Another Look at the Biblical Canon

elaine · 05-23-09 3:29 pm

Where do Paul and Luke contradict each other? Check out their versions of the road to Damascus experience: In Acts, Luke writes of Paul's conversion (Act. 9:1-8; cf. 22:6 and 26:12-20. Into Damascus and escape (9:26-27). His preaching openly in Jerusalem with the help of Barnabas (9:28-30). Read Paul's letters of this experience: His call (Gal. 1:15-17). At Damascus (1 Cor. 9:1 15:8; 2 Cor. 11:32). And no visit in Jerusalem (Gal. 11:32). Paul says he was three years in Syria and Arabia (Gal. 1:28) which conflicts with the record given by Luke. According to Acts, Paul made five significant visits to Jerusalem after becoming a follower of Jesus, but Paul's own account is very different in several respects: "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went aawy at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie...and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ" (Gal. 1:15-24). Acts does not mention his going away into Arabia and then returning to Damascus. Note: Paul is very adamant that he did not confer with anyone in Jerusalem until after three years. It would seem that Acts has added an extra visit at the beginning, perhaps to make Paul appear in closer contact with the Jerusalem church, but it does not correspond with anything in Paul's letters. There are many more which have led New Testament scholars to conclude that one must reconstruct Paul's career by starting with the letters themselves, and then correlate the events described in Acts when and where they seem to fit.

don · 05-23-09 5:26 pm

There are many more which have led New Testament scholars to conclude that one must reconstruct Paul's career by starting with the letters themselves, and then correlate the events described in Acts when and where they seem to fit. (Devon, welcome to the discussion.) I agree with this approach. Paul's time by himself in Arabia was not mentioned in Acts but it is not inconsistent with the account in Acts. One can assume a contradiction or a supplement. Why choose the contradiction? Paul's activity at Damascus took place before and after his trip to Arabia. Notice Paul's account in Galatians 1<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Notice that Paul was in Damascus twice; once before his trip to Arabia and then immediately after. He "returned to Damascus." Luke does not mention this time in Arabia. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%2011;&version=49;" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:32</a>, Paul mentions his basket-escape experience. Apparently, he had upset the people in Arabia, Aretas' people, because they played a major role in the basket-escape. I see the two accounts, of Luke and Paul, supportive of each other. In Galatians we have no mention of the Damascus-road experience in the detail given by Luke, yet it seems obvious that this is what Paul is talking about in Galatians 1. Then, out of the blue, it seems, Paul talks about "returning" to Damascus. Why talk about "returning" without reference to Damascus as his point of conversion? Possibly, because the Galatians knew the story very well. This overpassing the details by Paul, yet showing common information, is strong support for the reliability of Luke's account. If both writers are considered trustworthy, then we try to determine how both can be telling the truth. If after such an attempt, it seems impossible that both could be correct, then we would need to decide how to approach the accounts. The two accounts are rather easy to reconcile. See <a href="http://tinyurl.com/payea8" target="_blank">Paul, apostle of the heart set free</a>, by F. F. Bruce. . (Message edited by Don on May 23, 2009)

