Did the early church fathers edit the bible?

[xdisciplex]

I found this on the net. I think this is nonsense but unfortunately I also don't know much about the early church to say anything about these claims.

The New Testament was carefully adapted to fit the agenda of the early church fathers.

When the early Christians were forming it was built primarily upon oral tradition. There are far too many books, documents, letters, etc, that were left out, destroyed, hidden, to compile the New Testament. There are vast differences just between the KJV and the Catholic Bible, and that are only two.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that around 40 years passed between the Crucifixion and Mark's first Gospel? Paul is credited with over 80,000 words and he only mentions the Crucifixion, the Reserection and the Holy Spirit. In fact you might want to review the letters credited to him and see if they not only match his style, but what references Paul makes about God. Who God is and how the message is to be understood.

 

[Ed Edwards]

You can find all kinds of junk on the internet.

JUNK = stuff that makes you doubt God.

 

[xdisciplex]

Hi Mr.Edwards,
the problem is that it's always dumb when you read claims from a person and cannot really say anything against them because you don't know anything about it.

 

[Dustin]

Don't listen to every article you read, is that even a Christian site?

 

[xdisciplex]

Yes, but I think the one who wrote this is not a christian.
And such stuff always confuses me.

 

[brgalyon]

If you have any doubts about the New Testament, then reference the Old Testemant. You can find Prophesy suporting the majority of things writtten in the New. You have to decide are you a Child of Faith or a Child of doubt. The men chosen to transcribe the Bible worked under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and came together in agreance as to what books would be a part of the New Testament. While some of the various books found in the Catholic bible are good reading, they were not found to be inspired writings. Obviously there is way more to it than this, but there is not enough space to write. Do some more research on the subject yourself and see what you find.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I don't think 4 years passed between the resurrection and Mark's Gospel. More like 20 or 25 years, if that much.

The chief difference between the KJV and Catholic Bibles is the addition of the Deuterocanonicals, or what most protestants call the "Apocrypha."

These are additional books of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that this Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible was completed in about 250BC, and most of the Old Testament references made in New Testament writings are from this translation, called the "Septuagint" and referred to in writing as "LXX."

 

[billwald]

Anyone who writes, "There are vast differences just between the KJV and the Catholic Bible," has an axe to grind, is probably a KJO person. That being said, material was selected for inclusion to suit their theological bias. Unlike Judaism, Christianity has a tendency to destroy material with an annoying slant to theology.

 

[Martin]

xdisciplex:

The New Testament was carefully adapted to fit the agenda of the early church fathers.
When the early Christians were forming it was built primarily upon oral tradition. There are far too many books, documents, letters, etc, that were left out, destroyed, hidden, to compile the New Testament.

==I think whoever wrote that is a bit confused about history.

First there is no historical evidence that suggests the early fathers "adapted" the New Testament to "fit the agenda". So that is an assumption based upon various presuppositions.

Second it is not true that the New Testament was "built primarily upon oral tradition" either. Paul's letters, for example, where written before his death in the 60s ad. The Biblical Gospels were written within the early first century as well. Not only that two of the four Gospels (Matthew, John) were most likely written by eyewitnesses and the other two Gospels (Mark, Luke) were written based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Thus I believe the "oral tradition" argument above is very weak. There are also the "hypothetical" Q, L, and M sources. Even if one rejects these "hypothetical" source documents it is clear that some sort of source documents had been written by the 60s (Lk 1:1-4).

Thirdly it is incorrect to state that, "there are far too many books, documents, letters, etc, that were left out, destroyed, hidden, to compile the New Testament". None of these other "documents" were ever seriously considered as Scripture. In fact the four Biblical gospels were the only Gospels ever considered for inclusion in the New Testament. Those other documents may include Christian writings from the first or second century (ex: 1Clement). Many other of those writings, however, were second or third century gnostic writings. The "mainstream" church condemned those writings. It is highly misleading to pretend that those writings recieved wide spread acceptance in the church and that some "leader(s)" destroyed or kept them secret.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that around 40 years passed between the Crucifixion and Mark's first Gospel?

==That statement is, also, based upon alot of presupposition.

First the idea that 40 years passed before the first gospel was written (ie..AD70 to be the earliest) has no textual support. In fact we have several lines of internal evidence that suggests the Gospels were written before AD70 and not after. There is no hard (internal or external) evidence to support the claim that the first Gospel was written "40 years" after "the Crucifixion".

