How do we know the New Testament is just as trustworthy as the Hebrew Scriptures? 🤔 In this week's episode of Our Hope Podcast 🎙, Dr. Darrell Bock from Dallas Theological Seminary shares how the New Testament was compiled, how it aligns with the Hebrew Scriptures, and how we know that it is true. Listen to this episode now at the link in our bio! 🎧

Welcome to Our Hope,

a production of Chosen

People Ministries.

On this podcast you will hear

inspiring testimonies,

learn

about Messianic apologetics

and discover God's plan

for Israel and you.

Wherever you're listening,

we hope you lean in,

listen closely and be blessed.

One thing Christians

and the Jewish community

have in common is our reverence

and respect for God’s Word.

Scripture informs

not only our beliefs about God,

but also how we live

and how we treat others.

Without the Bible,

we would be lost.

While the Hebrew Scriptures

have been around since long

before the birth of Jesus,

the complete B’rit Hadashah,

or New Testament,

can only be dated back

to 367 AD.

Compared to history,

the New Testament is

relatively new—and yet,

the gospel message

has made a huge impact

across the world,

paving the way for both the Old

and the New Testament

to be read in many countries.

But is the New Testament

credible and consistent

with the Old Testament?

Do these two parts

of the Bible work

together or contradict

each other?

These are tough questions,

so we have invited back Dr.

Darrell Bock, Senior Research

Professor of New Testament

Studies at Dallas

Theological Seminary,

to help us understand

if we can trust

the New Testament.

I now introduce

the host of Our Hope

Podcast, Abe Vazquez!

Hello, everyone,

welcome back to Our Hope.

Really excited

for this episode.

I've just been excited

all season,

just tackling these questions,

these really tough questions

that we've heard

for many, many years,

a hundred and twenty

seven years.

I haven't heard them

for a hundred twenty

seven years, but

many others throughout

the ministry have.

And today's question

that we are tackling is,

"Can

we trust the New Testament?"

It's very controversial

for a Jewish person

to read the New Testament

or talk

about the New Testament,

but for many, once they do,

it's, they're blown away.

And so I'm just really excited

to dive into this question

and have an expert

in New Testament studies, Dr.

Darrell Bock.

Dr.

Bock, welcome to Our Hope

and thank you for

joining us once again.

Dr.

Well, it's

great to be with

you and it's good

to be

a veteran of foreign wars.

So it's great to be with you.

Dr.

Bock, speaking of the Bible.

We want to know

what is the first Bible verse

you memorized?

Dr.

I actually

don't remember what the first

Bible verse I memorized is,

although I know the Bible verse

I knew before

I became a believer.

That was from the New Testament

"Judge,

not lest you be judged."

I actually joke that

that is the life verse

of every unbeliever,

is that they know that verse

because they don't read on

to see what the rest of

the verse has to say,

because they're trying

to get you off their back.

But still that at least

that's how I used it.

But, you know,

there were early Bible verses

that certainly were important,

John 3:16 would certainly be

in that mix, "For

God so loved the world

that He gave His

only begotten Son

that whosoever should believe

in Him should not perish,

but have eternal life."

Apparently, I memorized it

in the King James version,

because the only time I use

whosoever is when

I read John 3:16.

And there are other

passages that certainly

were important, but

that's one that certainly

leaps to mind.

So you are a senior

research professor

of New Testament studies.

Why?

What drew you to

the New Testament? Why?

Why is that your

I guess the word is specialty.

Dr.

Well, obviously,

as someone who's a believer

and I come out of a

Jewish background,

but someone who's a believer,

who wants to understand

what Jesus is about

and what He did

in His ministry,

what He taught, et cetera,

the gospels are certainly

most important.

I specialize even though I'm

a New Testament department,

I specialize in the

gospels, in acts.

That's really where

my focus has been

most of my professional career.

And so understanding

who Jesus is, how He connects

to the teaching of the Hebrew

scriptures to the

Tanakh is important,

and and so that's been

really a focus of mine

from the very beginning.

My initial dissertation

was on the use of the

we say the use of

the Old Testament

and the new that kind of

tells you

it from a Christian angle.

It's really

the use of the Hebrew

scriptures in the new era.

And and so that's

that's part of what

we're we're trying to do.

And and, of course,

that was the Hebrew

scripture was the scripture

of Jesus and the disciples.

There was nothing else.

And so that's important

to appreciate about

the historical background

of where

the New Testament comes from.

It actually is a

reflection on the Tanakh.

And just a follow up to

that is referring

to the Old Testament

as the Old Testament,

the New Testament

as the New Testament,

problematic for,

I guess, for Christians

and Jewish people?

Dr.

Yes, it can be,

because, I mean, obviously,

it assumes a Christian

canonical frame.

So that's important.

And so oftentimes

when I'm teaching,

I'll just talk about

the Hebrew scripture

and when I'm referring

to the Tanakh,

and then I will

refer oftentimes

I'll do this less often

because usually I just

go ahead and call it

the New Testament.

But

it would be

the Christian scripture

would be the way

to just to distinguish that

which is particularly Christian

in the canon from that

which is shared with

Judaism, because,

remember, Christians

also embrace the Tanakh.

They embrace the Old Testament.

And so so that's

a part of their scripture

as well.

So before we even ask

if the New Testament is a valid

part of the scriptural canon,

we must define

scripture itself.

So can you tell us

what is scripture

and how is it different

from any other type of text?

Dr.

That's great,

because the key question is

how is the Bible,

however you view

it, is composed different

from every other book.

And so scripture is

that which

believing communities

take as being God breathed,

as being specially "inspired"

is the word,

although inspiration actually

Isn't the reflection

of what inspiration

involves, inspiration involves

the expiration of

the thoughts of God.

And so

so you're thinking about

how God is over,

under, around and through

what the human

author is writing

and what the result is, is

something that is true

and is worthy of a unique place

in terms of its truthfulness

in the faith tradition

that we're talking about.

So whether we're talking about

the Jewish Tanakh

or whether we're talking

about the Christian scripture

or whether they're talking

about the whole of those two,

when someone says

something in scripture,

they are regarding that text

as special and unique

and usually bearing a unique

authority as a result,

because it is seen as being

as originating and expressing

ultimately the mind of God.

So, Dr.

Bock, how was the Tanakh,

the Old Testament

scriptures put together?

Dr.

Well,

it was put together over time

and over a long period of time.

You know,

the roots of the Torah

go back to Moses

and then you have all the way

up, depending on how

you do the order,

Malachi, usually in the English

order is the last

book of the Tanakh

that takes you

several centuries

before the time of Christ.

And so it's put together

gradually, and it emerged,

for lack of a

better description.

And even in the time

of the first centuries,

sometimes debate about

when did the Tanakh

get finalized.

Oh, we have all the books.

We know that by the time

of the first century,

when Jesus shows up, that

most of the Old Testament,

what we call

the Old Testament, is formed

and formulated, the

Hebrew scripture.

Josephus writes

about all the books that we now

recognize as a part of

of the Hebrew scripture

in his writing

when he identifies

their contents.

We also know from

rabbinic tradition

that some of the

books were discussed,

Song of Songs, Esther.

There are different books

that were discussed

as to

whether they really are a part,

so some of it

some of the edges

were uncertain, but

I like to tell people,

when you read the

Christian scripture

and what they refer to back

in the Hebrew scripture,

your key books are the portions

of the Pentateuch.

The Psalms, Isaiah,

you know, it's books like books

that were not up for discussion

at all in the first century.

And eventually, what became

the Old Testament emerged

and by the first century,

basically

existed and recognized

as its own distinct

collection of a sacred

Jewish writings,

if I can say it that way,

that the Church

then also absorbed.

Now, some people who know

a little bit about scripture

and the history of scripture

will ask, well, what about

books like Sirach

and other books like that

were sometimes

called the Apocrypha

in the Protestant tradition,

or what are called

the deuterocanonical

in Catholic tradition.

And these are books

that also are Jewish writings

that are written in

what is sometimes called

the intertestamental period.

Other people

call it the second

temple period.

The second temple period is

less theologically

freighted language.

You say intertestamental

obviously you're

talking about the period

between the two testaments.

Anyway, those writings

are Jewish writings, but

they were never recognized

by official Judaism

as part of the Old Testament,

as part of the

Hebrew scripture.

They were highly regarded,

widely used, but

not necessarily

regarded as scripture.

And they only came

to be regarded as scripture

in the Christian tradition

in the midst of the

Reformation dispute.

