Do you agree with this statement?

[Thinkingstuff]

What each evangelist has preserved, therefore, is not a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus, but an interpretive portrait deliniated in accord with the special needs of the early Church - Metzger, Bruce M. The New Testament its background, growth, and content p. 86

I'd be curious as to the responses to this statement.
So that there is no confusion let me continue the quote

The inference drawn by some form critics, however, that such interpretation has deformed the original meaning ofJesus' teacing is not justified by the literary argument. Reinterpretation and development need not involve deformation, but may be entirely homogeneous with the original meaning, whose full vitality is thus unfolded for the benefit of the whole church.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Mr Metzger was a genius, I am sure if he erred in his thoughts, someone would have commented on it. FF Bruce for one. I would have to know the whole context and a few months of study to comment

Put it in a simple question.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Mr Metzger was a genius, I am sure if he erred in his thoughts, someone would have commented on it. FF Bruce for one. I would have to know the whole context and a few months of study to comment

Put it in a simple question.

I have no question regarding the statement. I take it as a fact though I think there are many on this board who would take issue with this statement. Especially those in support of AV 1611 only.

 

[billwald]

Every history and biography is written because the writer has a point to make that he thinks hasn't been made or has been wrongly stated. St John, at the end of his biography of Jesus, says as much. Of all the available material, John selected the stuff that made his point.

 

[BobRyan]

Reinterpretation and development need not involve deformation, but may be entirely homogeneous with the original meaning, whose full vitality is thus unfolded for the benefit of the whole church.

I agree with this - however man is fallible and always has the possibility of "adding error" to what is written.

Therefore we still have to go back to the source (the Bible) and continually compare what some later theologian "thinks about it" to what it actually "says" as we too are guided by the Holy Spirit (priesthood of all believers - and all that).

God will not give us the excuse "I am not to blame for teaching that error -- I just believed whatever F.F. Bruce or Metzger told me to think".

So our task is to take the good - and leave the bad.

in Christ,

Bob