History like all sciences is a work in progress. The key work is PROGRESS. If facts about the natural world or about the past were ultimately subjective and relative, as is suggested by your comment, then endeavoring to dig and test and study ancient texts are a futile waste of time better spent reading the Bible. If on the other hand knowledge is progressive then learning what has been revealed by those who dig,test and study ancient texts will lead us closer to the truth. Your comments seem the result of JW (and other fundementalist) indoctrination that human knowledge is untrustworthy and a waste of time. This anti-learning mentality is what got us messed up in the cult in the first place. We sought easy answers to complex questions. We preferred to have others do the study for us and present a synoptis to us in small words. I am absolutely positive that the way you interpreted the words of the professors is not what they intended to convey as students of history themselves. Our knowledge is icomplete but it is worlds greater than it would be if we all shared your opinion.
A little history on the Bible
by gumby 55 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
gumby
What exactly are you questioning Hooberus?
Gumby
-
hooberus
If you are going to challenge the Bible you shold provide documentation for your claims. For example the claim that the gospels did not take on their current for until ad 150 should be backed up by primary source evidence from ancient authors, traditions, manuscripts, versions, etc.
Earlier (in response to undocumented claims quoted from the jesusneverexisted.com site) I said:
How can it be said that none of the gospels took their present form before C.E. 150? To make such a claim one would have to have manuscript evidence showing that the later forms were different than the earlier gospel writings. I believe that the earliest manuscripts are essentually the same as the later ones (see Comfort "Early manuscripts"). Also the earliest citations from fathers as well as the earliest versions of the gospels are essentually the same as the later ones.
The idea that Revelation was written before the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not held even by liberal scholars that I am aware of such as Kummel who places it at 96 A.D. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are dated well before this by most schloars from conservative to fairly liberal. In addition they were cited by Clement of Rome C.E. 95.
The idea that the last 12 verses of mark were borrowed is also dubious due to the fact that they are found in 99.5% of the extant mqnuscripts of Mark. The counter position relying on the testimony of Aleph and B is more than offset by the citations of fathers well before this time. see below:
-
gumby
How can it be said that none of the gospels took their present form before C.E. 150? To make such a claim one would have to have manuscript evidence showing that the later forms were different than the earlier gospel writings.
Tacitus also relied on written material. Here is a little on your question.
Which New Testament gospel was written first?
Originally, the four New Testament gospels known today as Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John were anonymous documents--probably all written in Greek
(as opposed to Hebrew or Aramaic). Their authorship was assigned according
to tradition. Justin Martyr (150 C.E.) for example, was familiar with the
gospels, but never mentions them by name--or how many of them there were.
The first recorded instance of four gospels was made by Iraneous (Bishop of
Lyons around 150 C.E.). He argued that there had to be four gospels because
there were four winds. Likewise, he referred to the gospels by their modern
revered names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The early Church father, Clement of Alexandria, who lived around the
year 200 C.E. believed the earliest gospels were Matthew and Luke because
they gave Jesus' family tree. Origin, writing also in Alexandria in the
3rd century C.E., also believed that Matthew was the first gospel written. St.
Augustine, writing from northern Africa around the year 400 C.E., stated that
Matthew wrote the first gospel in hebrew, and than Mark was written next
in Greek.
Over the last few centuries, a bit of clever detective work by numerous
biblical scholars have convinced most historians that the gospel of
Mark was written BEFORE the other gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. Karl
Lachmann wrote in 1835 that in researching the ORDER of events as presented
by the gospel writers, there was only agreement between the synoptic gospels
when the writer agreed with Mark's chronological order. Whenever Matthew and
Luke agree on the sequence of events, it was in agreement with Mark. Whenever
Matthew disagrees with Mark's order, he ALSO disagrees with Luke's orde,
and vise versa. Therefore Mark's order is always in agreement with either
Matthew's version or Luke's version.
Other scholars added on other layers of proof that Matthew and Luke copied
from Mark, and not vise versa. Out of Mark's 661 verses, 610 can be found
in either Matthew or Luke, or both gospels. When Matthew and Luke contain
a specific event that also exists in Mark, they have typically summarized
Mark's version, sometimes adding a new narrative of their own.
Mark's version of a biblical event is always more "primitive" and
"potentially embarrassing" than that recounted in Matthew and Luke.
There is also ample evidence to show that Matthew and Luke were not
satisfied with Mark's interpretation of certain details of his gospel,
and reworked them to "improve" on them. Whenever, an "improvement" is
made by Matthew and Luke, it is NOT in agreement by the other. One or
two instances might not be convincing-- but this pattern is seen consistently
throughout the gospels.
I have chosen just one example to demonstrate this (for other examples,
see Section II).
For example, in Mark 10, a stranger approaches Jesus with the question,
"Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". Jesus replies here,
"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'.
This same incident appears in Matthew 19:17 with Jesus now replying:
"Why do you ask me ABOUT what is good?" [emphasis mine]
Clearly the latter account is a correction by Matthew over Mark's account.
