I think you meant 94-95 AD, yes?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Close of the Canon Holy Scripture.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
God ordained apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to serve the church.
Some of the greatest biblical teachers are found in the Early Church Fathers and Philokalia desert monks, who were much closer in time to Jesus and the first apostles. They are far more reliable than many popular contemporary pastors and teachers, who are dropping like flies due mainly to sexual sins and financial crimes.
2 Peter 2:14,15
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
Oh really?
37818
Well-Known Member
.
Currently some Letters attributed to Paul are being denied to be by him. Such as 2 Timothy!
What other hypothesis do you propose by such a find could occur?
Currently some Letters attributed to Paul are being denied to be by him. Such as 2 Timothy!
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Can you show that any of the N.T. was written after that date?
Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. Pastor Jeff Durbin are at least three who hold to the early date writing and they are most definitely not liberal. I hold to this view as well, and I am as conservative as they come.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The dating of the books of the New Testament involves the science of literary criticism, a science that attempts to objectively gather and analyze all the relevant data—and this data can be substantial in volume and include very many ancient texts written, of course, in ancient languages. When the science of literary criticism is applied to the Gospel of John, scholars of this gospel find substantial evidence that redactions have taken place. Raymond E. Brown, in his 1,376-page commentary on John, finds only a moderate amount of redactions, whereas Rudolf Schnackenburg, in his 1,704-page commentary on John, finds what he believes to be many more redactions They both believe that the Apostle John was the primary writer, but with redactions taking place after John’s death, the final form of his gospel may have been written as late as 110 AD.
2 Peter is very much more problematic. The writer of 2 Peter has given to us a commentary that is markedly different from 1 Peter in both its style and its vocabulary. Efforts on the part fundamentalists Christians to explain away these differences have been unsuccessful. Since the author of 2 Peter is unknown, it may have been written as late as 110 AD.
The authorship of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus is also problematic and therefore they may have also been written as late as 110 AD.
NOTES:
The commentary on the Gospel of John by Brown was first published in 1970; it is currently published by Yale University Press.
The commentary on the Gospel of John by Schnackenburg was first published in German from 1965-1975 with an English translation from 1968-1982. It is currently published in English by The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Liberals have attacked the Canon of Scriptures since the 18th Century, mostly German 'theologians.' The challenges have been rebuffed over the years. I recommend William Hendriksen's commentary on John, which includes a robust defense of Johannine authorship and a date before AD 70, and also his commentaries on Timothy and Titus.
On 2 Peter, there are certainly some differences compared with 1 Peter, but they are mostly stylistic and easily explained by the fact that he used an amanuensis for 1 Peter (c.f. 5:12), but apparently not for 2 Peter.
On 2 Peter, there are certainly some differences compared with 1 Peter, but they are mostly stylistic and easily explained by the fact that he used an amanuensis for 1 Peter (c.f. 5:12), but apparently not for 2 Peter.
37818
Well-Known Member
Hog wash.
All the genuine books of NT are to be regarded to be first century.
