Development of the New Testament

Marcion · May 6, 2019

pcarl said:
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.

I don't think that you can conclude such things, because we have insufficient reliable information about the true beginnings of the mission that Jesus supposedly started. What we do have is mere Christian story telling about how it may have started. The sayings in Q-lite are not specifically Jewish nor are they in any sense Christian. They are universal spiritual or mystic teachings which also seem to include a devotion for the spiritual Master (Jesus as one with God), which is certainly quite different from main stream Judaism.

pcarl said:
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?

I would prefer just the reconstructed text of Q-lite and nothing else as historically certain. I don't believe most of it was 'handed on through generations', nor do I believe in the apostolic myth. Most of it is fabricated religious myth, story telling to inspire people into the "correct" Christian faith which of course went through a complicated development in the first two centuries.

Marcion comes at a point in time when the orthodox version of the Bible had not yet christalised, his Church was not a heresy but simply an early type of Christian Church that rejected the more Jewish lense on the faith as well as the hybrid compromise that the orthodoxy in Rome was trying to promote. After orthodoxy had surpressed most of the earlier Church forms, the Marcionite Church became futher demonised as heretical and the lie was spread that Marcion had shortened the gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul instead of the other way round (orthodoxy altering Luke and the letters later on). By carefully studying the anti-heretical books about Marcion you can prove how they tried to twist the truth around to make it seem that Marcion had changed the texts instead of earlier orthodoxy changing the texts that Marcion used.

pearl · May 6, 2019

Marcion said:
I would prefer just the reconstructed text of Q-lite and nothing else as historically certain.

As with all Biblical reconstruction the only possible conclusion is a hypothesis, one offering a more probable solution. The "Q" source itself is an hypothesis.

Together with the Gospel of Thomas, Q tells us that not all Christians chose Jesus' death and resurrection as a focal point of their theological reflection...The followers of Jesus were very diverse and drew on a plethora of traditions to interpret and explain what they were doing. With the discovery of the Lost Gospel, perhaps some of the diversity will again thrive, as we rediscover that theological diversity is not a weakness, but a strength."

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/q_linnemann.pdf

Skwim · May 6, 2019

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

And after having studied the Bible what's the conclusion about its contradictions and false information, and the condoning of immoral behavior?

.

Marcion · May 6, 2019

pcarl said:
As with all Biblical reconstruction the only possible conclusion is a hypothesis, one offering a more probable solution. The "Q" source itself is an hypothesis.

Together with the Gospel of Thomas, Q tells us that not all Christians chose Jesus' death and resurrection as a focal point of their theological reflection...The followers of Jesus were very diverse and drew on a plethora of traditions to interpret and explain what they were doing. With the discovery of the Lost Gospel, perhaps some of the diversity will again thrive, as we rediscover that theological diversity is not a weakness, but a strength."

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/q_linnemann.pdf

Was the story about death and resurrection a starting point for Chistianity? Was there yet an earlier (not yet Christian) group who only followed the teachings of Q-lite? The gospel of Thomas seems to have been written well after the emergence of the Christian gospel stories and the disappearance of Q-lite, because it has copied from those stories and not from Q-lite. Christianity is a wondrous syncretic mish mash, a rich blending of earlier heterodox traditions. Q-lite is so primitive (from a Christian perspective, in fact it is very advanced) and different that it seems to stand at the very base of it all and yet does not truly belong to Christianity but more to univeral spiritual philosophy.

pearl · May 6, 2019

Skwim said:
And after having studied the Bible what's the conclusion about its contradictions and false information, and the condoning of immoral behavior?

If one considers that the 'word' in the Word of God is human, that God did not actually speak words (external or internal), one must admit that every word pertaining to God in the history of the human race, including the biblical period, is a time-conditioned word, affected by limitations of human insight and problems.

1213 · May 6, 2019

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

By what I know, there is no contradiction or false information and it doesn’t condone immoral behavior. And I am absolutely sure that you can’t show even one real example of those that is not only about bad interpretation or opinion.

Skwim · May 6, 2019

pcarl said:
If one considers that the 'word' in the Word of God is human, that God did not actually speak words (external or internal), one must admit that every word pertaining to God in the history of the human race, including the biblical period, is a time-conditioned word, affected by limitations of human insight and problems.

I agree, but millions of Christians do not, and it's them to whom I'm speaking.

.

Skwim · May 6, 2019

1213 said:
By what I know, there is no contradiction or false information and it doesn’t condone immoral behavior. And I am absolutely sure that you can’t show even one real example of those that is not only about bad interpretation or opinion.

Contradictions:

2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

__________________________________

Ezra 2:8 (KJV)
8 The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five.

Nehemiah 7:13 (KJV)
13 The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five.

False information:

Leviticus 11:13-19 (KJV)
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16
17
18
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Bats aren't fowls.

____________________________________________

Leviticus 11:6
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Hares don't produce or chew cud.

