Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 172

Thread: Can We Trust the New Testament? by J. A. T. Robinson

  1. #1
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament? by J. A. T. Robinson

    In 1977 John A. T. Robinson wrote a tiny little paperback book titled Can We Trust the New Testament?, the original price of which was $2.46; the used copy I have has a price tag for $3.00 pasted on the front cover. I obtained this copy from Amazon.com for $0.01 plus $3.99 shipping. As best I can ascertain, the book has not been published, printed, or reprinted since 1977, when it went to market in the U.S.A. as a printing by Eerdmans that was copyrighted by A. W. Mowbray, and published by A. R. Mowbray & Co Ltd., The Alden Press, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 OEG ― without any sanction whatsoever against any use of it, or against any reproduction of the contents. I checked Eerdmans' website and found that they do not list the ISBN number (ISBN o-8028-1682-7) as one of their publications. In fact, the exact title has been used by a number of other authors and publishers in recent years.; if one does a Google search (as distinct from an Amazon search), this little book by Robinson does not come up, whereas others with the same title do. So, I propose to present excerpts from Robinson's little 1977 out-of-print-book. That the book is based on the Greek text of the NT will become apparent in due course ― lest anyone question why I am presenting this in the Biblical Languages 301 forum.

    INTRODUCTION

    Can we trust the New Testament? It's an odd question when you come to think of it. Its not a question that a Hindu would ask of the Bhagavad-Gita or a Muslim of the Koran or even a Jew of the Old Testament. Or if they did they would mean, Can you trust it as a guide to life, as the way to walk in? And this is a perfectly valid Christian question too. In fact a number of times in the so-called Pastoral Epistles (the brief letters written by Paul or in his name to Timothy and Titus) we have a phrase which means exactly this. 'Here are words you may trust' (New English Bible); in the Authorized or King James Version (AV): 'This is a faithful saying'). For the Christian message is offered as a faith and a way of life which you can trust. Indeed the primary purpose of the Gospels is succinctly put by St John when he says that he has written 'that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name' (John 20.31). But of this 'word of life' the same man says, 'We have heard it: we have seen it with our own eyes; we looked upon it, and felt it with our hands' (1 John 1.1). And there lies the difference. For 'the way, the truth, and the life' for the writers of the New Testament is not a timeless prescription for good living, but a person born at a moment of history. And trusting the New Testament is trusting it for a portrait of that person.

    To be continued...

  2. #2
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    45,399
    Amen (Given)
    9751
    Amen (Received)
    22013
    Subscribing

    I always appreciate your excellent work!

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  3. Amen 37818, One Bad Pig amen'd this post.
  4. #3
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Subscribing

    I always appreciate your excellent work!
    That is a very encouraging comment; thanks!

  5. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  6. #4
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the OP.

    INTRODUCTION

    A portrait, not a photograph. And a portrait not of a dead man, but the one who was for its writers now and forever the human face of God. Yet if that portrait turned out to bear no relation to the sitter behind it, to the historical individual they claimed to have seen and heard and handled, then they would on their own confession be found liars. You cannot 'trust the New Testament' without trusting the claim at its very heart that it is not just an imaginary picture but a faithful portrait―full of faith, to be sure, but also true to fact.

    To be continued...

  7. #5
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the last post above↑

    INTRODUCTION

    Now you cannot test that claim without being prepared to go to history, and therefore to the methods of historical inquiry and verification. And these methods are neutral to the faith: they cannot be guaranteed to reinforce it. There is always the risk that the results of the investigation may turn out negative. And at best none of the answers in any historical inquiry will be more than extremely probable: even the existence of Napoleon or Julius Caesar is not a matter of absolute certainty. Many religious people have therefore feared and distrusted these methods. They have thought to settle questions of history―whether, for instance, Jesus said or did this or that―not by the historical evidence, but by assertions of faith. In this they have shown themselves to be obscurantists―and left the tools of historical investigation to the faithless. The Church owes a great debt to its scholars over the past two hundred years who have refused to do this. They have been prepared to accept the risks. In the process 'the critics', as they have come to be called, have often appeared to the faithful to be doubtful allies―if not downright traitors. Indeed there is a fatal ambiguity in the phrase 'biblical criticism', since it appears to mean being critical of the Bible, and therefore destructive. In fact it means using one's critical faculties on the Bible like any other book―and its results can be entirely positive, confirming rather than undermining.

