Parchment and Pen » 2007

Archive for October, 2007

New Testament Textual Criticism: Answer Key to Quiz

<a href=”http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/dan-wallace-contra-mundane/”><img height=”170″ width=”335″ align=”right” style=”width: 335px; height: 170px;” src=”http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/images/Parchment%20and%20Pen/danpandp6.jpg” alt=”" /></a> Wow! Nearly five dozen brave people have put their reputations on the line by taking this little quiz. Well done, folks. You all get an A just for courage. Now, for the questions again with their answers and explanations:
1. The first published Greek New Testament was:
<blockquote>
a. UBS1 b. Complutensian Polyglot c. Novum Instrumentum d. Textus Receptus
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "The UBS1 (or first edition of the United Bible Societies" Greek New Testament was published in 1966). The Complutensian Polyglot was the first printed Greek New Testament (1514), but it was not published for eight more years. The Textus Receptus is the name that was finally given to that form of text that finds its roots in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum Omne. But the Novum Instrumentum, published on March 1, 1516, has the honor of being the first Greek New Testament printed by a moveable type printing press to be published.
2. How many of the original New Testament books still exist?
<blockquote>
a. all of them b. Paul’s letters c. just the Gospel of John d. none of them
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "d." All of the original documents vanished long ago. This should not surprise us since virtually all ancient Greco-Roman literature vanished centuries ago. Why should the New Testament be any different?
3. How many manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament are known to exist today?
<blockquote>
a. less than 50 b. approximately 2000 c. approximately 3000 d. more than 5000
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "d." In fact, the most recent statistics from the clearing house for Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Institut fÃ¼r neutestamentliche Textforschung in Munster, Germany, tell us that 5752 manuscript copies are known to exist. However, this number is a bit deceiving because (a) some of the manuscripts are actually part of other, previously catalogued manuscripts (thus, for example, two different papyrus fragments may actually belong to the same manuscript, even though they were originally assigned a different catalog number); (b) some of the manuscripts that were at one time known to exist have gone missing or have been destroyed. The number 5000 is thus a very conservative estimate with these two caveats in mind.
4. A textual variant is:
<blockquote>
a. the wording of a verse or passage found in one or more manuscripts b. a word or phrase found in at least one manuscript that differs from the wording of the text printed by the editor(s) of a Greek New Testament c. any place where the original wording of a document is in doubt or is not uniform among the manuscripts d. a manuscript that contains a particular wording
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "b." A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts which varies from some standard such as a printed Greek New Testament. The standard may actually be simply some other Greek New Testament manuscript; in this case, any differences from that manuscript would still be called textual variants. Reading is the answer to â€&oelig;aâ€ ; textual problem is what "c" describes.
5. The prevailing theory of textual criticism held today among scholars is known as:
<blockquote>
a. reasoned eclecticism b. majority text view c. rigorous eclecticism d. independent texttypes view e. providential view
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "a". Textual criticism, generally speaking, has two components: external evidence and internal evidence. External evidence is concerned with Greek manuscripts, early versions (or translations), and quotations from the New Testament in church fathers. Internal evidence is concerned with what the author was most likely to have written (intrinsic probability) and what the scribes or copyists were most likely to have done to the text that they copied (transcriptional probability).
Reasoned eclecticism does not give absolute preference to either external or internal evidence. Each textual problem is weighed on its own merits. The vast majority of New Testament textual critics hold to this view today.
The majority text view gives priority to external evidence; further, it affirms that the original text is to be found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Rigorous eclecticism is just the opposite of the majority text view: it gives priority to internal evidence, especially intrinsic.
The independent texttypes view gives priority to external evidence, but not strictly to the "majority text." This view regards the three major texttypes (or groups of manuscripts that follow a certain pattern of readings) to be second-century editions. When two out of three of them agree, that agreement tells us what the original text was.
The "providential view" is a name I made up, but I’m sure that someone holds to something like this! Many King James only advocates, for example, would argue that God must have preserved scripture a certain way, and the KJV is how he did it.
6. The oldest complete New Testament known to exist today is:
<blockquote>
a. P52 (also known as Rylands 457) b. Vaticanus (B) c. Sinaiticus (a or Aleph) d. Chester Beatty Papyri
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "c." P52 is the oldest fragment, dated c. AD 100-150. The Chester Beatty papyri are old but incomplete. Vaticanus is slightly older than Sinaiticus but it ends at Hebrews 9.13. Certainly more was written originally, but the last several leaves of that codex disappeared centuries ago and were replaced by later leaves. Sinaiticus is the oldest complete Greek New Testament (dated to the fourth century AD) by half a millennium. It’s on display in the British Library.
7. Westcott and Hort were:
<blockquote>
a. British scholars who developed a theory of textual criticism that is followed today in liberal seminaries b. Theological liberals whose text-critical views can be entirely dismissed because these men were theological liberals and thus biased against the Bible c. All of the above d. None of the above
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "d." Westcott and Hort were British scholars, but their view has been significantly modified by textual critics today. They were not theological liberals, although their views were to the left of many evangelicals. Nevertheless, to argue against a viewpoint because those who promoted it may have been less than theologically orthodox is not always a logical move, for it presupposes either blindness to the real issues or intentional deceit on the part of the scholars. In 1881, after 28 years of labor, Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament along with an accompanying volume. What they achieved in those two volumes stands as a landmark in erudition and clarity in New Testament studies. But we have made at least some progress in the last 125 years!
8. The long ending to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16.9-20) is not found in:
<blockquote>
a. Aleph and B b. most ancient MSS c. the Alexandrian texttype d. the Caesarean witnesses
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "a." The long ending of Mark, in fact, has far better credentials than the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7.53-8.11). as far as the manuscripts reveal. Yet if we had to choose, most of us would prefer to keep the latter passage in the Bible and remove the former. This illustrates that many Christians bring a lot of emotional baggage with them when it comes to what the Bible says. We cannot pick and choose what is scripture based on what we like.
9. The total number of textual variants among the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic commentaries on the New Testament is:
<blockquote>
a. ten b. between 1000 and 1500 c. approximately 100,000 d. approximately 300,000 to 400,000
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "d." There are, in fact, more variants than there are words in the New Testament. This should not be surprising in light of how many manuscripts there are! The more manuscripts we have, the more variants there will be. The real issue is how serious these variants are. Do any of them affect a fundamental belief of Christians? Do they impact less important beliefs? These will be topics that we will explore in the coming weeks.
10. The most important rule for textual critics to follow when deciding on the wording of a particular textual problem is:
<blockquote>
a. the harder reading is to be preferred b. the shorter reading is to be preferred c. the reading that best explains the others is to be preferred d. the reading that most clearly affirms inerrancy is to be preferred
</blockquote>
The correct answer is "c." When textual critics look at all of the evidence”external and internal”they choose the reading that best explains the rise of the other readings. Virtually all textual critics adopt this principle. The difference in application among scholars has to do with the relative weight that they give to the various components of textual criticism. It may be surprising to many readers that "d" is not a criterion, except for a few radical right-wing scholars. But even here, the vast majority of textual problems (some would say all of them) do not impact in any way the doctrine of inerrancy. So, for the one who adopts this principle as the major guide to doing textual criticism, how is he going to decide on all the passages in which invoking inerrancy is irrelevant?

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

“Historic Evangelicalism”: Characteristics of a New Christian Tradition

I am an Evangelical . . . a “Historic Evangelical.” Meaningless, I know. But let me respond to many of you by taking the next step in putting some flesh on this proposed new name for an old tradition.

Reason for the Change:

1. Evangelicalism has lost its meaning in most circles today. “Evangelicalism” means both everything and nothing at the same time. It is fast becoming identified as a movement of political agendas, entertainment, health-wealth theology, radical separatists, and white Americans. While there are a great many Evangelicals whoÂ should not be identified with these characteristicsÂ holding the fort, remodeling is happening from the outside and no one asked for permission. These things happen.

2. The Emerging Church showed some potential and promise, but has, as of late, began to define itself as a movement holding hands with compromise. I understand that there are emergers such as Scot McKnight and Dan Kimball who are not compromising, but, while I admire and respect their continued battle in the emerging church, I don’t think that they can rescue it from irrelevance and heresy.

3. Evangelicalism ironically seems to have lost the ability to reform. It is ironic because Evangelicalism has traditionally found its identification in the roots of the Great Reformation whose principled admonition to the future church was semper reformanda (always reforming). Often to be deep in the theology of Evangelicalism means being deep in an unqualified sixteenth century anti-Catholic (Roman) polemic. This needs to be rethought based upon the current state-of-affairs and a humble recognition that while the Reformation was necessary we should not find all our roots in its soil.

How “Historic Evangelical” looks Evangelical:

Twentieth-century Evangelicalism sought to distance itself from the increasingly radical perception of “Fundamentalism.” Theologically, while Evangelicalism retained the essentials of the Christian faith that Fundamentalism originally defended against liberalism, it was broader in the non-essentials. In other words, Evangelicals could differ with regards to issues such as baptism, eschatology, and election, and remain united in the essential core doctrines of the Christian faith that were identified by our roots in the Reformation and beyond. Among these doctrinal distinctives was Christology (who Christ is and what he did), the sinfulness of man, justification by faith alone, the nature and ultimate authority of Scripture, and theology proper (the Trinity, the eternality of God, etc.).

As well, Evangelicals distinguished themselves from Fundamentalism as being more culturally “liberal.” Evangelicals sought to engage the culture with the assumption that culture itself is amoral (neither good nor bad). Engaging the culture meant involving oneself in culture in order to incarnate Christ in all places. This meant that Christians should not surrender the universities, politics, science, or market place of ideas over to the world, but instead reclaim them. Evangelicals also distanced themselves from many of taboos of Fundamentalism such as smoking, drinking, dancing,, and the like. Evangelicals saw many of these issues as adiaphora (not spoken of in Scripture) and therefore as matter of conscience rather than precept.

Evangelicalism has a great tradition with regards to the need for every believer to know Scripture. Evangelicalism is a movement based in Scripture and has believed that Scripture is the ultimate authority for the believer. It should therefore be read, taught, and preached with great (even alarming) passion. Historic Evangelicalism would continue with this passion.

Evangelicalism has also been a missional movement. This is vitally connected to the above characteristics. Evangelicals are focused upon bringing the message of God to the lost. Evangelicals seek to make disciples of all nations and believe that this is the primary mandate of the church.

How ”Historic Evangelical”Â might differ from Evangelical:

Ecclesiology: Evangelicalism retained many of the anti-traditionalistic tendencies of Fundamentalism. This free-church mentality sadly and unnecessarily has evidenced itself as a movement with no ecclesiastical roots. Evangelical churches, for example, look plain and uneventful. In fact the assumption was the more boring the architecture the more biblical the Church. Any traditional liturgy was not only hard to find in an Evangelical church, but looked down upon by many. Of course this produced a liturgy of its own which now bears the weight of its own tradition. Nevertheless, it is often hard to convince Evangelicals of the need and value of tradition and liturgy. I believe that this is both unnecessary and somewhat destructive. Evangelicals should not be anti-tradition since tradition and liturgy, used and evaluated correctly, are powerful means of teaching and worship. To distinguish yourself by a traditional liturgy or magnificent architectureÂ does not need to be equated with cultural irrelevance, but can communicate meaningful ecclesiastical distinction. Every organism is distinct in some way; the church should be the same. Therefore, the Ecclesiology of Historic Evangelicalism would engage all the senses, encouraging tradition and liturgyÂ as a means of teaching and worship.

It should also be recognized that Evangelicalism has many characteristics of the Enlightenment that are not healthy for the Church. The Evangelical modernistic individualism needs to be replaced with a deeper longing and commitment to community. The Body of Christ is a single organism that forms a community of dependent members. Evangelicalism has suffered due to its denominational isolationist mentality and its assumption that a Christian can properly grow outside the larger community.

Bibliology: While I am an advocate of inerrancy (”reasoned inerrancy“), I believe the designation has run its course and no longer is valuable as it might have been. I prefer that we simply say “the Bible is true.” The rest would have to be battled out through hermeneutics (which is where the issue ultimately lies anyway). Therefore, I submit that we no longer identify so closely with the term ”inerrancy” as we once did.

I also believe that Evangelicals come dangerously close to a Bible centered theology (Bibliocentric) rather than a Christ centered theology (Christocentric). As James Sawyer once put it, “Evangelicals have the holy Trinity: the Father, Son, and the Holy Bible.” This needs to be the scandalous exception rather than the glorified norm. While the Bible is the unique voice of God, it is not the end of our pursuits and it is not God.

Discipleship: There would be more emphasis placed upon the need for theological discipleship. While Scripture is our primary source for theology, reading Scripture alone does not necessarily produce good theology. This education emphasis would be based in an irenic method of teaching, helping people to understand all theological positions, historic and contemporary,Â so that they might make informed and intellectually honest decisions with regard to their beliefs. In the end, the intellectual shallowness that has plagued our ranks for the last century would be replaced with an informed and God-glorifying use of our mind.

Apostolic Succession: This might seem to be my most radical change, but its principled aspirations are nothing new to Evangelicalism. As I have said before (see The Evangelical Epidemic of Theological Accountability), I believe that a major problem in the church today (particularly in evangelicalism) is the lack of accountability. I believe that leadership (especially the office of the pastor) needs to have a requirement of apostolic succession. This involves a more serious and involved ordination process.Â I don’t believe that this “succession” necessarily needs to be conceived as a succession in person (such as is found in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism), but a succession in teaching. In other words, those who are in leadership need to be ordained into ministry as those who are approved by and held accountable to those who have gone before them. This accountability regulates the teaching of the church, ensuring that the teaching finds its roots in the teaching of the Apostles (the Scriptures). Obviously, this successionÂ in teaching cannot (and should not) beÂ divorced from succession in person, but any attempts to justify a person’s Apostolic authority primarily based upon their ability to trace their lineage through a succession of personsÂ without a succession of teaching is getting the cart before the horse.

Insufficient Names:

Emerging: I believe that this name neither has historic dignity nor pastoral sensitivity (explained below) for the importance of the situation.

Christian: While this would be great, the last two thousand years have made it insufficient to communicate what it aspires to say.

Protestant: No good. Places too much focus on the battle of the sixteenth-century which, while important, does not define everything we are and miscommunicates a highly polemic state of affairs.

Reformed Evangelical: Now, this is a good one! But, alas, this will not work. While I could call myself a Reformed Evangelical, this narrows this tradition unnecessarily to those with a Calvinistic bent.

Christ-Follower: Some in the Emerging Church attempted to use this name, but it is more a description of the word “Christian” which attempts to simplify the tradition. Inevitably it suffers the same fate of obscurity of both Evangelical and Christian.

Missional: To me, this lacks dignity as well as being too focused on one particular distinctive. But I recognize this charge could also be made against “evangelical.”

Post-evangelical: I don’t like this for two reasons: 1) Has no lasting value since “post” is a designation based upon the previous state of affairs (but hey, what do I know, we still call ourselves “Protestant.” 2) It communicates an anti-evangelical stance.

Orthodox Evangelical: While this communicates much of what I would like to communicate, it identifies too closely with the Orthodox Church that has its own rich, yet very distinct, traditions.

Evangelical Catholic: “Catholic” simply means universal. Evangelicals are catholic Christians, but not “Roman” Catholic. It would be nice to reclaim this designation, but it just ain’t going to happen. Too much baggage.

Why “Evangelical”?

It could be that “evangelical” is a word that is spoiled beyond use, but I am not ready to go there for two reasons. 1) I still believe that its usage in the mid-nineteenth century has left the biggest footprint in the field of the principles that are the most important. 2) It is a pastoral approach to change. It is (or should be) a well-known axiom in the field of pastoral ministries that when one pastor replaces or succeeds another pastor he should not immediately set his agenda to clean house through changes that would be perceived as too radical. He needs to be sensitive to the traditions of the congregation and, if change is necessary, take it slowly and adopt methods of change that are as subtle as possible. I think that a name change such as “emergent” or “post-evangelical” that says “We are really different” is unwise. I believe that it discredits those who are still Evangelicals with integrity as well as discrediting the history of the movement. We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Why “Historical”?

There needs to be more emphasis on the roots of our faith. I believe that while we need to find identification in the Reformation, we need to follow the Reformers’ example and discover that our roots go much deeper. That is why I like to say that our roots are not in the Reformation, but go through the Reformation. We must seek to show Evangelicals how we are part of the historic Christian faith going back to the early church. Each Christian should be able to trace the Christian faith through the successes and failures of those who have gone before us with sensitivity and pride, knowing that God is the God of history and he has never abandoned His church. This will enhance our accountability, broaden our community, and dignify our worship experience as we join hands with the entire Church, both living and dead, local and universal, visible and invisible.

Well, this certainly does not cover everything, but it is a good start. And since this blog has become entirely too long for a blog, I will now leave and wait for the comments. Go easy on me.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism

Considering the current discussion on the blog about the crisis in Evangelicalism, I found that Michael Spencer posted on this subject a few days ago. He lists 13 critical problems facing contemporary evangelicalism. I agree with all thirteen. I will also add mine to the end in brackets.

1. Vast evidence of a growing doctrinal deterioration on the essentials and implications of the Gospel.

2. The expansion and influence of the “Prosperity Gospel” throughout evangelicalism.

3. The loss of the concept of meaningful church membership and the rise of the “audience-only” model of church participation.

4. The loss of the theological “center” in mainline churches at the precise time many evangelicals are open to reconsidering the mainline vision of worship, especially in Anglicanism.

5. The triumph and glorification of unchecked pragmatic entrepreneurialism, especially in worship, but in all areas of evangelical life.

6. The corrosive and compromised influence of Christian publishing in shaping evangelicalism, as exemplified in the rise of Joel Osteen, The Prayer of Jabez and the Prosperity Gospel.

7. Growing chaos in the theological and practical preparation of pastors, especially in the “emerging” church.

8. The failure of the “Seeker” model to use its vast resources and influence to produce a Christian counter-culture or challenge the “program centered/facilities centered” model of evangelicalism.

9. The lack of rising “Billy Graham” quality new leaders for the larger evangelical movement.

10. The failure of most evangelical denominations to broadly embrace and effectively mentor the current church planting movement.

11. The demise of quality Biblical preaching at the hands of technology and entertainment.

12. The apparently fatal infection of much of the emerging church movement with the failed theology of 20th century liberalism.

13. The cannibalism of evangelicalism on issues related to theological, cultural, social and political diversity.

[14. The inability of evangelicalism to find its roots in the history of the church.]

[15. Inability to provide effective discipleship to new believers which involves a grounding in the faith both in belief and practice.]

[16. Intellectual apathy and laziness.]

[17. Inability to effectively engage culture due to stereotypes created from the above expressed points.]

[18. Movement to a short term model of missions which fails at sufficiently incarnating the Gospel, gravitating toward the unnecessary reproduction of western evangelicalism which suffers from all the above expressed points expressed.]

Do you have any to add? Do you agree or disagree with the ones presented?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Can I Just Start a New Tradition?

It would seem that every so often designations lose their value. I have talked about this much in this blog as I have lamented the demise of evangelicalism. I have watched the roots of evangelicalism rot, splinter, dry out, and die. I am was an evangelical. I find that it is hard to call myself such without dying the death of a thousand qualifications as I attempt to disassociate my designation of this tradition from the aberrant free-church, modern, postmodern, entertainment driven, and emerging nuances that haved turned the rich traditions of evangelicalism into something that no longer represents what it once meant. If Joel Osteen, R.C. Sproul, Benny Hinn, Chuck Swindoll, Oral Roberts, J.P. Moreland, T.D. Jakes, Jimmy Carter, Billy Graham, Brian Mclaren, Pat Robertson, and John Piper all distinguish themselves as evangelicals, then we must admit that the disignation both means everything and nothing at the same time.

It is no one’s fault I suppose. These things just happen. “The Coming Evangelical Crisis” came with~~out~~ warning. A lot of warning. It is a crisis indeed.

I have sat as a spectator of the emerging church. I have agreed with much of their assessment of the current situation of the day. I have agreed with them that the evangelical church is either focusing too much on non-essentials or has no focus at all. I have had hopes that this tradition might morph into something of value and dignity. But as of late it has become increasingly (and painfully) obvious that this tradition has a root of bitterness that is causing it to submerge into the depths of obscurity and irreverence. I have tried to submerge with it in hopes that the anchor of compromise might be losened. But the anchor is connected to the stern and it’s threads are not breaking. I have even been working on a blog in which I was going to argue that the values that birthed the emerging church look identical to the values that birthed 20th century evangelicalism. Come what may of this blog, I believe that the emerging church has sunk and it is beyond rescue. It lays at the bottom of the ocean right next to the once mighty ship of the liberal church. Modern and postmodern at rest together.

Yet, in my mind, all is not lost. There is hope. There is always hope. We may not have a name any longer, but there is the continued and growing presence of an ethos among those who recognize the need for progression and stability in Christianity. This ethos is shared by those who understand the deep roots of evangelicalism which extend through the passions of great Reformation into the committment of the early church. It is shared by those who find themselves in the history of the church and the Scriptures. These desire to pioneer the church into the next generation, not by settling for existing designations that, while rich, lack the ability to move forward, but by a true sense of semper reformanda (always reforming). This is an ethos that reforms by becoming incarnate to the culture without sacraficing doctrine or tradition that makes the church different. Aren’t we supposed to be different? Isn’t light different than darkness?

Can I start a new tradition? Well, not really a new tradition, but a new designation that represents the ethos of so many of those who have gone before us. If I can, I will call this tradition “Historic Evangelicalism.” Yes, it is not really different, but it is really different. The “Historic” qualifies “Evangelical” so that people don’t mistake that this tradition is rooted in history. Not only will this tradition be Gospel-focused and Christ-centered, not only will it be theologically robust and biblically literate, not only will the Scriptures be the final authority and non-essential issues be non-essential, but you will have to traverse the halls of church history to arrive at the lecturn. The “historic” will anchor us as we humbly recognize those who have gone before us upon who’s shoulders we stand. The “evangelical” will push us forward as the Gospel of Christ necessitates Christ’s incarnation through the church into whatever culture we find ourselves. The “historic” will give us permission to recognize the value of tradition as guide and teacher that joins our hands with the saints of the past. The “evangelical” will allow us to develop in our understanding as God’s revelation becomes clearer through the development of doctrine. The “historic” will ensure that we are consulting Augustine. The “evangelical” will ensure that we are conversing with our neighbor.

I am not Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Fundementalist, Evangelical, Baptist, Presbytarian, Lutheran, Anglican, non-denominational, or an emerger. I am a “Historic Evangelical.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

New Testament Textual Criticism 101

Michael Patton put up A Brief Primer on Textual Criticism last week without my knowledge. He didn’t know that I wanted to begin something of a series on this topic. Sheesh! We need to talk to each other a bit more often! I’ll try not to duplicate what he has written too much. But I do want to introduce you to this vital topic. And, just for fun, I’d like to start with a quiz. (This will help me to know how to &tilde;pitch this series of blogs.) I’m going to ask ten multiple-choice questions. Simply give your answers to the questions in your response. Do not add any commentary; just give your answers. In a few days, I’ll supply the right answers along with an explanation. If you’re too embarrassed to give your name in your comment, just say you’re Michael Patton using someone else’s computer.

1. The first published Greek New Testament was:

a. UBS1
b. Complutensian Polyglot
c. Novum Instrumentum
d. Textus Receptus

2. How many of the original New Testament books still exist?

a. all of them
b. Paul’s trade letters
c. just the Gospel of John
d. none of them

3. How many manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament are known to exist today?

a. less than 50
b. approximately 2000
c. approximately 3000
d. more than 5000

4. A textual variant is:

a. the wording of a verse or passage found in one or more manuscripts
b. a word or phrase found in at least one manuscript that differs from the wording of the text printed by the editor(s) of a Greek New Testament
c. any place where the original wording of a document is in doubt or is not uniform among the manuscripts
d. a manuscript that contains a particular wording

5. The prevailing theory of textual criticism held today among scholars is known as:

a. reasoned eclecticism
b. majority text view
c. rigorous eclecticism
d. independent texttypes view
e. providential view

6. The oldest complete New Testament known to exist today is:

a. P52 (also known as Rylands 457)
b. Vaticanus (B)
c. Sinaiticus
d. Chester Beatty Papyri

7. Westcott and Hort were:

a. British scholars who developed a theory of textual criticism that is followed today in liberal seminaries
b. Theological liberals whose text-critical views can be entirely dismissed because these men were theological liberals and thus biased against the Bible
c. All of the above
d. None of the above

8. The long ending to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16.9-20) is not found in:

a. Aleph and B
b. most ancient MSS
c. the Alexandrian texttype
d. the Caesarean witnesses

9. The total number of textual variants among the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic commentaries on the New Testament is:

a. ten
b. between 1000 and 1500
c. approximately 100,000
d. approximately 300,000 to 400,000

10. The most important rule for textual critics to follow when deciding on the wording of a particular textual problem is:

a. the harder reading is to be preferred
b. the shorter reading is to be preferred
c. the reading that best explains the others is to be preferred
d. the reading that most clearly affirms inerrancy is to be preferred

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Are you a Tabloid Theologian?

One person has rightly said that all people are theologians, you just have to decide what type of theologian you are going to be. Are you going to be a good theologian or a sloppy theologian?

Tabloid journalism. You know what this is. It is sensationalistic journalism. It is a billion dollar business. It preys on our naivety to believe something unbelievable. It exists because we like to let down our critical guard and indulge our minds by believing that which naturally would be rejected. From alien abductions to pregnant men, the tabloids have it all.

Tabloid theology is the same. It is sensationalistic theology. More than this, it describes the attitude of much of our religious culture today. It is the result of a culture that dichotomizes between the intellect and faith. It is fueled by peoples uncritical methodology. A tabloid theologian is one who constructs his or her theology based upon naivety. In the Bible, this is called a “simpleton.” In Christianity, as long as something tags their message with the name “Jesus,”Â with a prayer, or aÂ Bible verse,Â tabloid theologiansÂ will believe it.Â

Some examples of tabloid theology:

1.Â The pancake with Jesus’ image proves that Jesus is real.

2. Stories of miraculous healings need toÂ be believed without question.

3. “If you receive this email, pass it on toÂ five people and you will receive a blessing. If you don’t there will be a cure.” (Don’t say you have not done this!)

4.Â ”If you send a financial gift to this ministry, you will receive a clothÂ from brother ________ that will heal you.” (Please say you have not done this!)

5. “I sense that there is someone in the audience who has a back pain. God has healed you pain.” (Good guess)

6. The story of the microphone which picked up theÂ screams of hell during an oil drilling.

7. The hitchhiking angle who mysteriously disappears after sayingÂ ”Gabriel’s mouth is on the trumpet.” (I got chills when I heard this when I was 12-years-old)

I don’t know how many times I have received the email that encourages me to pass it on for a blessing. It usually comes from those who, if asked, would say they are religious. Most would even say that they are Christian. But in the end, the passing of the email was their only Christian service and act of faith for the day.

Many television preaching personalities rely upon the existence of tabloid theologians so that their message will be received without question. Criticism will kill tabloid theology—instantly. Therefore, criticism is seen to be sinful and dishonoring among tabloid theologians. “Doubter! Skeptic! Do you not believe that God will heal?” Many are guilted into becoming tabloid theologians thinking that this is what God would desire of the truly spiritual.

This dichotomizing of faith and intellect is not only destructive, I believe it is a sinful dishonoring of God by neglecting the stewardship of our mind. God calls on us to love Him with our entire being, the mind included. When a person believes anything and everything, this evidences a surrendering of the mind and jeopardizes the foundation of their belief.

I am not saying that God cannot heal back pain or send and angel with a message. But I am saying that I am not going to believe these type of stories until there is good reason to do so. I am a Christian critic. I am critical of all truth claims, especially those that are about God, and even more so about the sensational. Why? Because I must be. God has called me to be such a theologian. He has called us all to do the same. Our beliefs are too important to surrender based upon the smile of the seller or the good intentions of an email. Our beliefs forms the foundation of who we are. If our theology is built upon uncritical hear-say or unexamined sensationalistic claims, we are playing spiritual Russian roulette. The tabloid theologians theology will eventually come face to face with reality and it will not be able to stand. It will show itself to be naked of any ability to convince the mind. And as Jonathan Edwards said, “The heart will not accept what the mind rejects.” Eventually our “faith” will fall apart.

If you are a tabloid theologian, I encourage you to become more critical. I encourage you to evaluate truth claims as a skeptic. I know this sounds odd when speaking about God, the Bible, or Christianity, but you must do so. Make sure that any truth claims have an impressive resume before they are believed. When people call you unspiritual for being critical of their stories of divine intervention, take heart. God’s truth will always have an impressive resume. You are honoring God more by not being a simpleton.

The funny thing is that all false religious systems have no choice but to base their religion in tabloid theology. Christianity is the only one one that does not. Christianity invites, indeed, demands criticism, skepticism, discernment, and questions. True Christianity will pass the test.

Proverbs 8:5 You who are naive, discern wisdom! And you fools, understand discernment!

Proverbs 14:15 A naive person believes everything, but the shrewd person discerns his steps.

Can you think of any more examples of tabloid theology?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Why Anglicanism?

My best friend while I was at seminary, Chris Woodall, has recently converted to Anglicanism. He wrote about this in his blog recently. It is worth a read. Give him some trouble—he always does me!

Here is a nice statement made by Chris:

The spiritual-life advertised by evangelicals all my life did not work for me. I don;t know if it’s my personality, my education, my experiences, or anything else. I think it’s a combination of all three and more. At least the "more" is what I think I was missing in the evangelical world. That is a consistent, ordered, orthodox feeding on the scriptures and the essential doctrines of our faith. For all of my earliest years in the faith, I was encouraged to set aside a chunk of time, preferably the earliest morning hours, to read scripture and pray and read devotional literature. The Holy Ghost was supposed to do the rest "within me". Of course this is not a bad set-up. But I wasn’t coming away from these devos[9] with the same spiritual-sounding jargon that others did. I felt un-spiritual and I tried harder. At other times I heard some things from people of authority that flatly contradicted the scripture in my mind. So why did they read it differently than me? Was the Holy Ghost the supplier of individual interpretation? Seminary studies only compounded the problem. We got the same true-grit style instruction, "stick to it, boys . . . God is good." How can you deny that God is good?"

But some theology classes seemed to introduce a more balanced approach. I heard more ideas on Christian formation than I care to remember. Any approach that came near legalism just couldn’t fit. One did stick out in my mind. Worship can be a central spiritual tool for the Christian’s growth. In fact, how someone worships pretty much says it all concerning their character and inner life. But up until then, worship for me had been about listening & learning.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Manuscript Discoveries from Summer 2007 Expeditions

Dear friends,

A different sort of blog this time, but one I can hardly keep to myself. As many of you know, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (www.csntm.org) sent out two teams on expeditions this past summer—one to Patmos and one to an eastern European country. The expeditions accomplished far more than we thought they would: 25,000 images shot with high-resolution digital cameras, more than sixty manuscripts photographed altogether. Not only that, but we discovered several manuscripts that are up till now unknown to western scholarship. We’re not sure exactly what we have found in all instances so far because with thousands of images to go through it takes time to determine exactly what each manuscript contains. But we’ve been working through the images and documenting what we have found.

In addition to the new discoveries, CSNTM also "rediscovered" several manuscripts that had been presumed lost decades ago. To put all this in perspective, those manuscripts that go missing almost never show up. And certainly they donâ€™t show up in batches. This time, they did. More importantly, we photographed them as well as the newly discovered manuscripts.

One of the areas that the Christian faith has been attacked of late is its literary basis. The New Testament is an extremely well-documented book (i.e., there are thousands of copies of it), and it’s getting better all the time. What CSNTM is attempting to do is add significantly to the fund of knowledge that we have of the handwritten copies by discovering manuscripts, photographing them, and making the information available to the community of scholars. As well, we are working on developing OCR technology (optical character recognition) that will be able to scan the images and crank out printed text of what they say. The primary tasks of CSNTM, then, are to discover, photograph, and scan manuscripts. These tasks will enable scholars to become increasingly more sure of what the original text said. By filling in the gaps of various family trees, we will be able to connect the dots better. Ultimately, we are hoping to trace those genealogical lines back to their roots, and see how the roots converge close to the base of the tree. In other words, our ideal goal is to duplicate exactly the wording of the original text of the New Testament. Every Christian who is interested in the Bible should be interested in this endeavor because the Bible you hold in your hands (unless it is a King James or New KJV) is the direct result of painstaking textual research done by scholars in the past 125 years.

You can read the story of our recent trip to Patmos (complete with some photographs) posted at www.csntm.org under "Photographic Expeditions." But just to show you what I’m talking about, here’s an image of one of the manuscripts that we photographed:

Finally, of the manuscripts that we discovered this past summer there seem to be one or two that are significant as far as the original wording of the New Testament is concerned. I can’t tell you more yet, but soon will (we are hoping to make an announcement to the media in the winter).

Daniel B. Wallace
Executive Director
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

PS For those of you who know some Greek, try to figure out the text of the page seen above. The book is easy; but what about the details?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

The Non-Liturgy of American Evangelism

I grew up as a surf bum in Newport Beach, California. You probably already have the wrong image: I was too poor to own a surfboard or a wetsuit, but I could buy a "Duckfoot" swim fin and go bodysurfing all summer long. I miss that Duck Foot, that lifestyle, that city, that era of my life.

I miss not having to think too much about what to wear (regular Bermudas, grunge Bermudas, dress Bermudas, or well-worn 501 Levi’s were the only real choices for pants; t-shirts were mandatory, and sandals or Sperry Topsiders completed the ensemble). I miss the lively worship of Mariners Church (where I was for a time the youth pastor), and especially the Sunday evening "body life" that functioned much the way I envision the early church functioning. But, at the time, I didn’t realize that there was a long history of worship that looked quite different from the Bible churches of America.

On my first sabbatical in 1994-95, I spent some time living in Cambridge, England. With a history as an institute of higher education that reached back to long before Columbus discovered America, Cambridge was a world apart from Newport Beach. The formality of university life there, the reserve of the British people, the stately yet austere buildings, and the Brits’ downright seriousness about tea-time took some getting used to. Yet strangely, like virtually every student who comes to Cambridge, I quickly became hooked on the history of the place that oozes out of every brick and cobblestone. Students strongly prefer the older, drafty, musty, cramped, inconvenient colleges to live in rather than the newer, refined, efficient, and soulless ones. Why? Certainly not because they are drafty, musty, cramped, and inconvenient! These buildings are a hardwired connection to the past, to a time when great intellectual giants in all disciplines made their mark. Almost hoping that their genius will rub off on the new residents of Cambridge’s halls, students come here to make their mark as well. One of the great, yet simple, lessons I learned in Cambridge was that environment makes an extraordinary impact on how we live and what we value. I learned this in the libraries (especially the magnificent Christopher Wren Library of Trinity College), in the pubs, in the labyrinthian streets that were hardly designed for efficiency and speed.

Christopher Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge

But I especially learned it in the chapels, the cathedrals, the old churches where Christians have congregated for centuries. The choirboys of King’s College Chapel would fill rafters and hearts with other-worldly music at matins. And when the music went silent, one could easily be preoccupied with the stained-glass windows that told the story of God’s redemption throughout history. Then there was Little St. Mary’s, which derived its name from the university church, a magnificent gothic building that had stood since the twelfth century. Little St. Mary’s was the new kid on the block, built two centuries later than its older sister. Still, it was 150 years the senior of the Santa Maria that landed in the new world in 1492. When one worshiped there, a solemnity and calm embraced the soul.

Now that I am back in Texas, I find that as much as I love the vibrancy of American evangelicalism, I am finding that there is an intentionally suppressed liturgy, minimal symbolism in our worship, and an edifice that is built for functionality. The cathedrals of Europe are hardly designs of efficiency! Taller than they are wide, taking decades, sometimes even centuries to build, they are ridiculously impractical. The architects actually built perches for owls inside the sanctuaries so that they could keep the rodent population down. Impractical indeed. Yet one can only escape the sense of awe in such places, the sense of God’s grandeur and transcendence, if that person is dead inside.

I confess: I have a love-hate relation with American evangelicalism. It is to a large degree a product of American practicality. We are a culture that is highly successful—at least in terms of how we define success. But the rest of the world may not define it the same way. In Cambridge, success is not measured by what’s in one’s bank account but by what’s in one’s mind. In years past, it also was measured by what was in one’s heart.

My first time there, I almost felt sorry for the poor British who had fallen way behind the States as far as world leadership, economics, and military might were concerned. But I had a rude awakening: the Cambridge crowd pitied us poor Americans who were culturally challenged! And they were right. I was the poster child of this American impoverishment. If Kenneth Branagh’s dog listened to its master’s voice as he recited Shakespeare, the dog would appreciate only the fact that its master was speaking. Fideaux is too dumb of a beast to appreciate anything else. When in Cambridge, I felt like that stupid dog. I was culturally deprived, and a large part of the culture was ecclesiastical.

I began to realize that a long history of tradition was foreign to me and was outside of my comfort zone. And yet, a part of me longed for it, deeply longed for it. In the last several years I have been seeking community worship that has a better link to the past than the individualism and even proud ignorance of much of American evangelicalism. And I am not alone in my sense of lack. Maybe this felt need is why seeker-sensitive megachurches can keep their members for only five years on average, and why evangelicals in droves are joining Catholic or Orthodox communions. Maybe this need is what the emergent church is trying to fill. Rather than justifying our lack of liturgy as that which is "biblical" perhaps we need to think about getting in touch with the stream of tradition that reaches back to the distant past, sometimes even to the apostolic age. Often what passes for "biblical" in evangelicalism is simply ignorance of how God has worked among his people for millennia.

So, here are my questions. What part does culture, history, and tradition play in our spirituality? How should we measure the success of a church? What does it look like "both physically and spiritually?" Should our church buildings be designed to draw out the worship that is in our souls, or should they be designed to function as an education center? What place should the proclamation of the Word take in our worship service and what part should liturgy, including the Eucharist, take in our worship services? For a church to be thoroughly biblical, does it have to be anti-liturgical? What authority and relevance should we give to liturgy? Are my longings idiosyncratic, or are they shared by others? What say you?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

A Bumper Crop . . . of Sorts

Having grown up in the north, I have a great appreciation for this time of year "the harvest season." While living in Connecticut, New York, Wisconsin, my family and I greatly enjoyed the crisp evening air, the spectacular fall colors, going on hayrides, drinking fresh apple cider, and picking pumpkins, gourds, and apples. My wife (who’s from the Boston area) and I miss this time of year especially.

Despite the fact that I’m now living in Florida, I’ve experienced a different kind of "harvest ”of published books. So, I thought I’d diverge from my typical blog discussions to fill you on the fruits of my labor. (What I mention below you can see at a glance by checking my website: www.paulcopan.com.)

I recently finished writing another popular-level book "When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Practical Apologetics (Baker, 2008)"the fourth in a series. (This deals with questions such as ?Is killing Canaanites like Islamic jihad?" and "Did Jesus get it wrong about his second coming?" and "Is it okay to lie to Nazis?" and "Are people born gay?" ) By March 2008, I hope to finish writing a book on Old Testament ethics”Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?"

In early August, I was honored to have my coedited book The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion appear as part of a prestigious "Routledge Companion" series. It has over sixty chapters written by world’s "best in the philosophy of religion" from John Hick, John Koller, Gordon Graham, and Ian Markham to Linda Zagzebski, Charles Taliaferro, J.P. Moreland, Paul K. Moser and William Lane Craig.

Also, in August, a booklet I had written on relativism was incorporated into an InterVarsity Press study guide series. My particular book (with Mark Linville) is called What Is Truth?

In early September, another coedited book of mine appeared "Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues (Blackwell)." It’s a much slimmer volume, but it includes superb essays from leading philosophers’ from John Polkinghorne on religion and science and William Mann on religious experience to Quentin Smith on a naturalistic account of the world, Paul Draper on evil, and Gavin Flood on Eastern philosophy of religion. Indeed, both the Routledge and Blackwell books are comprised of chapters written by an all-star cast of philosophers.

Around the same time, I received a copy of Lee Strobel’s latest book, The Case for the Real Jesus (Zondervan). This past January, Lee came to West Palm Beach to interview me for a chapter of this book on the topics of relativism, pluralism and Jesus’ uniqueness, religious syncretism, and the atonement of Christ. The chapter deals with the challenge, "People Should Be Free to Pick and Choose What to Believe about Jesus."

In the next two or three weeks, I have three more books coming out. William Craig and I coedited a book Passionate Conviction (B&H Publishing). The chapters are from sessions of the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s annual apologetics conferences. We have contributions from New Testament historians and New Testament scholars such as N.T. Wright, Craig Evans, and Charles Quarles as well as a fine array of philosophers. The chapters deal with a range of issues the historical Jesus and The Da Vinci Code, emotional doubt, postmodernism, the emerging church, Islam, religious pluralism, and arguments for God’s existence.

The next book I’ve coedited with J.P. Moreland and three others is The Apologetics Study Bible (also with B&H Publishing). The world’s leading Christian apologists – Norm Geisler, Josh McDowell, Phillip Johnson, Chuck Colson, Hank Hanegraaff, and many others – have contributed readable essays throughout. In addition, top evangelical biblical scholars (Craig Blomberg, Paul Barnett, William Klein, Stanley Porter, Ken Mathews, to name a few) have made comments on the biblical text. In their textual notes, they address alleged discrepancies, historical questions, ethical issues, and other challenges to the Bible’s reliability.

Finally, there’s my authored book Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion (Chalice Press). I address philosophy of religion topics using the biblical storyâ€”God, creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation. I cover a wide range of topics in the philosophy of religion: the Trinity, the Incarnation, hell, divine hiddenness, truth and relativism, original sin, Jesus’ uniqueness and religious pluralism, the atonement, resurrection, the attributes of God, arguments for God’s existence, the existence of the soul, as well as doubt and hope. I really enjoyed writing this book and interacting with the biblical text throughout.

I’m grateful for this bumper crop of books, and I hope you’ll be able to look at them and profit from them.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture

It is no secret that our culture today is undergoing a massive paradigm shift with regards to the way people come to know truth. The atmosphere of the intellectual landscape has changed. Confidence, certainty, and dogmatism have been replaced with doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. All truth claims are held in high suspicion. Those still working under the old paradigm of absolute truth are thought by this new generation of thinkers to be naive at best and power mongering manipulators at worst.

Within the philosophical and theological communities, this new generation goes by many names: Post-fundamentalism, Post-Christian, Post-Evangelical, Post-Liberal, and the most common Post-modern. While these names may not be sufficient to completely convey the ethos of this generation, they all have one important element in commonâ€”they are all post something. The culture is moving beyond where it was before.

How do you know who to trust?

Before Google, before the Internet, before twenty-four-hour world news, before the introduction of our globalized culture where alternative truth claims are literally at ones fingertips, people could be much more confident that the truth claims to which they adhere were an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because we did not have any other alternatives to confuse the issues. The naivete that this intellectual isolation provided, while quite comforting, is no longer a luxury that we can afford to entertain and expect to have an audience in the real world. Truth is no longer simply a matter of going to the local parish on the corner and inquiring of the pastor. It is much more complex and confusing. Today, people are looking for answers, and bewilderment is the most common result. Thousands of alternatives present themselves at your front door at every turn. After a while you just don’t want to answer the door anymore. Is there a method of discovery that produces hope and assurance, without having to retreat back to naive isolationism of the past?

People are suspicious

Suspicion. This is a good, rich, and sad word that is only needed because of humanity’s moral downfall. To be suspicious means that you are in a "state of uncertainty or doubt." Or better, "Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like."Synonyms for suspicion are doubt, mistrust, or misgiving. Our culture is in a perpetual state of uncertainty about truth; our culture is suspicious” suspicious of you and suspicious of me. Why? Because Christians claim to have the truth about the most important questions in life. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. We have presented ourselves at the front door, and our message of exclusivity is falling on deaf ears.

While the problem is no secret, the solution is harder to come by. Because of these epistemological difficulties, the focal point for theology is no longer Bibliology as it once was, but Prolegomena. Prolegomena is the theological discipline that focuses on issues that need to be covered before truth claims can be asserted and debated. Prolegomena deals with the â€œfirst thingsâ€ of theology. Methodology, theological systems, epistemology, and sources for truth are all issues of Prolegomena. Because the world does not work with the same assumptions that it used to, I believe we must create common ground before we can reach our culture. This common ground must first and foremost deal with the issue of suspicion. The distrust that people have for you when you approach their door with a Bible opened to your favorite verse is real.

Not only this, but this disarming of suspicion must have a subjective component to it as well. You and I are not speaking from a megaphone from our isolated island of naivety (at least we shouldn’t be). We are affected by the change as well. I have seen just as much confusion and suspicion among believers in recent years as I have among unbelievers. People are leaving organized religion in droves, and the denominations are depleting in numbers. I, myself, find it hard to know who to trust.

What I want to propose is a method of theological inquiry that should go a long way in disarming both the skeptic out there and the skeptic within. It is called "irenic theology" or the "irenic method" of doing theology. The word "irenic" is taken from the Greek irene which means "peace." Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the "truth" by positioning itself as the only true option.

Requirements of the Irenic Method

Willingness to learn, adapt, and change: The Reformers brought theology out of the dogmatic slumber of the dark ages. They challenged the unfounded traditions and abuses of the past, giving the church a bright light of hope as the Gospel was rediscovered. They also sought to prevent the church from ever revisiting the difficulties proclaiming the principle of Semper Reformanda which means "always reforming." The Reformers knew that truth must always be tested and ready to be reformed. This understanding presents our search for truth as a journey that will not end until Christ comes for the church (1 Cor. 13:12). We must be willing to reform as well. The irenic method demands that we approach our study ready to alleviate ourselves of any sacred cows that might have crept in without warrant. We must be willing to reform our theology if the evidence makes such a demand. This is easier said than done, but it is necessary nonetheless.

Willingness to take a risk: When you present all views accurately, the best arguments from all positions are presented so that people have the chance to make up their own minds, knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of all relevant positions. In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe. There is risk involved in irenic theology, especially for teachers. Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fair well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion. People will find out the other options in a Googling generation. Once they do, you will have lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naieve, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent. Irenic theology demands that the risk be taken.

A broad knowledge base: No longer can people study in isolation, seeking to confirm their prejudice with what they read or whom they listen to. We must be willing to challenge ourselves and expand our thinking. If you, as a Protestant, are going to present the Roman Catholic view on Transubstantiation, irenic theology demands that you allow for no straw men arguments. In other words, you should know enough to present their case so well that if the strongest apologist for their position were to be in your audience, he or she would give you a thumbs up, affirming the accuracy of your information and appreciating your peaceful tone. There is an old folk tale that has been spread more times than I can count about counterfeits currency. Some would say that just as those who investigate counterfeits only study real currency in order to identify counterfeits, so should Christians only study the truth in order to identify untruth. This is a very modernistic illustration which is not only untrue, but will hardly serve as a justified model for discovery in a postmodern world. The first fallacy is that the illustration is simply untrue. Counterfeit investigators do study every type of counterfeit that is known. Second, this illustration arrogantly assumes that they are already in possession of the truth against which to measure the false. It necessarily requires that you do not examine the options. Therefore, it seeks to keep you in isolation. This is fine and good if you actually do have the truth, but who is to say that you do? Any number of rival truth claims can use this illustration to keep there people in naive ignorance. For many who follow this methodology, they are in for a rude awakening. We must be willing to study broadly and consider deeply the alternatives if we expect to have and produce intellectual honesty. Without it, how do we expect to stand before God with integrity?

Benefits of Irenic Method

Your beliefs will be more real: No longer will you believe something simply out of a subjective emotional conviction that can be shared by all people of all world religions, but because of an honest wrestling with the issues. God gave us our minds and He expects us to use them. He has no favor for the naive (read the Proverbs). His desire is for us to see the truth and be convinced of it.

You will have degrees of conviction: Without an irenic method, all beliefs carry the same degree of conviction. They are black and white. You either believe them or you don’t. There is no in-between. While the irenic method will give you greater conviction on many things, it will also demand less assurance with other things. You will see that often, because of the strengths of the arguments for alternative truth claims (such as in eschatology), the evidence demands that we be very timid about setting them up as tests for orthodoxy or holding to some things too strongly. If God’s revelation is clear, then we speak with the same clarity. If God’s revelation is not so clear, we represent it as such. Being Christian does not mean that we know it all or have a secret decoder ring when it comes to difficult issues. We have to look to the evidence and take a stand, even if that stand says "I’m not sure" or "I don’t know."

You will have a hierarchy of beliefs: As Roger Olson puts it, "Beliefs matter, but not all beliefs matter equally." The irenic method demands that we see that some beliefs are more important than others. In other words, all doctrines are not worth dying for on a hill. Once we begin to see this, we will have gained an audience because Christians will all be speaking the same language. While disagreements may still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree. The list on Google suddenly gets much smaller. The person and work of Christ is the center of our theology and must be spoken of by all Christians with unity and conviction.

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will you or others see our faith and other Christians in the likeness of a used car salesman, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

Our world is confused. They feel betrayed and manipulated, but this does not mean that they are not seeking for answers. Don’t underestimate people’s ability to spot a fake. Ask yourself continually if you are a fake. Don’t be afraid to learn. Christ has not given us such a faith that demands blind adherence. Pursue truth will all your being. Trust that God is not afraid of questions and doubt. He is pretty big. I think He can handle honest doubt better than naive commitment. Pursue theology irenically.

(Note: This is a rework “Googling for Truth”)

What say you?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

C. F. D. Moule: Last of the Gentlemen-Scholars

On Monday of this week (October 1, 2007), an icon of sober-minded New Testament scholarship died. He was ninety-eight. Born in China on December 3, 1908, Charles Francis Digby Moule (pronounced "mole") had a stellar career as a pastor and professor. He was one of the best known New Testament scholars of the twentieth century. Already many obituaries and eulogies have been written about him. Here are some of the links:

Scot McKnight’s blogsite
The Telegraph
The Independent
Mark Goodacre’s website

The basic information about his life can be seen on these websites. I’d like to share some more personal information. For starters, there has been no scholar whom I would consider a mentor more than C. F. D. Moule. I first came in contact with him in 1978, when I was working on my master’s thesis. I wrote to several grammarians to get their input on the thesis, "The Relation of Adjective to Noun in Anarthrous Constructions." Such a grammatical topic was the kind of paper that would cure the most hopeless insomniac, yet Moule was kind enough to write back. The basic objective of the thesis was to see whether 2 Timothy 3.16 should be translated "all scripture is inspired and profitable"or "all inspired scripture is also profitable." Moule disagreed with my conclusions (I argued for the first translation) but noted that the way I argued the case was the best way to defend the view. When I was working on my doctoral dissertation (another grammatical topic: "Article-Substantive-Kai-Substantive Constructions in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance" ), again I corresponded with Moule. And again, the focus was on a theological issue. This time the issue was closer to Moule’s heart: I argued, among other things, that at least Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1 affirmed the deity of Christ. Moule felt that I had proved my case.

To the unwary reader, one might think that Moule agreed with me on the second work simply because he believed that the New Testament affirms the deity of Christ. But that would be a great disservice to his memory, for Moule was, above all, an honest scholar. If he didn’t think an author had a defensible argument, even if Moule agreed with the theological implications of the essay, he would not be swayed. In the world of Cambridge University, a solid defense of a position was and is far more important than holding to the "right" view.

On my first sabbatical (1994-95), I spent some time at Tyndale House in Cambridge. Moule was already long retired and had moved to a little apartment in Pevensey, near Hastings. I wrote to him and asked if I could visit him. He invited me to lunch and I stayed for eight hours. We had a wonderful time together! That started a friendship that has continued and deepened over the years. Although I was never a student of his, he has been as close to me as any of my professors.

Over the past twelve years, we corresponded regularly. At one point, early on, he wrote, "Dear Dan, I think we now know each other well enough to drop the formalities. Please call me Charlie." I wrote back that I was not worthy to call him on a first-name basis, but I was vain enough to accept the offer to do so. That vanity will continue here because for a dozen years I have known him as Charlie.

His letters were always a great treat and truly fascinating. Whenever I got a letter from him, my wife would call me at work and say, "You got another letter from Charlie!" It was like getting a Christmas present in July; his letters were that important to me. I would open the letter and read it to our family. Every letter was a mixture of the latest theological news in the United Kingdom, Charlie’s personal anecdotes about life and ministry, and encouraging comments about my family. When my third son, Andy, had cancer, Moule offered up many prayers for his health. When I was struck with viral encephalitis, he was on his knees, beseeching the Lord of mercy for my health. He knew about our kids’ school, sports, girlfriends, spiritual life, work. He was like a beloved uncle who never intruded but always had an interest in each one of us.

I learned the art of letter-writing from Charlie Moule. And I learned the extreme value of letters from him. Email doesn’t have the same impact, and even face-to-face conversations don’t have the lasting impact that a written document can have. I have saved all his letters, and hope that many others who have been influenced by his life have, too. I’ve thought for several years of publishing a book of letters from Moule—not just letters that he wrote me but those he wrote many others as well. Each letter would tell its own story and show that there used to be giants among us, scholars whose heads were firmly attached to their hearts. Perhaps now is the time to get started on that tome.

He was the consummate gentleman, always rehashing the contents of my letters to him, affirming my life and ministry as though I were his own grandson. But Moule had no children or grandchildren. He was a life-long bachelor who never even learned how to drive a car. He was also one of the happiest scholars—indeed, one of the happiest human beings—that I’ve ever known. One can wonder whether this was due to his celibate state or to his bipedal mobility; ultimately, I think it was due to his genuine devotion to Jesus Christ—a devotion that was not merely cerebral but poured forth from his whole being.

We disagreed over many things, but always in the spirit of collegiality. He would not endorse the NET Bible even though he personally called it "a miracle" (largely because of the extensive and well-documented footnotes). His reason for not endorsing it was that he didn’t want to endorse things that were too evangelical. Yet he was not always consistent in such matters. He not only endorsed my Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, but he co-nominated me, with Harold Hoehner, for membership in the Society of New Testament Studies. This is a rather prestigious society that demands that applicants go through several academic hoops to get in. Many scholars apply several times before getting accepted. In large measure, because of the backing of C. F. D. Moule (a former president of the Society), I was elected for membership the first year I was nominated.

Theologically, Moule was a moderate. He fully embraced the bodily resurrection of Christ and the deity of Christ. Yet his view on scripture, on the Holy Spirit, and many other matters would hardly be considered evangelical. Any view that Moule expounded on, however, had to be dealt with seriously. He was as careful a biblical scholar as one could find.

When I spent the day with him back in April of 1995, he offered many anecdotes about noted scholars. We turned at one point to talk about D. A. Carson. Moule blurted out, when I mentioned his name, "Oh, he’s my favorite fundamentalist!" I then asked him if Dr. Carson would appreciate being called a fundamentalist. "Probably not" Charlie said with a wink in his eye.

When I wrote to him about the litter that our beagle, Gini (or Sweet Generis—a Latin word-play) had, I told him that we were going to keep one of the puppies. Her name was Kunopa Kala. I reminded him that he would have to dust off his Homer to understand her name. He fired back a letter: "What a great name for a dog! And how appropriate that you put her name in the vocative!" That was news to me!

I believe that Moule had memorized the Greek New Testament, just as his predecessor at Cambridge, C. H. Dodd, had done. After one of his visits to Cambridge a few years ago, on the train ride home, Charlie’s only copy of the Greek New Testament was stolen, a copy that he had had for decades. Yet one could almost see the smile on his face as he wrote to me, "I hope that the thief will come to see the real value of his new treasure!" My Advanced Greek Grammar class at Dallas Seminary pooled their resources and we purchased a Biblia Sacra for him (a one-volume Hebrew Old Testament with the Greek New Testament), a gift for which he was exceedingly grateful. In the interim, when he had no Greek New Testament, he continued to write to me. He made many helpful comments about the NET Bible (of which I am the senior New Testament editor). In several places, he commented on the Greek text and our translation of it. Yet his comments on the Greek text were all from memory.

On the five hundredth anniversary of Lady Margaret’s Chair of Divinity at Cambridge University in 2002, Moule returned to Cambridge for the festivities. He was being honored as one of the most prestigious occupiers of that chair in its long history. Although known as one of the great New Testament scholars of the twentieth century, Moule was actually a professor of theology! Many students know him for his insightful Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (second edition, 1959). As well, he wrote several essays and books on New Testament themes. A good friend of mine has said, "Theologians have opinions but exegetes have evidence." Moule was a theologian with evidence on his side, for he was a superb, sober-minded exegete.

Although known in evangelical New Testament circles for his Idiom-Book, Moule’s greatest academic accomplishment has to be his Origin of Christology (1977). It is still well worth reading. Indeed, it is must reading for anyone who wants to think deeply about this profound subject. When one of the Star Wars movies opened in theaters, I took my family to see the movie on opening day. I knew the lines would be long, so I brought my copy of Origin of Christology with me to reread while standing in line. When the movie started, I slipped it behind my back and forgot about it when I left the theater. The next day, I returned to see if someone had turned it in. There it was in the ticket kiosk! I wrote Charlie about this, and he noted wryly that using his book for back support was the most unusual use anyone had ever made of the book!

When I pleaded with him to write his autobiography, he simply said, "My life is not that interesting; no one would read such a boring book!" I’ve never known anyone more humble than Charlie Moule. "Pretentious" would never be an adjective to describe him. He showed more interest in my work than any other scholar did. Yet I was not treated in a particularly special way. He treated everyone the same, with grace, wit, humility, and endearing warmth.

I could go on and on telling stories about my friend and mentor, Charlie Moule. His life was fascinating to me, as I hope this little glimpse of it has been for you. At first, I was surprised to see the incredible warmth in his epistles. Then, I started to doubt myself, wondering whether he would be so kind of I misstepped in my missives to him. But he was always the same, even when we had strong disagreements, and even when I had offered some half-baked ideas that he shot down with ease.

He was completely lucid till his dying day, even though living in an assisted-living home for the last few years. His letters were filled with Latin, Greek, German, and Hebrew, yet were written in a lively style with a great sense of humor and an excessive use of exclamation points. They combined, like none I’ve ever seen (except for Bruce Metzger’s), the personal warmth and intellectual rigor of a genuine Christian scholar. When I would write, I would wait no more than ten days before getting a handwritten response. I always owed him a letter. I was planning on writing him again this weekend when I got the news of his passing today. The death of a friend always hits me hard. Even though C. F. D. Moule was nearly ninety-nine, and even though I knew that his day would come soon, I was not prepared for it today. It hit me hard both because of my relationship to him and because he was the sole survivor of a dying breed. With his death is the passing of the last of the gentlemen-scholars.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

The Rise of the Intellectual Charismatics

In times past, most serious theologians and biblical scholars could look to the modern Charismatic movement merely as the latest movement among folk Christianity that doesn’t take intellectual studies seriously. The sensationalistic tendencies of the movement could be easily written off knowing that soon this fad would end with disillusionment and an “I told you so” that followed.

Such is not the case any longer.

The answer to the question of whether one is a cessationist or a continuationist does separate the sheep and the goats like it once did. A cessationist is one who believes that the supernatural sign gifts of the Bible such as healing, tongues, and prophecy ceased at the end of the first century with the death of the last apostle. A continuationist (Charismatic) is one who believes that these gifts have continued throughout history and should be sought today by the church.

Cessationistism claimed most if not all respected scholarship for a time. With this claim came the ad populum comfort that their view was indeed correct. Since the nineties, however, there has been a rise in respectedÂ evangelical scholarship that no longer follows the traditional party-line of cessationism. Scholars such as Craig Keener, Sam Storms, John Piper, Jack Deere, and C.J. Mahaney, just to name a few, are continuationists. But the two that stand out more than any others in my opinion are Wayne Grudem and J.P. Moreland.

Wayne Grudem is a theology professor out of Phoenix Seminary. Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. He also served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1999. His Systematic Theology is one of the best selling and most respected Systematic Theologies available. Even cessationists agree that Grudem’s theology is orthodox on just about everything he touches. He is a balanced scholar who knows the issues well and who’s beliefs would never provide the easy target that cessationists are traditionally so used to. More than this, Grudem Reformed in his theology! He is a charismatic Calvinist! Grudem believes that the miraculous sign gifts are still available and prevalent in the church today.

J.P. Moreland is a distinguished philosophy professor at Talbot School of Theology at Biola. He hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Southern California. He is a first rate philosopher, theologian, and apologist. Moreland has written on many subject in his field and is respected by most leading philosophers today—Christian and secular. His intellectual abilities do not fit the bill of a Benny Hinn or a Pat Robertson to say the least. In fact, he has written one of the most compelling works of our generation concerning the need for Christians to reengage in the intellectual arena, criticizing the church for its inability to defend the faith reasonably. The book is called Love Your God with All Your Mind. If you were ever in a debate with an atheist or a philosophical naturalist, Moreland is the guy you want on your side. He, like Grudem, does not look like the stereotypical Charismatic. He is a recent convert to the Vineyard Movement, who believes that their are prophets who speak supernaturally on behalf of God today and that the gift of healing is not only available, but should be sought out.

With so many flies in the ointment what is a cessationist such as myself supposed to do? Continuationists are simply not supposed to be intellectuals! Yet they are, and they can defend their positions.

I believe the landscape is changing. There are now fewer hard cessationists who believe with absolute conviction that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased. You know that the battle lines are fading when C.J. Mahaney and John MacArthur can share the same pulpit! Because of the stature of these respected scholars, many cessationists are beginning to scratch their heads wondering if they might be wrong. Some are one experience away from fully embracing a continuationist theology.

While I find many of the biblical and theological arguments of cessationism compelling, I would be the first to admit that the primary reason I remain a cessationist is because I have never experienced any miracles, signs, or wonders and I have never seen or heard of a legitimate prophet. If someone were to ask me if I believe that God is still speaking through prophets and giving the gift of healing, I would confess my tentative cessationist beliefs. I have never seen nor heard of a prophet or divine healer, but this does not mean that God is not or cannot work in such a way today.

While going through the recent depression andÂ suicide of my sister, I was more than willing for a someone with the gift of healing to come to the rescue, representing God’s benevolent hand of mercy. Even though my theology was predisposed against it, I prayed for God to bring someone. With my mom’s aneurysm and stroke last year which took away part of her brain, I live in hope of God’s miraculous healing to rescue us from what was only previously a nightmare. I certainly am not against Him sending someone with this gift. Yet He has not and I have had to learn to trust in Him in spite of the difficulties that these situations have introduced.

While the Bible does not ever say that the supernatural sign gifts ceased or were going to cease (in fact, it may imply the opposite), history does seem to suggest it, and my experience, to the degree that it can be trusted, verifies it.

One thing that we need to keep in mind is the if God has not tied His own hands, our nice clean theological system cannot tie them for Him. If He moves in such a way, we better recognize this. At the same time, if He is not moving in such a way, we discredit Him by claiming He is doing something He is not. This can cause great damage to His character and disillusionment to those who seek such interventions. Both sides need to be very careful about this issue.

I would, however, call upon fellow cessationists, especially hard cessationists, to consider continuationism from the “best of” and not create straw men by referring to the common abuses that are televised for all to see. Seek out the wisdom and scholarship of Grudem, Moreland, and the like before you dogmatize your beliefs. They represent the best of their belief and form what I believe to be the intellectual rise Charismatics.

With all this in mind, this blog could have just as well been titled “The Demise of Hard Cessationism.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Did Christ have a Physical Body?

I haven’t read the book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder yet, but I have ordered it. I’m not exactly sure where this book is headed, but it seems to me that Robert Price would definitely believe that the tomb was indeed empty on that first Easter morning. The reason is that he believes that Jesus never existed. There’s a new breed of writers who are actually taking this idea seriously and are working out all sorts of explanations for how the rise of Christianity took shape. One of the objectives, it seems, is to deny that Paul ever spoke of Christ as having lived on earth. To Paul (according to this view), Jesus Christ was a mythical figure who roamed the heavens, not a real time-space man who suffered on a Roman cross, bled real blood, and rose from the grave bodily.

This seems to be the view that one of the chapters especially takes. Again, I haven’t seen the book yet, but I am generally acquainted with the work and viewpoint of several of these authors, Richard Carrier among them. I was alerted to Carrier’s translations of various passages in his chapter, "The Spiritual Body of Christ."

After calling one of the essays in the book "mean-spirited" the Publishers Weekly review added, "However, several essays make excellent points about holes in Christian apologists’ arguments; Richard Carrier’s discussion of the ’spiritual body of Christ’ for instance, challenges Christians’ tendency to imagine a monolithic worldview among first-century Jews." This lone chapter was singled out for the highest praise by PW. Again, since I haven’t read the book yet, I cannot comment on the entirety of the chapter. But I can comment on one of the foundational pieces in it: whether Paul thought in terms of a spiritual body or a physical body when he considered the resurrection of Christ.

One key passage on this is Romans 8.11-13. This is Carrier’s translation:
"So if the spirit of the raiser of Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the raiser of Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies, through the Spirit dwelling in you. And so, therefore, brothers, we owe nothing to the flesh, we ought not live in the flesh, for if we live in the flesh, we are destined to die, but if we kill the deeds of the body we will live." (p. 149)

Critique: On the one hand, this is an awkward translation, which normally means that the translator is a neophyte and is uncomfortable in working in Greek. On the other hand, it is a bit too free, indicating that the author is either quite comfortable working in Greek or has an agenda (this second would be the case if the translation is not true to the meaning of the original). The translation is reminiscent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation in its method, a translation I would regard as the worst committee-produced English translation ever foisted on the public. In addition, there are some specific critiques I would add, most notably Carrier’s poor understanding of Greek syntax.

Now for some specifics: "the raiser" (two times) is both overly literal and yet does not accurately reflect the Greek. Since the participle each time is aorist, the best translation would be "the one who raised" indicating that this was an event in the historical past. One wonders if Carrier is trying to do a sleight of hand, but suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus is not in the past. Then, either sloppiness in viewing antecedents or else an intentional deception is seen. Carrier has "through the Spirit dwelling in you" in v. 12. Earlier "spirit" was not capitalized. This time it is. If this is intentional, it seems meant to distinguish the two instances in vv. 11 and 12. But this neglects the autou, wedged between tou enoikountos and pneumatos. The Greek means either "through his Spirit" or "through the same Spirit." This is something, in fact, that we just went over in first-year Greek last week! By dropping either "his" or "same" and by rendering the first "spirit" in lower case and the second capitalized, the impression one gets is that two different s/Spirits are in view. Whether intentional or not, this is simply a poor, even sloppy translation by one who does not seem to be well acquainted with the language. There are other items we could quibble with in v. 12 (e.g., the use of exclusivist language for adelphoi when it has been amply demonstrated that adelphoi was often used of both genders in Koine Greek; the paraphrase of what should be translated as "we are obligated not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh" into the clumsy expansion, "we owe nothing to the flesh, we ought not live in the flesh" in which the single point is now divided into two, and the preposition "according to" is translated as "in"). Perhaps worst of all is v. 13: not only does the translator switch the person from second to first (from "you" to "we") with no warrant that I can discern, not only does he continue to illegitimately or at least loosely translate kata as in, but he also leaves out "by the Spirit" the only means by which one can kill the deeds of the body!

If this translation showed up in an exegetical paper for one of my Romans classes, I doubt that I would give it a passing grade. I would note that the translator was not paying attention to the details of the text and thus was ending up with a view of the passage that was far afield from what Paul intended. Whether Carrier did this intentionally or unintentionally, either way his treatment of the text is illegitimate. If unintentional, then his competence in Koine Greek needs to be called into question. If intentional, then his integrity as a scholar needs to be called into question. I can almost understand this sort of thing in a rushed-off email to someone when a translator is distracted by Monday night football while he’s glancing at the text in semi-conscious awareness of the Greek. But for it to appear as a published translation" and one that no doubt has an agenda”seems inexcusable. Now if this is the best chapter in the book (as Publishers Weekly almost hints at), I have to wonder how good the rest of the tome is.

Nevertheless, I am sure I am missing something. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to Carrier and see if he has defended himself in lexical or grammatical explanation, footnotes, or text-critical decisions that would alter the text. Has anyone read the book yet? How does Carrier defend this translation?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Why I Don’t Believe the Canon is Closed

The term “canon” refers to the accepted books of the Scriptures. The Protestant canon contains 66 books, while other Christian traditions will vary, adding a few books of the Apocrypha and some additions to other books. A commonly accepted understanding among most Christians of all traditions is that theÂ books that belong in the Scripture cannot be added to. In other words, the canon is “closed.”

While there is a sense in which I believe the canon is closed, there is also a sense in which I don’t believe the canon is closed. Let me explain.

In order to maintain that the canon is closed, most Christians would refer the the first few centuries of the church. In particular councils such as Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, as well as Athanasius’ Easter Letter will be referred to as evidence that the canon of the New Testament had closed. The Old Testament, according to most, was already established and closed by the time of Christ. For this, reference would be made to the New Testament itself, as well as the testimony of Josephus, Philo, and some of the inter-testamental works.

My contention with this assumption is that to say that the canon is “closed” needs to be understood more in an observational way rather than an authoritative pronouncement. The term “closed” might not be the best word since it implies a necessary finality concerning the contents of Scripture. This is something that I don’t believe we can say in the way that we often say it for two primary reasons:

1. Scripture itself does not limit the canon to 66 books. No matter how hard you look, one would be hard pressed to find a place that definitely “closes” the canon. Revelation 22:18-19 is often referred to as evidence:

Revelation 22:18-19: I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

The problem with using this passage is that it is specific to the book of Revelation. Just because the book of Revelation occurs last in our canon does not mean that this warning serves as a book end for the entire Bible. It is meant to communicate a general statement about those who would be tempted to add to or take away from God’s word in general, and to the book of Revelation in specific. Yet the same warning is given in the book of Deuteronomy and the Proverbs:

Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Proverbs 30:6: Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Does this mean that once Deuteronomy or Proverbs were complete that no one was supposed to add any other books? I don’t know anyone who would make that argument.

2. The canon is self-regulating. The idea of canon is simply a way of expressing those books that are from God, authoritative, and, therefore, part of Scripture. There is no reason to ever “close” it if by close you mean it is not possible for God to add to it. I know that people are simply trying to say that other people cannot add to it, but I think in doing so we have philosophically overstepped our bounds. In other words, we don’t close anything. God simply stops adding to it. We have no right to say God cannot add to it because it is “closed.” This way, God regulates His own revelation.

In short, the argument that I am making is that the canon is closed only to the degree that God is no longer adding to it. But it is not closed in the sense that God cannot add to it were He to make an unforeseen movement in the history of revelation. The primary reason why we have not added anything to the canon in the last two-thousand years is simply because God has not used an authenticated apostle or prophet to speak His word and add to it in two-thousand years. Only in this sense is the canon “closed.”

Now, to be clear, I don’t think that God will ever add anything to the canon and I am not meaning to suggest otherwise. I believe that the Bible’s primary purpose isÂ to communicate the history of redemption and I believe that we have good reason to believe that this history is complete. Listen to the writer of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1-2: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

“In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” contrasts the former means of revelation through the “prophets.” It suggests finality. God is no longer speaking to us through a mediator who is unlike Him, but through His genetic equal—His Son! What more do we need? Therefore, I think we are safe believing that God’s revelation is complete, even if we cannot be overly dogmatic about this.

When communicating the doctrine of canonicity, I think this is as far as we can go: It seems that the Scriptures are complete for two reasons: 1) God has not added to it through an authenticated spokes person in two-thousand years, and 2) the purpose of Scripture is completed with the advent of Christ and the communication of the Gospel.

I know that the idea of a theoretically open canon will not sit well with many people, especially Christian apologists who combat Mormonism as well as cessationists who combat modern-day prophets. Yet there is really no issue with either when we realize that Mormonism falls due to its inability to authenticate Joseph Smith as a prophet and its contradiction with previous revelation. Concerning modern-day prophets, I don’t have an issue. I don’t believe that we have seen a prophet since the time of the apostles, but this does not mean that God cannot send one.

In short, God can do whatever He desires. Our theological constructs and definitions of a “closed canon” do not lock Him out of our room. If He wants to add to the canon or speak through a prophet, He can do so. Neither you, I, a church council, or a Pope can put a “do not enter” on the door of revelation.

I don’t mind saying the canon is closed so long as we qualify this. The canon is “closed” to the degree that God is no longer adding to it.

To be fair, this proposition is not quit as provocative as it might seem. While this will irk Roman Catholics who believe that the Church itself closed the canon, Protestants have historically believed that the church simply recognizes the canon, but does not have the authority to close it.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Blog Rules

Blog Rules: Read them Before Posting
Latest News and What I am Doing
- Bloggged If Evil, Why God?: - http://tinyurl.com/loq6mr 10 hrs ago
- Is wondering how flies know when I have a swatted 18 hrs ago
- @DougKAduBoahen you bet. Contact Carrie@reclaimingthemind.org in reply to DougKAduBoahen 19 hrs ago
- People act according to what they believe. If you want to change actions, change beliefs. It is really pretty simple. Life 101 out. 19 hrs ago
- Bloggged If Evil, Why God?: - http://tinyurl.com/loq6mr 22 hrs ago
- More updates...
Posting tweet...
Blogroll
20 Popular Posts
- Calvinists, Let's Calm Down 111 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on May, 15
- A Theology of More 84 comment(s) | by Lisa Robinson | posted on May, 22
- She Died of Sadness 24 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on May, 14
- Quick Thought On Transubstantiation 124 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on May, 11
- I Don't Get Bart Ehrman 52 comment(s) | by Dan Wallace | posted on May, 21
- God as My Husband? 53 comment(s) | by Lisa Robinson | posted on June, 29
- Need help!! 8 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on June, 6
- Where We Live 9 comment(s) | by Lisa Robinson | posted on June, 9
- Introducing the Credo House of Theology 0 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on June, 25
- New TTP Elective: Science and the Bible: Need Your Help! 31 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on May, 16
- Pop Quiz: What Does this Signify? 23 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on July, 3
- Theology Avoidance Disorder 36 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on June, 1
- Least We Forget 12 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on May, 14
- A Case for Retro Christianity 6 comment(s) | by svigel | posted on May, 9
- Why I Don't Think Too Much of "Spiritual Formation" 32 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on June, 29
- What is God (1) 17 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on June, 9
- New Testament Manuscripts: The Beat Goes On 4 comment(s) | by Dan Wallace | posted on July, 2
- Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors 2 comment(s) | by Paul Copan | posted on July, 4
- New Reclaiming the Mind Ministries Online Store 0 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton | posted on June, 6
- Special Theology Unplugged: So What is an Online Theology Program Session Really Like? 0 comment(s) | by Carrie Hunter | posted on May, 21
Recent Discussion
- gil on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- Greg on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- Steve B on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- C Michael Patton on An argument against atheism?
- Truth Unites... and Divides on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- gil on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- chuck aka XtnYoda on If Evil, Why God?
- Susan on Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors
- C Michael Patton on If Evil, Why God?
- Michael on If Evil, Why God?
- Truth Unites... and Divides on Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors
- Truth Unites... and Divides on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- Truth Unites... and Divides on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- Truth Unites... and Divides on Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
- Geoff on If Evil, Why God?
Buy Amazon

Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries by purchasing anything and everything through here
We are a 501c3
Eighty percent of our budget comes from your support! Partner with us in making a lasting impact.

Archive for October, 2007

Blog Rules

Latest News and What I am Doing

Blogroll

20 Popular Posts

Recent Discussion

Buy Amazon