| Libro | El Manuscrito más antiguo existente | Fecha | Condición |
| Mateo | P64, P67, P104 | c. 200 | Fragmentos |
| Marcos | P45 | c. 250 | Fragmentos grandes |
| Lucas | P4, P75 | c. 200 | Fragmento |
| Juan | P52 | c. 125-160 | Fragmento |
| Hechos | P38, P45, P91, P48 | Principios del siglo III29 | Fragmento |
| Romanos | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| 1 Corintios | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| 2 Corintios | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| Epístola a los Gálatas | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| Efesios | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| Filipenses | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| Epístola a los Colosenses | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| 1 Tesalonicenses | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| 2 Tesalonicenses | P92 | Siglo III/IV | Fragmento |
| 1 Timoteo | א | c. 350 | Completo |
| 2 Timoteo | א | c. 350 | Completo |
| Tito | P32 | c. 200 | Fragmento |
| Filemón | P87 | Siglo III | Fragmento |
| Hebreos | P46 | c. 175-225 | Fragmentos |
| Santiago | P23, P20 | Siglo III | Fragmento |
| 1 Pedro | MS 19330 | Siglo III | Fragmentos |
| 2 Pedro | P72 | Siglo III/IV | Fragmentos |
| 1 Juan | P9 | Siglo III | Fragmento |
| 2 Juan | 0232 | Siglo III/IV | Fragmento |
| 3 Juan | א | c. 350 | Completo |
| Judas | P72 | Siglo III/IV | Fragmentos |
| revelacion | P98 | Siglo II | Fragmento |
| revelacion | P115 | Siglo III | Fragmento |
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
the
Old Testament the expression “the word of God” (or Lord) is used
almost
universally of oral communication. Most of the time the phrase
occurs
in instances of God’s communication to man, beginning in
Genesis
15:1, “the word of the LORD came to Abraham in a vision,
saying,
‘Do not fear…,’”42 and continuing throughout the OT. Also
numerous
are the occasions where the word of the prophet to his audience
is
designated as the “word of the LORD,” beginning at Numbers
36:5,
“Then Moses commanded the sons of Israel according to the word
of
the LORD, saying, ‘The tribe of the sons…,’” and also
continuing
throughout
the OT. Because what came orally to God’s spokesmen was
sometimes
eventually written down, the phrase came to designate
Scripture
as well. For instance, when the copy of the Law was found in
the
temple during the reign of Josiah, the king says: “Go, inquire of
the
LORD
for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning
the
words of the book which has been found; for great is the
wrath
of the LORD which is poured out on us because our fathers have
not
observed the word of the LORD, to do according to all that is written
in
this book” (2 Chr 34:21). But this usage is not common in the OT,
with
other terms being more frequently used to refer to the written word
(e.g.,
law, testimonies, statutes, etc.). While the attributes of God’s
oral
communication
can often be easily transferred to God’s written word, a
one-to-one
correspondence is not always possible; so texts that seem to
promise
preservation of “the word of God” need to be examined carefully
to
determine if such an application is valid.
At
the beginning of the New Testament there is a continuation of
the
Old Testament usage when “the word of God came to John, the son
of
Zacharias, in the wilderness” (Luke 3:2). But once Jesus comes as
“the
Word”
(John 1:1, 14), there is no further reference of the word of God
coming
to anyone. While “the word of God” does occasionally designate
Scripture
in the NT, most often “it is used to refer comprehensively to
the
body of revealed truths which made up the apostolic gospel.”43 This
is
how it is used exclusively in Acts: for example, “they…began
to speak
the
word of God with boldness” (4:31); “the word of God kept on
spreading”
(6:7); “the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be
multiplied”
(12:24); and “the word of the Lord was being spread
through
the whole region” (13:49). The phrases “the word of God” or
“the
word of the Lord” are used twenty-one times in Acts and in every
case
the referent is to the apostolic message of Christ, which was
delivered
orally.
This is the normal usage in Paul’s epistles as well. For instance,
when
Paul describes his enemies as those who “corrupt the word
of
God” (2 Cor 2:17, KJV), he is not making reference to the
Scriptures,
but
the gospel message.44 Those in the KJV/TR camp, because they
incorrectly
assume
Paul’s “word of God” is Scripture, commonly argue erroneously
that
here Paul is acknowledging the corrupting of “manuscripts
and
translations by false teachers.”45
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Interview with Daniel Wallace
Let me turn to another subject. You co-edited a book titled Who's Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation Into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today. It might come as a surprise that a book like this would come from Dallas Theological Seminary professors. Could you briefly sum up your view of the role of spiritual gifts in the church today?