Think the reformers saw Apocrypha useful for historical accounts, but NOT ever to be read and used for doctrines or practices
ALL of the canon NT books were written before end of the first century
None of them were inspired in their theology , as many of even ECF had some areas deviated off the norm
Good correction, as the ones for earlier dates seem to be those holding to either partial pretierist or amil eschatological viewpoint though
The clear testimony of the Pastoral Epistles themselves supports Pauline authorship (1 Timoty 1:1, 2 Timothy 1:1, Titus 1:1). In his commentary on 1 Timothy, John MacArthur, Jr. (1939-2025) asserted: “The testimony from the early church that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles is as strong as that for any of his inspired writings, except for Romans and 1 Corinthians” (p. x). Henry Morris (1918-2006) observed: “The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were unanimously accepted as genuine Pauline writings by all the early church fathers. The personal references in 1 Timothy are so many and so clear that they could not have been forged by someone using Paul’s name (1:1)” (Henry Morris Study Bible, p. 1857). Henry C. Thiessen (1884-1947) noted: “Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, alludes to Titus 3:1 (ch. Ii), to Titus 2:10 (ch. Xxvi), and to 2 Timothy 1:3 (ch. xlv)” (Introduction to N. T., p. 254). Michael Kruger wrote: “It is clear that Ignatius possesses a Pauline letter collection which would have been composed of at least the Pauline letters that expressly mention the Ephesian church, namely 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Timothy” (Question of Canon, p. 190). Michael Kruger maintained that Polycarp “apparently knew the apostle John personally” (p. 193) and that “scholars generally agree that Polycarp knew … 1 and 2 Timothy” (p. 194). David Cloud maintained that Polycarp in “his letter to the Philippian church in about AD 115” included quotations from 1 and 2 Timothy (Why We Hold, p. 83).
Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863-1934) wrote: “The external evidence for Pauline authorship is strong and conclusive (Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus, the Muratorian Canon)“ (Word Pictures, Vol. IV, p. 555). F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) maintained that “he [Irenaeus] evidently accepted the whole [Pauline] corpus of thirteen letters (the Pastorals included)” (Canon, p. 176). Charles Quarles and Scott Kellum noted: “The Muratorian Fragment notes that Paul wrote to seven churches but names thirteen of Paul’s Epistles (including the Pastorals)” (40 Questions, p. 289). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote: “The Muratorian Fragment reveals that by c. AD 180 the early church had received all four Gospels, all thirteen epistles of Paul, the book of Acts, Jude, the Johannine epistles (at least two of them), and the book of Revelation” (Heresy, p. 149). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger added: “The Muratorian Fragment does not appear to be establishing or ‘creating’ a canon but is expressly affirming what has already been the case within the early church” (p. 150). In his commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark (1902-1985) wrote: “The destructive critics surely ought to be embarrassed by the fact that the early church was fully assured of the Pauline authorship of these epistles” (p. xi).
Steve Combs reported that papyrologist Jose O’Callaghan Martinez (1922-2001) identified Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 7Q4 from cave seven as being 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 which would have had to be written before A. D. 68 to have been sealed in that cave (Magnified, pp. 181-183). Papyrologist Carsten Peter Theide supported Jose O’Callaghan’s assertion (p. 182). Carsten Peter Thiede (1952-2004) wrote: “Here O’Callaghan had suggested a New Testament text, 1 Timoty 3:16 to 4:1 and 4:3. In our examination of this text we must forget about what the confirmation of this identification would mean for our understanding of the New Testament in general” (Rekindling, p. 174). Carsten Peter Thiede wrote: “Not only is it [7Q4] the largest of all 7Q fragments, but more importantly the main fragment and the smaller piece related to it, are quite obviously from the right hand margin of the text. It is therefore certain how the preserved lines end. With small fragments, this is naturally an invaluable aid to identification” (p. 175). Carsten Peter Thiede observed: “I have been able to work with the original 7Q fragments on five separate occasions” (p. 49). In 1995, Carsten Peter Thiede asserted: “7Q4 is already continuing to gain acceptance as 1 Timothy 3:16 to 4:3” (p. 50).
