Mirror, Mirror on the wall, Who is the greatest of them all?

Later he arrived in Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest.  And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” Then he took a little child and set him in front of all of them. And when he had taken him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives such a child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.  Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  I tell you truly, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not be able to enter it.”   

[harmonized account] 

Where Sin Abounds: Absalom and Solomon

David comforted his wife Bat-Sheva, came to her and went to bed with her; she gave birth to a son and named him Shlomo.  Adonai loved him and sent through Natan the prophet to have him named Y’didyah [loved by God], for Adonai’s sake.- 2 Samuel 12:25 

The prophet Nathan called David's supreme violation of khesed against his loyal general Uriah a blasphemy against the Lord.  Even though David made it seem like Uriah was just another casualty of the Ammonite war, needlessly exposing his general to danger was seen as killing Uriah "with the sword of the Ammonites." Just as Saul's violation of Adonai’s khesed with the Gibeonites brought calamity on his household, David's violation of khesed brought immediate and future trouble upon himself.  David's secrecy and subterfuge in it would ultimately result in public shame, as David's "neighbor" as Nathan mysteriously identifies will publicly humiliate David.  It will turn out that one of his sons (not Shlomo/Solomon but Absalom) will take David's lack of khesed to heart and commit treachery against David; after all, a king can do whatever he wants.

Pooh Bear scholarship

A funny quote about the tendency for scholars to find a position more credible from the growing abundance of citations by other scholars:

... it’s like Winnie the Pooh following his own tracks in the snow around a clump of trees and each time he sees more tracks he takes this as evidence that his quarry is even more numerous and more real than he thought before!

From http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-presuppositions-and-pretensions

Paraklesis and and Paraclete (פרקליט) in Prophecy

Sometimes the New Testament writers are accused of getting various facts wrong due to being removed in time or culture from the Aramaic-speaking Galilean eyewitnesses (if indeed the higher criticism allows belief in such eyewitnesses).  Because of much of the history falling to Gentiles or Hellenized Jews outside of Palestine, some mistakes don't seem unlikely.

However, the apparent error about the epithet of Barnabas might not be a simple error of fact, but something instead that illuminates something about the early group of Jesus followers.

One of many 1st century Jews with the name Joseph, bar-Navya seems to be the nickname of Paul's colleague (or at least that is the best guess as to the Aramaic origin of "Barnabas"), which would mean "son of the prophet."  More likely it was bar-Navua, or some Aramaic equivalent for נְבוּאָה] נְבוּאָה] or "prophecy." However, the Greek-speaking author of Acts of the Apostles translates his name as 'son of παράκλησις' which is often rendered 'son of encouragement' in English.

For the Aramaic speakers of Antioch, בוּאָה [navua] likely became a synonym for παράκλησις [paraklēsis], and vice versa.   Paul tried to communicate to the Corinthian believers the sensibilities of the Antioch school of prophecy from which he and Joseph bar-Navua hailed, for which prophecy was all about "exhortation and comfort."  One of the two other men at Antioch rising up in prophetic gifts with Paul and Barnabbas, one is named Menachem which also means 'Comforter.'

The word παράκλησις is often translated encouragement or consolation as in the Acts 4:36 explanation for υἱός παρακλήσεως [huios paraklēseōs] generally as "son of consolation" or "son of encouragement."  Ity is also translated "exhortation."  It has the sense of "refreshment" as what gives one the strength to go on, of "consolation" and "comfort."  

The Ruach ha-Qodesh or Holy Spirit is famously called the παράκλητος [paráklētos] in the gospel of the Beloved Disciple.  There is a similar array of translations for παράκλητος as for παράκλησις, the most famous being "Comforter," followed by "Advocate," "Counselor," "Helper," and "Encourager."  "Helper" is the only one that covers all the senses of parakletos but is kind of a weak translation; some get around this by translating the word more or less directly by calling the Spirit the "Paraclete" in some translations.  

The use of παράκλητος was much more common in Jewish writings of the time than the Hellenistic world, and it survives in modern Hebrew as פְּרַקְלִיט, a word for an attorney.  "Praklit" (פרקליט) found its way into rabbinical usage as someone (or something) that speaks good things on one's behalf, as an advocate or an intercessor.  The writer of the epistle of 1 John has this in mind when he says that "if anyone does sin, we have a παράκλητος with the Father."  When the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews states that the blood of Jesus speaks more positive things than the blood of Abel, the blood of Jesus is acting as paraklētos on our behalf.  If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our hearts in the knowledge of love that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Paraclete: because the inward paraklēsis of the Spirit releases us from the yoke and torment of fear so that we can be bold and without fear in "the day of reckoning."  The word παράκλησις [paraklēsis] has itself a sense of "conciliatory" speech, as would be expected with its connection to advocacy.

