Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Christians who are familiar with the New Testament and Baptist theology do not share than persuasion.
-
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
37818
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't be Baptist, would they?
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Being prolific is no proof of legitimacy in Biblical scholarship.
Raymond Brown was criticized for suggesting that the birth stories of Jesus in Matthew and Luke might not be historical accounts but rather theological reflections, calling into question the strict historical reality of the virgin birth.
Therehave also been claims that his work was reducing scripture to mere myth-making.
Fr. Brown and many of those Catholic exegetes who followed him hold that it is "very uncertain" that angels appeared to Mary and Joseph; that there appeared a star interpreted by magi from the east as a sign of the birth of the King of the Jews, and that they followed it to Bethlehem; that angels appeared to the shepherds; and that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth.
Also on the Raymond Brown "doubtful list" was that Herod learned about Jesus' birth and then ordered the slaughter of children in Bethlehem, and that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt to escape slaughter. And, as Marian scholar Gerard Morrissey, author of The Hardest Cross: Doctrine and Vatican Policy, pointed out recently, if anyone doubts all that, he must also doubt St. Luke's four canticles — the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon's words at the Presentation), and the Gloria in Excelsis.
Brown, while believing that "it is likely that Matthew and Luke teach the Virgin Birth," also asserts that the Virgin Birth is only a "minority view in the New Testament." Why? Because other books of the New Testament, for example, the Gospel of Mark, make no mention of the Virgin Birth.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
When we compare the Bibles used by various Christian groups, we find the following writings that are not found in the Protestant Canon but which are found in the Bibles of other Christian groups:
Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles
Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther found in the Greek Version
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; Not in the Roman Catholic Canon
1 Esdras (2 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 3 Esdras in Appendix to the Vulgate)
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
A composite book in the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix
2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix; “Esdras” is the Greek form of “Ezra”)
(Note: In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra- Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras.)
A book in an Appendix to the Greek Bible
4 Maccabees (This book is included in two important Bibles from the fourth and fifth century.)
In my personal library, I have well over 100 bibles, and only two of them, an edition of the English Standard Version and an edition of the New Revised Standard Version, include all of the books and additions to Esther and Daniel that I have listed above.
However, there is also The Orthodox Tewahedo Canon (commonly known in the West as the Ethiopic Canon. It includes the following writings,
The Holy Books of the Old Testament
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Ruth
9. I and II Samuel
10. I and II Kings
11. I Chronicles
12. II Chronicles
13. Jublee
14. Enoch
15. Ezra and Nehemia
16. Ezra (2nd) and Ezra Sutuel
17. Tobit
18. Judith
19. Esther
20. I Maccabees
21. II and III Maccabees
22. Job
23. Psalms
24. Proverbs
25. Tegsats (Reproof)
26. Metsihafe Tibeb (the books of wisdom)
27. Ecclesiastes
28. The Song of Songs
29. Isaiah
30. Jeremiah
31. Ezekiel
32. Daniel
33. Hosea
34. Amos
35. Micah
36. Joel
37. Obadiah
38. Jonah
39. Nahum
40. Habakkuk
41. Zephaniah
42. Haggai
43. Zechariah
44. Malachi
45. Book of Joshua the son of Sirac
46. The Book of Josephas the Son of Bengorion
The holy books of the New Testament
1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. The Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. I Thessalonians
14. II Thessalonians
15. I Timothy
16. II Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. I Peter
21. II Peter
22. I John
23. II John
24. III John
25. James
26. Jude
27. Revelation
28. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
29. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
30. Gitsew
31. Abtilis
32. The I book of Dominos
33. The II book of Dominos
34. The book of Clement
35. Didascalia
The Greek and The Roman Church's accept the same 27 New Testament Books as Baptist.
I do not think any such discoveries will happen. But if they did it would have to be found in Egypt or the Dead Sea caves regions. Lets not hold our breaths.
It is true that I have not read the two commentaries that you recommend; nor have I ever heard of the authors. 'Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.' In fact, I venture the opinion that if you had read on beyond page 3 of the Hendriksen commentary rather than merely owning it, you might have come to the spot (page 33 of vol. 2 in my edition) where he spends much time discussing the only major place where scholars feel that there may be a question of redaction, namely 7:53-8:11 (though over 900 Greek MSS contain the verses).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 NICNTbestcommentaries.com
Also, if you have read the book I recommended, you would know that John's Gospel is quoted by Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c. 115) and Justin Martyr (d. 165). John must therefore have written the book much earlier. Indeed, in John 5:2, we are told that 'there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate, a pool, which is called in Hebrew 'Bethesda, having five porches.' This is evidence that John was writing before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Finally, Augustine of Hippo, who was much nearer to events that we are, wrote that some scribes had removed vs. 7:53ff from their codices because they were concerned that women might use the text as an excuse for their adulteries.
With regard to the Pastoral epistles, they are referenced by Clement of Rome and Polycarp. They (and John's Gospel) are listed in the Muratorian Canon and in Tatian's Diatessaron. It is time to stop casting doubt on Holy Scripture, which can only have the effect, humanly speaking, of injuring the faith of those coming to Christ. Matthew 18:6-7 should be a warning to us.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Since you chose to quote me in your post, I feel invited to respond …
Let’s discuss specifics:
Or should we embrace the Apostolic teaching on the subject and reject Maccabees as “not inspired” because it contradicts divine “Apostolic“ revalation?
Should we pray for the post-mortem salvation of the dead?
Have you actually read the apocryphal books? I have not read all of them, but those that I have read, I agree with the early church and Jerome and the Reformers that they are NOT “God breathed” like the 66 books that ALL CHURCHES agree are inspired.
Let’s discuss specifics:
Do you believe that we should still be following the formula given by the Angel and making the magic potion to heal blindness? Is that REALLY how God works?
Should we be embracing prayers for the dead and the theology that there is hope of restoration even after death (as Maccabees teaches) and reject the NT books that teach contrary as “not inspired” because they contradict prior divine revelation (the criteria to be Holy Scripture)?
Or should we embrace the Apostolic teaching on the subject and reject Maccabees as “not inspired” because it contradicts divine “Apostolic“ revalation?
Should we pray for the post-mortem salvation of the dead?
Last edited: