Tag Archives: Canon

Baptism in the ending of Mark’s gospel

4 Replies

waterThe text of the last chapter of Mark is controversial. There is much evidence that suggests that the ending found in the earliest English translations is not the same ending that was in the original Greek manuscript. Just what the ending was and where the additional material came from is not clear.

I think it unlikely that verses 9 through 20 of Mark 16 appeared in the original. I do believe, however, that they are very ancient. I don’t have a problem as accepting them within the body of inspired writings, even if Mark didn’t write them. I would not, however, seek to build an entire doctrine solely on the evidence of these verses.

Here are the verses that speak about baptism:

“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15–16)

These verses bear some resemblance to the verses we looked at from the end of Matthew. And Luke has a similar “sending out” passage in the last chapter of his gospel:

“This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46–47)

What do we see in Mark? That belief and baptism are necessary. And a lack of belief condemns. It’s not stated that a lack of baptism will condemn. Much has been made of that, despite most people knowing that the absence of something is hardly grounds for a logical argument. (unless, of course, you’re wanting to disprove a doctrine or practice you don’t like; then it’s okay)

Can you believe and not be baptized and be saved? To make an argument either way based on these verses would not be wise. It’s best to stick to what is said: if you believe and are baptized you will be saved.

So this post invites all sorts of comments: textual criticism, biblical canon, importance of baptism, salvation through belief alone. Let’s hear your thoughts!

Conspiracy theories and the Bible

4 Replies

On Monday, I was talking about trusting and not trusting. Part of what got me to thinking about this was the whole idea of conspiracy theories. I have friends who see conspiracies everywhere, right down to the idea that there is a small, powerful group that pretty much controls all world affairs. I just can’t fit those sorts of views into my overall worldview. I know that there are conspiracies, large and small, but I’m not going to spend my life looking around every corner to try and find them.

In the same way, I typically reject conspiracy theories regarding the Bible. I don’t buy into any of the ancient conspiracy theories about the authorship of the biblical books. I don’t accept conspiracy theories about the canon. And I don’t think that the majority of Bible translators have conspired to hide truths from us.

Could any of these people along the way have acted to promote a certain agenda? Certainly. I think all of us are influenced in one way or another by the things that we believe. But I believe that the checks and balances of community, time and divine intervention have helped to keep the impact of those personal agendas to a minimum.

It’s my opinion that our job, as people of the covenant, is to study and seek to understand the Bible in the form that we have received it. I’m not willing to play the game of “Maybe this writer wasn’t inspired” or “maybe this book doesn’t belong” or “maybe this passage isn’t original.” That’s where I am right now.

What about you?

Canon and false teachers in the 1st century

4 Replies

We’re spending some time these days talking about how the canon of the Bible was identified. I want to talk a little about what went on during the first century. During the first century, more than being concerned about what writings were scriptural, the church was focused on what teachings were inspired. Through the apostles and prophets, God was communicating messages to His church. They didn’t have the New Testament in written form; there were certainly congregations that didn’t even have the Old Testament writings. They were receiving teachings orally.

For the most part, it came to be recognized that the apostles taught with authority. From what we see in the book of Acts, that was somewhat relative. The Jews in chapter 11 had no problem in challenging Peter. The meeting in Acts 15 showed respect to the apostles, but didn’t concede them the right to decree on the question at hand. Yet, we can tell that their teachings carried weight.

I’m convinced that God used miracles to confirm the teachings of the apostles. I’ve discussed that theory before and won’t go into it again. Let’s just say that one of the ways the church could tell that someone had been in the presence of the apostles was by the miracles that they did.

God used the church itself as a control on teachers and prophets. There are numerous commands to weigh teachings and examine prophecies. 1 Corinthians 14 describes the process in a bit more detail. False teachers and false prophets were common in the ancient world (unlike today… ha!), and the church was not exempt from their influence.

The writers of the New Testament didn’t write with an awareness that they were writing Scripture. They certainly wouldn’t have laid their teachings alongside the Torah, for example. Yet Paul could quote Luke and call it Scripture, and Peter could refer to Paul’s writings along with “the other scriptures.”