In Acts 15, the episode of the church leadership convening to decide whether or not the Gentiles should be compelled to be circumcised and follow the laws of Moses, tells how Simon the Rock (Peter) recount the Gentiles being baptized in the Spirit, and how he says "Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the disciples that neither we nor our forefathers have been able to bear?"  After James the Just decides that it doesn't make sense to make the Gentiles follow the laws of Moses, the Gentile Christians respond as though an unbearable yoke has been lifted from them.  They rejoice because the paraklēsis in the letter from Jerusalem encourages them.  Then after receiving the initial paraklēsis in the letter, "Judas and Silas being themselves prophets, did with many words encourage [paraklēsis] and strengthen the brothers."

Being called as prophets, Judas and Silas spoke many words of paraklēsis.  Being prophets they did παρακαλέω [parakaleō] the brothers. As prophets, they spoke words which released the burden, refreshed their souls, and ministered grace.  In Acts chapter 20, the author speaks in the first person plural about the events leading up the resurrection of the young man Eutychus.  When he is brought back from the dead, the boy's parents were greatly comforted [parakaleō]. Comfort. Relief.

Another word in the Antioch vocabulary for prophecy, one that illuminates the role of παράκλησις for Jesus' ekklesia (church), is the word that is almost always translated "edification," from "edifice" a word for a large building.  Paul tells the Corinthians that the charisma of prophecy is for building, for paraklēsis, for consolation.  There is some obvious parallelism with refreshment and consolation, but what of 'building'?

Building/edification almost always has the sense of the Petrine revelation of the Jesus' church as a building ("upon this stone I will build my church"), to which Peter likens us to "living stones," built on Jesus as the chief cornerstone.  The Pauline revelation is more organic: we are parts of the Body of the Anointed, under the direction of Jesus as the head.  Paul combines both metaphors in his letter to the Ephesians: "... speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into him who is the head, even the Anointed, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up [edification] of itself in love."

In Ephesians 4, for the building up of the Body, Paul discusses avoiding things that "grieve the Holy Spirit": bitterness, unforgiveness, strife, malice . . . in general, "un-grace."  As Jesus and his brother James do, Paul pays special attention to the un-grace that comes out of our mouths.   He says that our speech needs to be motivated with grace, always seasoned with grace.  Where James warns against our tongues being set on fire from hell, Paul exhorts that our mouths be sources of grace.

As a prophetic priesthood, the Body of the Anointed are meant to παρακαλέω with grace.  Always with grace: encouraging, entreating, motivating, interceding, prophesying.   The following gem from the Johannine community – "The spirit of prophecy is that which bears witness of Jesus" – makes more sense in terms of the essence and motive of prophecy is what reveals the character of Jesus.  As "ministers of reconciliation" those born of the Spirit are ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven as though God is παρακαλέω-ing the world through us.

One final thought here on the building up of the ekklesia Acts 9:31:  If the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," maybe the παράκλησις of the Spirit of Consecration is the perfection of wisdom.  The Ruach ha-Qodesh reveals to us how Jesus has become our righteousness before the Father.  He speaks of good things of us, advocating for us and encouraging us, bearing the testimony of the blood of Jesus in our hearts.

A funny thing happened in Jerusalem

He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”  They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
  - Luke 24:17-18

What’s remarkable here is the degree of agreement on the events of Jesus’ Passion. Even the sceptical critics affirm the central events of Jesus’ Passion: his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey as a herald of the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, Jesus’ disruptive action in the Temple driving out the money-changers and their animals, the involvement of the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ arrest and trial (or hearing) before them, Jesus’ being delivered to Pilate on the charge of sedition, and Pilate’s condemning Jesus to crucifixion as a pretended King of Jews. It is stunning testimony to the historical credibility of the Gospels that even sceptical critics find themselves compelled by the evidence to admit the historicity of the fundamental outline of Jesus’ Passion and death.
  - William Lane Craig,  Jesus and His Passion