I would consider myself a soft cessationist. That is, I do not believe that the sign-gifts of the first century are still operative except under unusual circumstances. These gifts were given to the early church primarily as a means to authenticate the message of the gospel. But there have been occasions throughout history in which some of these gifts are seen. When a cessationist like Charles Spurgeon could note that the Spirit of God gave him insights that could not have been gained by normal means, it seems obvious to me that I can’t maintain a hard cessationist stance.
I believe that the other gifts are still fully operative, and that any church that does not try to utilize the gifts of its people is running on two cylinders.
I also believe that this issue should not divide Christians. To be sure, there are practical issues involved: Should a church have its first worship service for charismatics and its second service for cessationists? I think that would create a lot of confusion and chaos. So, on a local-church level, some decisions need to be made. But on the larger level of how we relate to each other, we need to recognize that we are all part of the body of Christ and that our unity and love for one another is the best testimony we can have before a watching world.
How was your book on the Holy Spirit received, generally speaking, in the circles you mix in?
Extremely well. In fact, it was received better in cessationist circles than it was in charismatic circles! We heard from many, many people who believed as we did, and who were grateful to have a sustained treatment of the topic of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.
It is sometimes held that dispensationalists tend to hold to a cessationist viewpoint. Do you think that's true?
It’s ironic that cessationism is associated with dispensationalism. Most charismatics that I know are pretribulational and thus dispensational. Now, to be sure, charismatics who are biblical scholars tend to be other than dispensational. But historically this has not been the case. Cessationism, up until fairly recently, has been more associated with Reformed theology, especially through the writings of B. B. Warfield. Dallas Seminary and other dispensational schools tend to be Reformed in their soteriology; hence, the link.
How strong of a dispensationalist are you? What do you feel about progressive dispensationalism?
I’m a dispensationalist with a small ‘d.’ In fact, I’d prefer not to be a dispensationalist, but there are some issues that I can’t get around. As for progressive dispensationalism, I think it’s definitely on the right track.
Several lecturers at our college have taken a fairly robust pro-Israel line for theological reasons, although the college does not take an "Israel right or wrong" stance. What are your views on the question of Israel and the Church?
This is difficult to answer. On the one hand, politically, Israel has been in a precarious position ever since its modern resurrection. The nations on its borders have been very hostile to the nation. The people of Israel are struggling for mere existence, and any time they defend themselves they are condemned. There’s no such thing as an Israeli terrorist, yet the international media really takes a twisted look at the nation.
On the other hand, the nation itself is essentially atheistic. They are not particularly friendly to Christians, and do not allow proselytizing of children. There are Arab Christians within its borders who are not treated right.
On a theological front, I do believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is still operative, but this does not give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want with impunity. There needs to be some nuancing on Christians’ part toward the nation, including a filtering that recognizes the priority of Jesus Christ over Abraham.
Finally, returning to the theme of textual criticism for the moment, what books would you recommend to people who wanted to know more about the subject? There seem to have been some books published lately that are perhaps not so helpful.
The textbook by Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, is the gold standard.
On a more popular level, Reinventing Jesus, by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, has five chapters on TC that are a helpful layman’s introduction.
Aland-Aland, Text of the New Testament, is another classic tool that helps students especially in using the Nestle-Aland apparatus.
There’s now a software program that can decipher gothic M in the Nestle apparatus. Anyone who’s worked with gothic M will know what frustration means. This program reduces an hour’s work to a minute. Literally. It’s available at www.nttextualcriticism.com.
Let me turn to another subject. You co-edited a book titled Who's Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation Into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today. It might come as a surprise that a book like this would come from Dallas Theological Seminary professors. Could you briefly sum up your view of the role of spiritual gifts in the church today?
I would consider myself a soft cessationist. That is, I do not believe that the sign-gifts of the first century are still operative except under unusual circumstances. These gifts were given to the early church primarily as a means to authenticate the message of the gospel. But there have been occasions throughout history in which some of these gifts are seen. When a cessationist like Charles Spurgeon could note that the Spirit of God gave him insights that could not have been gained by normal means, it seems obvious to me that I can’t maintain a hard cessationist stance.
I believe that the other gifts are still fully operative, and that any church that does not try to utilize the gifts of its people is running on two cylinders.
I also believe that this issue should not divide Christians. To be sure, there are practical issues involved: Should a church have its first worship service for charismatics and its second service for cessationists? I think that would create a lot of confusion and chaos. So, on a local-church level, some decisions need to be made. But on the larger level of how we relate to each other, we need to recognize that we are all part of the body of Christ and that our unity and love for one another is the best testimony we can have before a watching world.
How was your book on the Holy Spirit received, generally speaking, in the circles you mix in?
Extremely well. In fact, it was received better in cessationist circles than it was in charismatic circles! We heard from many, many people who believed as we did, and who were grateful to have a sustained treatment of the topic of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.
It is sometimes held that dispensationalists tend to hold to a cessationist viewpoint. Do you think that's true?