pilgrim99 · 05-23-09 10:04 pm

Elaine, At one point in time I had seriously considered attending Dallas Theological Seminary. I still might, it's in God's hands, as is my entire future. This does not mean that I endorse all of the teachers and positions taken at DTS. One of my favorite bible scholars is Daniel B. Wallace. Dr. Wallace is currently a professor of New Testament Studies at DTS. in <a href="http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1329" target=_top>Acts: Introduction, Outline, and Argument</a> Dr. Wallace states<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: Arguments against Lukan Authorship There are principally three arguments against Lukan authorship. a. Historical Discrepancies Many have pointed out apparent discrepancies between Paul’s biographical notes in his Hauptbriefe and other secure epistles with the information about Paul given in Acts. Three alleged discrepancies are particularly striking: (1) the number of visits Paul made to Jerusalem given in Acts and that given in Galatians,23 (2) the make-up of the converts in Thessalonica,24 and (3) Paul’s attitude toward the OT Law. Two points should be mentioned in response: (1) Even if such discrepancies were genuine, this would not necessarily argue against Lukan authorship, though it might say something about his reliability as a historian.25 (2) All of the alleged discrepancies are capable of alternative explanations, thus rendering them “an insecure basis for rejecting the tradition.”<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> If it's not too much, please take a few minutes to read the article, and please feel free to share your thoughts. I'm not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, so my understanding might be flawed. I do welcome your comments on this specific article. We all have our favorite scholars and authors; mine tend to fit into a conservative mold, you appear to favor scholars who endorse novel, and new interpretations. Some might say you like those who tickle your ears. Someone here, has described you as a biblical scholar, in thinking about your approach to the Bible, and reflecting on all of the years that we have interacted in cyberspace, from SDAnet to Tim's Yahoo forum, I have come to the conclusion that you are not really a bible scholar, but a bible critic. In saying this, I still think that you'd make a great neighbor, even though your natural inclination is to follow those I consider to be blind guides. Peace, Devon (Message edited by pilgrim99 on May 23, 2009) (Message edited by pilgrim99 on May 23, 2009)

pilgrim99 · 05-23-09 10:14 pm

Paul's time by himself in Arabia was not mentioned in Acts but it is not inconsistent with the account in Acts. One can assume a contradiction or a supplement. Why choose the contradiction? Don that is a great question. IMHO those who wish to have their ears tickled would naturally be inclined to choose to view many bible passages as contradictions as opposed to supplements. I have a few current and retired NYPD family members, they are all good at describing the different perspectives that each witness shares of the same incident.

elaine · 05-23-09 10:58 pm

Devon, your categorization of Bible critics should include all students of the Bible, as each individual who reads the Bible is using his internal critical mind. Those of us who have studied a variety of scholars are, of course, influenced by not one, but the many. I do not clam a favorite scholar but prefer reading and sudying a variety. However, on three that I currently consulted, after partially reading your link, the three all show a consesus of Luke's composition during the last decade of the first century. I am always open to other ideas, as I do not rely on any one scholar to base my opinions. What you think of my opinions are of no concern and must be judged by others. While you consider that I am following blind guides, is that because you do not agree with the ideas I share? That's your opinion. The probable date of Luke is given by Will Durant (who should need no credentials, as he has written a complete volume of approximately six volumes on philosophy, and also on world history. Another, from the Interpeters' Bible Commentary, William Baird, Professor of New Testament, Brite Divinity School,l Texas Christian University, and L. Michael White, Ronald Nelson Smith Chair in Classics and Christian Origins and director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas at Austin. I could cite more, but for what reason? For someone who admits that he is "not really a Bible scholar" from whom do you wish to learn? If you decide to pursue further study, what will be your attitude when confronted with "novel" ideas? I can assure you that the scholars I read are neither presenting "novel" or new ideas. There is nothing more guaranteed to arouse oppostion than for a scholar to present a "novel" or radical idea. But in so doing, they must be prepared to carefully document their sources for the opposition. I can assure you, having completed a master's degree, that if you pursue one, that one of the first rules that you will encounter will be source documentation, ad infinitum. This practice will become second nature once it has been repeated many times. No one source will be accepted, but many from various writers.

pilgrim99 · 05-23-09 11:23 pm

Elaine, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Do you have any comments on the contents of the article? Peace

elaine · 05-24-09 2:06 pm

I'm temporarily experiencing trouble with my printer, and I prefer to print such articles and read, rather than directly from the screen. It is one individuals' perspective, but not something I have seen before from at least half a dozen biblical scholars.

elaine · 05-24-09 2:07 pm

May I ask why is Dr. Wallace a favorite of yours? How many others have your read on this topic and what are their opinions?

elaine · 05-24-09 2:12 pm

May I ask why is Dr. Wallace a favorite of yours? How many others have your read on this topic and what are their opinions?