the general mood of the culture

"Recently from one of the most famous pulpits in New England, a new book about Jesus was recommended to me on the grounds that the Jesus contained therein was opposed to capital punishment, was uninterested in sexual ethics, and in various other ways (my summary) supported the liberal status quo.  These are the books that are sold in Barnes and Noble, in Waterstones, in W. H. Smith.   These are the books that people in my congregation, and perhaps yours, are likely to read.  At a time when the general mood of the culture in which I live is deeply anti-Christian, ready to swallow anything, no matter how wild or wacky, as long as it is not orthodox Christianity, these are the books that feed the general cultural mood and that increase the sense that anyone who believes or practices anything like orthodox Christianity is simply living in cloud-cookoo-land. Our culture knows in its bones that Jesus could not have been like we traditionally say he was." [emphasis mine]
  - N. Thomas Wright, "Jesus and the Identity of God" 

The Acts of the Table-Waiters

In the so-called Acts of the Apostles (the traditional name for the 2nd volume of the beginning of the church attributed to Luke "the beloved physician"), one of the interesting things about the volume is its "egalitarian" nature.  By rights, if it were meant as propaganda for the faith, it should ascribe the miracles of Elijah to each of the eleven apostles (twelve minus Judas) demonstrating their heroic status as the men who walked with Jesus.  But most of the apostles don't figure at all in these accounts, and Peter figures in less than half the book.   There is nothing linking Peter directly to Paul, or a direct conferring of divine calling, as would make sense for some 2nd century pro-Paul propaganda.  Peter is prominent at the beginning, especially with the initial outreach to the Gentile believers, but then falls out of the spotlight almost entirely.

What is especially noteworthy before Paul becomes the focus of the early church historian is the people who do come into the spotlight.  The seven servant-leaders (or leader-servants), who Christians have traditionally called the first "deacons," were chosen as men whose character exemplified the qualities of  Jesus, whose job would be to tend to the needs of the growing community of believers and responsibly distributing the communal property of the believers, a job that the chief apostles will describe as "waiting tables."

One of these "waiters" is a disciple named Philip -- not to be confused with Philip of the Twelve Apostles.  Philip quickly moves beyond his humble serving of the church to preach the gospel.  We don't see where he was formally sent out on his mission by church authorities; in fact, he is physically caught away" to remote places without his control.  One of the wonders worked by the deacon is referred to mysteriously as being "caught away by the Spirit."  This sounds uncannily like the power of k'fitzat ha-derech attributed to especially spiritual rabbis in much later centuries (the jumping-through-space that would inspire Frank Herbert's Kwisatz Haderach in Dune), though it is somewhat reminiscent of Elijah being caught away by the chariot.  This miraculous deacon figures later in The Acts with daughters who prophesy.  One of these daughters would later tell Papius (a historian who interviewed acquaintances of the apostles) about someone she witnessed to be raised from the dead.

For The Acts to be decent propaganda for the Church, it should attribute these miracles and wonders to Philip the Apostle, or to one of the twelve apostles such as Thomas or John.  Instead the account of Acts has the apostles follow Philip into Samaria.

Being freed up from the distractions of the service industry to fulfill their higher purpose to seek God, they hear of how the lowly deacon has been taken by the Spirit to Samaria and is doing a mighty work.  And they follow the deacon into Samaria.  Philip the Table-Waiter (whom we now refer to as "Philip the Evangelist" to distinguish him from Philip of the Twelve) is more prominently an apostle than the Twelve, being a "sent one" (the meaning of "apostle") into one of the territories fulfilling the "Great Commission" (to Judea, and then Samaria, and then to the ends of the earth).

Also among the deacons is Stephen, who seems to fulfill Jesus' prophecy to the Sanhedrin about his place at the right hand of God, and whose death plants in Saul of Tarsus a seed that will eventually come to fruition on the road to Damascus when Saul is told, "It must be hard on you to be constantly kicking against the goad."  Stephen's death sets precedent for the term "martyr" or "witness" for those who die for their confession of faith.  Those that hear Stephen testify of his vision, stop their ears in panic at hearing Jesus' prophecy being realized, and give witness to Stephen's prophetic sermon about their hardness of heart.  Saul's hardness of heart will eventually be broken.

Stephen the Waiter seems to draw attention to himself almost immediately after his appointment to serve the church by exhibiting signs and wonders.  He soon after fulfills a major prophecy of Jesus, and sets off a pattern of persecution that breaks forces the Jerusalem church to fulfill its commission and enlarge its borders beyond Judaea.  Congregations will form in proximity to the Gentiles, and the Antioch congregation will be formed.

