Is the New Testament reliable?

[Jcnava15]

From my reading so far I have noticed something that is a little unsettling. It seems at times that the NT is heavily Pro-Roman.

For example;

1. Pilate is painted as innocent and only crucifying Jesus because he was pushed into a corner.
2. “Render unto Caesar *what is Caesars…” seems to put God on equal footing with Caesar. A God on Earth so to say.
3. Paul, a Roman, becomes the hero of the faith.
4. Roman characters are continuously commended for their faith.
5. Roman soldiers first recognize at the crucifixion “truly this was the son of God”.

These are just a few, but what do you make of it? It seems like the canon of NT was picked for it’s glorification of Romans.

Of course this doesn’t put Christianity’s truth in trouble, since we know how harshly Christians were persecuted by the Romans in the Early Church, but it sort of puts the New Testament on shaky ground.

 

[Philthy]

From my reading so far I have noticed something that is a little unsettling. It seems at times that the NT is heavily Pro-Roman.
For example;

1. Pilate is painted as innocent and only crucifying Jesus because he was pushed into a corner.

Pilate failed to do what he knew was the right thing to do - he was not coerced.

1. “Render unto Caesar *what is Caesars…” seems to put God on equal footing with Caesar. A God on Earth so to say.

I see this differently as well. Christ says to render what is due Caesar to him and to render what is due God to God. There is nothing implied about equality at all with respect to God and Caesar. And the context is important - they were trying to trick him into giving an answer they could use against him, just like when asked about stoning the adulteress. In each case he gives an answer which puts the onus on them to make the right decision according to the dictates of their heart. Im guessing you missed the point!

1. Paul, a Roman, becomes the hero of the faith.

“The” hero? He is one of the hero’s, and, in his own word’s, “Least of the Apostles”

1. Roman characters are continuously commended for their faith.

Continuously? Any Roman - or any other person - that demonstrates faith is commended. Commendations for faith are given to all types of people in the NT.

1. Roman soldiers first recognize at the crucifixion “truly this was the son of God”.

Uhhh, nooo, I think Simeon, some demons and Peter were the first to make that claim, and well before the Crucifixion.

These are just a few, but what do you make of it?

Nothing!

It seems like the canon of NT was picked for it’s glorification of Romans.

I dont quite see it, sorry. Anyone who exhibits virtue is commended in the NT.

Of course this doesn’t put Christianity’s truth in trouble, since we know how harshly Christians were persecuted by the Romans in the Early Church, but it sort of puts the New Testament on shaky ground.
Again, I don’t see it and your conclusion is a non-sequitor.

Blessings!

 

[puzzleannie]

From my reading so far I have noticed something that is a little unsettling. It seems at times that the NT is heavily Pro-Roman.

For example;

1. Pilate is painted as innocent and only crucifying Jesus because he was pushed into a corner.
2. “Render unto Caesar *what is Caesars…” seems to put God on equal footing with Caesar. A God on Earth so to say.
3. Paul, a Roman, becomes the hero of the faith.
4. Roman characters are continuously commended for their faith.
5. Roman soldiers first recognize at the crucifixion “truly this was the son of God”.

These are just a few, but what do you make of it? It seems like the canon of NT was picked for it’s glorification of Romans.

Of course this doesn’t put Christianity’s truth in trouble, since we know how harshly Christians were persecuted by the Romans in the Early Church, but it sort of puts th
e New Testament on shaky ground.

are we reading the same book? because we are certainly not reaching the same conclusions

Pilate is depicted as a weak vacillating ruler (who indeed was later removed from his post and discipline because of that weakness) who plays the Herodians against the Temple leadership for his own ends and in the end cannot act on his own convictions. How is this a positive portrayal?

“Render unto Caesar” does the opposite of what you allege, it places the earthly authority firmly where it belongs, with its authority limited to earthly things. How on earth can you read into that passage anything that has Jesus equating the emporer with God?

Paul, the Jew, becomes the hero of his own life and faces persecution and death, as a Roman Jew, at the hands of the Romans. How does that make Rome heroic?

which specific Roman characters are “continuously praised” for their faith?

The Centurion is lauded in spite of, not because of, his Roman citizenship and office for his faith. This after Jesus’ constant preaching that the Gentiles would hear and heed his message before the Jews to whom he came.

Even if every allegation you make is substantiated, how does that in any way diminish the authority of the New Testament. You do not make your case at all.

