Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Is the New Testament reliable?

I'm bringing over some of the discussion from the Desmond Tutu thread to this one. Here is part of a post from Paper Turtle, which we will use as a starting point.

********
During the time of Jesus, there was still some controversy over which texts should be part of Jewish canon. The Pharisees' questions to Jesus reflect some of the issues which were still in controversy. There is no known manuscript of the entire Old Testament before the Ninth Century CE -- although the contents of the OT was recognized as scripture at the Jamina convention of rabbis circa 100 CE . What the early apostles knew as Scripture may or may not have been what appears in the New Testament as we know it today. The NT was not canonized until the council at Carthage (circa late 4th century CE).
.
My point being: what "bound" early followers of The Way might be different than what you might consider binding now

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

*******

» Brian Tubbs - Let's focus on NT

The OT is a difficult subject to address, because we really are forced to rely on a great deal of oral tradition - which was highly valued in Jewish circles. The written manuscript evidence for the OT doesn't become clearer until much later, as PT writes. So, let's set the OT aside for now. That will be for another day's discussion.

Let's focus on the New Testament. Here, the evidence is much clearer.

I'd like to open this discussion by saying that Paper Turtle overstates the lack of consensus for apostolic literature. She cites the Council of Carthage as being where agreement was reached.

In actuality, the vast majority of the NT (including the 4 Gospels) was widely accepted as authoritative and binding MUCH earlier than Carthage. There was still disagremeent on books like II Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation. But MOST of the NT was widely accepted by the middle to late 2nd century A.D.

» Migisi - Let's focus on NT

In response to Let's focus on NT posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Criteria used by apostolic fathers to determine canon.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-criteria-of-...
.....
(quote)
"B - 2. USE.... An important factor was who was favorable toward the acceptance of a document and who was not. Athanasius and Epiphanius, for instance, would have had a greater influence on the church than many lesser known figures. Also, larger churches in the metropolitan centers such as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus, and the New Rome, Constantinople, were more likely to have a greater influence on which books were included than were the smaller churches in rural areas. While most New Testament writings were known and used by most of the churches in Eusebius's day, doubt lingered over others. These "disputed" (antilegomena) writings included James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, probably Revelation, and possibly Hebrews. Notice for example, how Eusebius acknowledges wide acceptance of 1 John, but is reluctant to accept 2 and 3 John and Revelation. For him, the Gospel of John and 1 John have been "accepted without controversy by ancients and moderns alike but the other two are disputed, and as to the Revelation there have been many advocates of either opinion up to the present. This, too, shall be similarly illustrated by quotations from the ancients at the proper time." [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25.1-7]"
(end)
.
----------------------
.
What is the Difference Between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible?
http://www.syl.com/articles/whatisthedif...
....
(quote) "Through studying these criteria, this group of dedicated believers determined which books were divinely inspired and included them in the Canon of the Bible. For the New Testament, this decision was made at the Council of Carthage, which occurred in 387." (end)

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Very interesting

In response to Let's focus on NT posted by Migisi:

Good post, Migisi. This stuff really interests me. I enjoy studying ancient history and early church history.

When I encounter people who question/doubt the Bible - people like....hmmmmmmm....YOU - I step away from expecting the person to embrace the whole thing as "the Word of God." Instead, I believe, in the face of skepticism toward the Bible, look at it BOOK-by-BOOK.

What it seems you and other skeptics do, though, is point out that some of the NT canon was questioned and debated until the Council of Carthage - and then toss the WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT out or at least call the whole NT into question.

That conclusion doesn't follow the evidence. The four Gospels were NOT in question after the middle of the 2nd century A.D. And, in fact, there's strong evidence they were accepted even before that, though the evidence is somewhat in dispute.

Most of Paul's letters were accepted from the very time they were written! There's no reason, for example, to question I Corinthians - which is the earliest account of Jesus' resurrection and appearances. I don't mean this to be inflammatory, insulting, or anything - but academia WIDELY accepts I Corinthians as authentic Pauline literature. Hardly any reputable scholar - in fact, I can't think of ANY - questions this.

And that's just ONE example. There are several books of the NT that have enjoyed near-universal acceptance over the years, from the very time period they were written.

So...it's intellectually unfair and (yes) logically unsound to say that the entire NT was suspect until Carthage.