It would seem unlikely that Matthew was writing first, and Mark would want
to change this account back to a position where Jesus appears WEAKER,
instead of stronger.
Today, virtually all recognized scholars believe that both Matthew and
Luke used the gospel of Mark as one of their source texts (and not the
other way around).
"Q" Text
There are some 230 verses common between Matthew and Luke, which are NOT
found in Mark. Most of these are inserted in different places within the
Marcan material of both Matthew and Luke, although the general sequence of
Q events is the same. (GA Wells, WHO WAS JESUS, Open Court, 1989, p 84)
From this, scholars have postulated the existence of some second source
text called "Q" (from the German word Quelle meaning "source"), that were
used by Matthew and Luke--but not Mark.
It is believed that this "Q" text possibly went back to a very early
Jewish Christian community, and was composed primarily of sayings attributed
to Jesus. It has, as of this date, never been found. This is not surprising,
as we know that writings of early Jewish Christian communities were declared
heretical and ordered destroyed in the fourth century C.E. (Also, any texts
NOT recopied over the centuries, would naturally rot unless it was written
on expensive parchment.)
Notes on the Earliest known Bibles
None of the ORIGINAL manuscripts of the gospels have survived! The
gospel stories were probably written on papyrus, which tends to rot after
a century or two. There have been various FRAGMENTS discovered-- such as John
Ryland's papyrus, dated from about the early to middle second century. This
fragment is so small that it is about 1/2 inch square. Because it contains
a fragment of a verse found in John, most scholars believe it to be a portion
from the actual gospel of John. However, this is not absolute proof, as
it might have been a piece of gnostic text--ie since it was discovered in
Egypt, and it is known that gnostic Christians were active there at a
very early date.
The oldest bibles that HAVE survived (which date from the FOURTH
century C.E.), were written on expensive vellum--ie animal skins which are
more durable. Both the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus bibles are
believed to date from the middle of the fourth century, when Christianity
achieved official status during the reign of Constantine, and therefore
could afford the expensive vellum.Gumby
-
teenyuck
I must confess, I didn't read all the posts. I read gumby's and had to reply.
I have been trying and trying to get those ideas into my husband's head. He is finally admitting that it is *perhaps* just a guide to life and cannot be taken literally.
Great post! Now I will read the rest...
-
Noumenon
The seductive trap of Higher Criticism is much like the theory of evolution. It allows one to be free of moral responsibility to God, or any organisation claiming to represent him. So the atheists and higher critics can feel safe and snug fornicating, adulterating, or doing whatever they want to indulge in, deciding for themselves what is right and wrong...the fundamental free will issue raised in the Garden of Eden. Satan's no fool and he will employ the highest intellects and minds to try to convince faithful ones that they have no basis for their faith at all. Higher Criticism in all it's gross manifestations is one of the foremost example of that.
-
hooberus
Testimony of Early Fathers: Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) quoted from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44 Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) quoted from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44 Testimony of Early Manuscript Evidence: The discovery of papyrus 52 dated c.110-125 proves that the Gospel of John was already circulating as far away as Egypt early in the second century. And since mostly everyone agrees that John was the last Gospel to be written; then Mark, Matthew, and Luke, were alredy in circulation in the first century. "In recent discussions about P52, scholars tend to date it closer to 100 than to 125 (see Aland, 85-87) . . . Its greatest value is its early date, for it testifies to the fact that the autograph of John's Gospel must have been written before the close of the first century." Early manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament p. 56
-
gumby
And your comment is what makes people like myself despise Christianity more and more.
Let's examine what you said.
1)The seductive trap of Higher Criticism is much like the theory of evolution. 2)It allows one to be free of moral responsibility to God, or any organisation claiming to represent him. 3) So the atheists and higher critics can feel safe and snug fornicating, adulterating, or doing whatever they want to indulge in, deciding for themselves what is right and wrong...the fundamental free will issue raised in the Garden of Eden. 4) Satan's no fool and he will employ the highest intellects and minds to try to convince faithful ones that they have no basis for their faith at all. Higher Criticism in all it's gross manifestations is one of the foremost example of that.
1)Why is higher critiscism ...."seductive". It must sound a bit convincing to be seductive. Are you calling actual facts ...."seductive" or are you too brainwashed to look into it? 2)Christianity allows you freedom from responsibility from your actions and you can let god handle it. That's a bit chicken isn't it? 3)Yes,all people who doubt the bible and god live depraved lives with no moral restraint and "do" anything that moves. How nice of you to think of us that way Mr. non-judgmental Christian. 4)Satan has nothing to do with actual facts that you christians deny. Facts are facts and the facts are the bible is a manmade biggoted book to serve the view. Gumby -
hooberus
gumby, If you are going to cut and paste from other sites you should provide links. http://www.mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NEWTEST.TXT
-
gumby
Why?
OK....here ya go
http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html
You'll have to look around the site a bit. It has some intresting stuff. Just watch out for the little demons
Gumby