    To be continued...

  8. #6
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the last post above↑

    INTRODUCTION

    But it is too early to worry about results. This book is an invitation to trust, to go hand in hand with the scholar of the New Testament, to see what he is up to and watch him as he goes about his work. And the first thing to recognize is that no scholar comes to his work without his presuppositions. He does not start with a blank mind but with one formed by all the influences, beliefs, and convictions that have made him what he is. In this he is just like the rest of us. Hence it is not surprising that in this and in every other field of knowledge experts differ, and differ widely. This is bewildering to the layman, whose reaction is not to know whom to trust and therefore to trust no one. In fact such is the confusion of voices in this field that many have lost the confidence that there is any agreed truth to arrive at. So they either give up believing anything or become reinforced in their judgment that they know what they believe and the less they let 'the critics' near the better. Both of these reactions I hope to show are fundamentally faithless and unjustified.

    To be continued...

  9. #7
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the last post above↑

    INTRODUCTION

    In a book like this I could have followed one of two methods. I could have surveyed the conflicting opinions, said what everyone else believes and kept my own judgement out of it (though it would no really have been out of it). Or I could, as I have done, present one man's view, while trying at the same time to be fair to those from whom I would differ and warning the reader where there would be general agreement and where there would not. Since therefore my own presuppositions will not be suppressed, I had better state where I stand.

    To be continued...

  10. #8
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the last post above↑

    INTRODUCTION

    This is somewhat against the stream of what I suppose would be called current critical orthodoxy in the field of New Testament scholarship. I would be more conservative―on some issues much more conservative―than most of my colleagues who are prepared to use the same methods. Since this may surprise many of my readers, who may regard me by reputation as a dangerous radical, let me try to describe, as I see it, the lie of the field.

    To be continued...

  11. #9
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the last post above↑

    INTRODUCTION

    Confining myself for the moment to the English scene―the Continental and the American reflect greater extremes―I observe two poles of thought between which there is constant interaction. One of these tends to be fairly radical―and skeptical―about what may be accepted as historically trustworthy in the New Testament, though with it can go quite a strong traditionalism in doctrinal belief and churchmanship. The most extreme example I have met of this―he was an American―was a professor who accepted nothing in the birth narratives of the Gospels as remotely historical but combined this with the "highest" possible belief in the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, and anything else you liked to mention. It seemed to me schizophrenic, but not to him. In a less extreme manner it is obviously possible to have honest doubts about much in the historical tradition and yet to retain a lively and orthodox Christian faith. I remember once a theological college principle saying what a comfort the radical German New Testament scholar Bultmann was to him. For whenever he was being driven back and back and thought he had nothing left on which to base his faith, he looked behind him and there was Bultmann, and he hadn't gone over the precipice yet! A man in this position may be able to 'get by' on a good deal less about the Jesus of history than most people would think they needed in order to remain Christian. And in the pastoral ministry this can lead to a fairly sophisticated scepticism at the scholarly level combined with quite traditional preaching and liturgical practice at the popular level. For there are things that may be true for the cognoscenti―but the faithful must not be needlessly disturbed. This has been a feature especially of much liberal catholicism, both Roman Catholic and Anglican.

    To be continued...

  12. #10
    tWebber John Reece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,416
    Amen (Given)
    743
    Amen (Received)
    374

    Can We Trust the New Testament?

    Continued from the last post above↑

    INTRODUCTION

    Now this is not a position in which I find myself, and I do not think I could hold it for long if I did. On purely critical grounds I am far from convinced of the trustworthiness of the historical tradition. This is simply the way the evidence seem to me to point. But then I want to go on to ask some fairly radical questions about how we can make our own and use that tradition and its language today. For instance, on the virgin birth or the resurrection, though I want above all to discriminate about how much fact is involved and how much interpretation, I would come to relatively conservative conclusions, particularly on the resurrection (I will say were I stand later.) But that does not mean that we may not need to rethink pretty drastically how we can make the New Testament tradition meaningful today. For instance, what does it really mean to say that Jesus is 'the son of God' or 'pre-existent' in a world like ours where those sort of categories are alien, as they weren't in the first century, to the way in which ordinary people think or talk? Just to go on repeating them as they stand may convey nothing―or something subtly different.

    To be continued...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •