Board index ‹ Bible

[Fodder]

> The apostles write that they write as they do with the help of the HS just as the OT prophets did (1 Thes. 5.27; Col. 4.16).

Those 2 passages communicate Paul’s instructions to his recipients of his letters that they should be read and distributed. I don’t think that’s enough to demonstrate he knew for certain he was writing inspired scripture. Any author who considers their own work significant will want others to read it. For what it’s worth, I do think that Paul thought he was writing authoritative teaching, I just don’t think those texts you referenced say much with regard to that. I can’t say much about Paul’s own personal conception of his writing in his own mind, because he doesn’t tell us much about that. Did he think everything he wrote was scripture? Idk.

Regardless, if we can’t make a case for Paul thinking everything he wrote was scripture, then we need evidence within each letter he wrote that he considered THAT writing to be scripture. This is also the case for all the books of the NT. So, you’ve referenced 2 of Paul’s letters, do you have evidence from the other 11 that demonstrates he thought that that writing was scripture/inspired? What is your evidence that the gospel authors considered themselves inspired? How about epistle of James? How about 2-3 John? How about Jude? And all the rest?

> They considered the OT as inspired by God (2 Tim. 3.16).

I agree with you. What’s interesting to me about this famous passage is, what did this author mean by inspired? Something like the Chicago statement on inspiration and inerrancy? Or something closer to the Catholic view? Or something else entirely?And what would he count as “all scripture”? Maybe he means only the OT? Maybe some of the Deutero-canonical books? Maybe even some of the early NT writings? Would he have excluded anything that our canon has included? We don’t know, he doesn’t say.

> In 2 Peter 3.15-16, Peter (or the author, if you reject Peter as author) put Paul's epistles on the level of Scripture, i.e., inspired by God.

I’m not familiar enough with the issues of authorship of 2 Peter to have a strong opinion on the matter. I agree with you though, it’s definitely true this author considers Paul’s writing to be scripture. However, (I know, broken record) what does he mean here? Everything Paul wrote? Only some things? If so which ones? Idk

>> What criteria did the authors and the church use to determine whether these works were inspired?

> The criteria to be included in the canon is that (1) the author was an eyewitness of Jesus's life and teaching or that they had 2nd-hand knowledge of it by access to an eyewitness; (2) The words they wrote conformed to the truth about Jesus—his life and teachings; and (3) their writings were affirmed as 1 & 2 by the leaders and Christians who knew these people.

I think you misread my question here, I asked what criteria they used to determine if a writing was inspired?

> No, they couldn't have made a mistake.

How can you back up this claim? You are telling me that it is NOT POSSIBLE that a group of humans could make a mistake on this matter?

> It was widely and universally recognized that these authors had been with Jesus or knew the eyewitnesses.

Can you show me where in Mark or Matthew where those authors say they are getting their information from eye witnesses? How about Hebrews? Etc. we can’t just take something that may be true of SOME of the authors and make a blanket statement about all of them. When was Paul with Jesus other than having a vision and his ascension experiences?

> Is it possible, in our era, that anyone could be making a mistake that Joe Biden is the President of the US? No, it's universally known and recognized. A mistake is not possible.

Well yes, it’s always possible to make a mistake. But we’re not talking about a mundane piece of trivia here. And this is an interesting example to bring up because as we saw on Jan 6, 2021 some folks believe so strongly that the election was fraudulent, despite evidence to the contrary, that they were willing to enter the capital building and some of them are now facing significant legal repercussions.

> Can you name a single source that did not recognize the authority and canonicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? How about Acts? Romans? Let me see what you have.

No, I can’t, because I agree with you on this point that the 4 gospels do seem to be universally accepted as far back as we have evidence for. But here again, you’re making a blanket statement about ALL the NT with something that is true of only SOME of it.

> Of course there were a few books that were debated, but on the evidence presented (which is no longer available to us), these debated books were stamped as authentic. They had much closer access to the sources than we do.

Right, I don’t disagree. But if some were debated as you say here (some as far as the 3rd century if I remember correctly) then the ENTIRE NT was by no means “universal” soon after the time the eyewitnesses died as you seemed to suggest. If you didn’t mean that, please correct me.

> In those days manuscripts lasted for centuries. In the 4th century, there is reason to believe they still had access to the autographs (the original documents).

No disagreement here. Although the issue of transmission of the text doesn’t have much to do with whether or not it’s inspired.

> John declared the canon as closed (Rev. 22.18-19). That assertion was never challenged by the early Church.

John is talking the book he is writing, not “the Bible” in those verses he says “this book” and “this prophecy” how could he be talking about the canon if it was not yet assembled? Interestingly, Bart Erhman comments on this text that it is evidence of 1st Century author’s awareness of scribe’s tendencies to tinker with texts as they made copies. Basically John is warning anyone who reads or copies his work to not mess with it. Erhman cites examples of other Roman authors giving similar warnings in their writings.

