Unit 2, Assignment 3 & 4 – “How the Bible came to be written and it’s Authority” (due Dec. 28)
How the Bible came to be written
The New Testament is a collection of works, and as such written by many different authors. The traditional view is that all the books were written by Apostles or disciples working under their direction
But really; the only books for which there are solid consensuses are seven of the Pauline epistles, which are universally regarded as written by Paul, and the book of Hebrews, which is regarded as anonymous.
The problems with knowing who really wrote ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels:
Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the “synoptic problem”. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person?
The dominant view among critical scholars, called “the Two-Source Hypothesis”, is that both Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source", from Quelle, the German word for "source". The nature and even existence of Q is speculative. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few say that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. No information about its author, if it existed, can be obtained from the resources currently available and, indeed, little or any direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable. This is just one example of how difficult it is to know who wrote such old documents.
According to tradition, the earliest of the books in the New Testament were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as year 100.
The process of canonization
The process of canonization, gathering the books to a Bible, was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.
Many believe that the New Testament canon was summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but this is not true; rather it developed very slowly over many centuries.
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity, there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally recognized.
The oldest clear witness of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. year 180. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus who writes: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
At least, then, the books considered to be authoritative included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul.
The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367.
Authority of the Bible
All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. How much authority one gives to the New Testament often depend on how you look at inspiration; the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater one believes the role of God to be in writing the New Testament, the more one accepts the doctrine that the Bible is never wrong.
Most Christians believe that the Scriptures are both human and divine in origin: humans wrote them, but their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers.
Among Anglicans, as among most Christian Churches, you can find both people who read the Bible literally (taking every word as true – God did create the world in six days) and people who read the Bible symbolically (meaning for example that the six days of creation could be symbols for six long time periods).
Anglicans believe in the authority of the Bible as the medium through which God by the Spirit communicates his word in the Church and so enables people to respond with understanding and faith. The Scriptures in the Bible are "uniquely inspired witness to divine revelation", and "the primary norm for Christian faith and life". The Bible, however, must be translated, read, and understood, and its meaning grasped through a continuing process of interpretation. Since the seventeenth century, Anglicans say that the Bible is to be understood and read in the light of "tradition" and "reason". Tradition refers to the ongoing Spirit-guided life of the Church which receives, and interprets again, God's message. “Reason" means simply the human being's capacity to symbolize, and so to order, share and communicate experience.
So; the Bible is the first authority. But, for it to be relevant, you must translate it to your situation today and the life of the church today.
Questions:
What is the Synoptic problem?
Explain the Anglican view on the authority of the Bible.
A prayer for the New Year:
We thank you, Father, Lord of all time, for the gifts of food, warmth and company, for your love and the protection of our homes, and, in all that this New Year may hold, for the friendship of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
How the Bible came to be written
The New Testament is a collection of works, and as such written by many different authors. The traditional view is that all the books were written by Apostles or disciples working under their direction
But really; the only books for which there are solid consensuses are seven of the Pauline epistles, which are universally regarded as written by Paul, and the book of Hebrews, which is regarded as anonymous.
The problems with knowing who really wrote ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels:
Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the “synoptic problem”. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person?
The dominant view among critical scholars, called “the Two-Source Hypothesis”, is that both Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source", from Quelle, the German word for "source". The nature and even existence of Q is speculative. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few say that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. No information about its author, if it existed, can be obtained from the resources currently available and, indeed, little or any direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable. This is just one example of how difficult it is to know who wrote such old documents.
According to tradition, the earliest of the books in the New Testament were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as year 100.
The process of canonization
The process of canonization, gathering the books to a Bible, was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.
Many believe that the New Testament canon was summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but this is not true; rather it developed very slowly over many centuries.
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity, there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally recognized.
The oldest clear witness of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. year 180. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus who writes: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
At least, then, the books considered to be authoritative included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul.
The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367.
Authority of the Bible
All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. How much authority one gives to the New Testament often depend on how you look at inspiration; the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater one believes the role of God to be in writing the New Testament, the more one accepts the doctrine that the Bible is never wrong.
Most Christians believe that the Scriptures are both human and divine in origin: humans wrote them, but their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers.
Among Anglicans, as among most Christian Churches, you can find both people who read the Bible literally (taking every word as true – God did create the world in six days) and people who read the Bible symbolically (meaning for example that the six days of creation could be symbols for six long time periods).
Anglicans believe in the authority of the Bible as the medium through which God by the Spirit communicates his word in the Church and so enables people to respond with understanding and faith. The Scriptures in the Bible are "uniquely inspired witness to divine revelation", and "the primary norm for Christian faith and life". The Bible, however, must be translated, read, and understood, and its meaning grasped through a continuing process of interpretation. Since the seventeenth century, Anglicans say that the Bible is to be understood and read in the light of "tradition" and "reason". Tradition refers to the ongoing Spirit-guided life of the Church which receives, and interprets again, God's message. “Reason" means simply the human being's capacity to symbolize, and so to order, share and communicate experience.
So; the Bible is the first authority. But, for it to be relevant, you must translate it to your situation today and the life of the church today.
Questions:
What is the Synoptic problem?
Explain the Anglican view on the authority of the Bible.
posted by SMK at
2:08 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home