Development of the New Testament

[Skwim]

.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR READABILITY​

So, it wasn't a cut and dried composition from the outset as I was led to believe in my former days as a Christian---dictated/inspired by god, as it were---but pieced together through the years by mere men who had differing concerns and interests in its construction.

Anyone else here who was similarly misled?

.

 

[Shiranui117]

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that as far as St. Athanasius of Alexandria goes, @Skwim. He doesn't claim to be putting forth a universal NT canon for all Christian churches; he only put out a list of NT books that the Egyptian church should hold to.

Additionally, the Book of Revelation wasn't formally accepted into the Byzantine canon of the New Testament until the 500's, after our lectionary of Bible readings for the liturgical year had already been written.

I find it odd how people always assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process. I think it comes from people who have a naive view of God and especially of history. Rather than being manufactured, the New Testament canon was a result of organic development within the life of the Church. It is the Church that formed the New Testament, and not the other way around. The New Testament is a written expression of the Tradition given by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to us. It isn't the Qur'an, and Protestants are wrong to treat it as such. We are Christians, and our religion is not based on a book as Islam is.

 

[Estro Felino]

You had posted a video in this thread which explains all this more thoroughly.
"Was Jesus a Myth?"

 

[Kenny]

.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR READABILITY​

So, it wasn't a cut and dried composition from the outset as I was led to believe in my former days as a Christian---dictated/inspired by god, as it were---but pieced together through the years by mere men who had differing interests in its construction.

Anyone else here who was similarly mislead?

.

I don't find any misleading in the writing of the documents... what part are you referring to?

 

[Skwim]

Additionally, the Book of Revelation wasn't formally accepted into the Byzantine canon of the New Testament until the 500's, after our lectionary of Bible readings for the liturgical year had already been written.

My guess is that the various factions of the religion had their own standards of acceptability, which went into effect at differing times.

I find it odd how people always assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process.

I would think that anyone, a god in this case, who went to the trouble of dictating/inspiring his thoughts and words, would also make sure they came "out in a neat and tidy process." Why go to the trouble of creating a complex meal and then not care what temperature it went into an oven at?

I think it comes from people who have a naive view of God and especially of history. Rather than being manufactured, the New Testament canon was a result of organic development within the life of the Church. It is the Church that formed the New Testament, and not the other way around. The New Testament is a written expression of the Tradition given by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to us. It isn't the Qur'an, and Protestants are wrong to treat it as such.

Your bias is duly noted.

We are Christians, and our religion is not based on a book as Islam is.

But you aren't the only Christians in the room.

You had posted a video in this thread which explains all this more thoroughly.
"Was Jesus a Myth?"

The issue in this thread has to do with the construction of the New Testament, which books were to be included, not the particulars in the books.

I don't find any misleading in the writing of the documents... what part are you referring to?

The misleading issue has to do with having been misled to believe that the Bible was constructed as is from the get go. That there was no squabbling over the various writings, or that some writings were included or excluded by mere vote.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, it wasn't a cut and dried composition from the outset as I was led to believe in my former days as a Christian...

or my former days as a charismatic non-denominational. Teachers are not being straight with children about how the books in the Bible come to them, true. I think it is analogous to foot binding. We have people hobbled who are unable to conceive of a world in which the Bible is not a single book dropped from a golden udder. Such a situation some of us have found ourselves in.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Looking at how the NIV was made in the seventies, it provides a template as to the development of the Bible and has probably been that way to the point where I doubt the modern Bible today is anything close to the originals , if there were any originals to even begin with.

I started to suspect the Bible was a redacted, embellished and fabricated collection of works when Christendom overall had trouble with even one version along with several other religions having their own particular versions made. I mean after all nobody even knows the names and faces involved.

Even the NIV has its authorship attributed to Biblica™ rather then by individual* people who nobody knows how they were even selected or chosen aside from being regarded as Scholars from the vast array of denominations out there.

