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.

You Might Also Like

18 Replies to “For the Best Attempt Yet to Make a New Canon…The Updated Bible”

  1. It's been suggested there were drafts of many of Paul's letters. Should they be out because the author revised them (more likely, paid a scribe to revise them then approved the changes. Gasp!)?

    Then there's all them textual variants in most books of any bible collection; what to do about them?

    Maybe we just shouldn't read anything before the printing press was invented…?

  2. I’d like to hear, or read, you take Updated point by point, explaining WHY they are wrong. Actually address what they say head on. For example, they claim the internal writing style of Acts is different than Luke. Address that specific claim, as well as the other claims. Show us why Updated is wrong. Don’t say they are wrong. Show us WHY they are wrong…

    1. You are assuming that they are right and that I must prove them wrong. This is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is no real need to answer purposeful fools.

  3. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. They’ve layed out their research and have defended their position fairly well. If you disagree, you present yours. Answering with your “gut”, just I disagree because it’s not true isn’t a coherent argument. It’s your blog. You brought it up. You show them where they’re wrong, my friend.

    1. Why answer fools? Did Christ lay everything out before Satan? Nope. And these are the same type of questions being asked. no need to answer ever foolish question from someone with a website

    2. Actually, the burden of proof usually lies with the person making the claim that goes against received wisdom. One could argue that Joel, using the Protestant Canon is arguing from the side of received wisdom. Thus, the burden of proof falls to those who would want to change the recognized canon of Scripture.

      1. Craig, if you research them, they have changed their canon several times. They are their own magisterium, without consent to the authority of the Spirit. They do what is right in their own eyes.

  4. I agree that the initial burden rests with Updatd, just as it does with the Prosecution at a trial. However, once the initial case is made, the facts layed out, then it’s up to the opposing side to dispute it. Updated isn’t saying: Acts shouldn’t be there (end of statement). They’ve made a pretty good case.

    They give apparent facts and research which justify their position. They’ve made a prima facie case. I’d love to hear an intellectual rebuttal of their facts, show where their research is wrong, where it’s flawed, show that they just made it up out of thin air.

    I’d like just once, in these situations, for lazy Christians to just say: “Hey I’m lazy and don’t want to research it, I believe what I believe because I’ve always believed it.” The reason no one wants to present an opposing view is they have not researched it. 🙂

    1. Actually, they haven’t made a case at all. Again, there is no point in answering, rather in trying to prove wrong the foolish questions of dilettantes. If a person postulates something outlandish, by giving them the high ground, you give credence to their position. Craig is correct.

  5. Then why call them out at all if your unwilling to research and disprove them? You shouldn’t be scared of researching the Bible. God gave you a brain, friend. He expects you to use it, not hide behind religious rhetoric. If he wanted robots who would spout rhetoric everytime someone pushed a button, he would have created such. 🙂 Dig into it sometime. It is interesting.

    I’m unsure about it. However, I’ve never seen an intellectual rebuttal of these issues when they appear in a (small) scattering of books and dissertations (for doctorate degrees) at various seminaries.

    1. You assume that I don’t know what right is, or the history of the canon, etc… I also know dilettantism is, and what a logical fallacy you are presenting. There is no need to constantly rebut idiocy. It’s like rebutting creationism or the vast number of conspiracy theories.

      1. One could argue that they are actually uber-Protestant taking scripture alone to the logical conclusion of questioning the contours of the canon.

        Blahahahahaha!!! I’m just kidding. I know that’s a bit of a caricature of scripture alone. Unfortunately that is how it is popularly practiced by some. Everything is up in the air and open to question.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.