The rise of Stephen, Philip, Paul, and Barnabas, and the waning prominence of the original apostles (and eventually of even Peter himself) arises soon after the appointment of men to release the apostles from mundane service:  "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables."  And yet, after announcing the New Covenant in His blood, the first illustration given to them by the Word of God in the flesh was the lowly act of a server:  He washed their feet, and told them that the servant is not above his master. He that shall be first must be last.

The Greek word  ἀρεστός more generally means "acceptable" or "satisfactory" or "pleasing"or "fitting":  "It is not fitting/acceptable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables." It is a curious way to put it.  It sounds a little melodramatic.  Abandon the word of God to wait on tables.  On the one hand, it may be true that the Holy Spirit was leading the apostles to prayer and prophecy rather than to service.  But think about Jesus' gesture of washing the feet of the apostles and disciples.

“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.”

Think about Jesus' pastoral directive to Peter to "tend My sheep."  There is certainly more to tending the sheep than waiting on tables, but is there something to this that they didn't say that the Holy Spirit was leading them to devote themselves the prophetic.  Rather, "it is fitting for someone other than ourselves to wait on tables."  Even the description of the menial work of taking care of the mundane needs of the faithful seems almost flippant: "We didn't walk with the Messiah for three years to wait on tables."

I can't help but wonder if there is an element of pride in this.  Do the apostles have a "higher" purpose than waiting on tables?  Were Peter and John so busy giving themselves to "the word" and prayer, without the distractions of table-waiting, that they ended up realizing God was doing something in Samaria after one of their table-waiters started doing radical Jesus-type things there.  Some amazing things happen with Peter in later chapters (but very soon seem to no longer be reported), but the Twelve appear less and less after the "table-waiting" announcement, and soon after we hear almost nothing of Peter.  The soon-to-rise apostle Paul will later write that, though he would prefer to devote himself to preaching and outreach with the voluntary support of the church, he is certainly not above the mundane work of tent-making.

The book of The Acts is known as The Acts of the Apostles, but it should really be called The Works of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is building His church, not the Eleven, not the apostles.  All the believers, not just the Eleven apostles, are the "living stones" that make up His tabernacle, as Peter writes in his epistle.  The builder is the Holy Spirit, and unless He builds the house, they labor in vain that build.  And when the Eleven started to think of themselves as the builders of the church, God made the very rocks cry out in prophecy; for from the very stones he can raise apostles.

The mindset of most modern evangelicals and fundamentalists and Catholics is such that if the year was 45 A.D. they would idolize the Twelve Apostles.  The Twelve were after all in the company of the Son of God night and day for years, and today's Christians idolize mere pastors, popes, bishops, prophets, authors of bestsellers, and leaders of 1,000 member churches.  Yet, the Apostle Paul, who was not considered one of the Twelve and had not walked with Jesus as the Twelve had, referred to the most prominent apostles (Simon Peter, John bar-Zebedee, and the brother of Jesus) as "those who were presumed to be pillars [of the church]."  Paul doesn't say that they weren't pillars, but implies that pillars are as pillars do.  He refers to the most prominent apostles also as "those who were thought to be something (whatever they may have been, it doesn't matter to me since God is not prejudiced)."

God isn't distinguishing the nobodies from the somebodies.  The one who thinks "I'm kind of a big deal" is least in the kingdom of God.

*Note: We don't hear much about Matthias, one of the two long-term disciples of Jesus who were in the lottery to take Judas Iscariot's place among the Twelve, but we do hear of the other one, Joseph Barsabbas.  Papias wrote that the sign of poison-immunity was worked in him by the Holy Spirit.  The only tradition we have of Matthias is his martyrdom.  

Is the Gospel of Matthew Historically Accurate?

In thinking recently about the role of gospel narratives in film, I found it interesting that the Matthew narrative was singled out as most questionable.  It is usually considered the most Semitic (by "higher criticism") with the fourth gospel (that of 'John') being the latest, most anti-Semitic one -- in spite of the reportedly Aramaicized Greek of the Johannine authors, and the constant reminders of the Semitic origins of Christ (such as Magdalene's "Rabboni" epithet for Jesus).  Nevertheless, 'Matthew' was singled out for the version of the release of Barabbas, and much was made of the Nostra Aetate-inspired warnings by the Vatican against harmonizing  historical facts from 'John' and 'Matthew' ("utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel") lest it result in a modern day pogrom.  [I'm using single quotes to distinguish the gospel narratives/narrators from the historical figures to whom they are traditionally attributed. The authorship attributions are based on tradition and hearsay, not on direct attributions within the texts themselves.]

Among the four canonical Gospel narratives, I'm struck how the 'Luke' narrative has the most concord with the narrative of the beloved disciple (i.e. the 'John' narrative).  There are also some coincidences between 'Mark' and  'John' as well (e.g. the anointing at Bethany), and almost nothing between 'Matthew' and 'John' that weren't drawn directly from the 'Mark' narrative.

In comparing the gospels on congruence rather than superficial similarity of content and style, 'Matthew' starts to seem like the odd one out, rather than John.

Aside from seeming like the most apocalyptic and, in some sense, legalism-condoning narrative, 'Matthew' also contains some disagreements that are harder to attribute to the kind that result from recording accounts from different witnesses and trying to accord them.  For example, in the resurrection accounts, it appears that generally, Mary of Magdala arrives in the morning around the same time of the other women but takes off early to tell the disciples about the empty tomb.  In the 'John' narrative the beloved disciple recounts in detail the visitation of Mary only alluded to in the epilogue of 'Mark'.

There seems to be a general confusion between the narratives about several angelic visitors after Mary runs off to tell the apostles about the empty tomb, appearing in and around the tomb to the other women who arrive to see to the hastily buried body of Jesus, yet there is a general pattern of personages being both inside the tomb and outside the tomb for Mary and the other women.  But in 'Matthew' it is completely different; the female disciples don't discover an empty and abandoned tomb, and instead witness the actual opening of the tomb itself and an angel sitting afterward on the rolled away stone.

For the passion narrative 'Matthew' records multiple earthquakes (one at the crucifixion and one at the resurrection) as well as general appearances after the resurrection by many unnamed resurrected people.  In the early part of Jesus' life, 'Matthew' is the sole source of the story of the Wise Men following a star to Bethlehem (based on what exactly?), the historically uncorroborated "slaughter of the innocents," and the subsequent escape to Egypt.

It is said that a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is; with the rival genealogies of 'Matthew' and 'Luke', theologians have had to conjecture that one is the genealogy of Joseph and the other of Mary.  Where 'Luke' traces Jesus to David's less well known son Nathan, 'Matthew' traces his Davidic heritage through Solomon. It should be noted that 'Matthew' is less interested in the grandeur of Solomon than the scandal of Bathsheba.  In fairness, the author seems to be preparing his audience for the scandal of Mary's unexpected pregnancy with the potentially scandalous unions of the Davidic line:  Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba.  The lineage in 'Matthew' is about half as long as that of 'Luke'; it is not clear that it is intended to be complete at all.

Then there is the cursing of the fig tree.  The Matthean version is in contrast to the Marcan version.   'Matthew' and 'Mark' both have Jesus curse the fig tree while traveling on the trail winding around the Mount of Olives between Jerusalem and Bethany.  'Mark' tells that it is only later on the way back that the disciples say, "Look, the fig tree is completely withered!"  'Matthew' claims that the fig tree withered immediately before their very eyes, rather like the stone rolling away from the tomb before the eyes of the female disciples in the Matthean version.

Then there is the denouement of Judas the traitor.  This is supposedly the issue that for C.S. Lewis made it impossible to consider the New Testament canon completely inerrant as to historical fact.  The Lucan author in the Acts of the Apostles considers that Judas met an unsavory end in a plot of land he purchased with the betrayal money.  'Matthew', in the sole story of Judas' remorse, tells us that Judas returned the money, and it was the Temple authorities that decided to use the blood-money to purchase the potter's field as a burial site for the non-Jewish and the unholy/unclean.  The Acts account is more similar to the oral tradition that came to Papias (which version was much more over-the-top).  For some, this correlation counts against the priority of the Lucan narrative; for others, it is corroboration, of which the 'Matthew' account has none.  The version of events in 'Matthew' seems to do little than to have the Jerusalem authorities acknowledge among themselves that the betrayal money is "blood money," and fits in with the Matthean addition of "Let his blood be upon us." In both accounts there's seems to be a field associated with the ruin of Judah Iscariot, known as Hakal D^ema' in Aramaic (Ἁκελδαμά in Greek). Additionally, it's difficult to account for the uncorroborated reference Jeremiah in this 'Matthew' passage.  Some hermeneutical gymnastics are required to ignore the discrepancies.