In his commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, Geoffrey Wilson noted: “Those who suppose the Pastorals to be the spurious productions of a post-apostolic imitator are encased in the problems of their own making” (p. 14). In his commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) asserted: “The theory of pseudonymity is itself exposed to far-reaching objections of its own. For one thing, no adequate explanation has ever been produced why there should be three letters rather than one, or at most two, seeing that they go over much the same ground” (p. 31). J. N. D. Kelly also pointed out: “If the letters are really non-Pauline, it is surprising that the author has not made a more convincing job of his pseudo-historical framework” (pp. 8-9). In his commentary on 1 Timothy, John MacArthur, Jr. observed: “Despite claims by the critics, the early church did not approve of ‘pious forgeries.’ Paul warned of the danger of false letters purporting to come from him (2 Thess. 2:2) and took steps to authenticate his letters (cf. 2 Thess. 3:17)” (p. xiv). The KJV Archaeological Study Bible noted: “The early church, which rejected pseudonymous letters, declining to accept into the canon letters that falsely claimed to be Pauline, fully embraced the Pastorals” (p. 1722). Robert H. Gundry asserted: “The facts are that pseudonymous writing was only an occasional practice and that it was not acceptable in the early church. Paul warns against forgeries in his name (2 Thessalonians 2:2; 3:17). The early Church expelled an elder from ecclesiastical office for writing pseudonymously” (Survey of N. T., p. 322). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote: “The early church distinguished significantly between documents produced during the apostolic period and writings composed only during the second or later centuries” (Heresy, p. 72). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger noted: “The author of the fragment [Muratorian Fragment] reflects the conviction that early Christians were not willing to accept books written in the second century or later but had restricted themselves to books from the apostolic time period” (p. 170). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote: “From this perspective, the canon was ‘closed’ by the beginning of the second century. After this time (and long before Athanasius), the church was not ‘open’ to more books, but instead was engaged in discussions about which books God had already given” (pp. 170-171). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger argued: “The theological convictions of early Christians pointed toward a canon that was restricted to books from the apostolic time period and thus, in principle, ‘closed’ at the very outset” (p. 175). Bart Ehrman admitted: “In actuality, it [the practice of forgery] was widely and strongly condemned” (Orthodox Corruption, p. 23).
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I have William Hendriksen's expositional commentary on John on my desk open to page 3 where he begins a 30-page discussion on the “Authorship, Date, and Place of John’s Gospel” which you recommend. I also have on my desk the first of the three volumes of the exegetical commentary on the Greek text of John by Rudolf Schnackenburg open to page 5 where we find the first page of his two-page table of contents for the first volume. This table of contents shows that Schnackenburg, on pages 44-119, covers the authorship and date, and that on pages 192-211 he covers “The Fourth Gospel in History” including “Patristic Exegesis.” However, as I have already written, both Brown and Schnackenburg expressly write that John was the primary author of the Fourth Gospel but this gospel shows substantial evidence of redactions. Hendriksen does not appear to know anything about this matter.
Is it not true that you have not read as much as one word of the commentaries on John by Brown and Schnackenburg? Is it not also true that in your post you have insinuated that at least Schnackenburg and probably Brown were liberals attacking the “Canon of Scriptures?” Raymond Brown was ultraconservative (he died from a heart attack on August 8, 1998). His commentary on John is one of the finest commentaries on John and is used by Christians representing a very wide spectrum of theological thought. Schnackenburg was slightly less conservative than Brown and his commentary is even more technical.
Best Commentaries on John | Best Commentaries
The best commentaries on John ranked by scholars and reviewers: (1) D. A. Carson in PNTC, (2) Craig S. Keener, (3) Leon Morris in NICNT
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Brown was criticized for his bringing into question the inerrancy of Scripture in the Catholic church. That point alone makes him no conservative. He believed that the divisions of John that he made were accurate including what is considered to be redacted Scripture.
None of this sounds conservative. Maybe he is the most conservative writer on your desk. If that is true it speaks volumes.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Brown was a very prolific writer, teacher, and preacher. He also lectured extensively at retreats for Catholic priests. Undoubtedly, many people were hotly envious of him and criticized him out of jealously. However, no charges were ever brought against him at the Vatican. Regarding his “bringing into question the inerrancy of Scripture in the Catholic church,” the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament is riddled with errors that have been corrected in our recent Bibles—including the Roman Catholic New American Bible. Redaction criticism is one of the branches of the science of literary criticism. The term “conservative” as applied to theology does not mean inexcusably ignorant of the facts.