—2 Timothy 3:16,17 NAB

    God wants us to feel confident that the Scriptures are as valid and trustworthy today as they were when they were first written (2 Peter 1:21). He also gives some information on the process he used to get His Word written down in a permanent form.

    “The spirit of Yahweh speaks through me”—2 Samuel 23:2 NJB

    The “older testament,” which exists to­day in 39 books, was written mostly in He­brew over a thousand-year period, hundreds of years before Christ.

    “Paper and ink”—2 John 12

    The 27 books of the “newer testament” were written in Greek during the first century CE. As the various other Christian writings came into existence over the centuries, the people of God corporately studied and recognized these 27 books from the 1st century as being the Word of God.

    The two testaments together tell a com­pleted story. Testament means “covenant” or “agreement” between God and humanity (1 Corinthians 11:25). The Old Testament is “old” in the sense that it re­veals a covenant made at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:3-6; 24:3-8; Romans 10:1). The New Testament or covenant was accom­plished by Christ through His death on the Cross (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

    “Papyrus rolls and . . . parchments”—2  read more

    WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com