Condoning immoral behavior.

The Bible condones slavery by announcing the rules by which it is to be carried out. Of course, if you don't believe slavery, owning another human and making him/her do your bidding, is immoral this won't mean bupkis to you. But or what it's worth:

A few Rules About Owning Slaves

Exodus 21:1-3
21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

.

And slavery is even condoned in the New Testament

Ephesians 6:5-6
5 Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as you would Christ. 6 Don’t work only while being watched, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, do God’s will from your heart.

.

pearl · May 7, 2019

Marcion said:
Was the story about death and resurrection a starting point for Chistianity?

Actually the D/R was a starting point within Judaism.

Marcion said:
Was there yet an earlier (not yet Christian) group who only followed the teachings of Q-lite?

There were probably many Jesus type movements within the same era.
Whatever is not within the Gospels concerning Jesus is speculation. The contemporaneous writings give a clue to the what was believed by the earliest Christians and their practice.

Marcion · May 7, 2019

pcarl said:
There were probably many Jesus type movements within the same era.
Whatever is not within the Gospels concerning Jesus is speculation. The contemporaneous writings give a clue to the what was believed by the earliest Christians and their practice.

Yes, there were different early movements, but our view of them is very poor because their scriptures/writings have not been preserved and are poorly described by early christians.

I disagree with your view that Q-lite comes under 'speculation', the text is far too consistent, universal and strong to dismiss it as speculative.
The story telling, pseudo-letters and pseudo-history of the Church in the New Testament however are mostly speculative or creative writings.

pearl · May 7, 2019

Skwim said:
I agree, but millions of Christians do not, and it's them to whom I'm speaking.

OK, but don't expect to be heard anytime soon. As long as sound scholarship is believed to be an enemy of the faith the belief that God dictated every word isn't going to change anytime soon. And that's okay, there are many paths to the one Mystery we call God. Different though they may be, no one has a right to determine another wrong because its different.

pearl · May 7, 2019

Marcion said:
I disagree with your view that Q-lite comes under 'speculation', the text is far too consistent, universal and strong to dismiss it as speculative.

I used the term because to my knowledge there is no extant "Q". In all of the vast scholarship on "Q" I have never come across the term Q 'lite'. This must be your own brain child, something you have deduced from "Q"?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

Wandering Monk · May 7, 2019

Arguing Biblical inerrancy is a fool's game when you haven't even defined which Bible your are talking about.

1213 · May 7, 2019

Skwim said:
Contradictions:

2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)

26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)

2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

That is interesting matter, because for example Young’s literal says in 2 Chronicles 22:2:

A son of twenty and two years is Ahaziah in his reigning, and one year he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother is Athaliah daughter of Omri;

It seems to be so that KJV has wrong translation in that and the original Bible is ok and without contradictions. All the other translations that I know have 22, not 42.

Skwim said:
Ezra 2:8 (KJV)

8 The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five.

Nehemiah 7:13 (KJV)

13 The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five.

That is not contradiction in the Bible. Nehemiah 7:13 tells what was seen in “book of the genealogy”. It is possible that the book had for example old information. Bible just reports accurately what was seen, it is not fault in the Bible, if some other document has “wrong number” and Bible just tells how it was.

Skwim said:
False information:

Leviticus 11:13-19 (KJV)

13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

15 Every raven after his kind;

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Bats aren't fowls.

By modern definition. We could make any book look wrong by giving new definitions for old words. For example, I could say that “aren’t” means really that “are” and then your writing would look silly. So, sorry, I think that was fail from you.

Skwim said:
Leviticus 11:6

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Hares don't produce or chew cud.

It depends on the definition. Modern definition can be different than old. Therefore, this is no mistake in the Bible.

Skwim said:
Condoning immoral behavior.
The Bible condones slavery by announcing the rules by which it is to be carried out. Of course, if you don't believe slavery, owning another human and making him/her do your bidding, is immoral this won't mean bupkis to you. But or what it's worth:

Yes, Bible gives right to buy, not to sell. I think that is crucial difference. Buying slaves from evil people is not in my opinion bad, if they are bought to good nation like Israel, where they have hope. Jews had commandment to love their neighbor, that should have meant all people are treated well, even if they are bought.

Skwim · May 7, 2019

1213 said:
That is interesting matter, because for example Young’s literal says in 2 Chronicles 22:2:

A son of twenty and two years is Ahaziah in his reigning, and one year he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother is Athaliah daughter of Omri;

It seems to be so that KJV has wrong translation in that and the original Bible is ok and without contradictions. All the other translations that I know have 22, not 42.

Then chew on these.

KJ21
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

ASV
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

AMPC
Forty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began his one-year reign in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

BRG
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

CJB
Achazyah was forty-two years old when he began his reign, and he ruled for one year in Yerushalayim. His mother’s name was ‘Atalyahu the daughter of ‘Omri.

DRA
Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri.