Secondly the idea the Mark's Gospel was written first is also a presupposition. While it is a presupposition that many critical and conservative scholars agree with it is not a universal agreement. Several fine New Testament scholars reject Markan priority. A good example is Dr David Black .

Paul is credited with over 80,000 words and he only mentions the Crucifixion, the Reserection and the Holy Spirit.

==This person you are quoting is claiming some sort of authority on these issues yet can't spell the term "resurrection"? Maybe it was a simple typing mistake? Maybe not?

In fact you might want to review the letters credited to him and see if they not only match his style,

==This is a very weak argument. First people's writing styles do change (w/ age, etc). Also people can write differently when the time calls for it (ie..technical writing vss. lay level). Secondly it is a fact presented on the pages of the New Testament that some of Paul's letters were pinned by a secretary (Rom 16:22, Gal 6:11, Col 4:18, 2Thess 3:17). This could certainly explain some "style" differences in Paul's letters. So this is not a very good argument.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[Martin]

xdisciplex,

May I suggest a good resource for you? It is not technical at all and is good for people who need a basic introduction to these issues. It is also fairly written and does a good job explaining the history/background of the New Testament and it's study.

Encountering The New Testament.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Yes, but I think the one who wrote this is not a christian.
And such stuff always confuses me.

It is really quite simple - Adam fell - all mankind fell with him because he is our ancestor. Satan deceived Adam and continues to deceive mankind to this very day.

It is no wonder that he "needs" to attack God's Word and the "Good news of the gospel" with the vain "speculations of man made tradition".

Many in this world "give the world a try and don't give God a second thought".

The good news of the Gospel is that we are freed from slavery to sin, taken back into fellowship with God and offerred eternal life - heaven AND the New Earth!

All it costs God to make this offer - is the terrible suffering and death of God the Son - suffering the punishment owed for all the sins of all mankind for all of time.

But to take God up on that offer - you have to be willing to "Give God a try without giving the nay-saying of Satan's kingdom a second thought".

Try it for a year or two - what do you have to lose?

If you are already a Christian - but a "new one" then I would say to follow this growth model.

#1. Focus on maturing in worship and Bible meditation. Learn how to experience the presence of God daily.

#2. Focus on an objective, logical, thorough understanding of God's Word. Make a notebook. Ask questions about what the Bible says. Learn what it says about the important questions of life and salvation. Become "will grounded" well grounded and effective in a local church - in Bible fellowships.

#3. Pray for opportunities to share what you learn with someone else.

By "trusting God first" and experiencing Him "directly" for a while you will become immersed in "truth" by the One who IS "The WAy the Truth and the Life".

After some years of maturing in that school of salvation - you will be ready to venture out into "the skeptic's world" where evolution is praised over God's Word, where Bible criticism is praised over faith and trust, where skepticism is rewarded with grants and funding - but true repentance is disdained.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Martin:

Secondly the idea the Mark's Gospel was written first is also a presupposition. While it is a presupposition that many critical and conservative scholars agree with it is not a universal agreement. Several fine New Testament scholars reject Markan priority. A good example is Dr David Black .

Arguments against Marcan priority always kind of make me itch.

Not because I'm allergic to discussion, but because without Marcan priority, "Quelle" and third-source documents like "Thomas" apparently become vital. These documents are, of course, either nonexistent or so Gnostic they're silly, but that doesn't stop some scholars from running to them -- most notably the bean-voting "Jesus Seminar" crowd.

This may be a discussion for another thread, but I'm curious to find out why you don't think Mark was first?

 

[Martin]

tragic_pizza:

Arguments against Marcan priority always kind of make me itch...because without Marcan priority, "Quelle" and third-source documents like "Thomas" apparently become vital.

==I see your concern but I don't view that as a "natural" result of rejecting Markan priority. Markan priority seems to stand on several presuppositions. Some of those presuppositions have strengths, some of them do not. Personally I believe that "Matthean priority" is a good alternative. Which of the two views is right? I don't think we can know for sure. We can know, however, that both were written fairly early. I would accept any date between 40AD and the early 60s AD for either Matthew or Mark.
_______________________________________

This may be a discussion for another thread, but I'm curious to find out why you don't think Mark was first?

==It's not so much that I think Mark "could not" have written first but that I am not convinced by the Markan priority arguments. That's really what it boils down to for me. Personally I can live with either Markan or Matthean priority. However I have seen no evidence that pushes me 100% in either direction. That was really the point I was making in my original reply.

In Christ,
Martin.