*Divinely-inspired? Maybe? Possibly? Is there a divinely-inspired test one could perform on people that nobody knows about?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Sadly, the religions always seem to develop into a 'Blood Feud' between each other. My own suspicion is that as soon as God starts something, the opposition does nasty things to it as soon as it can. And, humans seem blithely willing to play right into that game.

I don't understand anti Semitism, though I do at times feel nearly murderous disillusionment toward the Baptists and the Mormons, mainly because of their exclusivistic, egocentric ideas about those who are different. Who are they to reject and condemn? Who are they to usurp the authority of God?

That chart seems pretty much in line with what I had previously thought. Though it is shameful and disillusioning that those who impersonate humans later had the Inquisition, and the numerous 'burnings at the stake, and various murderings' by the representatives of the most high. I think the origin of the 'scolds bridle' and 'Iron Maiden", came from highly perverted members of the "church" of the day.

And, even in 'merika" highly refined abusings and torturing go on even in this day. Years ago, I was subject of an Evangelical 'Repentance Circle", where you are sat in the middle of a circle of members and condemned for your myriad sins. My Mormon Bishop and Stake President were calling me to a 'Love Conference' but I got wind of it and sent a letter directly to Salt Lake City, making a preemptive strike that caught them off guard. Both religious bodies wanted to prosecute me for "imagined sins" that were non existent, save for in their own evil minds.

Not to exclude anyone, a Sunni Muslim from years ago came after me the other day. How do these people, even in their most vain imaginings think that Allah SWT approves of their actions? He made his cowardly Kamikaze attack and then slithered back to the darkness from whence he came.

Why am I still religious at all, you ask? I don't have an answer for that. I was at a Mormon 'Branch' on Sunday to observe communion, but when it was over I was so infuriated by their talk of the Temple that I nearly stood up and shouted at the fools. Hopefully, I'll have the good sense to never return again? It is unimaginable that observance of religion can not be seen as being crazy.

A.G Riddle has a series of about a half dozen books that posit researchers from another civilization coming to Earth around 70,000 years ago to make genetic modifications to those who existed then. For me, I think that eventually any expression of religion must address this sort of issue to gain any credibility at all.

 

[74x12]

.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR READABILITY​

So, it wasn't a cut and dried composition from the outset as I was led to believe in my former days as a Christian---dictated/inspired by god, as it were---but pieced together through the years by mere men who had differing concerns and interests in its construction.

Anyone else here who was similarly mislead?

.

Well, the texts were in wide circulation and different churches had different texts. For example one might have Matthew and Mark, but not Luke etc. So the "development" of the Christian Canon is just people figuring out which of the many books in circulation were "canon" and putting them all together.

 

[Ellen Brown]

or my former days as a charismatic non-denominational. Teachers are not being straight with children about how the books in the Bible come to them, true. I think it is analogous to foot binding. We have people hobbled who are unable to conceive of a world in which the Bible is not a single book dropped from a golden udder. Such a situation some of us have found ourselves in.

Yup, IT is the pur, inspired wur o Gawd, you betcha.

 

[Shiranui117]

My guess is that the various factions of the religion had their own standards of acceptability, which went into effect at differing times.

Yes, and in many cases it came down to which texts were being read during church services. The Book of Revelation was excluded from the Byzantine Canon until the 5th or 6th centuries because we never read it in church, and we still don't read it in church to this day. However, even though different regional churches had different Biblical canons, they still often shared the same faith--Antioch's NT canon initially had 22 books whereas Alexandria's had up to 31, but both of these churches were in agreement concerning important doctrines of the Faith. To this day, the Ethiopian Orthodox have a 35-book New Testament, yet remain in full communion with the Coptic Orthodox Church, which has a 27-book canon but also read from other books besides these, and they are both in turn in communion with the Syriac and Armenian Orthodox Churches, which have the 27-book canon.

I would think that anyone, a god in this case, who went to the trouble of dictating/inspiring his thoughts and words, would also make sure they came "out in a neat and tidy process." Why go to the trouble of creating a complex meal and then not care what temperature it went into an oven at?