GNV
Two and forty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

GW
Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to rule, and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

JUB
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

KJV
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

AKJV
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

LEB
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

MEV
Now Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, but he only reigned one year in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

NOG
Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to rule, and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

NKJV
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

NRSV
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

NRSVA
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

NRSVACE
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

NRSVCE
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

RSV
Ahazi′ah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athali′ah, the granddaughter of Omri.

RSVCE
Ahazi′ah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athali′ah, the granddaughter of Omri.

WEB
Forty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

That is not contradiction in the Bible. Nehemiah 7:13 tells what was seen in “book of the genealogy”. It is possible that the book had for example old information. Bible just reports accurately what was seen, it is not fault in the Bible, if some other document has “wrong number” and Bible just tells how it was.

And you don't think the list in Ezra came from written information

Ezra 1:1
1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,. . .

but all 70 verses of Ezra 2 were from memory? Give me a break.

By modern definition. We could make any book look wrong by giving new definitions for old words. For example, I could say that “aren’t” means really that “are” and then your writing would look silly. So, sorry, I think that was fail from you.

It depends on the definition. Modern definition can be different than old. Therefore, this is no mistake in the Bible.

So who are today's English language Bibles written for, ancient Hebrews? Of course not. They're written for folks like you and me, which is why the words the translators chose to use was because they best represent the intended meaning of the authors of the source material. SO, today's Bibles tell us hares chew cud because that's what the translators felt the writers of the source material wanted its readers to understand.

Yes, Bible gives right to buy, not to sell. I think that is crucial difference. Buying slaves from evil people is not in my opinion bad, if they are bought to good nation like Israel, where they have hope. Jews had commandment to love their neighbor, that should have meant all people are treated well, even if they are bought.

Gotta say, this is probably the lamest excuse for Biblical slavery I've heard yet. Not even a nice try.

.

Marcion · May 7, 2019

pcarl said:
I used the term because to my knowledge there is no extant "Q". In all of the vast scholarship on "Q" I have never come across the term Q 'lite'. This must be your own brain child, something you have deduced from "Q"?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

Q-lite is what you get if you do NOT accept that the author of Luke did not know gMatthew, but you still accept that he knew and used Q as a seperate source. The scholars who deny that Luke knew gMatthew have a problem with the extra sayings that do not at all fit well with the rest of Q (which is Q-lite).

All scholars who accept the Three-Source solution to the synoptic problem and who accept Q, speak of 'Q-lite', to distinguish it from the Q that you get from following the Two-Source solution to the synoptic problem.

The Holtzmann-Gundry Solution to the Synoptic Problem (Three Source Hypothesis)

One may wonder why the author of Luke felt the need to use Q-lite if he already had access to the same set of sayings in Matthew.
The author of Luke did not like the gospel of Matthew. That is why when he made his own version of the gospel story, he preferred to mostly use Mark and Q and to make as little use of Matthew as he saw possible. But for those few Matthean type of sayings of Jesus the last redactor of Luke made an exception (hence they do not really belong to Q and are missing in Q-lite).

whirlingmerc · May 8, 2019

Shiranui117 said:
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.

I don't agree that your Chronology tells the complete story
The texts are reliable

Can We Construct The Entire New Testament From the Writings of the Church Fathers? | Cold Case Christianity

pearl · May 9, 2019

Marcion said:
The author of Luke did not like the gospel of Matthew. That is why when he made his own version of the gospel story, he preferred to mostly use Mark and Q and to make as little use of Matthew as he saw possible.

From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. They used
a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each author set for himself. Personally I think it a mistake to group them as synoptic and ignore the individuality in order to make them agree. Also ignored is the Christological and theological purpose with which the authors wrote.

OtherSheep · May 10, 2019

Skwim said:
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?
.

John says
17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word;

In other words Ieseus said we believe on Him because of what His 11 discipled-Apostles witnessed. That means Matthew and John.

The others are hearsay and commentary, and will not save anyone.
Apparently the canonizers had a Pharisee-like agenda, paid no attention to what the author of Christianity had clearly said, and...
23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Some people think the Pharisees ceased to be after they had murdered Ieseus.
But obviously, they are still known by their fruits.
And they are still stealing Ieseus' inheritance.

Skwim · May 10, 2019

OtherSheep said:
John says
17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word;

In other words Ieseus said we believe on Him because of what His 11 discipled-Apostles witnessed. That means Matthew and John.

The others are hearsay and commentary, and will not save anyone.
Apparently the canonizers had a Pharisee-like agenda, paid no attention to what the author of Christianity had clearly said, . . .
23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Some people think the Pharisees ceased to be after they had murdered Ieseus.
But obviously, they are still known by their fruits.
And they are still stealing Ieseus' inheritance.

Just as an FYI.

In of themselves, Bible verses don't mean much more than squat to me. So it's a waste of time using them to prove any point external to the book itself.

.

Development of the New Testament

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

<--@ Titangel

Veteran Member