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

From my reading so far I have noticed something that is a little unsettling. It seems at times that the NT is heavily Pro-Roman.

For example;

1. **Pilate is painted as innocent and only crucifying Jesus because he was pushed into a corner. **

Pilate is in no way painted as innocent as the Apostles Creed attests:
**He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.**The suffering in the Creed refers to the scourging Christ received from Pilate. Something that was not required under Roman law.

 

[Jcnava15]

Thank you for your reply. Let me start off by saying, I’m not trying to speak contra Christianity. I am coming to my fellow Catholics to help me in understanding.

Also let me put some context into my questions.

Circa 325 AD, the NT was canonized under the Roman emperor. Before then, Romans heavily persecuted Christians. For example around the 60’s AD, Nero blamed the Great Fire on Christians and had them burned on stakes to light the streets at night, amongst other things. In my mind, the Romans harsh past against Christians, might provide an incentive to cast Rome’s past against Christianity in a better light.

Pilate failed to do what he knew was the right thing to do - he was not coerced.

From what is known about Pilate, he lost his Governorship for “excessive cruelty”. This makes it hard for me to believe that he was as passive as he is portrayed in the NT.

“The” hero? He is one of the hero’s, and, in his own word’s, “Least of the Apostles”

This is true, but it’s hard to deny that past the Gospels, the central figure of the NT, is Paul. Paul even opposes Peter at one point.

I’m not saying anything against the truth of Christianity. Christianity was spreading well before Rome converted.

 

[Philthy]

Please take some time to read puzzleannies responses as well.
I simply don’t see anything pro-Roman in the NT. Paul’s Roman citizenship comes up once in the entire NT. His Jewish heritage is what he is most proud of and what he speaks of in that very same section (Romans 10). His being a Roman was simply a fact he used to gain an advantage in a situation.
The formation of the canon began long before the fourth century. You approach it as if it suddenly became an issue then and that it did so because of Constantine; I believe both assumptions are false.

Blessings!

 

[thistle]

Thank you for your reply. Let me start off by saying, I’m not trying to speak contra Christianity. I am coming to my fellow Catholics to help me in understanding.

Also let me put some context into my questions.

Circa 325 AD, the NT was canonized under the Roman emperor. Before then, Romans heavily persecuted Christians. For example around the 60’s AD, Nero blamed the Great Fire on Christians and had them burned on stakes to light the streets at night, amongst other things. In my mind, the Romans harsh past against Christians, might provide an incentive to cast Rome’s past against Christianity in a better light.

From what is known about Pilate, he lost his Governorship for “excessive cruelty”. This makes it hard for me to believe that he was as passive as he is portrayed in the NT.

This is true, but it’s hard to deny that past the Gospels, the central figure of the NT, is Paul. Paul even opposes Peter at one point.

I’m not saying anything against the truth of Christianity. Christianity was spreading well before Rome converted.

The central figure of the NT is CHRIST and not Paul.

 

[Trebor135]

From what is known about Pilate, he lost his Governorship for “excessive cruelty”. This makes it hard for me to believe that he was as passive as he is portrayed in the NT.

This was brought up by the Catholic-turned-agnostic/atheist professor in a class on the New Testament I took last year. It gave me pause until it came to me that people don’t always act as we would expect them to.

Imagine if, two thousand years from now, a historian of twentieth-century U.S. history finds a number of newspaper articles discussing the measures taken by Ronald Reagan against communism (whether always in reality or on occasion just in his own mind, we’ll leave for another day)–the massive military spending, the covert support for the Nicaraguan Contras, and the invasion of Grenada. Then one of his colleagues in the same field comes upon some entries in a fairly detailed personal journal kept by a U.S. citizen which describe the INF treaty enacted in the 1980s under the same president.

The first historian, in light of all those newspaper articles, would very likely respond with skepticism to the reliability of the personal journal entries. His colleague would find himself in a similar position to a Christian today.

“If all these newspaper articles depict Reagan as a zealous opponent of communism, as clearly demonstrated by his policies, is it really plausible for the same individual to negotiate and approve a treaty to reduce Soviet and American missile stockpiles?”

“Perhaps not, but then again, he may very well have had motives that we will never find out about–during his life Reagan was an actor and politician, after all.”

I find it curious that Pontius Pilate would (1) have any sympathy for a Jewish carpenter-turned-itinerant-preacher and (2) even think twice before giving the order to crucify this lowly imperial subject. But this information is most likely lost to history; if only they had Facebook back then…

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

Please remember that the New Testament was written by a group of people who were inspired by and for the Love of Christ. It seeks to spread a message of love and hope not a message of hatred and fear.
Your Professor is sadly an all to common example of today’s secular society, don’t let anyone sway you from your faith.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

 

[Church_Militant]

From my reading so far I have noticed something that is a little unsettling. It seems at times that the NT is heavily Pro-Roman.

For example;

1. Pilate is painted as innocent and only crucifying Jesus because he was pushed into a corner.

Inaccurate. Look up the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds.

1. “Render unto Caesar *what is Caesars…” seems to put God on equal footing with Caesar. A God on Earth so to say.

Here you have missed a number of passages in the New Testament that tell us to be good citizens so far as is possible.

1. Paul, a Roman, becomes the hero of the faith.

So? Jesus and all of the apostles were Jews, as was Paul

1. Roman characters are continuously commended for their faith.

Read in context it is both to their own personal credit and also pointed out that they have greater faith than the Jews our Lord hung out with. Object being to wake up the Jews…

1. Roman soldiers first recognize at the crucifixion “truly this was the son of God”.

That would be one Roman soldier, but precisely what would you have said in his place? Note also that the crowds went away beating their breasts as well.

These are just a few, but what do you make of it? It seems like the canon of NT was picked for it’s glorification of Romans.

Wrong. I suggest you re-read it very carefully and you’ll see a lot more.

Of course this doesn’t put Christianity’s truth in trouble, since we know how harshly Christians were persecuted by the Romans in the Early Church, but it sort of puts the New Testament on shaky ground.

That’s patently ridiculous, especially the part I bolded. Either you haven’t read it at all and are parroting someone else’s opinion, or you didn’t read it very carefully or prayerfully.

Your conclusions are based on very badly fallacious reasoning. Sorry…

 

[Jcnava15]

Pilate is depicted as a weak vacillating ruler (who indeed was later removed from his post and discipline because of that weakness) who plays the Herodians against the Temple leadership for his own ends and in the end cannot act on his own convictions. How is this a positive portrayal?

I’m referring to the portrayal of him being innocent. Pilate washes his hands, and absolves himself of the guilt. Thus, sending the message that it was the Jews, not the Romans who killed Jesus, when in fact it was both.

Paul, the Jew, becomes the hero of his own life and faces persecution and death, as a Roman Jew, at the hands of the Romans. How does that make Rome heroic?

Maybe it’s my own personal bias, but I am a little unsettled. Jesus spends his entire ministry grooming the 12, and then gives them the great commission. Paul meets Jesus, and then spends his entire life spreading the Faith. I love Paul, and have nothing against him, but I would expect that the NT would have more from the Apostles (who learned directly from Jesus), then from Paul.

I am wondering if the Pauline teachings were chosen over the Apostles simply because Paul was Roman.

Even if every allegation you make is substantiated, how does that in any way diminish the authority of the New Testament. You do not make your case at all.

I hope you guys can understand that I am not trying to make a case at all. If I were I would have started this thread with “The NT is not reliable” rather than asking if it were. I simply want help with some misunderstandings I am having.

The way in which I know Christianity is true is because of the work that God has done directly in my life. What I am wondering though, is if what we know as the NT was not cherry picked to cater specifically to Roman citizens. I guess really I am wondering about the motives behind canonizing the NT.

You guys have shed some interesting light, and have helped some of my misunderstandings.

 

[Church_Militant]

I hope you guys can understand that I am not trying to make a case at all. If I were I would have started this thread with “The NT is not reliable” rather than asking if it were. I simply want help with some misunderstandings I am having.

The way in which I know Christianity is true is because of the work that God has done directly in my life. What I am wondering though, is if what we know as the NT was not cherry picked to cater specifically to Roman citizens. I guess really I am wondering about the motives behind canonizing the NT.

You guys have shed some interesting light, and have helped some of my misunderstandings.

