For the Best Attempt Yet to Make a New Canon…The Updated Bible

Craig post something on Sunday that made me think of the Updated Bible and wonder if it was still around. Well, it is, amazingly enough. It includes a new translation and, best of all, a new canon.

It includes 1st Maccabees, however, only part of it:

The book of First Maccabees is included since it fills in some important events in the history of Israel between the time of Malachi and the New Testament.

However, in reviewing the text, it appears that some parts of First Maccabees were likely to have been added at a later time. The following factors were evaluated in excluding text that was not likely to be original…

Sirach is accepted, but only up until 16.23, because the rest cannot be found in Hebrew, because you know, Hebrew.

This Bible only includes Sirach up to Chapter 16 Verse 23. Very little of the Hebrew text has been discovered from 16:24 – 30:13. Furthermore, the quality of the Hebrew text from this point forward is questionable. There are also other gaps in the Hebrew text after that point as well. As a result, the text was not continued in this Bible after 16:23. However, most versions of Sirach include a total of 51 chapters.

And, they have removed the Book of Acts:

The book of the Acts of the Apostles is not included in this Bible. It appears that the book of Acts was generally based on historical people and events for its outline; however, many of the details within it appear to be created. The reasons for taking this position include the following:

1) The internal writing style in the Gospel of Luke is different in some respects when compared to Acts. This tends to indicate that someone else wrote Acts. For example, note the use of the Greek word τε (9 times in Luke; 151 times in Acts). Also compare the difference in use of ανηρ (27 times in Luke; 100 times in Acts) to ανθρωπος (95 times in Luke, 46 times in Acts). See the following article for other examples: A.W. Argyle, “The Greek of Luke and Acts,” New Testament Studies (Cambridge University Press) 20 (1974): pp. 441 – 445.

2) Contradictions to other events in the New Testament. For example compare Galatians 1:11-2:10 to the corresponding events in Acts.

3) Significant amounts of material which are unsubstantiated. Many of the details found in Acts are not present in Paul’s writings even when they would be expected. For example, compare the details of Paul’s conversion and persecution of the Church in Galatians 1:13-24 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 to those found in Acts.

4) Similarities of some parts of Acts with Greco-Roman literature. This may indicate some of the material in Acts was created based on stories in the literature of the time. For examples of this see: Ruben Rene Dupertuis. “The Summaries in Acts 2, 4, and 5 and Greek Utopian Literary Traditions.” PhD diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2005.

via UPDV Updated Bible Version – Home Page.

This is what you get when you sit in your recliner and decide what is best for God.