Preferred Version

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No. The Tanach is well attested, but not the New Testament.

My mistake, I should have specified Hebrew Bible... at the time the scrolls were hidden at Qumran, the New Testament was probably still just a dispersed collection of letters.

No. They are not a complete codex because (a) they are not complete, and (b) they are not in codex (quire) form.

I misused the word "codex" to refer to the compilation, not the form. Qumran contained no codexes (leaf forms) of any definition, only rolls.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar
... at the time the scrolls were hidden at Qumran, the New Testament was probably still just a dispersed collection of letters.

Probably? Based on what evidence? I know of no scholarship which suggests that the Gospels began as "just a dispersed collection of letters".

 

[Jenyar]

Probably? Based on what evidence? I know of no scholarship which suggests that the Gospels began as "just a dispersed collection of letters".

Based on what they are. Apart from their form - with introduction, salutations, etc. - they were documents written or sanctioned by the apostles or disciples from established churches to be read at newly established churches. Many were admonitions or clarifications on some subject or another. They were therefore thematic rather than dogmatic at first. Doctrines were only established as people began interpreting (and misinterpreting) the events.

 

[EvilPoet]

Originally posted by Jenyar
All the books of the bible were found at Qumran

Except Esther.

According to many scholars, the chief categories represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls are:

Biblical:
those works contained in the Hebrew Bible. All of the books of the Bible are represented in the Dead Sea Scroll collection except Esther.

Apocryphal or pseudepigraphical:
those works which are omitted from various canons of the Bible and included in others.

Sectarian:
those scrolls related to a pietistic commune and include ordinances, biblical commentaries, apocalyptic visions, and liturgical works.

While the group producing the sectarian scrolls is believed by many to be the Essenes, there are other scholars who state that there is too little evidence to support the view that one sect produced all of the sectarian material. Also, there are scholars who believe there is a fourth category of scroll materials which is neither biblical, apocryphal, nor "sectarian." In their view, such scrolls, which may include "Songs of the the Sabbath Sacrifice" (object no. 9), should be designated simply as contemporary Jewish writing. [More...]

 

[Jenyar]

Except Esther.

I guess if someone could indicate how everything Christianity holds dear is contained only in Esther, the whole religion could be invalidated.

Don't flame me! I know I'm being obnoxious.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar
Based on what they are. Apart from their form - with introduction, salutations, etc. - they were documents written or sanctioned by the apostles or disciples from established churches to be read at newly established churches. Many were admonitions or clarifications on some subject or another. They were therefore thematic rather than dogmatic at first. Doctrines were only established as people began interpreting (and misinterpreting) the events.

I am amazed at your willingness to babble along without a shred of evidence. Show me where the synoptics were "documents ... sanctioned by the apostles or disciples from established churches".

 

[Jenyar]

originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I am amazed at your willingness to babble along without a shred of evidence. Show me where the synoptics were "documents ... sanctioned by the apostles or disciples from established churches".

It's not in my own interests to suck things out of my thumb. The gospel form is of course unique, and I didn't mean to include the Narratives (synoptics and Acts of the apostles), although even these had addressees.

The New Testament contains 21 Epistles, usually divided into 1) The Pauline epistles, and 2) The general epistles.
I. Pauline Epistles:
1. Those written during the period of Pauls missionary activity:

• The two Epistles to the Thessalonians;
• The Epistle to the Galatians;
• The two Epistles to the Corinthians;
• The Epistle to the Romans.

2. Those written during Paul's imprisonment:

• The Epistle to the Ephesians;
• The Epistle to the Colossians;
• The Epistle to Philemon;
• The Epistle to the Philippians.

3. Those written after Paul's release from the Roman prison:

• The two Epistles to Timothy;
• The Epistle to Titus.

II. Of uncertain Authorship:
The Epistle to the Hebrews.

The general epistles
1. Those written to a community of Christians:

• The Epistle of James;
• The two Epistles of Peter;
• The first Epistle of John;
• The Epistle of Jude.

2. Those written to a certain individual:

• The second Epistle of John; (?)
• The third Epistle of John.

Source:Introduction to the New Testament (Louis Berkhof). For individual information on each book, visit the website and click on "composition". See also Wikipedia New Testament and the Apocryphal New Testament.

As to my claim that they were sanctioned by one or more of the disciples/apostles: that is the criteria by which the New Testament was canonized. Of course it can only be inferred in most cases - but the supposition is that if a book claims authority, is confirmed in the other authoritive books, and enjoyed general use, that it might be safely assumed to have been sanctioned by the Spirit in which they were written and accepted.

As I frequently indicate, this Spirit both confirms and is confirmed by the results of knowledge gained, and the fruit of actions spreading from the Word. The less you listen to the Word and more to yourself, the more liberties you are inclined to take and the more corrupted your actions will be. The more insecure you are because of doubt, the safer you feel with laws and fundamentals. The New Testament is through and through a learning process. And that was the reason these documents were written.