Because the Gospels are a collection of memoirs (St. Justin Martyr who died around 150 AD calls them "the memoirs of the Apostles"), and the various Epistles are literally just letters by St. Paul and other Apostles to various churches. Originally they weren't even conceived of as Scripture; they were written texts written to specific communities for specific purposes. It took time for people outside of these original target communities to realize the value and divine inspiration in these works and to eventually gather them together into a canon. Nobody said "Alright guys we're gonna sit down and write a bunch of divinely inspired books that's gonna form a new section of the Biblical canon". And nobody has to say something like that for God to be inspiring their work and intending greater purposes beyond the original scope of what the authors had in mind.

Your bias is duly noted.

I think my point is demonstrated by just the testimonies in this thread alone. Because Protestants act as if the Bible is the absolute and sole basis of the Christian religion and has always been, they have to mislead people and obscure the history of the development of the New Testament Canon. If the New Testament wasn't solidified until centuries after Christ's Resurrection, then by their metrics of how Christian doctrine is determined, there could have been no set doctrines for the first several hundred years either, as there was yet no set foundation upon which those doctrines were to be based. And if Protestants realize this history, many of them will end up leaving Christianity altogether because they were given a false impression of what the Christian religion was originally founded on and how matters of doctrine and authority were decided. This has been the case with Bart Ehrman, you, and many others. Now to be sure, you and they also have other reasons. But realizing the truth behind how the New Testament was put together and seeing how it conflicts with what people are taught is a pretty massive block to pull out from the bottom of the wall.

The misleading issue has to do with having been misled to believe that the Bible was constructed as is from the get go. That there was no squabbling over the various writings, or that some writings were included or excluded by mere vote.

This assumes that any squabbling or conciliar decisions cannot have also been guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Skwim]

Because the Gospels are a collection of memoirs (St. Justin Martyr who died around 150 AD calls them "the memoirs of the Apostles"), and the various Epistles are literally just letters by St. Paul and other Apostles to various churches. Originally they weren't even conceived of as Scripture; they were written texts written to specific communities for specific purposes. It took time for people outside of these original target communities to realize the value and divine inspiration in these works and to eventually gather them together into a canon. Nobody said "Alright guys we're gonna sit down and write a bunch of divinely inspired books that's gonna form a new section of the Biblical canon". And nobody has to say something like that for God to be inspiring their work and intending greater purposes beyond the original scope of what the authors had in mind.

Fine, but your statement was:

"I find it odd how people always assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process"​

And I told you how people (me) could easily assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process. That you disagree is immaterial.

I think my point is demonstrated by just the testimonies in this thread alone. Because Protestants act as if the Bible is the absolute and sole basis of the Christian religion and has always been, they have to mislead people and obscure the history of the development of the New Testament Canon. If the New Testament wasn't solidified until centuries after Christ's Resurrection, then by their metrics of how Christian doctrine is determined, there could have been no set doctrines for the first several hundred years either, as there was yet no set foundation upon which those doctrines were to be based. And if Protestants realize this history, many of them will end up leaving Christianity altogether because they were given a false impression of what the Christian religion was originally founded on and how matters of doctrine and authority were decided. This has been the case with Bart Ehrman, you, and many others. Now to be sure, you and they also have other reasons. But realizing the truth behind how the New Testament was put together and seeing how it conflicts with what people are taught is a pretty massive block to pull out from the bottom of the wall.

Obviously you can decide for yourself who qualifies as a Christian or not, and so can I. And I find your exclusion, no matter how you phrase it, to be biased.

(My approach to any pronouncement of religious affiliation is that it's everyone's right to decide for himself what to call it, and I abide by that decision.)

This assumes that any squabbling or conciliar decisions cannot have also been guided by the Holy Spirit.

.​

 

[Kenny]

The misleading issue has to do with having been misled to believe that the Bible was constructed as is from the get go. That there was no squabbling over the various writings, or that some writings were included or excluded by mere vote.