Most people don't know that

it was a result of disputes

between Protestants

and Catholics about certain

Catholic doctrines

in which the Catholic Church

needed the support

of certain texts

in order to establish

those doctrines that allowed

the deuterocanonicals

to come in,

because they discussed

some of the teachings

of the Catholic Church

that Protestants

did not hold to.

There's a whole, there's

two different structures

in the Christian community

or how the authority

of scripture

works in relationship

to the development of theology.

Catholic Church has a thing

called the magisterium,

which allows doctrine

to develop through the College

of Cardinals, et cetera,

which Protestants do not have.

And so this allowed

the Catholics to say,

we recognize these books

as a part of our scripture

they incorporated them in

so they could defend

some of these doctrines

that otherwise wouldn't

have been addressed

and thus the Catholic,

the Catholic Hebrew

scripture canon,

if I can say it that way,

although that's not

entirely accurate

when you get into

some of these books,

is bigger than both

the Jewish canon

and the Protestant

canon of the Old Testament.

Wow. Dr.

And so that produces

a difference and in some cases

some confusion about what

constitutes scripture.

Wow.

Yeah,

wow is right.

Yeah.

Put that in your pipe

and smoke it.

I mean, you know.

So you just talked us

through the process

of the Tanakh.

I'm scared to ask

about the New Testament.

So what was the process

for putting together

the New Testament canon?

And and I know it was

a little bit different.

So how was that compiled?

Yeah.

And again, it's a

process of recognition.

What happened was,

is that as books

were produced

and as they circulated,

certain books

bubbled to the surface as

being particularly

valuable to the Church.

And it took some

time for the Church

to name

and recognize those books.

And in fact, one of the things

that inspired the listing,

I think you alluded to the fact

that the New Testament

dates can be dated back to 367

AD,

which is technically correct.

That's the first time

we get the list of twenty seven

New Testament books

that that constitute

the books that constitute

the New Testament.

Anyway,

what happened is, is

that these books

emerged and were used

and as they were

used more and more,

they became to be recognized

as part of scripture.

Now, the fact is

the four gospels were pretty

well recognized

by the end of the

second century.

We have remarks from Irenaeus

who speaks about

the four gospels.

Of course,

there will be four gospels.

There are four directions

to the wind in our north,

south, east and west.

So that's the figure that

he used.

So the four gospels were very

early being recognized.

The Pauline collection

was very early in

being recognized.

What got discussed

were books like second

and third John,

second Peter and Jude.

Revelation was a little slow

to be recognized simply

because it was so different

than everything else

in the New Testament.

Right.

Dr.

And so so these books

were gradually recognized

as they came to the surface

and they were

recognized for their

apostolic roots, didn't

have to be written

by an apostle, but certainly

had to be in connection

with the apostolic community.

The breadth

of their circulation

and the perception of their

value really led to

what it was that produced them.

And as I started to suggest,

and then got off track,

part of what forced

the Church to name these books

was the

injection of other books

that were claiming

to be scripture that were not

a reflection of Orthodox

Christian faith.

And so at some point,

the church had to say,

these are the books

we recognize

and these are the books

we do not recognize.

And that process

just took some time

to play itself out.

So the New Testament

was actually functioning

before it's being

named in the twenty seven books

that Athanasius is responsible

for that list in 367 AD.

In an Easter letter, he

named the books.

And

and so they were actually

functioning before they were

they were called out

and named, if you will.

And

and the New Testament has been

that's been what

we call the canon now

that's spelled c-a-n-o-n.

I have to remind people

it's not c-a-n-n-o-n,

we're not going to shoot

anybody with this.

Okay. But

but it's it's the canon and

and canon means standard.

This is the standard

of our faith.

So, Dr.

Bock,

how many people were involved

in compiling this list

and also, since there are,

as you mentioned,

there are several books

that people said were scripture

that actually were

not considered inspired.

How do we know that

all the books and letters

in the New Testament

that are official

are divinely inspired?

And follow up to

that was God

sitting with publishers

to like put this together?

Yeah.

I mean,

I was joking with you

earlier when we before

we recorded that,

you know, God created

a Book of the Month club,

and it only ran for four months

when it came to Jesus.

So,

yeah, I mean I mean,

there are people involved

all along the way.

And what you're

what you're contending

for is these text

were circulated

among the churches

as valuable texts

and came to be embraced

by a wide variety

of the community,

came to be seen as

functional by the wide

variety of the community.

And then the injection

of these other texts

that were making other

sorts of claims,

in some cases with other

kinds of theology,

were not recognized

by the church globally.

One of the

one of the categories

that I didn't mention earlier,

but I should now is what

we might call

geographic distribution.

These were books

that were circulating

across the wide swath

of what the Church had become

as opposed to being regional.

You've used books or

something like that.

It's an interesting

phenomenon, because in

the early second century,

if you read the early second

century writings of Christians,

it's pretty clear,

seems pretty clear

that in most communities

at that time, they might have

known one or two gospels,

they might have known

a handful of the

Pauline letters.

They might have known,

one of the others was

what were called

the Catholic letters,

the non-Pauline.

And so their

the size of their

Bible was limited.

I tease people that

the idea of a Bible church

in the first few centuries,

in one sense,

wouldn't have existed

carrying your bound

Bible to church,

because people didn't

handle the Bible that way.

They heard the Bible

in the services that they were

in, just as in Judaism,

they would have heard the Bible

in the synagogues

that they met in

that kind of thing, as opposed

to carrying a bound Bible

around them with in their back

pocket or whatever, or

today on your iPhone,

obviously they didn't

have iPhones then.

So it's the circulation.

So when you ask how many people

were involved in this,

I mean, it's

myriads of people in one sense.

Now, the commissions

that ended up reinforcing

this list of twenty seven met

at various points involving

many church leaders

at given points.

I don't have specific numbers,

but these would have been

church councils

that would have been

made up of the global

makeup of the church

at the time.

And they were reinforcing,

yeah, this is our list,

these are the texts

that we recognize to be

a reflection of our faith.

And by naming them, of course,

they're excluding

a lot of other works

that are circulating.

We'll be right back.

Shalom, I'm Mitch Glaser,

president of Chosen

People Ministries.

Is it possible

for Jewish people

to believe in Jesus

when there's such a sad history

of Christian antisemitism

that has shaped

Jewish attitudes

towards the gospel?

Well, I know there's hope

because I'm Jewish

and I believe in Jesus.

And I would love to

offer a few suggestions

for reaching Jewish

people personally

with the love of God

through Messiah.

First, keep your

message personal.

You're representing

a person, not a religion.

Second, be loving, patient

and kind even when they object.

And then finally,

and most importantly, pray,

touching the heart

of your Jewish friend

with the good news of Messiah

will also touch

the very heart of God.

And you can learn more

by visiting Chosen

People Ministries

at chosenpeople.com/radio.

During these difficult times,

we know how hard it is

to hold on to hope,

and we want you to know

that Chosen People Ministries

is here for you.

If you have any prayer

requests, our prayer team

is standing by to receive them.

You can submit your request

at chosenpeople.com/pray again

that's chosenpeople.com/pray.

So we've laid

the foundation.

We talked about the formation

of both the Old and

the New Testament

or the Tanakh and

the New Testament,

and now my question is we see,

and I mentioned this earlier,

many Jewish people reject

the New Testament

as valid scripture.

So why is that?

Why do they reject

the New Testament

as a valid scripture?

Dr.

Well, of course,

the central message of

the New Testament

is that Jesus is at the

center of the program of God.

And so a Jewish person,

generally speaking, is told

that Jesus is not the center

of the program of God,

Jesus might be characterized

in a variety of ways,

I think, across Judaism.

You might get a variety of ways

He is described,

but He's certainly not

viewed as

Messiah, as Moshiach,

or as the center

of the program of God,

and certainly not

as the Son of God

by a lot of Orthodox Jews.

And because that's the central

message of these texts,

they're they're going

to be challenged and rejected.

Now,

of course,

the claim of those text,

which is interesting, is

precisely who Jesus is.

And this is precisely who

Jesus is on the basis

of the Hebrew scripture,

in the promises of

the program of God,

on the basis of the

Hebrew scripture.

So you've got kind of a

that's kind of what I think

is a fundamental disagreement.

And and so it leads

laterally to the rejection

of the New Testament.

But if someone picks up

the Christian scripture,

if I can say it that way

and begins to read it,

they will often,

part of what surprises

a Jewish person who reads

the New Testament

is how Old Testament

it is, you know.

You know

that it's referring back

to different parts

of the Old Testament.

It's referring to the prophets.

It's referring to the Psalter.

