The New Testament Canon - Ten Facts

Translations, manuscripts, historicity, authorship, and reception by the Church.

mossy
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 06 Sep 2008, 20:18

30 Jan 2017, 17:01 #2

Thank you Patrick.
Terry
A consciousness of our powerlessness should cast us upon Him who has all power. Here then is where a vision and view of God's sovereignty helps, for it reveals His sufficiency and shows us our insufficiency.

Arthur W. Pink
Reply

Gord
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 13 Jun 2009, 14:24

30 Jan 2017, 22:11 #3

These are good thank you.
Reply

DrWhofan1
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 22:14

31 Jan 2017, 13:18 #4

Gord:25875 wrote:These are good thank you.
One of the main requirements were to either be an Apostle, or else associated with one to record an inspired book, and so that would eliminate any so called "new revelations" many have claimed throughout church history.
Reply

orchardman
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 01:56

27 Mar 2017, 10:55 #5

I am currently reading a recently published book "The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures" by D.A. Carson. It is a massive 1180 page compilation of articles by various scholars (in typical Carson style). Though the book is excellent on the matter of the unified testimony of most of the NT witness (and OT also) expressed in the historic canon, I am surprised that nothing is present in his book on the issue of high-canon dispute in both pre-Christ Judaism and early Christianity.

I have an old book on my shelf by a German scholar that was required reading in one of my college Theology classes: "The Formation of the Christian Bible" by Hans Van Campenhausen. I do not see any of the 'low canon' (antilegomena) issues raised in that work addressed in Carson's or any other conservative Reformed scholarly book. If someone knows of a work confessing the infallibility/innerancy of Scripture (which I hold to) that nonetheless honestly deals with the early history of canon please let me know. I am talking about issues regarding the origin and theology of the disputed books and passages (including the verses in Mark following 16:8).

An interesting fact on the Old Testament canon: Esther was always listed as part of the apocrypha (Athanasius included) until post-Reformation, Baruch had a higher status of regard.

I cannot find a significant work engaged by conservative Bible-believing scholars to harmonize Reformed theology with a realistic and proper view of canon history that abandons historical revisionism in argument (to date). The issue is not skepticism of the Bible but a proper view of how it was formed and came down to us.

Orchardman
Standing for a point of truth is mere flight and disgrace if you ignore the broader truths God is presently launching upon the world.
Reply

orchardman
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 01:56

02 Apr 2017, 08:39 #6

One additional point: the best analysis I have found addressing some of my issues on this subject are the articles of James Swan on the Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics blog.  But I know of no full published work.

Orchardman
Standing for a point of truth is mere flight and disgrace if you ignore the broader truths God is presently launching upon the world.
Reply