I kinda figured that. I don’t think your assessment of the motives for canonizing the New Testament are very realistic, in part because you seem to assume much faster communication than existed at that time, something a lot of people do. We can sit here and flash news to the other side of the planet, (Note how many Aussies are on here at night…which is actually their day.) and yet it took years for things to come together between the 1st and 4th centuries. News traveled pretty slowly up until about the 18th-19th centuries y’know. Printing wasn’t even around until the 15th or so…

 

[Jcnava15]

I want to post this so that on lookers who aren’t very solid in their faith won’t be disturbed, and think that I am on to something here, when in fact I have discovered that I am not.

When I first posted this, I posted it under a cloud of confusion because I am not, and was not fully aware of the process that the NT went for canonization.

Since I posted this originally this morning, I have read more historical resources regarding where the authority of the NT actually comes from.

My original idea was that the NT was picked from amongst various other writings during the 4th century by the councils. From my brief research since my original post I have already discovered that this is in fact not the case. The NT appears to have already been selected well before the 4th century, but it simply wasn’t yet called the NT.

Before it was made “official” it was already official in the sense that the writings that now make up the NT were already selected exclusively as proper for use, and were already widely cited by St. Clement, who was the Pope during 90’s AD, and known of by St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-108) who learned directly from the Apostle John.

I have to admit that my misunderstandings came from not being fully aware of the process of NT canonization which started in the 1st century, and a personal disappointment that the original 12 Apostles aren’t more prominent outside of the Gospels in NT. Although I love Paul (his writings have saved my faith), I still prefer the 12 Apostles, especially John [probably because he has the same name as me ].

I am going to continue researching this, but yes as some have pointed out, my assumptions were unmerited.

 

[Evan]

Concerning Pilate

In the Gospels, Pilate wrestles with his conscience over Jesus, but (again in a fashion that strikes us as all too familiar) essentially tries to weasel out of the problem in the hope that it will resolve itself. In Luke’s Gospel, he invokes a jurisdictional technicality to ship the Galilean Jesus out of his purview and into that of the Galilean kinglet Herod Antipas—who is far too clever to play the tar-baby target and so lobs Jesus right back. In John’s Gospel, Pilate entangles himself in a dense philosophical/theological conversation with Jesus during which he utters his haunting query, “What is truth?” He does not “stay for an answer,” as Francis Bacon famously put it, because saving his soul is far less important to him than saving his political hide. The Pilate who in John’s Gospel vainly hopes the crowd will feel Jesus’ pain—and spontaneously acquit him—if he has the Galilean brutally flogged and displayed to the crowd with the words, “Behold the man,” cannot help but resonate with the hide-protecting, split-the-difference sensibility of our timorous times.

by Charlotte Allen at firstthings.com/article/2007/01/pontius-pilate-9

Not exactly the Roman-in-a-corner that is part of the OP.

Also read *Pontius Pilate: The Unjust Judge * at firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/04/pontius-pilate-the-unjust-judg

 

[puzzleannie]

From what is known about Pilate, he lost his Governorship for “excessive cruelty”. This makes it hard for me to believe that he was as passive as he is portrayed in the NT.

the NT does not portray him as passive

This is true, but it’s hard to deny that past the Gospels, the central figure of the NT, is Paul. Paul even opposes Peter at one point.

so what does this have to do with your thesis that the NT is unreliable because of a pro-Roman bias, which only you can detect.

 

[Philthy]

I want to post this so that on lookers who aren’t very solid in their faith won’t be disturbed, and think that I am on to something here, when in fact I have discovered that I am not.

When I first posted this, I posted it under a cloud of confusion because I am not, and was not fully aware of the process that the NT went for canonization.

Since I posted this originally this morning, I have read more historical resources regarding where the authority of the NT actually comes from.

My original idea was that the NT was picked from amongst various other writings during the 4th century by the councils. From my brief research since my original post I have already discovered that this is in fact not the case. The NT appears to have already been selected well before the 4th century, but it simply wasn’t yet called the NT.

Before it was made “official” it was already official in the sense that the writings that now make up the NT were already selected exclusively as proper for use, and were already widely cited by St. Clement, who was the Pope during 90’s AD, and known of by St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-108) who learned directly from the Apostle John.

I have to admit that my misunderstandings came from not being fully aware of the process of NT canonization which started in the 1st century, and a personal disappointment that the original 12 Apostles aren’t more prominent outside of the Gospels in NT. Although I love Paul (his writings have saved my faith), I still prefer the 12 Apostles, especially John [probably because he has the same name as me ].

I am going to continue researching this, but yes as some have pointed out, my assumptions were unmerited.

Bravo! Keep up the good work!