> Which "significant scribal additions"? We would need to discuss them rather than deal in generalities. If you're talking about John 8.1-11 or Mark 16.9-20, those are widely known as not being part of Scripture. If you're talking about something else, we need to discuss it.

I would recommend reading Bart Erhman’s book “misquoting Jesus” as a reference for the issue of scribal additions. Those are 2 big examples, though I will concede your point that most of the scribal additions we know of happened after canonization. However the key here is “that we know of”. how many instances like these examples happened during the transmission of the text in the time period between the authors’ deaths and the councils that finalized the canon? We don’t know, because we don’t have the autographs. You mentioned earlier that we have good reason to believe they still had the autographs in the 4th century. Can you expand on that?

> The evidence of its historicity, moral excellence, theological consistency, and spiritual benefit.

All of these are subjective (except history) and are irrelevant to whether or not it’s inspired. I’m sure those who believe the Koran would describe it in similar terms.

> About whom are you speaking, historically? It's more productive and authentic to deal with the specifics rather than hypothetical generalities.

I’m not talking about any actual historical case. I’m engaging in a thought exercise to discuss the issues of Revelation, Inspiration and the concept of the closing of the canon.

> About whom are you speaking, historically? You can't just make up authors who were eyewitnesses who wrote accounts that were rejected.

This is a thought exercise to draw out what you think about inspiration. I don’t mean to cause undue consternation, if I did so I apologize.

Here is my point. If an author writing today were to meet all the criteria of the early church for inclusion in the canon, and yet not be put in, then we have a serious problem of inconsistency. Simply put, I gave the hypothetical author the exact same qualifications as the apostle Paul in order to demonstrate that if you wouldn’t accept someone writing today with these qualifications as inspired, then neither should you accept the apostle Paul. The main argument would be the span of time, but there is no limitation on God such that he couldn’t inspire someone at any time he wanted.

[jimwalton]

> 1 Thes. 5.27

There's more to it than that he wanted others to read his letter.

Paul wrote most of his letters to groups of people, not to individuals. He expected them to be circulated not only within the city, but to various cities (Col. 4.16). They were long (by ancient epistolary standards), and filled with ethical and theological teaching. Paul knew he was at least writing something of great theological significance.

In Galatians 1, he specifies that his message (covering all he believes and teaches) was not from any human but directly from God by revelation (Gal 1.11-12; 2.2; 2 Cor. 12.1-10; Eph. 3.2-5). This is not just for one book but for all. 1 Thessalonians 2.13 is important in this discussion.

Paul's contrast between the Word of God and a human word is sharp (Gal. 1.11; 2 Cor. 2.17; 4.2; Col. 1.25; Titus 1.3. Luke also frequently refers to the preaching of Paul and the other apostles as constituting the "Word of God" (Acts 4.31; 13.5; 17.13; 18.11, etc.).

The public reading of Paul's letters is in the context of the church gathering for worship. It communicates that idea that Paul's writings were on an equal plane with Torah.

> What is your evidence that the gospel authors considered themselves inspired?

John mentions it specifically (Jn. 14.26). Jesus is communicating in prophetic fashion, giving them a "Thus says the Lord," and teaching that the Holy Spirit in them will be guiding them in "thus says the Lord" moments as they write. This covers all of the apostolic writers of the Gospels and epistles.

> What’s interesting to me about this famous passage (2 Tim. 3.16) is, what did this author mean by inspired?

It emphasizes the divine source and initiative in place of human genius, creativity, or motivation. "God's breath" was associated with the divine Spirit, and hence the presence of God. God invested His presence and authority into the Scriptures.

> You are telling me that it is NOT POSSIBLE that a group of humans could make a mistake on this matter?

They were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1.20-21), aware that it was the Holy Spirit guiding their minds as they wrote (Jn. 14.26; Gal. 1.11-12; 2.2).

> Can you show me where in Mark or Matthew where those authors say they are getting their information from eye witnesses?

Mark and Matthew were eyewitnesses. Matthew travelled with Jesus as a disciple, and Mark's family was prominent in the circle of believers around Jesus. Matthew's Gospel contains massive speeches that Jesus gave that appear in no other Gospel; they are the marks of someone who heard it. His Gospel is loaded with 1st-c. Jewish Palestine tidbits, language, themes, and theology. Everything about it connects it to the mid-1st century.

Mark's family lived in Jerusalem and was active in the ministry of Jesus and the early Church. They could easily have been eyewitnesses to some events in Jesus's life, Mark obviously knew at least some of the apostles, and seems to have even travelled with Peter.

> When was Paul with Jesus other than having a vision and his ascension experiences?

Paul was a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22.3), who was in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus's crucifixion. Though nothing specific is said, it is plausible that Gamaliel's star student (Phil.. 3.5-6) was privy to the trial of Jesus. It may be what Paul's referring to in claiming to be the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1.15). We know he was in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus's death (Acts 7.58), and was given a prominent role (Acts 8.3). It's plausible that Saul/Paul had met Jesus, was potentially one of the Pharisaic band that evaluated Him and His ministry, and was part of His trial and execution. It can't be proven, but it's plausible.

> Rev. 22.18-19... John is talking the book he is writing, not “the Bible” in those verses he says “this book” and “this prophecy” how could he be talking about the canon if it was not yet assembled?

This is not the only time in the Bible when this warning is given (Dt. 4.2; 12.32; Prov. 30.5-6). It was a common cultural understanding that the words of holy books or the words of deity were not to be altered (see also Esarhaddon in Assyria and the Lipit-Ishtar law code). This would apply to any writing regarded as Scripture. Such warnings apply to covenants. With those understandings, you can see why I extrapolate Rev. 22.18-19 to the whole canon, recognized as Scripture, given to us as the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

In addition, the theme of Rev. 22.18-21 shows these words to be appropriate concluding remarks not just for the book of Revelation but for the whole New Testament, and also the Old Testament, which was also considered to be Scripture. There is a wider canonical significance to these verses that reach beyond the book of Revelation itself.

> If an author writing today were to meet all the criteria of the early church for inclusion in the canon, and yet not be put in, then we have a serious problem of inconsistency.

Not at all. No author today could be an eyewitness of Jesus's life, words, and ministry and resurrection (Acts 1.22), or to have gotten their information directly from an eyewitness. No matter how true and faithfully they may write, they can't meet the most basic criteria.

[Fodder]

Sure, I guess what I’m looking for is a sort of “ground up” way to determine how we can know if something is revelation.

It seems to me, that anyone who claims revelation, whether it be Jesus, Paul, Joseph smith, Muhammad- they are all, at least initially, on equal footing. So, the question is how might we determine if any or none of these are really revelations?

[jimwalton]

It's a great question. For the biblical people, they seem to have been acutely aware that God was speaking to them and through them.

I think the issue, then, comes in how you or I can tell. In the Bible, they seem to have pursued tests of truth. If a prophet prophesied something, did it come true? The thought was that if it was truly from God, the prophet would bat 100%. Tests of truth include corresponding to reality, complementing (and not contradicting) other known revelations from God (weighing it against already established inspired messages), logical consistency, the person consistently lives what they teach with integrity, and things like that.

So the words of Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith or Mohammad don't get a free pass. No one gets an automatic golden ticket. All must prove by evidence that their words are revelation.

[Fodder]

> For the biblical people

By this do you mean each biblical author?

> seem to have been acutely aware that God was speaking to them and through them.

This is an interesting data point, but not really useful as a criterion, as it is just a claim. Although I will say that we could use our judgement to see if someone’s claim is *insincere as a criteria for *exclusion, but I don’t think sincerity is a good criteria for *inclusion, as it would produce many false positives.

> the prophet would bat 100%.

This one definitely has some potential for being a good criteria, but my issue with it is threefold:

1. So much of these writings are *not future predictions, probably most of it them are not
2. One would need to reserve judgement *until the prophecy was fulfilled. How does this help me here and now, when the prophecy is for 10,50 or 500 years from now?
3. It is a common tactic when a prophecy fails for it to be re-interpreted another way to rescue the credibility of the prophet.

> Tests of truth include corresponding to reality

This is a good one for producing true negatives, but not for getting true positives, as one could correspond 100% to reality but not be inspired/revelation

> complementing (and not contradicting) other known revelations from God (weighing it against already established inspired messages), logical consistency, the person consistently lives what they teach with integrity, and things like that.

Let’s table these for now and come back to it later.

[jimwalton]

> By this do you mean each biblical author?

Yes, that's what I meant.

> not really useful as a criterion, as it is just a claim.

Correct. No one gets a free pass. Every claim must be confirmed. They've been confirmed by others through past history, which is why they're in the canon. We live in an era where we doubt and criticize all such decisions, wanting to make up our own minds. And there's no particular problem with that, as long as we strive for as much objectivity as possible. (Our era tends to think "guilty until proven innocent" and to discount the scholarship and wisdom of all previous eras—a bit snobby if you ask me, but it is what it is.)

> One would need to reserve judgement *until the prophecy was fulfilled.

This particular strategy is only employable, obviously, for short-term things, to determine if the prophet was getting his messages from God or from his own mind.

