Posted on 08/15/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
2. What are the dates of these documents?
The crucifixion of Christ took place, it is generally agreed, about AD 30. According to Luke iii. I, the activity of John the Baptist, which immediately preceded the commencement of our Lord's public ministry, is dated in 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar'. Now, Tiberius became emperor in August, AD 14, and according to the method of computation current in Syria, which Luke would have followed, his fifteenth year commenced in September or October, AD a7.1 The fourth Gospel mentions three Passovers after this time; the third Passover from that date would be the Passover of AD 30, at which it is probable on other grounds that the crucifixion took place. At this time, too, we know from other sources that Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea, Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee, and Caiaphas was Jewish high priest.
The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.
But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written. If it could be determined that the writers of the Gospels used sources of information belonging to an earlier date, then the situation would be still more encouraging. But a more detailed examination of the Gospels will come in a later chapter...
The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence. The day has gone by when the authenticity of these letters could be denied wholesale. There are some writers today who would reject Ephesians; fewer would reject 2 Thessalonians; more would deny that the Pastoral Epistles (I and ~ Timothy and Titus) came in their present form from the hand of Paul.' I accept them all as Pauline, but the remaining eight letters would by themselves be sufficient for our purpose, and it is from these that the main arguments are drawn in our later chapter on 'The Importance of Paul's Evidence'.
Ten of the letters which bear Paul's name belong to the period before the end of his Roman imprisonment.
These ten, in order of writing, may be dated as follows: Galatians, 48; I and 2 Thessalonians, 50; Philippians, 54; I and 2 Corinthians, 54-56; Romans, 57; Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, c. 60. The Pastoral Epistles, in their diction and historical atmosphere, contain signs of later date than the other Pauline Epistles, but this presents less difficulty to those who believe in a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome about the year 64, which was ended by his execution.' The Pastoral Epistle can then be dated c. 63-64, and the changed state of affairs in the Pauline churches to which they bear witness will have been due in part to the opportunity which Paul's earlier Roman imprisonment afforded to his opponents in these churches.
At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short. For in assessing the trustworthiness of ancient historical writings, one of the most important questions is: How soon after the events took place were they recorded ?
3. What is the evidence for their early existence? |
About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament,including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated m their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a firstcentury date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be...
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century.
A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, 'that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'.
Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.
A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.'...
The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writer' is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.' This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two dips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists' errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remain' among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
'The interval then between the data of original. composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'
Severus Alexander was Emperor of Rome from 222-235 AD. He ascended to the throne at the tender age of 14.
Rome did fairly well under him, except for the fact that he was completely incompetent militarily.
It is said on pretty good evidence that he erected a temple to Christus.
Now, the Romans were alot closer time-wise to what went on during Christs life. Another issue is that the Romans were pretty damn anal about dotting every I and crossing every T, they kept excellent records and had a wide network of historians and informants.
Now it is true that they erected temples to the Roman gods.
But they NEVER would have erected a temple dedicated to a man who was relatively contemporaneous unless that man had actually lived and Romans themselves had seen him with their own eyes.
Mr. Rogers:
Do you have some sort of biblical historicity ping list? If so, I’d like to be on it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts?page=62#62
To: SunkenCiv; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; metmom; Brian S. Fitzgerald; onedoug; mdk1960; blue-duncan; ...
I’m surprised there isn’t a biblical archaeology/historicity ping list.
I’d be willing to start one if it has critical mass. That would be me and 3 others. My freeping activity is too erratic to rely upon me, so I would be posting such a list on my homepage for others to copy.
Please let me know if you’d like to be on this list [that’s no guarantee that the list will get started, i.e. if we don’t achieve critical mass]. Also, please forward this ping list opportunity to your other historically-minded ping lists. Yes, that’s you, Sunken Civ... ;-)
SunkenCiv; Alamo-girl; betty boop; metmom; Brian S. Fitzgerald ; onedoug ; mdk1960 ; mdk1960 ; blue-duncan; longtermmemmory; Tax-chick; Salvation ; Gamecock; guitarplayer1953 ; XeniaSt; Antoninus ;
62 posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:42:37 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Mr Rogers, if you start a ping list, please add me to it.
