Christians: What denomination(s) is/are closest to the truth?

Great Debates
41

Thea…true and false. Believe it or not, both you and the
'Gator are right.

Your first paragraph is close to on target. However: the Hebrew Bible included only the books in the Protestant Old Testament (“protocanonicals”) – and there was some debate on which of the “Writings” were canonical. The Septuagint
included a greater range of books, including Wisdom and Apocalyptic material that was used more or less devotionally by Jews of the Diaspora. Jamnia merely ratified the common use of Palestinian Jews, to restrict what they considered Scripture to those works known at the time in Hebrew. Supposed authorship by a historic figure (Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon) was also a major criterion. (Ecclesiasticus was written in Hebrew, and Hebrew manuscripts have survived, but was not known to the Palestinian Jews, since it was an Alexandrian product.)

There was debate down through the history of the church as to the validity of the deuterocanonical scriptures (those in the Septuagint but not the Hebrew Bible). Jerome, who translated the Vulgate and was the leading Bible scholar of his day, was opposed to their inclusion in the Canon. However, these were not seen as critical disagreements, but simply difference of opinion over non-essentials, before the Reformation.

Trent did formally set the canon for the Roman Catholic Church as the wider canon founded on the Septuagint. This was done in reaction against Calvin, Luther and Zwingli’s insistence on the narrower Hebrew canon. It was seen more as “spelling out what we’ve always practiced” than as innovative, but the fact does remain that it was at Trent that the canon was officially defined for the RCC.

For me and us Anglicans, it’s very much a tempest in a teapot. We found doctrinal teachings exclusively on the narrower canon, and have occasion to use material from the wider one as appropriate. I find the deuterocanonicals mostly to be on a par with the least useful parts of the protocanonicals, and don’t see a whole lot of reason to argue the point.

42

Glee…glad we’re at peace!

In view of the fact that at least four of us are interested in discussing the origins of the Bible, does that sound like a worthwhile GD thread? I do have some points to disagree with you on regarding the Gospels – the 100-year span from the Crucifixion is not theorized by even the most radical of scholars.

43

Actuaully, Polycarp, the Christian Canon of Scripture was approved, and closed, in 405 AD by Pope St. Innocent 1.

The Alexandrian Canon (Septuagint) was the Jewish Bible used by Christ and the Apostles. The Palestinian Canon (Hebrew Canon) was only used by a minority of what for lack of a better term of Jewish fundamentalists who were opposed to the use of books that were believed to have been originally written in Greek, rather than in Hebrew, the sacred language. It was not formalized as the “official” Jewish Bible until Jamnia.

The Hebrew Canon was adopted by the Reformers, not out of any sense of scriptural purity, but because the Deuterocanonicals supported Catholic doctrines that the Reformers rejected, most notably the belief in Purgatory.

Incidentally, Martin Luther also thought the epistle of James did not belong in the Bible, because it emphasized the importance of Good Works for salvation. Luther, plagued by guilt over his own frequent failure to perform good works, would go on periodic “binges” of doing good, then lapse, then finally arrived at the conclusion that good works weren’t so important after all.

44

BTW, I think the origin of the Bible is a great subject for a GD thread. Go for it.

45

Poly, well said on the deuterocanon. I think I can go back the the time of Jerome, and say it is a point that we can agree to disagree on. A good number of Catholics that I fellowship with in the Parlor seem to agree as well.

I snippet of support for dating of the Gospels…

Datings of New Testament writings:

Conservative Dating
In some cases [e.g. Matthew’s Gospel], now being revised as not conservative enough


Document           Date(AD)     Source
Paul's letters     50-66        Hiebert
Matthew            70-80        Harrison
Mark               50-60        Harnak
                   58-65        T.W. Manson
Luke               early 60's   Harrison
John               80-100       Harrison

Liberal Dating
In some cases, proven to be impossible [e.g. John’s Gospel]; in others, rarely accepted by competent scholars today.



Paul's letters     50-100       Kummel
Matthew            80-100       Kummel
Mark                   70       Kummel
Luke                70-90       Kummel
John                  170       Baur
                   90-100       Kummel

Figures are from:
Introduction to the New Testament - Kummel 1973.
Introduction to the New Testament -Harrison 1971
Introduction to the New Testament, Vol II - Hiebert 1977
and from lectures by T.W. Manson and F.C. Baur. (NETDAV - McDowell)

A snippet of Archaeolical support for early dating of the Gospels is the John Ryland’s Maunscript, dated 130 AD. Norman Geisler writes, “Because of its early date and location (Egypt), some distance from the traditional place of compostion (Asia Minor), this portion ot the Gospel of John tends to confirm the traditional date of the compostion of the Gospel about the end of the 1st Century.”
William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost biblical archeologists said:

He further concludes:

Some scholars have re-examined earlier dates leading one researcher (Dr. John A. T. Robinson) to conclude that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

HTH

(sorry for the double post, I’ll check this one with preview first, Moderator’s feel free to delete the first post)

46

Polycarp,

I’ve never had a problem with your posts (or Navigator’s). :slight_smile:

In case it wasn’t clear, I was depressed with my fundamentalist friend, and it was to him I was referring when I said ‘Hate the sin…’

I would be happy to contribute to a Gospel thread, but I don’t have historical references to input. I could propose that they were unlikely to be based on first-hand eye-witness accounts, but that may not be relevant.

I have a Chaplain at School, so I could ask him questions…

47

As George Carlin would say “My God has a bigger dick than your God.” Therefore my God is the true God.

48

In what book did Albright make this claim. I’d love to see how any current scholar can date Revelation earlier than Domitian (mid 90’s).

In general, I would follow Kümmel for nearly all the dates. (I like his Intro (actually Fehn’s, Boehm’s and his Intro) because he gives everyone a voice in the discussion, even when he picks a preferred interpretation.)

49

Navigator said: “A friend of mine has this in his signature. *In necessarlis unitas, in dublis (or, non ccessarlis) libertas, in omnibus (in utrisque) caritas, or In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity. * I think that is the proper attitude […]”

It is a nice attitude, Jon, but it’s lousy Latin. Tell your friend that he should change his sig to

**In necessariis unitas, in dubiis ** (or, non neccessariis) libertas, in omnibus (in utrisque) caritas.

Then he will not risk having the heathens snicker at him. :slight_smile:

50

Only one “c” in the second “necessariis”, of course. :slight_smile: (snicker, snicker…)

51

Recent Discoveries in Bible Lans, Albright, W. F., 1955.

Redating the New Testament, Robinson, A. T., 1976.

I have seen some people that date Revelation prior to the fall of Jerusalem, but mostly to backup their preterism views of escathology.

I’m more comfortable with a 90’s date for Revelation also.

HTH.

P.S. I don’t know diddly about Latin, but I’ll pass on the spelling lesson (with the one less ‘c’ redaction. :wink: