Von Christian
„Knowledge is power“ is a common saying that goes back to the English philosopher Francis Bacon. While he related it to science, there was a similar, more general statement as early as Proverbs 24:5 „The wise are mightier than the strong, and those with knowledge grow stronger and stronger.“ (NLV) Many Germans may also know a satirized form of this, „Wissen ist Macht, ich weiß nichts, macht nichts.“ („Knowledge is power, I know nothing, do not matter.“) Unfortunately, this statement is still as false as it was when this slogan became common. And it is also false in relation to our knowledge of the New Testament. For in relation to the New Testament, „a person of knowledge increases power“.
For some, the insights we’ve gained over the course of this series may not have been so easy to digest at first. I was no different. Perhaps it even seemed like an attack on faith in the New Testament – when, in fact, we should believe in Jesus and God „Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.“ (John 14:1 NASB). But that’s just in passing. At the very least, it could seem threatening to confidence in the New Testament. One comment expressed something like this and asked if I could do a series setting forth the reasons why we can trust the New Testament.
But this misses the real cause of this apparent conflict: it is not the New Testament itself or the facts we now know that are the problem, but false expectations of and claims about the New Testament.
This part is about showing that all the facts we have considered do not weaken our faith, but on the contrary lead to a more stable faith. A faith that cannot be so easily dismissed by someone as a wishful dream or fallacy just because of a few historical or other facts.
To do this, let’s go back over the previous parts of the series.
Part 1: What do you read when you read ‚the Bible‘?
From the first part, let us recall the diagram that illustrates how many levels there are between God’s thoughts and the biblical text we read. And what we should therefore examine.
It is important to be aware of everything that is involved and to examine this. But not only on the basis of the New Testament but also many other writings of the antiquity it can be shown that this is absolutely possible! With writings of ancient historians or rulers we can check the content by archaeology etc.. With ancient mathematicians or natural philosophers, the content can be checked for consistency. In the New Testament, we have both: does the content agree with historical evidence and are the arguments and theology consistent? Apparently, all this has been confirmed quite well, otherwise hardly anyone would have even come up with the idea that we would have a perfect canon with the New Testament.
Part 2: What does ‚the Bible‘ say about itself?
But how did we ever get the idea that the New Testament Scriptures would be completely and perfectly available and preserved to everyone, at all times?
In the New Testament we read:
and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
Matthew 28:20; 18:20 NASB
We read that and maybe we do think:
The Holy Scriptures are with us until the completion of the age.
The realization that the writings of the New Testament nowhere say that they would be preserved complete and unaltered, yet helps us to have the right content in faith. „Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.“ (John 14:1 NASB) If the writings of Jesus‘ disciples reflect what we need for such faith, then that is good. And if we find that this is not always the case? Are we then convinced that God nevertheless gives us all that is necessary to believe in Him? If we think of it this way, then we are approaching again the faith of the first followers of Jesus. They held the scriptures in high esteem – first the Old Testament, then the writings of other disciples. But their faith and trust was always directed towards God and Jesus.
Part 3: The letter to the church in Laodicea
This point was also liberating for our faith: There were other writings by the authors of the writings in the New Testament, which are not included in the canon. Are we missing anything because of this? Why did God decide this way? Again, this is an assumption on our part.
So instead of having the thought that it was God’s plan to have just these writings written in the New Testament – and no more and no less and no different – there were more writings. And many good writings have survived to this day. The New Testament is not a textbook that says exactly what constitutes our faith – and there is nothing beyond that. That only narrows us down unnecessarily: Only what is written in it is true, and what is not written in it does not exist or is false. And then reasons are given as to why this is so, and so on. But this cannot be so at all, because the first followers of Jesus had only a part of the oral tradition and in each case only a part of the scriptures at their disposal.
But if Paul wrote a letter to another church and both letters should also be read aloud in the other church, but we only have the one, then points in the letters are probably useful, but not necessarily indispensable.
So the canon of the New Testament does not contain all the good and useful letters. So there are plenty of things that have not been addressed or explained. The Bible cannot contain the answer to all questions. And therefore, in our faith, we don’t have to have an answer to everything. And we can sometimes disagree on how to understand something. Or how one should act. For this everyone has a conscience and his own responsibility.
I am not sure if I have been able to make this point clear yet. Perhaps with something from my own experience: What do Jehovah’s Witnesses do when a ‚biblical‘ question comes up? Quickly search the Watchtower library! Surely there is something about it in the Watchtower. And if one has found a statement, then this is authoritative. The personal assessment according to the Bible does not count. So the Watchtower replaces the thinking, the conscience and the faith of the individual.
Some tend to do the same with the Bible: The Bible is supposed to be a complete collection of proof texts and rules for living, where you can find an answer to everything. Actually, one prescribes to God how his Bible should be. But the Bible is not the important thing, but the one who had it written. [compare Matthew 23:16-22.]
Part 4: Period, comma, dash – What a difference just one paragraph can make
What discussions have not been held because of certain translations or the placement of a comma. And sometimes punctuation, paragraphs or chapter divisions block our view of the true meaning of the text. After all, this does not make the text less valuable or undermine our faith. The text does not become more arbitrary by this knowledge. On the contrary, the view of the text was sometimes blocked before.
And this realization should prompt us to look into the original languages as well, if possible. Which meaning results from it. Or at least to compare translations. This approach certainly deepens and strengthens our faith.
Part 5: The Comma Johanneum
I can still remember well how I became aware of the implications of this realization: That a falsified text about a central doctrine such as the nature of God (Trinity) was found in the Bibles for almost the entire period of Christianity. How could God have allowed such a thing? That even the most sincere reader of the Bible was so misled? However, it took time for me to become aware of my feelings as well. I felt disappointment and anger. And did this shake my faith? But how! Not so much my faith in God, but my ‚faith‘ in the Bible.
Little by little, I realized that I was angry with the wrong person. God had not promised that at all (see part 2). People had given me this idea and I had internalized it as part of my faith.
After that, my faith was more stable. I am no longer shocked when such errors are discovered in the manuscripts. And I know that thanks to the work of many scholars, the text available to us is better than ever. After all, even those who read from one of the autographs in the 1st century had only a fraction of the New Testament at their disposal. So, through this analysis of the manuscripts, we know quite well where we stand. Even if there is some uncertainty for the early years due to the lack of manuscripts.
Since, according to the scriptures we have, God does not ask for more than we can know, we do not need to go crazy about it. We have what we need. And if one thing is not clearly stated in the scriptures or seems contradictory, we can leave it at that.
In the past, every time I suspected that something might be wrong with the biblical text, I had to get scared. Not anymore. It is somewhat reminiscent of Paul’s words:
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known.
1 Corinthians 13:12 NASB
It is no different with the writings in the New Testament.
Part 6: Discrepancies in the manuscripts
In part 6, we first had to realize that we should not be deceived by the large number of thousands of manuscripts. The oldest manuscripts are 3 tiny fragments from the second century. The earliest complete manuscript is from the fourth century. And up to this time we have only about 50 fragments and manuscripts.
The large number of about 5,800 Greek, 10,000 Latin, and 9,300 manuscripts in other languages first gives us up to 400,000 discrepancies, all of which had to be worked through. And this with less than 140,000 words in the New Testament. Most of these discrepancies can be clarified. Often because they are simple errors. But there also remain a lot of passages where the original wording is still unclear today.
On the other hand, the many surviving manuscripts are a blessing because they allow us to study well the ‚quality‘ of the transmission of the texts. This is in the spirit of Francis Bacon’s „knowledge is power“, who wanted to bring man „to a higher state of being“. And the scientific methods for analyzing the manuscripts contribute to the fact that we have a better level of knowledge and do not have to rely on assumptions or ‚blind faith‘.
Part 7: Intentional changes in the manuscripts
Of course, it is bad that deceivers could falsify the text. And God allowed that too. But they were caught! Even in the first centuries and even more until today.
Sometimes something seems strange to you. If you are of the opinion that there were no deviations in the manuscripts, then you have to find explanations for this – and sometimes adventurous argumentations come out of it.
So it is with the text from John 5:4 „For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.“ (NKJV) Somehow this sounds strange, because something like this does not occur in the New Testament. And it raises many questions. Isn’t this very unfair what God is doing? Only the first one who enters will be healed?
If you argue that the text in the New Testament is free of error and directly inspired by God, then you have to explain that. But you won’t really be able to do that satisfactorily without coming into conflict with other statements in the New Testament. So it will eventually weaken your trust (‚faith‘) in the Bible or God.
But if you realize that this verse was not included in the oldest manuscripts at all, but was inserted as part of the oral tradition – that is, folk or superstition – then the problem dissolves into thin air. So this realization strengthens our faith.
Part 8: The origin of the canon
Were they sincere believers who, to the best of their knowledge, under difficult circumstances and with much effort, endeavored to preserve the scriptures containing the teachings of Jesus and his disciples? Or do we only have the scriptures preserved by the one of the many movements in Christianity that has supplanted and obliterated all others? In order to thereby consolidate their own view?
For many – at least unconsciously – soon after the death of Jesus, the New Testament is there. Given by God for us, almost like the stone tablets with the 10 commandments. But what do the facts show?
The recognition of the canonical status of the various books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process in which certain writings that were considered authoritative were divorced from a much broader corpus of Christian literature. Although this was one of the most significant developments in the thought and practice of the early church, history is essentially silent as to how, when, and by whom it was set in motion. In the annals of the Christian church, nothing is more surprising than the absence of detailed accounts of such a momentous process.
Bruce M. Metzger“The Canon of the New Testament,“ Introduction, p. 11 (German edition, italics not in original).
And it was very important to make us aware that by ‚long‘ centuries are meant and the conclusion is related to important councils and the time when Christianity became the state religion. Just to remind you again the graphic from part 8:
Part 9: Inspiration
Again and again we have seen that the assumption of a literal, faultless inspiration from God cannot explain the facts but is questioned and even refuted by them. Here are just a few examples again:
- Why different writing styles and vocabularies even within one writing?
- If the text was dictated, the actual writer had to be inspired as well.
- Every word must be right, there must be no mistakes in the manuscripts.
- Discrepancies and contradictions between writings are a major problem.
- A translation can never accurately reflect the source. Or wouldn’t the translator also have to be inspired in his choice of words?
If one does not know these facts, the literal inspiration seems to be so beautiful. But then it becomes difficult, it is argued in a complicated way and sometimes facts are hidden.
With the knowledge of the facts we have a much better, because simpler explanation, which also does not have to be corrected constantly:
- God is the ultimate source. Through the Holy Spirit, He has revealed things to people. This is what Jesus told his disciples according to John (John 14:16,17). Paul wrote to the Corinthians that God ‚reveals the depths of God to us through the Spirit‘ (1 Corinthians 2:10). And this happened even when Jesus was a baby: „It had been revealed to him [Simeon] by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death until he had seen the Christ of the Lord.“ (Luke 2:27)
- Some then wrote down the insights they had gathered. With their own words. Sometimes more than one person wrote on a scripture. Sometimes they also wrote their personal opinion – as well as they knew and understood it: 1 Corinthians 7:12 „But to the rest I [Paul] say, not the Lord: …“ (Elberfelder). There were also subjects that were not so well understood and where the understanding differed. This was not standardized, but preserved for believers of that time and later, so that they could continue to think about it and read up on the status of that time.
- Translations are not a problem because we can only approach what was meant when it was written up to a certain point anyway because of the different context.
This is not a lazy excuse to avoid difficult passages. And we should also not conclude too quickly that in this or that text just a man has made mistakes or has written down only his opinion or his understanding. It is not a question of black or white, purely human or purely divine origin. The question is always what are divine thoughts formulated by human beings and what are personal views.
Part 10: Is the Bible ‚the Holy Scriptures‘ or ‚the Word of God‘?
Perhaps especially in part 10, it became clear that the point here is not to denigrate the Bible or the New Testament. Rather, it is about an examination of what desires and ideas we project into the canon. Those who wish can use the terms „The Holy Scriptures“ or „The Word of God“. But we must be aware that these terms are not used in the New Testament – certainly not for the New Testament itself. And whether, on the basis of these terms, we have claims regarding the text that are not assured to us at all in the New Testament. Originally, the Greek βιβλία biblía also meant „scrolls, books.“ A collection of writings. While by ‚the holy scriptures‘ or ‚the word of God‘ we probably also have in mind that God planned the Bible just so and perhaps even literally inspired it, the Greek word rather suggests that people collected these writings because they found them important for their faith.
Part 11: Is There Only One Gospel?
Is there only one gospel? Yes. But four Gospels – and fortunately, I would say. Because even if some try, as in the first centuries, to unify them as the one historical description of Jesus, on closer examination it becomes more and more clear that they are theological works that want to emphasize certain aspects. And already in the Gospel of Luke we can read that there were many such accounts of Jesus. But to work that out is a topic for another series.
Part 12: Apocrypha
On the subject of apocrypha, I will be brief: It is important to know that there were also such in Christian times. Apocryphal apostles‘ stories, letters and apocalypses. And these were also named after apostles and other known disciples. So the disciples could not judge by the title whether a text belonged to the canon or not. It depended on the content. Today, we may consider a text ’sacred‘ simply because it is part of the Bible. But the texts are in the canon only because followers of Jesus took the trouble to judge these texts. To what extent God directed this can unfortunately hardly be proven or substantiated by the historical facts. Why some texts did not become part of the canon, however, is already easier because of the content.
Part 13: Marcion and other disappeared Christians
Engaging with Marcion has been important to our understanding of the New Testament for several reasons. Not only that in a certain sense he consistently developed Paul’s teachings to the end. Even if, in doing so, he overshot the mark by a wide margin for proto-Orthodox Christians of the time, as he does for most today. But some of the ideas are more widespread today than one might suspect. And quite a few have been incorporated into mainstream Christianity. More important for our topic is his contribution to the formation of the canon. Most likely, he created the first canon. Which at least accelerated and influenced the development of the New Testament canon as we know it.
Part 14: Interim results
In Part 14 – Interim Results – we talked about the truth that the facts are the same for everyone. But the assessment of the uncertainties can be different for everyone. And that we do not have to judge the New Testament as a whole and certainly not in black or white. Each passage can be tested for reliability, and we should do so before basing our faith on certain statements.
Problems arise not from the canon of the New Testament per se, but from assertions about it. To stay with the comparison with a work of art, a painting for example, mentioned in part 14. If we claim that the painting is an original, without damage or repair, then this can easily be disproved by even a minor damage. So it is with exaggerated claims about the Bible. As far as the New Testament is concerned, we can now present a detailed expert opinion, so to speak, describing the origin, nature and extent of the damage and repairs, etc. Even if we cannot be sure about details due to restorations, an overall picture emerges on many points.
Part 15: The Textual Witnesses and the Trinity
As we saw in Part 8, those who were involved in the creation of the canon of the New Testament up to the fourth century were in part those who eventually established the Trinity as the authoritative doctrine. In Part 5 (Comma Johanneum) and Part 7 (Intentional Changes in the Manuscripts) we had also seen that intentional changes were made to support this doctrine. However, the fact that we can prove these forgeries today also proves, conversely, that the manuscripts were not completely corrupted. On the contrary, it is precisely the multitude of manuscripts with their deviations that gives us a good basis. For it is precisely the correspondences of the manuscripts that made our analysis possible.
The analysis of the New Testament in part 14 had shown that this doctrine – as adopted at councils in the fourth century – is not contained in the New Testament in this way. On the contrary, a multitude of texts and repeated formulations testify to the opposite. So the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament here.
Part 16: The Time of the Origin of the Writings
Only in a few cases is it possible to make a fairly concrete statement about the exact time of writing, usually in the case of Paul’s letters. However, we can assume a time of about 10 to 20 years after Jesus‘ death until the end of the 1st century. So at a time when contemporary witnesses were still alive and the oral tradition was rich. Thus a verification was possible. The exact time of a writing is also usually not so important. With the exception of Jesus‘ prophetic statements about the destruction of Jerusalem.
Part 17: The Writers of the New Testament
It is similar with the authors of the writings in the canon of the New Testament. Except for 7 letters, which we can be fairly certain were written by Paul, there are many unanswered questions but not as many certainties about the authors of all the other New Testament writings. The headings were added much later. And if we rely on the texts of the patristic period and the Church Fathers, we should keep in mind that they too have already drawn on information from others. And in the case of Hebrews, they were wrong. Or even they already noticed surprising differences in style and vocabulary.
But why should the authors of the scriptures be so important to us? Perhaps because they have more authority for us if they come from a Peter or Paul? And because Hebrews was written by an unknown disciple of Jesus, is it then of less value, has it less authority? For the first Christians and those who compiled the canon, this was not the main source of authority, but the content and quality. Couldn’t God, through his Holy Spirit, empower everyone? Do we not read in the New Testament that many prophesied through the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is not limited to predicting the future, but usually messages from God? Whoever then wrote down these thoughts is then not so important after all.
Conclusion
Very general and absolute statements about the canon of the New Testament are often easy to refute because all that is needed is one counterexample. That is why we had to delete everything in the statement from part 1 when we thought of it that way:
The Bible is God’s word, the holy scripture, completely inspired by God literally and thus contains exactly what God wanted. It has been preserved for us until today exactly as the Bible itself says, every book, paragraph, sentence, word, comma and period.
Such an idea therefore only gives our faith a deceptive, apparent stability. A good basis for our faith uses all the facts and does not need to fear them. Our faith then becomes even deeper, because the basis is broader and deeper and the trust in God is greater. And we can let the New Testament be what it is:
A canon of writings by the 1st century disciples of Jesus that helps us re-read the Old Testament writings in the context of Jesus as the Messiah and see them as a continuation of that. Thoughts and insights they had received through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Texts of their faith for our faith.
Kommentar verfassen