Their was a concern about counterfeit messages, writings sent in the name of the apostles that weren’t really from them. The concept of authorship was a bit different in the ancient world. People saw nothing wrong in someone writing the teachings of another person and ascribing that person’s name to it. If I admire Will Rogers, for example, I could write a book of what I see to be his views and put his name on it. That was accepted in the ancient world. Unfortunately, people sent out messages in the name of Paul, for example, that never came from him. He seemed to take some steps to prevent that, adding unique touches to his letters that were to give them a mark of authenticity. (2 Thessalonians 3:17)

The question of which writings of the apostles and church leaders were to be considered as scripture was principally a question for a later age. In the first century, the focus was on the authenticity of the teaching.

Again, this isn’t an area that I consider myself to have much expertise. I welcome any and all educated insights.

The formation of the canon: Old Testament

5 Replies

Well, I tried to sneak it past him, but Adam Gonnerman called my hand. I read an excellent article that he posted on his web site and that article got me to thinking about the canon. I’d been wanting to discuss that a bit, and now seems like a good time. His presentation is better written and much more scholarly, so I hope you’ll take a few minutes to look over it.

But let’s talk canon. For a long time, God’s people didn’t spend a lot of time identifying which books were inspired and which were not. The Jews honored the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) above all other writings, including those that we typically accept as being of equal weight. They would not place Job, for example, alongside Leviticus. Both were seen as helpful, but one was The Law.

The concern with identifying the canon arose after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Much of what the Jews considered to be their identity was lost, and they struggled to define themselves in the light of what had occurred. Part of that struggle was to identify the writings that were truly “God breathed.”

It was a given that they would reject the Christian writings. They also rejected the “Second Canon,” the Deuterocanonical books like the books of Maccabees. There were two stated reasons for rejecting these books:

  1. The Pharisees taught that divine revelation ceased with Ezra; the Talmud identifies Malachi as the last prophet. Either of these dates (which basically coincide) would exclude the books known as the Apocrypha.
  2. It was also determined that the holy language of Scripture was Hebrew. Books that were not written principally in Hebrew were not accepted. (Daniel, Ezra and Jeremiah have sections in Aramaic, but were considered “Hebrew enough”).

There was another important reason, which tended to go unstated: these books were seen as teaching certain ideas which were used by Christians, like teachings about life after death.

Some scholars believe that there was a council of Jamnia at the end of the first century which established the Jewish canon. However, no concrete historical evidence has been found for the existence of such a council.

It’s worth noting that there was no uniformity among the Jews on the subject of the canon until well after the time of Christ. With Jews scattered across the known world, different groups would accept different books as being canonical.

I know some of you have studied this more than I. What other light would you shed on the formation of the Old Testament canon?

Marcionism

9 Replies

I’m not a big fan of jargon, but I used a bit the other day. Jargon becomes a shorthand that lets you express a fuller idea with just a word or two, but everyone involved has to know the extended meaning behind the term.

I referred to Marcionists the other day when discussing the Old Testament. But I never explained who Marcion was.

Marcion of Sinope was born near the end of the first century. He was the son of a church leader and was raised in a Christian home. He came to be strongly influenced by popular philosophies of his day and developed his own unique approach to Christianity. (Eusebius called him a gnostic; I’ll let you research gnosticism on your own)

Marcion believed that the God revealed in the Old Testament was merely what he called a demiurge, sort of a sub-God. He wasn’t God the Father, the God revealed in the New Testament. Whereas the God of the Old Testament was an angry, unmerciful God, the God that was revealed through Jesus was only love and grace.

To strengthen his views, Marcion published a “canon,” a list of the inspired writings as opposed to the other Scriptures. Completely rejecting the Old Testament as an inferior revelation, Marcion’s canon had eleven books in two sections:

  1. The Evangelikon, which consisted of ten chapters from the book of Luke, carefully selected and trimmed by Marcion.
  2. The Apostolikon, which consisted of ten letters by Paul. Marcion thought that only Paul really understood and taught what Jesus taught.

Because of this, the term Marcionism is often applied to the rejection of the Old Testament, even though this doesn’t accurately reflect all of Marcion’s teachings. (I’ve only presented a few pertinent points here; his was a much more elaborate system of thought)

One other interesting tidbit: it was this heresy that first moved the church to seek to identify the canon. Many claim that the canon was established by councils of the Catholic church, but the truth is that the canon was discussed and identified much earlier than those councils.