Good morning Clovis. Here is the rest of Professor Fuller's quote from a
Critical Introduction to the New Testament as I was going to post it yesterday ... before I allowed myself to be duped and my head exploded!
Fast forward to today ...
Reliability and accuracy of the New Testament ... Whenever this topic arises, I always try and show that the New Testament is not the testimony of eyewitnesses--hence the Fuller et al quote. I believe this, in itself, calls into doubt (To what degree...?) the reliability and accuracy of the New Testament. Here is that quote as I obtained it back in 2005:
"... Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul...was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing...there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus..."--A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, Fuller, Reginald, H. (Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York), p.197.Clovis called into question that quote because I obtained it from a skeptic site. He also believed the quote may not be completely accurate. He could not find the quote in its entirety ... and, as it turned out, neither could I!!! Clovis rightly stated that this shows poor research on my behalf. I agree!!! After 3 1/2 years here, and over 2000 posts, I simply became lacks. So, thank you Clovis, for the verbal uppercut and kick in the, um, er, backside! I immediately purchased professor Reginald Fuller's book a
"Critical Introduction to the New Testament" and I will now provide said quote (and more) in its entirety below. But I would like to start on pp., 195-96 first:
Modern critical study has in the first place made it impossible to regard the New Testament as a norm in any propositional sense. The New Testament contains not a single dogmatic system, but many different proclamations of the Christian faith (Kerygmata) adapted to successive environments (earliest Palestinian Christianity, the Hellenistic Jewish congregations, the Gentile mission, and a sub-apostolic Hellenistic churches), and ranging over 75 years (50-123). Consequently there are as many variations in the Kerygma as there are New Testament writers, and even within Paul there are variations between his earliest Kerygma and his latest (cross-reference 1 Thessalonians with Romans, and Colossians if genuine). This is a problem for Biblical theology rather than for New Testament introduction.Professor Fuller continues on pp., 197-98:
A third problem raised by modern and local criticism for the concept of the Canon is that the criterion for canonicity is broken down today. Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul (though his claim to be commissioned by the risen Lord as an apostle must be accepted by us as it was by the original apostles) was not a witness of the historical Jesus, so to that extent his capacity as a witness is limited. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing (modern critical scholarship rejects the traditional apostolic authorship of Matthew, 1 and 2 Peter and the Johannine writings), there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus.... The original quote (using ellipses) left out these non-essentials--
"(though his claim to be commissioned by the risen Lord as an apostle must be accepted by us as it was by the original apostles) was not a witness of the historical Jesus, so to that extent his capacity as a witness is limited." and "(modern critical scholarship rejects the traditional apostolic authorship of Matthew, 1 and 2 Peter and the Johannine writings)".I personally think the individual who originally posted this quote would have benefited by leaving the parenthetical material in!
To continue with the remainder of the above quote:
This would seem at first sight to destroy the whole notion of canonicity, as the preservation of the normative apostolic witness to the Christ event. In facing this difficulty, we have to recall that the earliest church also admitted Mark and Luke, which it confessedly regarded as apostolic only in a mediate sense. Therefore the Canon itself already recognizes the principal of mediate apostolic testimony. It is now necessary to expand the principal to all of the New Testament writings, save for the genuine Pauline epistles. And even here are the principal of mediacy applies in part, since Paul is not a witness of the historical Jesus. See, e.g., 1 Corinthians 11: 25ff, 15:3ff. It is precisely the concept of the 'Canon within a Canon' which we meet again. Behind all the mediate apostolic witness lies the testimony of the first witnesses and what the testimony presupposes: the authentic memories of the words, works, and faith of Jesus, and the Easter encounters. Between them, these memories and the Easter encounters created the basic Kerygma, which underlies all the variations of the Kerygma in the immediate witnesses. The New Testament may be accepted and immediate sense as the record of this apostolic testimony. Of all the New Testament writers, in varying degrees, it may be said, as E.C. Hoskyns said of the author of the fourth Gospel, that day, 'though belonging to a later generation, have been so completely created by apostolic witness and formed by apostolic obedience that they are veritably carried across into the company of the original disciples of Jesus and invested with the authority of their mission' (The Fourth Gospel, 1940, page 100f).Fuller addresses the various difficulties with the NT Canon and raises some very interesting questions to boot. He believes that--under the top-soil if you will-- lies,
"in varying degrees", truth--basic Kerygma (good news ... or the essence of the apostolic message). Fuller calls this a "Canon within a Canon". He goes on to state that there were sources, now lost, that contained authentic words et al of Jesus. One of the most important being Q--now called
The Sayings Gospel Q. I completely agree! I have been a big believer in the Q source for years. And as I have mentioned numerous times--including in this thread--that under the top-soil of the Gospels there are
"echoes of actual historical events ... diamonds amongst the heaps of coal". So do many scholars--including a personal favorite, and a maverick in the field of Q research--professor James M. Robinson (Arthur J. Letts Professor of Religion and Director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at the Claremont Graduate School and Co-chair of the International Q Project). His book
"The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News" regarding this issue is one that I have often recommend. A terrific read (also available in e-book format ... Buy e-books people!).