> It is a common tactic when a prophecy fails for it to be re-interpreted another way to rescue the credibility of the prophet.

It has been very interesting to me to read various authors like Brent Sandy and John Walton who talk about the real nature of prophecy over against a common popular view of it.

[Fodder]

So, we’re in agreement that no one can just make a claim, and fulfilled prophecy is only useful in a limited sense.

I think I’m trying to be objective, and not overly critical. The struggle I have with trusting the tradition is that it just sort of kicks the question back a few steps.

In other words, if the people of the past confirmed it was revelation, how did they do that? What criteria did they use?

I just can’t think of anything that could conclusively demonstrate a prophet or writing is in fact revelation.

And without that, I’m just being asked to “take their word for it.” Do those authors you referenced talk about Typology and Event fulfillment?

[jimwalton]

> "we’re in agreement that no one can just make a claim".

Yes. The Bible is all about evidence and about verification.

> "fulfilled prophecy is only useful in a limited sense."

Correct. A prophet had to give short prophecies to justify his claims to be a prophet, and the long prophecies were too far away to use as confirmation. Also, the authority of the prophet was in the message, not in the fulfillment. Fulfillments can change.

> "if the people of the past confirmed it was revelation, how did they do that?"

Conformity to reality, accurate fulfillment, recognition of authority.

> "I just can’t think of anything that could conclusively demonstrate a prophet or writing is in fact revelation."

If a prophet told you to stick your hand in your shirt and told you that when you take it out it will be diseased, and you did it, that I think would sway you. And then if he said put it back and it was back to health, I'd say he'd have your attention.

> So you have to have a miracle to believe?

Would you ever believe the sincere testimony of a good friend?

[Fodder]

> “Also, the authority of the prophet was in the message, not in the fulfillment.”

Sure, but this just restates/ begs the question. The prophet’s claim to authority is only established in the reality of having received their message from God, not their own imagination, intellect, expertise etc - which is what we are trying to determine.

> “Fulfillments can change.”

Wait a minute, could you expand on what you mean by this? If you mean by “fulfillment can change” that the fulfillment of a prophecy could happen in such a way that one to whom the prophecy was given to could completely misinterpret or misunderstand it, ie, that things can be fulfilled in ways that the original hearers would never had imagined—then this destroys the entire enterprise of using fulfilled prophecy as a criteria.

We then could never used this criteria, for if something did not come to pass, the prophecy could be endlessly re-interpreted (like those who foolishly try to predict the return of Christ) AND we could claim a positive fulfillment of a prophecy by either equivocating the plain meaning of a prophecy, or making plainly non-future predictive statements into future predictive statements, which is what I believe a lot of the NT authors do (ie “out of Egypt I have called my son). And so we would be producing false positives and false negatives.

> “Conformity to reality”

What do you mean by this? As stated, this is far too simple, and would lead to endless false positives.

> “recognition of authority.”

How is this a criteria? As revelation was necessary for any sense of authority. This then becomes, “they thought it was authoritative because they thought it was revelation, and they thought it was revelation because they thought it was authoritative”

> “If a prophet told you….”

Yes, that would be a profound experience, and possibly would elicit a belief that this “prophet” truly was speaking for God. But, of course, this is precisely the kind of thing that all Christians agree on (maybe not Pentecostals) that he does NOT do anymore, and therefore cannot be used as a criteria.

Furthermore, the example you gave of Moses’ miraculous personal experience, only comes to us IN the very story that we are trying to apply criteria to in order to determine revelation.

> “Would you ever believe the sincere testimony of a good friend?”

Yes, of course. But if a trustworthy friend told me they have received revelation from God, this is obviously a claim of a much higher order than ordinary standards of trustworthiness. If one were to take the word of anyone who claimed revelation, even if the claimant had impeccable trustworthiness, this still could lead to all sorts of false positives.

[jimwalton]

> “Fulfillments can change.” could you expand on what you mean by this?

Yes. The authority of the prophet was in the message, not in the fulfillment. Read Jeremiah 18.1-12 for starters. Jonah 3.10 is an example.

A prophet could be confirmed by short-term prophecies that come true. They are then also affirmed by the message they give as being in conformity with the other messages God gives (consistency and no self-contradictions). They then are affirmed by the community of people who recognize their legitimacy and consistency.

> the example you gave of Moses’ miraculous personal experience

These messages were confirmed at the time, affirmed through time, but now are being doubted by a secular, skeptical scholarship. But if they've already been confirmed, and have been affirmed for thousands of years now, where do we get the hubris to reject them?

> a claim of a much higher order than ordinary standards of trustworthiness.

But since it requires the same level of evidence, small claims and large claims are really alike in that they are substantiated by the evidence in support. If the evidence is reliable, the size of the claim is immaterial.