Hmmmmm... I wasn't taught that.

Certainly, as I learned, it wasn't just "included or excluded by mere vote". Your viewpoint? Or wrong teaching?

Maybe this will help you:

What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture? | Free Online Bible Classes

 

[Shiranui117]

Fine, but your statement was:

"I find it odd how people always assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process"​

And I told you how people (me) could easily assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process. That you disagree is immaterial.

At the same time, you only assume this because you were taught to do so by an overarching Protestant culture. If that is the overculture, then yes, I suppose some people do unfortunately assume such.

Obviously you can decide for yourself who qualifies as a Christian or not, and so can I. And I find your exclusion, no matter how you phrase it, to be biased.

Perhaps you can show me where I said that Protestants weren't Christian.

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps you can show me where I said that Protestants weren't Christian.

My bad, and my apologies for having misread what you said.

.

 

[1213]

...dictated/inspired by god, as it were---but pieced together through the years by mere men who had differing concerns and interests in its construction.
.

That it was done by many men in different times, doesn’t mean that it could not be done in the guidance of God.

 

[Marcion]

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that as far as St. Athanasius of Alexandria goes, @Skwim. He doesn't claim to be putting forth a universal NT canon for all Christian churches; he only put out a list of NT books that the Egyptian church should hold to.

Additionally, the Book of Revelation wasn't formally accepted into the Byzantine canon of the New Testament until the 500's, after our lectionary of Bible readings for the liturgical year had already been written.

I find it odd how people always assume that a divinely inspired Biblical canon should come out in a neat and tidy process. I think it comes from people who have a naive view of God and especially of history. Rather than being manufactured, the New Testament canon was a result of organic development within the life of the Church. It is the Church that formed the New Testament, and not the other way around. The New Testament is a written expression of the Tradition given by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to us. It isn't the Qur'an, and Protestants are wrong to treat it as such. We are Christians, and our religion is not based on a book as Islam is.

The problem though is, that we have no clear cut idea of the different (!) types of Church ideologies of the first two centuries and which books those ideologically differing and competing Church strands exactly used. We cannot even be sure if the whole idea of so-called "apostles" and a "Church" was not a later fabrication instead of historical fact connected to the historical Jesus.

The connection to the will of the historical Jesus is therefore also entirely unclear and it is very possible that such a historical Jesus would have strongly disapproved of the fabrication of the New Testament writings and the ideology, structure and ritualism of the Christian Church.

 

[Skwim]

That it was done by many men in different times, doesn’t mean that it could not be done in the guidance of God.

A god who made sure it's replete with contradictions and false information, and condones immoral behavior? That kind of guidance?

.

.

 

[pearl]

The connection to the will of the historical Jesus is therefore also entirely unclear and it is very possible that such a historical Jesus would have strongly disapproved of the fabrication of the New Testament writings and the ideology, structure and ritualism of the Christian Church.

Which raises the question did Jesus intend to establish a new church, a new religion or was his intent to renew his own within its established form of worship much of which was retained by the church. Not until Christians were expelled from the Temple did Christianity become a religion wholly separated from Judaism.
"At the same time, they expanded an old prayer to include an imprecation against the minim, Jews with incorrect beliefs. In this period, this could only have meant the early Jewish Christians, who observed the laws of Judaism but accepted the messiahship of Jesus. Although the rabbis continued to regard the early Christians as Jews, they reformulated this prayer in order to expel them from the synagogue, as testified to by the Gospel of John and the church fathers." How Jewish Christians Became Christians | My Jewish Learning

As for what you term as 'fabrication' it is necessary to distinguish what is myth, legend, folklore, (narrative) from the confession of faith the core of which is received and handed on through generations. Or maybe you would prefer the heretic Marcion and a NT with only Paul and Luke?

 

[pearl]

A god who made sure it's replete with contradictions and false information, and condones immoral behavior? That kind of guidance?

A clear example of why the Bible ought to be studied along with its formation.