It is Deissmann's conviction that the writings of Paul have been very much misunderstood. "They have been regarded as treatises, as pamphlets in letter form, or at any rate as literary productions, as the theological works of the primitive Christian dogmatist." He insists that they are letters, serving the purpose of communication between Paul and the congregations, letters that were not intended by Paul for publication, but only for the private use of the addressees, arising from some historical exigency, unsystematic and pulsating with the life of the writer. Deissmann, St. Paul p. 7 ff.
This writer certainly rendered us good service by calling attention to the fact, often lost sight of, that the Epistles of Paul are the living spontaneous expression of a great mind, continually meditating and reflecting on the truth of God; that they are letters, often clearly revealing the changing moods of the apostle. They are marked as letters by their occasional character, by their being calculated for a single community and situation, and by their addresses, praescripts and salutations.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar
It's not in my own interests to suck things out of my thumb. The gospel form is of course unique, and I didn't mean to include the Narratives (synoptics and Acts of the apostles), although even these had addressees.

So,

• when you said "all the books of the bible", you really didn't mean to include the New Testament, and
• when you said "they are not considered a complete codex", you really didn't mean to say codex, and
• when you said "the New Testament was probably still just a dispersed collection of letters", you really didn't mean to include the Gospels (although even these had addresses)

What a joke ...

 

[Jenyar]

Pardon me, I really thought you could think for yourself.

My generalizations don't amount to lies, which is what you are implying, I presume? If you thought the New Testament was included in the earliest Scriptures, I'm glad you found out they weren't through my carelessness. Whether the books were codex or scrolls were irrelevant to what I said. The synoptics (which consist a very small part of the New Testament, by the way) were among the "dispersed collection" (what else could they be before canonization or Gutenberg's Press?)but they are biographies not epistles. Even though, they are probably in an even better position, Biblically speaking, to claim apostolic sanction, since they provide the central account around which everything else revolves. Accepting the epistles neccessarily also endorses the account they draw their power from.

What a joke ...

I'm glad I could provide some humour to your life.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar
My generalizations don't amount to lies, which is what you are implying, I presume?

Not even close.

 

[SwedishFish]

erm, i have no idea what those letters mean. i grew up in a catholic world and there was only one bible in existence. which bible do catholics use so i can choose that one?

the one next to my desk says NAB catholic book publishing company. does that mean anything?

 

[EvilPoet]

Originally posted by SwedishFish
the one next to my desk says NAB catholic book
publishing company. does that mean anything?

Yes it does. NAB stands for New American Bible. It is the official
translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Here is what the rest
stand for:

NKJV: New King James Version

NLT: New Language Translation

NASB: New American Standard Bible

RSV: Revised Standard Version

NRSV: New Revised Standard Version

Webster's: Noah Webster Translation

Young's: Young's Literal Translation

Darby's: John Nelson Darby Translation

JPS: Jewish Publication Society Bible

Septuagint (LXX) - Greek Old Testament

 

[Mystee]

My favorite version is NIV, but my favorite Bible (because of its size) is New Living. I also have the good news bible which I don't strongly recomend and the KJV which just doesn't suit me. I have about 3 student bibles (With all the added stuff on the sides) but I prefer the plain old original text. So that's my opinion there.


In Christ's love,

Mystee

p.s. I collect Bibles jsut in case you were wondering why I had 13 of them .

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Mystee
My favorite version is NIV, but my favorite Bible (because of its size) is New Living. ... I prefer the plain old original text. So that's my opinion there.

Thanks. May I ask which version you deem closest to "the plain old original text" and how you came to such a conclusion?

 

[biblthmp]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
The oldest "piece" appears to be P52 dated to the mid 2nd century.

The oldest 'complete' manuscripts appear to be the Codex Vaticanus & Codex Sinaiticus dated to the 4th century.

It should be noted that these codices, contain only the New Testament, and not the Old Testament.

 

[biblthmp]

I use 2 translations about equally. I use the Amplified version, usually abreviated (Amp.) in order to see shades of meaning meant in the text. The other one I use is called the "Complete Jewish Bible", it stresses the Jewish context of the settings of the Old and New Testaments, especially pointing out inferences that a well studied Jew would pick up while reading the New Testament, that an outsider wouldn't necessarily notice, or pay attention to.

 

[biblthmp]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I am amazed at your willingness to babble along without a shred of evidence. Show me where the synoptics were "documents ... sanctioned by the apostles or disciples from established churches".

According to Origen's church history, Mark was a disciple of the Apostle Peter.

Luke, before he joined the Apostle Paul as a travelling companion, did what would now be called investigative journalism to write his gospel, interviewing eyewitnesses, and using pre-canonical sources. He even states this in the opening verses of His gospel.

According to Origen, Matthew was the disciple Matthew Levi listed by his first name in his own Gospel, and by his last name in the book of Luke.
The last name of Levi, was an indication that was the tribe that he descended from.

Origen states that the gospel of John was written by the Apostle of the same name, referred to as a son of thunder, for his quick temper.