The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News by James M. Robinson http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Jesus-Search-...7545&sr=1-4
A very good article regarding Q from JMR ...
The Real Jesus of the Sayings "Q" Gospel by James M. Robinson
James M. Robinson is the Arthur J. Letts Professor of Religion and Director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at the Claremont Graduate School and Co-chair of the International Q Project. This address was delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary, April 10, l997. The text was prepared for Religion Online by John C. Purdy.ARTICLE HERE http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542Fuller goes on to say on pp., 198-99:
The final problem of the New Testament canon set by modern criticism is that it has broken down the hard and fast distinction between Scripture and tradition. Form criticism and traditional criticism generally have shown that the New Testament is the tradition of the Church between 30 and 125. Further, the New Testament is only a selection of the available traditions of that period: we know, e.g., that there were other Pauline epistles now lost (1 Corinthians 5:9; Colossians 4:10 [if Colossians be genuine]). There were other remembered words and deeds of Jesus (James 20:30). There were the law sources of the synoptic Gospels, especially the Q source. And is there any distinction in principle today between the latest New Testament writings and such works as, say, 1 Clement, the Didache or Ignatius' letters? Unless we are to fall back upon some arbitrary theory of inspiration, we are, it appears, hard put to it to justify the selection of this particular part of the tradition from 30-125 and the pronouncement of none other to be normative. Our answer again lies in the concept of the 'Canon within the Canon'. If we establish the basic Kerygma behind its variations, it can be shown that the writings included within the New Testament stand relatively close to this basic Kerygma, and a way which cannot be asserted of works outside the New Testament. The early church may have been consciously aware of our concept of 'basic Kerygma', but it showed a sure instinct in sifting out what was truly Kerygmatic from what was not (Faith would say this was divine providence). Of course these are rough edges. We might feel that 2 Peter and Jude or Revelation are less close to the Kerygma than Romans, Mark or John. We might equally feel that 1 Clement or the letters of Ignatius stand closer to the Kerygma then the moralism of the Epistle of James. But this only shows that the concept of the Canon is not a legalistic one. The canonical writings shade off into the non-canonical one 'We might describe the Canon as a circle of light, with dazzling light at the center and twilight at the edges.' The dazzling light is the basic Kerygma, the proclamation of Jesus Christ as it eschatological act of God, the Canon within the Canon. (I personally believe that last statement to be quite beautiful and very well said.)
To expound upon Fuller, here some highlights from various Biblical exegetes from the Temple article
"Who Do Men Say I am". In many ways the figure of Jesus is like a poem—-or, as one prominent Catholic scholar wrote, “Jesus is a parable.” The story of his life has not come to us like a news report or documentary film that presents historical events literally and factually....
One day I sat in the office of the Reverend Robert Krieg, C.S.C., who teaches Christology at Notre Dame, and tried to explain this analogy to him. “Looking for Jesus,” I said, “is like being back in a poetry class dissecting a poem. The poem is layered with meanings, and everyone has a different opinion. Nobody is certain any more what the poet intended, and you’re left with a variety of very subjective interpretations.”
Krieg nodded but cautioned against individual interpretations not supported by the Catholic faith tradition and centuries of scholarship. And he warned against looking for the “truth” about Jesus in terms of literal or historical facts.
One of the world’s leading authorities on the subject is the Reverend Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., whose two massive books, Jesus: An experiment in Christology and Christ as Lord, are more than ample evidence that deciphering the life and times of Jesus is a formidable undertaking. The Dutch theologian has been challenged by the Vatican for his conclusions on three occasions and exonerated each time.
“The first thing to remember,” he once said, “is that there are limitations to what we can know by using the historical-critical approach. The only texts that we have show Jesus already proclaimed as Christ by the church and by his first disciples. The New Testament is the testimony of a believing people, and what they are saying is not history but expressions of their belief in Jesus as Christ. But that belief is filled up and determined by who Jesus historically was, and this allows us to reconstruct Jesus to a certain extent.”
&:
More importantly, the four gospels were compiled not as historical documents but as testimonies of faith by communities of believers. "They are not precise, factual accounts and they weren't intended to be," says John Collins, an internationally known biblical scholar and Notre Dame professor of theology. “There was a lot of embellishment. The evangelists were not reporters or historians in the modern sense. They were telling stories with a view to getting points across, not necessarily with a view to accuracy of detail."
&:
Many of the stories about Jesus contained in these ancient documents [Gospels, canonical and not] Kannengiesser says, were tales commonly applied to mythical figures and heroes of the time. “It was almost obligatory to have such stories available,” the theologian says; “they were stock stories told to convert people to Jesus.” Tales of virgin births, divine heroes, and miracles workers were relatively common 2,000 years ago and simply did not mean what they do to us today.
&:
Marina Warner, in Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and Cult of the Virgin Mary, states that of the four Marian dogmas--divine motherhood, virginity, the immaculate conception, and the assumption--only divine motherhood can be "unequivocally traced to scripture." And in scripture, she continues, the Hebrew word almah, which means simply a woman of marriageable age in the Book of Isaiah, was changed to the Greek parthenos, which usually means a woman whose virginity is intact. "In the pre-Christian Roman empire," Warner adds, "virgin birth was a shorthand symbol commonly used to designate a man's divinity."
Sifting through all this, I wondered what was left of the nativity stories burned into my soul back when Christmastime felt as magical as Santa Claus and flying reindeer. So I asked Father Kannengiesser what we know for sure about Jesus' birth. He smiled and said, "The fact is, Jesus existed. He was born. Period. That's it."Please avoid the original source for this article (123). Why? While they posted a legitimate article from a top academic source ... they did not supply it in its entirety! They also did some slicing and dicing that constitutes plagarism!!! I have contacted this site and--very angrily--jumped down their throat regarding the Temple article!!!! I was duped!!!!
SikhSpectrum.com Quarterlyhttp://www.sikhspectrum.com/022007/temple.htmAnd here is where I stopped, Clovis. After ripping these "expletive" a new backside, beating myself to a mental pulp and publicly apologizing for my stupidity ... I simply had no desire to continue. Again, my most sincerest apologies for my poor judgment and blatant stupidity!!!
Below is pretty much the whole of chapter eight of a
Critical Introduction to the New Testament. I thought you might find of interest. If there is anything else from this text, let me know and I shall send it to you ASAP.
Most kindly,
Sean
Chapter 8 -- THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
PAGE 191-92... Paul's 'Canon' has very little Jesus tradition. This part of this living voice the tradition containing the words and works of Jesus began to take shape side-by-side with the Kerygma itself, as one of the means of perpetuating the testimony to the Christ event. The earlier church continued Jesus proclamation of the kingdom side-by-side with its own. In this same period also, Paul wrote his letters. They were a kind of extension of his own apostolic witness, given in his missionary preaching. But they were written, as we have seen, for concrete situations. Paul had no thought of creating a new body of canonical writings. The fact that there was a 'living voice', then, was the primary reason why during period 1 there was as yet no New Testament canon or any idea of one. Secondly, the early church believed that the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of the 'living voice', the apostolic witness to the Christ event....
Page 196-97... As we have implied in our discussion of the variations in the Kerygma the idea of a Canon within the Canon is not in itself illegitimate, and is in fact necessary. But the inner Canon must lie at the heart of the New Testament message, in all its forms. The Pauline doctrine of justification is but one application of the core Kerygma (see above, page 56). Early Catholicism has to be accepted as impenetrable part of the canon. It is the Church is normative response to the apostolic age. Since the church and subsequent pages is always inevitably post-apostolic, it too is faced with the problem, how to be Apostolic after the passing of the apostles. The response of the sub-apostolic Church to this problem has normative significance for all succeeding ages. Early Catholicism is not the whole of the Canon. Its defects, when taken alone, we have freely admitted (see above, page 167). Early Catholicism stands open to balance and correction from other parts of the Canon, including the Pauline writings themselves. Above all the institutional structures of early Catholicism, viz., Canon, creed, baptismal and Eucharistic liturgy, and mystery of Bishops-in-Presbytery standing in apostolic succession have their justification not in themselves, but precisely because and insofar as they are the providential means whereby the apostolic testimony to Jesus Christ as the saving act of God was maintained in the sub-apostolic age and is still mediated to the church today.SOURCEReginald Fuller, Critical Introduction to the New Testament ([London]: Duckworth, [1974, ©1966])
) , but do try to keep it civil ... and offer the olive branch when things go south. Clovis wasn't interested. So be it.
.. and lady R always gets me thinking I have been a fan of hers for along time... 
I am also of the belief, that the 114 sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas -- commonly known as the Fifth Gospel -- are the actual words of Jesus. Robinson speaks of this in his book as well. A terrific read.