Every two or three years a new document is championed by Bible critics as the document that will change the way we see the Bible -
even cause us to question its authority. When I was in high school it was the Gospel of Thomas. Later, Judas's gospel was big news. (Do either of those seem relevant, now?) Today, it's the Codex Sinaiticus. We are being told that this work contains books that are not in our Bibles and, thus, create difficulties for our theology.This is old news for the historian. The Codex Sinaiticus was made when the church was still deciding which books should be considered canon so it's inclusion of certain books presents no problem for Christians.
There are verses missing, also, from these books. CNN reports that Jesus' resurrection is missing in one section. What CNN does not tell you is that this is not, by any means, the oldest copies of the gospels and therefor do not usurp the authority of the older documents. It is not unusual for documents to be missing sections or passages for many reasons (copy errors, missing pages, water damage, to name only a few) and the vast majority of documents still correspond. (There are over 2,400 manuscripts of the New Testament so we're not just talking about four or five scrolls.)
The Codex Sinaiticus is an important work and the previously scattered fragments have now been brought together in a remarkable way. However, the book itself is old news. Theologians and historians went over it with a fine toothed comb a long time ago.
(Thanks, Kelly, for the heads up.)
6 comments:
I've always found the manuscript evidence for the Bible staggering in its depth and scope.
The Bible itself is a challenge to Christian's theology. The Bible itself needs to change the way we see it. Oh well, thanks for the info.
The intelligence of people who read the news is always a source of bafflement for me.
@Joshua - Are you saying that the bible needs to change itself or that Christians need to change how they interpret and apply it?
If the former is the case, I disagree strongly. If the latter is your argument, then I seek clarification on whether you mean modern day Christians or Christians throughout the history of the church before I reply.
I might be one of the people whose intelligence is a source of bafflement, but I did not clearly understand what you meant. :)
@Joshua - the Bible to a truly converted Christian presents no challenge to their theology, rather it defines our theology.
For the true believer God's Word is not just one authority among many, it is the ONLY authority among a world of lies and subjectivity.
God's Word defines my worldview. Please know that I don't write this as an attack on you... (I hate how hard it is to gauge inflection and tone in a text response) I just write this as a clarification and reminder that not all who claim the name of Jesus are truly Christians. For those (fake Christians) the Bible does challenge their theology because typically their theology is defined by them and any Word from the Bible that challenges their pre-conceived and otherwise comfortable view of the world is not welcome.
you find this mentality deeply rooted in (but not limited too) the postmodern emergent church movement.
just throwing in my two cents
@ Kelly, the latter, and both modern and throughout history, although I was thinking primarily modern.
@ 3 Believers
1) If you say so. While maybe truely, no Christian is fully convereted yet. God simply hasn't fullfilled all of his promises yet. Moreover, with theology, a human enterprise responding to revelation, I'm surprised in your faith in it's infalliability and preclusivity from error. I personally marvel at the wisdom of God's word, and see fresh ways in which it corrects my misunderstanding, of both the world, the texts itself, and of God. Even the wise need instruction, reminders, and to be continually renewed into Christ-mindedness.
2) Don't take this personally, but your statement regarding authorities is absurd. There are plenty of imperfect but trustworthy authorities among the world. I trust that the docter knows his stuff and submit to his advice (theoretically submit) on issues relating to medicine. I trust and submit to the tax lawyer/accountant on issues regarding to taxes. I listen to the Shakespeare scholar, when seeking to understand Shakespeare.
3) God's word seemed to in the text challenge Peter, Paul, and others' theology. If that is the case, then I'd be more hesitant than you identifying them as fake Christians.
4) I could care less about the emergent church movement, which is a fringe thinking out of sync with both following God and postmodern thought. They are fools.
5) You are bringing in a lot of philosophy into your post. Not that's there anything wrong with that, but I'd be careful and suspicious of that human activity.
1) If you say so. While maybe truely, no Christian is fully convereted yet. God simply hasn't fullfilled all of his promises yet. Moreover, with theology, a human enterprise responding to revelation, I'm surprised in your faith in it's infalliability and preclusivity from error. I personally marvel at the wisdom of God's word, and see fresh ways in which it corrects my misunderstanding, of both the world, the texts itself, and of God. Even the wise need instruction, reminders, and to be continually renewed into Christ-mindedness.
Well no Christian is fully converted only in the sense that we have not yet received our heavenly bodies... and we aren't righteous yet, but SEEN as righteous... declared innocent via the sin imputed onto Christ and the righteousness imputed onto us at the cross and obtained at conversion..
you are absolutely right that we need to be constantly renewed in the mind by Christ's wisdom... Romans 12... however my trust in the infallibility shouldn't surprise you... it should surprise you if you don't hold it to be 100% accurate and free from error...
2) Don't take this personally, but your statement regarding authorities is absurd. There are plenty of imperfect but trustworthy authorities among the world. I trust that the docter knows his stuff and submit to his advice (theoretically submit) on issues relating to medicine. I trust and submit to the tax lawyer/accountant on issues regarding to taxes. I listen to the Shakespeare scholar, when seeking to understand Shakespeare.
absolutely not absurd... I can look to other authorities for knowledge of shakespeare and things of that nature... those are trifle things... you can't compare them to financial or medical matters... which are outlined by God's word... and from God's word I know I am to be a good steward of the money He has given me... er go, paying taxes and such...
I know my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and therefore I should take care of it to be sure that I best Glorify the Lord... that's what I am saying...
so the authority statement maybe needed a bit more clarification but it is a far leap from absurd...
3) God's word seemed to in the text challenge Peter, Paul, and others' theology. If that is the case, then I'd be more hesitant than you identifying them as fake Christians.
I didn't identify Peter, Paul or anyone as a fake Christian... but again... going back to scripture... Jesus said that wheat and tares will grow up together... the wheat are true believers... the tares are unbelievers/ false converts...
I am not suggesting we go and try to pull out the tares... Jesus said not to do this as we would likely pull out wheat (because we are human and flawed and cannot know the heart the way God does) however, we can identify some unbelievers based on Scripture... such as someone who believes that Christ isn't the only way to God... definitely not a believer because that view opposes Scriptures that clearly teach otherwise such as John 14:6
4) I could care less about the emergent church movement, which is a fringe thinking out of sync with both following God and postmodern thought. They are fools.
I'm with you on that one... they are quite foolish and it will fade away as it is just the same type heresies that have always existed, just repackaged with a new name...
5) You are bringing in a lot of philosophy into your post. Not that's there anything wrong with that, but I'd be careful and suspicious of that human activity.
I am not attempting to bring in philosophy but just to define who I am and this world based on a literal interpretation of Scripture
Post a Comment