It’s ironic that cessationism is associated with dispensationalism. Most charismatics that I know are pretribulational and thus dispensational. Now, to be sure, charismatics who are biblical scholars tend to be other than dispensational. But historically this has not been the case. Cessationism, up until fairly recently, has been more associated with Reformed theology, especially through the writings of B. B. Warfield. Dallas Seminary and other dispensational schools tend to be Reformed in their soteriology; hence, the link.
How strong of a dispensationalist are you? What do you feel about progressive dispensationalism?
I’m a dispensationalist with a small ‘d.’ In fact, I’d prefer not to be a dispensationalist, but there are some issues that I can’t get around. As for progressive dispensationalism, I think it’s definitely on the right track.
Several lecturers at our college have taken a fairly robust pro-Israel line for theological reasons, although the college does not take an "Israel right or wrong" stance. What are your views on the question of Israel and the Church?
This is difficult to answer. On the one hand, politically, Israel has been in a precarious position ever since its modern resurrection. The nations on its borders have been very hostile to the nation. The people of Israel are struggling for mere existence, and any time they defend themselves they are condemned. There’s no such thing as an Israeli terrorist, yet the international media really takes a twisted look at the nation.
On the other hand, the nation itself is essentially atheistic. They are not particularly friendly to Christians, and do not allow proselytizing of children. There are Arab Christians within its borders who are not treated right.
On a theological front, I do believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is still operative, but this does not give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want with impunity. There needs to be some nuancing on Christians’ part toward the nation, including a filtering that recognizes the priority of Jesus Christ over Abraham.
Finally, returning to the theme of textual criticism for the moment, what books would you recommend to people who wanted to know more about the subject? There seem to have been some books published lately that are perhaps not so helpful.
The textbook by Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, is the gold standard.
On a more popular level, Reinventing Jesus, by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, has five chapters on TC that are a helpful layman’s introduction.
Aland-Aland, Text of the New Testament, is another classic tool that helps students especially in using the Nestle-Aland apparatus.
There’s now a software program that can decipher gothic M in the Nestle apparatus. Anyone who’s worked with gothic M will know what frustration means. This program reduces an hour’s work to a minute. Literally. It’s available at www.nttextualcriticism.com.
The Bible vs the scriptures
review of Misquoting Jesus that I thought Ehrman was using the word 'Bible' in multiple senses: to refer to individual copies of works given by divine inspiration, and to refer to the non-material entity, the Word of God, to which Christians often ascribe complete inspiration and truthfulness. The point of my distinction is that educated Christians down the ages (Jerome, Calvin) seem to have made a distinction between the copy in front of them (which might be in error) and the communication they held to come from God, which they did not see as in error.
It has been occurring to me that the confusion in Ehrman (and many others) arises from a disjunction between the language used in creeds and in popular Christian discourse.
I've been looking through Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds,Reformed Confessions Harmonized (Baker, 1999) which lays out synoptically various reformed confessions. The word that is completely absent in treatments of scripture is of course 'Bible'. The same is true ,The phrases that tend to be used are 'the Word of God', 'the Scriptures', 'Holy Scripture' (capitalization varies and I haven't checked early mss or edns of these creeds).
I suspect that more recent creeds (e.g. UCCF, InterVarsity, CampusCrusade) tend to use the word 'Bible' more prominently, though the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the word 'Bible' less than 'Scripture(s)'. I'd be interested in knowing whether a shift has indeed taken place and, if so, when and why it took place.
I am tending to think that the word 'Bible', though advantageous in some settings, too readily focuses those considering doctrines of scripture on particular material manifestations of the word of God. Would anything significant be lost if we focused our discussions about doctrine and textual criticism on the terms 'scripture(s)' and 'Word of God' and reserved the term 'Bible' exclusively for material entities?
It has been occurring to me that the confusion in Ehrman (and many others) arises from a disjunction between the language used in creeds and in popular Christian discourse.
I've been looking through Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds,Reformed Confessions Harmonized (Baker, 1999) which lays out synoptically various reformed confessions. The word that is completely absent in treatments of scripture is of course 'Bible'. The same is true ,The phrases that tend to be used are 'the Word of God', 'the Scriptures', 'Holy Scripture' (capitalization varies and I haven't checked early mss or edns of these creeds).
I suspect that more recent creeds (e.g. UCCF, InterVarsity, CampusCrusade) tend to use the word 'Bible' more prominently, though the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the word 'Bible' less than 'Scripture(s)'. I'd be interested in knowing whether a shift has indeed taken place and, if so, when and why it took place.
I am tending to think that the word 'Bible', though advantageous in some settings, too readily focuses those considering doctrines of scripture on particular material manifestations of the word of God. Would anything significant be lost if we focused our discussions about doctrine and textual criticism on the terms 'scripture(s)' and 'Word of God' and reserved the term 'Bible' exclusively for material entities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)