The fact that 'Matthew' doesn't get carried away like some of the apocryphal Gospels (e.g. one that has Jesus come out of his tomb followed by a talking cross) seems to speak in its favor.  While the Sermon on the Mount seems like a contrivance to weave the logia of Jesus (scattered through incidences in 'Luke') into a coherent message, it demonstrates a certain honest attempt that doesn't reveal a conscious political agenda, as some try to attribute to the narrative.  Unlike the other apocryphal gospels, it sticks closely to the 'Mark' narrative like 'Luke' and uses sources of material common to 'Luke' (i.e. the hypothetical Q document).  Apocryphal narratives, generally free to embellish to prove their points, tend to tell whatever legends draw the reader in. 'Matthew' primarily contains sayings and activities that concord well with the picture of Jesus in the other canonical narratives.  Nostra Aetate notwithstanding, 'Matthew' tries hard to connect to a Semitic audience.  It is thought by some to have been originally written in Aramaic.

I suppose that most Christians would consider the formation of the canon (Protestant or Catholic?) canon to be as inspired as the writings themselves.   If you were a Christian in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. you would almost certainly have had a different canon, accepting some books now considered apocryphal (e.g. The Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache or the Gospel of the Hebrews) and not having some others (e.g. the Epistle of James or the Revelation of John), depending on the geographical location of your church.  If you were a Christian in the mid-1st century, you would likely have had no New Testament canon, probably not even the 'Mark' account, and had to depend completely on hearsay about what Jesus said or did.

It may well be that some apocrypha and pseudepigrapha -- as well as the sermons of Justin Martyr -- contain actual (and some non-actual) sayings of Jesus not otherwise transmitted.  Whether 'Matthew' is at the top of this category of informative, if not completely reliable, tradition, is something one has to decide for oneself -- or let someone else decide it for him.

For most, it is simply too much to doubt any part of canon, since that leads to reexamining what we decide is reliable or not.  And yet, as a believer in 75 A.D., what would you have done?  Almost 50 years have passed since the death of Jesus of Nazareth.  If your local elder or pastor had received a letter from one of the apostles, possibly Andrew or Philip or even Paul, would you think it was holy scripture because your pastor thought so?  If your 1st century pastor wrote down some sayings of Jesus repeated by a disciple of Thomas who had visited the church 10 years before, why would you have believed it to be inerrant?  Would you believe it based on a personal revelation from the Paraclete inside you, or because you were sure that nobody would have been able to remember anything about Jesus in a wrong way for the first 50 years after he died?

Where believers put faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to perfect all pertinent memories (in some way that allows for the incongruities of the gospels), they have little to no faith in the Holy Spirit's power to guide us into all truth.  The available scriptures (or "writings" as they are also properly translated) are, in that all too common viewpoint, not merely a tool used by the Spirit who Himself guides us into all truth, but the canon is the Guide that works by some vague (and ultimately less trustworthy) power called the Spirit.  Instead of the letter killing and the spirit giving life, the letter gives life through the spirit, and the spirit leads astray without the letter.  Either it is believed that the Spirit did not give us scriptures to begin with, or that the Holy Spirit, the Ruach ha-Qodesh, cannot be with us in the presence and power as He was in that time.  As certainly as the Spirit lost interest in working healings and miracles through the children of God, He lost interest in revealing any truth so powerfully.

It is as though it had been written in the fourth gospel that when Jesus had returned to the Father that the canon would be sent in his stead, and that this canon would be our guide, our Comforter, our Advocate.  It is as though the Bible is the 3rd person in the Trinity.  It is as though Jesus is not the Word, but rather that the Bible is instead the express image of the Father's person.

Test for Reference Tagging

One of the principal arguments for Friday is found in Mark 15:42, which notes that Jesus was crucified “the day before the Sabbath.” If that was the weekly Sabbath, i.e. Saturday, then that fact leads to a Friday crucifixion. Another argument for Friday says that verses such as Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:22 teach that Jesus would rise on the third day; therefore, He would not need to be in the grave a full three days and nights. But while some translations use “on the third day” for these verses, not all do, and not everyone agrees that “on the third day” is the best way to translate these verses. Furthermore, Mark 8:31 says that Jesus will be raised “after” three days.