pilgrim99 · 05-24-09 2:25 pm

Daniel Wallace tends to be pretty thorough in his analysis and writing. Others that I admire include Ray Stedman, Ravi Zacharias, Warren Wiersbe, Harry Ironside and Chuck Smith. I agree that each scholar and writer expresses their individual perspectives. Admiration of any of the men listed above, does not mean complete agreement with everything that they have written, they are after all human and as such subject to error.

don · 05-24-09 3:54 pm

Scholars and the Scriptures The purpose of reading the works of Scholars is to access their experience and education. I benefit from their presentation of the debate including the specifics of the arguments. Scholars are not gods, of course. Nor are they the new canonical writers. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> They all seem to have their own biases. I find that when I know the biases of particular scholars, I can predict what stand they will take on an issue. If I want to learn the "liberal" argument, I turn to one who has a "liberal" track record. The same is true of the "conservative" scholar. What I find especially interesting is when they both agree. Perhaps "liberal" can mean "someone unwilling to accept traditional viewpoints." "Conservative" can mean "someone who accepts the traditonal viewpoint unless the evidence is overwhelming against it." .

elaine · 05-24-09 5:49 pm

Don, you wrote: I find that when I know the biases of particular scholars, I can predict what stand they will take on an issue. Surely, you must read them before you know their particular biaes, don't you? That is not prediction, but based on some knowledge gathered through your reading their writings, isn't it? The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are not easily defined. They also reflect the bias of the speaker who has assessed them. Theological scholars have more tendency to be biased, IMO, than strictly historical scholars. Many I have read have given no inkling of their personal beliefs, which I appreciate. Some, whom I've read for years, have been cited by the press as being "Roman Catholic" or "Jew" or "agnostic; entirely new information to me. Most scholars strive always to present opinions as unbiased as possible by presenting both sides of an argument or findings. To do otherwise is not true scholarship and anyone doing so will be quickly dismissed by colleagues. One should be unwilling to accept either "traditional" or "conservative" viewpoints if his integrity demands that the evidence be presented, let the chips fall where they may. I also recognize as top scholars those who are widely published, interviewed by the media, and given the recognition that their scholarship deserves. How many SDA scholars have you seen given such recognition?? They are usually biased, IMO. In reading about the origin of Sunday worship, it was refreshing to see several SDA scholars: Kenneth Strand, Gerhard Damsteegt, and C. Mervyn Maxwell as giving early evidence of this practice. They are still good Adventists, but did not flinch from the many sources showing this occurred.

don · 05-24-09 6:12 pm

I also recognize as top scholars those who are widely published, interviewed by the media, and given the recognition that their scholarship deserves. Here in Canada we speak of the liberal bias of the media. Even public recognition is biased. I do agree that the careful examination of an issue through cited sources and through peer review is a very important part of the quest for social scientific truth. Scholars like to sound more dogmatic than warranted. This is where people with different worldviews can help each other as they seek for objective truth. Kenneth Strand, Gerhard Damsteegt, and C. Mervyn Maxwell as giving early evidence of this practice. Once the manuscripts have an agreed upon range of dates, the rest is simply reading and noting. (Message edited by Don on May 24, 2009)

bob_2 · 05-28-09 8:15 pm

Elaine, liberal and conservative are not hard to define, most liberals know they are as do most conservatives, and I have heard each declare themselves what they are. Maybe hard for you???

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 05-23-09 3:29 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#52 05-23-09 5:26 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#53 05-23-09 10:04 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#54 05-23-09 10:14 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#55 05-23-09 10:58 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#56 05-23-09 11:23 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#57 05-24-09 2:06 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#58 05-24-09 2:07 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#59 05-24-09 2:12 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#60 05-24-09 2:25 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#61 05-24-09 3:54 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#62 05-24-09 5:49 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#63 05-24-09 6:12 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#64 05-28-09 8:15 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

Board footer