You know, it's talking

about these connections,

connecting Him to the covenant,

promises of God and all

that seems to be

such a surprise,

given what they've heard about

Jesus and what they,

what has been said about

Jesus in many of

their communities.

And so it creates,

let's just say it

creates a moment of pause

and reflection

oftentimes as a result.

So, Dr.

Bock, as you were talking,

I thought about how the Jewish

context of the New Testament

has kind of been lost over the

years, even in the way I hear

people talk about Jesus today,

and we know that the Torah

is an important

part of Judaism.

And even though it is

included

in the Christian Bible,

some Jewish people

perceive the New Testament

almost as a rebuttal

against the Torah.

And we're going to explore

this topic a little more

in a future episode,

but briefly,

how would you explain that

the New Testament

does not cancel or contradict,

but rather compliments

both the Torah and

the prophetic writings?

Dr.

Yeah, and I'm

going to answer this in a way

that might engender

some discussion,

because I think it depends

on how

how the Torah in

particular is read

or the Tanakh as a whole.

If you read the Tanakh

and the Torah as a whole, as

a series of stipulations,

so you know, the

tradition is there,

613 Mosaic Commandments

coming out of the Torah,

then the appearance

of a canceling,

at least some of that

seems to be transparent.

Christians, you know,

they don't

seek to go to a temple,

they don't go through

the sacrificial system.

If we had a temple,

they probably wouldn't

necessarily, they might,

but they might not

feel obligation to go through

the sacrificial system.

Jesus is viewed as

the singular atonement

for sin, that kind of thing.

So that

that has the feel

of a cancelation,

if I can say it that way.

But the other strand of what's

going on in the Tanakh

is this idea of promise,

the covenant structure

of the promise of God.

I'm going to bless the world

through Abraham Seed.

I'm going to give a king

and a kingship

that's going to last forever.

I'm going to do a work

inside of people

as opposed to

outside of people.

So I've just gone

through the Abrahamic covenant,

the Davidic Covenant

and the New Covenant

really, really briefly.

I mean, that's that's

that's less than a Reader's

Digest version, that's

a Twitter version.

And so

so in the midst of thinking

about how that promise

strand works, what

the Christian scriptures

are claiming is that

Jesus is that seed,

Jesus is that King,

and Jesus, by dying for sin

and cleansing us,

providing an atonement

and sending God's

spirit to dwell us,

fulfills the new covenant.

And so that promise strand

is certainly not cancelled

or contradicted, it's

actually fulfilled

in what Jesus has done.

And that fulfillment impacts

the way in which the 613

stipulations of the Tanakh

are to be read and handled.

And so

it kind of depends on

where the emphasis is

and what you're looking at

as you're reading

the Old Testament in terms

of that explanation,

but ultimately,

if Jesus is who He claims to be

and who the prophets

show Him to be, the Psalter

claims and to be, et cetera,

and He is the answer

to that promise,

then the implications

for the stipulations

come with the territory.

And and with that,

then you don't

get a contradiction

between the two testaments.

The second testament,

if I can say it

that way, completes

what was offered

in the first testament

and represents its

realization and fulfillment.

Does the New Testament

introduce any beliefs

or theological concepts

which are not in

the Old Testament?

Dr.

Now, again, I'm

going to give you

a nuanced answer, just like

I did on the previous one.

The answer is yes and no.

OK, OK.

On the one hand,

I mean, the idea

of a Trinitarian monotheism

is not something

that explicitly comes out

of the Hebrew scriptures.

There are hints of

it of it existing,

but it isn't an explicit

teaching of the Old Testament

on its own terms.

It gets teased out

because of the revelation

of Jesus'

relationship to the Father

and the role of the Spirit

in the program of God.

And so we see it

more explicitly produced

in the New Test.

In fact,

the word Trinity itself isn't

even in the New Testament.

It's a way of summarizing

the various relationships

that are clearly depicted

in the New Testament

and explaining how those work.

And so certainly the idea

of a Trinitarian monotheism

and I'm using that

phrase on purpose

because both elements

of it are important.

Is something

the New Testament

is very explicit about

that you can only see

hinted at in the Old Testament.

Thus, my answer yes and no.

There are

there are things that connect

to what is going on

in the Hebrew scriptures

and to draw out

what might be implied

in the Hebrew scriptures.

But the clarity of it

is made transparent

in the New Testament

and what the New

Testament teaches.

And of course, it's important

to remember that

for Christians, Jesus

is the word of God.

There is a revelation

outside of scripture

that He Himself is.

And as such, that's important

because who He is

and because of who He is,

we have

the New Testament, scripture

and what they are.

And those two things are not

unconnected to one another.

So the New Testament

is kind of like a grand reveal.

Dr.

Exactly right.

So it's of like

the Old Testament is right-

The Old Testament was like

the marketing plan

and the teasers

and all of that,

and then the New

Testament is like,

OK, here it is. Dr.

Yeah, that'll work.

I'll take that.

It's an interesting way

to look at it Abe.

Yeah, I'm

the marketing guy.

Dr.

Put it in

marketing terms,

that will make it work.

Yeah, I mean,

the Old Testament is definitely

I mean, I wouldn't say

it's just a setup,

but it definitely sets up

the New Testament.

And people had a lot

of expectations.

Dr.

And we need to remember

that the New Testament

actually takes us

back to the Old Testament.

I mean, the way I like to say

it is if you read Revelation,

you're actually all the

way back in Genesis 1,

because because the

entire gospel story

is a story of restoration,

a restoration of

that which was lost.

And Jesus represents

the regaining of that.

I often tell people

in Christian circles,

I think we don't

do this very well,

that you talk about the gospel

and the good news,

you don't start in Genesis 3.

You actually start in Genesis 1

because it is the way

God made us and who

He made us to be.

That the gospel

seeks to answer where

God is,

trying to reclaim something

that is about the way He

originally made us and the way

life was originally designed

to be.

You don't find that in

Genesis 3.

You find that in Genesis 1.

You have the problem

because of Genesis 3,

but in the fall and

the introduction of sin.

But what the gospels

designed to take us back to

is to the way

God made us to begin with.

So we're always in

Genesis 1 when we'r

talking about the gospel,

which means we're

also in Revelation 22.

So that's a you know, so that's

that's the fun part of it.

You're back to beginning.

You're back to the future.

I don't know how

to talk about it.

AbeL So, Dr.

Bock, are there any resources

you would recommend

for explaining how

the New Testament

is valid scripture?

Well, I mean, there are

there are introductions

to the New Testament

that talk about the

history of the canon.

We're really talking about

there are really three elements

to this question

and we've only really hit

one of them.

One is how

the New Testament itself

and how the Bible as a whole

has come together.

OK.

The second is,

how do we know that

the text that was written

is the text that was written?

In other words, do we have-

what's the chain

of transmission

that allows us to

think that the Bibles

that we have in the

20th century reflect

what was actually written

in those books

in the beginning.

So that's what's technically

the disciplines

called text criticism.

And you're dealing with

what the text criticism

of the Bible, you know,

the transmission chain,

what do you do

with the differences

between the manuscript?

How do you know

it's this wording

and not that wording?

That's a second dimension

of the question.

And third dimension

of the question is, all right,

now that we know that

that was what was written.

How do we know that

what that was written

is actually true?

OK, can I believe what's there?

OK,

that's actually a third level

of this conversation

when you ask, can I trust

the New Testament?

You're actually asking

three questions at once.

How do we know that

I have the right Bible,

the right books? Right.

How do I know

I have the right text?

How do I know that

what the text says is true?

OK.

And so we've really

this podcast

where it's Our Hope,

I don't want to leave

Our Hope incomplete,

but our hope is the first

step is knowing

we've got the right books.

And that's what you've

been asking me about.

And, you know, do

the books

that constitute the scripture,

are they the right ones?

To which the answer is yes.

And then there are

two more questions to follow.

How do we know the

contents of those books

are one of the real

original contents?

And then the second

and then the second

question behind that,

which is actually

question number three,

because I'm trying to

confuse your listeners, is,

is

how do we know that

what that actually says is

actually the case?

OK, so that's those

are the three steps.

So when I ask a question,

can I trust the New Testament,

I have to ask myself,

what sense are you

asking that question?

How's that for confusing you?

Well, then I have a very

different question for you.

Can we trust the New Testament?

Dr.

The answer is

we have the books

we ought to have. OK.

There's a whole other podcast

that ought to be dedicated to.

We have the texts

that we ought to have.

Yeah.

And there's a whole

other series of podcasts

that probably involve

how can we know that

what we have is actually

what was intended?

Because now you're

into questions like,

does God, if God is going to

speak, He's got to exist.

OK.

If the story of the

Bible is actually a history,

then the things said in

it like the miracles,

do they really exist?

And then you're off

into all the details

about how the texts

hang together, et cetera.

You could probably do

at least one podcast

on each one of those,

maybe more.

So anyway.

I'm

taking notes on this.

I'm...

I'm trying to make sure

you guys have a job

for the future.

Job security is awesome.

Dr.

Yeah, exactly.

So,

but

before all those podcasts come.

Right. Right.

The answer is yes.

Right.

OK, good to know.

Yeah.

So, Dr.

Bock, we just want

to say thank you again

for joining us

for this episode.

This is very refreshing

to hear about.

We don't hear a lot about

the history of the canon.

And your expertize

was very valuable

for this episode.

I'm sorry?

Dr Bock:

We don't want people to know.

So as a professor

at Dallas Theological Seminary,

we know that

you certainly trust

that the New Testament

is not only valid, but

also divinely inspired.

How did you personally

come to the conclusion

that you can believe

the New Testament?

Dr.

That's

an interesting question

and really

a couple of

elements to the answer.

One was just how

I came to faith.

My faith journey was

over five years.

I live in I live in Dallas.

I lived in Houston

once growing up, which means

I'm deep in the south,

which means I'm

surrounded by Baptists.

And so I lived in

a world surrounded by Baptists,

all of whom wanted to see me

come to know Jesus.

And so they would consistently

share with me, et cetera.

I mean, one of my closest

friends in the world

went to a Young Life

camp, came to the Lord,

and came back wanting

to make sure I could

share in his joy

and wanting me to

come to the Lord.

And he said, you need Jesus.

And he said it

three different ways.

You need Jesus, you need

Jesus, you need Jesus.

So

that's about all that's about,

he just said I needed

Jesus and I

thought he was crazy.

And so that was the

start of a journey.

And then I just

eventually paid attention

to the fact that

God was at work,

that there were that

between the way

people were living,

that was different

from what they were saying

and the way in which

everywhere I turned,

I seem to be running into this,

you need to get yourself right

with God kind of question.

I saw God at work

completely outside

the scripture, but certainly

in the lives of people.

And that opened me up

to thinking through, well,

maybe they know something

that I don't about life.

And then and then

in doing my own work

in relationship

to the scripture,

you know,

someone handed me a Bible

in the midst of this

process, probably

the most brilliant thing

that that anyone did.

Hand me the Bible.

And they said,

why don't you just read that

you have a lot of opinions

about the Bible.

Why don't you just

read the Bible for yourselves

and ask this one

question, one question.

And that is,

how important is

Jesus to the story?

They hand me a New Testament.

And they also gave me a warning

because they knew

my personality and said,

now you're going to

meet a lot of names

in the first chapter, Matthew,

just skip that part.

Don't worry about those names.

OK, just get into the story.

Probably a good idea.

And and so I read it and

I was reading through

the New Testament.

I thought Jesus was

the religious great.

You know, He would- You

put a Hall of Fame together,

a religious hall of fame,

Jesus would be in there.

You put Moses in there,

put Elijah in there.

You know, Isaiah in there,

a lot of people in that

in that every year

there's a new induction class.

I mean, you know,

just put a lot of people

in the religous Hall of Fame.

He was a religious great,

so gave great religious advice.

But He isn't the only voice

and He certainly isn't

a singular voice.

The more and more I

read the New Testament,

the one thing that became

transparent to me,

you know,

one thing they said to me

is we think you can read

and understand this.

So,

it became transparent to me

is that Jesus wasn't

just being put alongside

all these other folks.

You know, He occupied

an extremely unique position.

I mean, He was saying

things like,

this is the passage

that really turned me

in in some ways, you know,

the person who builds,

who listens to what

I say and doesn't do

it is the person

who has built his

house on the sand,

the person who listens

and hears, builts

his house on the rock.

And I'm sitting here going,

He's kind of

in the middle of that

kind of you know, He doesn't

He is in the middle

of everything that's going on.

And and then when you see how

Jesus Himself handles

the scriptures,

that way He trusts

them, et cetera, that

brought an approach

to a regard for the Bible.

And then to realize

that the New Testament,

I would know

nothing about Jesus

and about what He did and said