That may be true but there are enough changes in the wording that I'm not comfortable with it...John 3:16 is one of many examples...The NIV says one and only son, where the KJV say only 'begotten' (only born) son...
Ok...most objective.
Actually not most objective. Liberal theologians, like liberal politicians, tend to be among the least objective.
FFBruce, in this article, gives examples of that.
The word translated begotten is monogenes, meaning:
“1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”
I don’t think the NIV translation is an attempt to demote the specialness of Jesus, but to convey the meaning of monogenes to a world where ‘begotten’ is either unknown, or means gave physical birth. The NIV attempts to emphasize the singularity of Jesus without allowing modern readers to think this verse talks about Jesus as a created being, born in some reproductive act by ‘The Father’.
The ESV uses “only Son”, then later talks about “adopted sons”.
“Begotten” is a good translation, but not if modern people don’t understand it. It is one of those verses that ought to have a translator’s footnote explaining the word in more detail.
What is the date of the copy? The fact that the Trinitarian "formula" is in it doesn't mean it was there in the original. By some as yet not challenged accounts, Christian copyists were neither professional nor highly accurate (as compared to Jewish copyists), and apparently altered text to keep up with the "developing doctrine" of the faith:
"Unfortunately we cannot be certain either how skilled (and therefore potentially accurate) were the earliest copyists of the Gospels or the extent to which they may have altered their texts in light of the increasing theological precision in the development of Christian doctrine." (Andrew Gregory, The reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus, p. 27)
As Gregory (an Oxford scholar) reflects on the relatively "free transmission of Christian text" (i.e. Gamble 1995: 74. Ehrman 1996: 27, 276, 280) he mentions Kim Haines-Eitzen who argues that "the early Christians scribes were not hired professionals and that they "performed not only a conservative task (reproducing written texts) but also a creative one (rewriting, ie modifying and correcting, these texts in the process of copying them." (200:16) [my emphasis]
Of the references mentioned in your link, all the ones I could find were of post-Nicene date, so the tripartite expressions are not surprising but at the same time there is no proof they were there in pre-Nicene editions. This is not to say that they were not. Early Christianity did not have a defined theology, so it is very likely that some used the Trinitarian formula and some didn't.
And even among those who used the tripartite terminology did not think of the Holy Trinity in the same way, nor did their Trinitarian notion necessarily agree with the dogmatic pronouncements of the forthcoming Ecumenical Councils. In fact, a cursory research will show that up to the Nicene Council the general Trinitarian theology was one of Son's subordination rather than equality. So, the fact that some of them used the terminology doesn't automatically assure orthodox doctrine or their documents were "doctrinally sound."
Finally, it is worth mentioning that even though seven Ignatian letters are believed to be his—according to Eusebius—the controversy over their versions (long and short) has by no means been resolved.
Even if his Ecclesiastical History relied upon earlier sources, there is nothing directly to substantiate the notion that he had in his possession an early copy of Matthew’s Gospel that left off the tripartite formula. Further, the fact that Eusebius’ style of quoting sources has been characterized as often “inexact” should caution us in giving too much weight to his allusions or quotations of Matthew 28:19.”
This is a scientist you hold in high regard? Eusebius was by no means perfect or very reliable, nor was his thoelogy very orthodox, but in this instance evidence suggests to the contrary. He quotes this verse without the tripartite formula no less than 17 times before the Nicene Council, and the remaining five times when he includes the formula are all post-Nicene! Not only does this suggest that he is exact but consistent as well in this particular instance.
Let us not forget that the Gospel writers were not always examples of exactness either, yet I have never encountered a Protestant scholar who went out of his way to say that Mark's or Luke's, etc. "quoting style can be characterized as inexact." And God knows the quotes of supposedly the same event are sometimes unrecognizable. I suppose inexactness in quoting styles of the Gospel writers is okay because it's "inspired," right?
Irineaus' writings survive in complete form only in the Latin translation from about AD 380. The original Greek works survive in fragments only. It would indeed be to demonstrate that the passage where he mentions the tripartite terminology can also be found in his pre-Nicene (pre AD 325) fragments. But this would merely mean that this is how he believed, not how the Church as a whole believed. It would most certainly not automatically mean that his Trinitarian concepts were orthodox.
It is well known that he refers to Mary in the Latin copy as advocata (and advocate) of Eve. The problem with this is that, when retro-translated into Greek, it reads Paraclete!
No, you are actually mixing and matching. The link provided is the accurate description and definition by those who do the studies for a living. If you wish to mis-define termonology - I cannot stop you. But to do so in the face of the correct definitions is less than an honest presentation of the facts.
The word translated begotten is monogenes, meaning:
“1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”
As you can see, there is disagreement in what the actual Greek word means...Who is right??? And how do we know who is right???
I don’t think the NIV translation is an attempt to demote the specialness of Jesus, but to convey the meaning of monogenes to a world where ‘begotten’ is either unknown, or means gave physical birth. The NIV attempts to emphasize the singularity of Jesus without allowing modern readers to think this verse talks about Jesus as a created being, born in some reproductive act by ‘The Father’.
Another way to look at it is although 'begotten' is an older, not so used word today, it is easy to remember and is generally only applied to Jesus Christ...
The bible speaks in many place of the 'sons of God'...When we see the word begotten, it takes on a special significance...We immediately know that Jesus was the only son of God who was 'begotten', without going into a theological exegesis of the meaning of the Greek language to understand what the verse is saying...
Further, when we get into the geneologies and we see the old word 'beget', it's easy to figure out the meaning of the word just by the context, without an education in Greek language...
Many of the newer translations use the word begotten...Jerome used begotten...Obviously it's not the fault of the Greek word that is the problem, it's whoever is doing the translating...And most translate the word as begotten...Works for me...
I'd be interested, too!
“Please let me know if you’d like to be on this list”
I would be interested but I belong to a highly esteemed, well thought of and oft quoted as an authoritative source, listless group. So, perhaps you could ping me, not as a list member, but kind of as an after thought.
Thanks Kevmo. Or should I say, “Pingmeister Kevmo!” ? ;’)
Thanks for the post, very comprehensive and full of info.
Have you looked carefully at Luke 4:4 lately????
” 4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” - Luke 4.4, NIV
4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. - KJV
4And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’” - NASB
Cross reference Deut 8.3: “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. “
Guess I’m blind - what doctrine is affected?
“”but by every word of God” omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, NASV, NEB, NWT, JB. AMP italicises the words.
Ruckman (54) p 18, states that the words are found in three families of manuscripts (Western, Caesarean, Byzantine) and in Tatian’s Diatessaron (2nd Century). Aleph and B and their associates omit the words, together with the Boharic (North African) and Coptic versions.”
Sounds like a difference of opinion on what is the most accurate Greek text, but I see of no doctrinal issue...Deuteronomy is still in the Bible.
No doctrinal issue?????? Isn't it a doctrine that "man shall live by the Word of God". As a matter of fact it is the most fundamental doctrine in the Word of God, isn't it???
What sense does Luke 4:4 without the second part which is also the most important part. And by the way it was Marcion the Apostate who is responsible for this corrupted abbreviated verse -- and 1900 years later supposed intelligent men are still defending and excusing his corruption.
What source suggests that Marcion abbreviated it? Payrus 75 agrees with the shorter version, as does Codex Vaticanus. Payrus 4 (Alexandrian) text seems to agree with Codex Sinaticus and the longer version.
Why could the short version not have been the original and and the longer version an attempt at bringing it into harmony with Deu 8:3? It wouldn't have been the first missquote!
Either way...it it STILL in Deuteronomy. It is still a part of scripture!
Have you read Irenaeus lately???? Marcion was notorious for shortening the Book of Luke to erase any connection between Jesus and the God of the OT.
Why could the short version not have been the original and and the longer version an attempt at bringing it into harmony with Deu 8:3?
Why not the other way around? or why not, if you have a disdain for the God of Holy Writ, just leave out the words you don't like -- like that part of a verse that says that every word of God is necessary for man to have life???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.