Forum biblijne Strona Główna Forum biblijne
Owocem ducha jest: miłość, radość, pokój, cierpliwość, uprzejmość, dobroć, wierność. (List do Galatów 5:21-22)

FAQFAQ  SzukajSzukaj  UżytkownicyUżytkownicy  GrupyGrupy
RejestracjaRejestracja  ZalogujZaloguj  DownloadDownload

Poprzedni temat «» Następny temat
Nazaret
Autor Wiadomość
kato
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 10:59   

"byc moze dlatego ze nie mieszkam od wielu lat w polsce dlatego nie jestem za bardzo zorientowany w materialach dostepnych w jezyku polskim."

Masz internet.

"powinienes tez kato wiedziec jako znawca historii ze kazdy biblista zgadza sie z datowaniami ewangelii na 1 wiek."

Otóż, jako interesujący się historią doskonale wiem, że datowanie ewangelii na I wiek jest mocno kontrowersyjne. Z powodów, które Paulina doskonale wypisała.


"moje pytanie jest takie: czy ty chcesz mi udowodnic ze nie mam dowodow czy chcesz poznac prawde? bo jezeli chcesz poznac prawde to DOTRZESZ do niej....jednak jak narazie to ja kato odnosze wrazenie ze tobie nie o to chodzi."

Prawda jest taka, że nie możesz udowodnić swoich racji.
Inna sprawa, że mnie twoje prawdy nie obchodzą.
Obawiam się, że tobie wcale nie chodzi o rzetelną dyskusję, tylko o dziecinne przekomarzanie się.

qed
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 10:59   

kato,

Cytat:
"byc moze dlatego ze nie mieszkam od wielu lat w polsce dlatego nie jestem za bardzo zorientowany w materialach dostepnych w jezyku polskim."

Masz internet.


Na internecie jest bardzo malo materialow po polsku a ksiazek nie bede sciagal z polski tylko po to zeby ci cos z niej kato przepisac. Jezeli naprawde masz ochote poznac fakty to moge ci autorow poszukac i sobie sam sprawdzisz.

Cytat:

"powinienes tez kato wiedziec jako znawca historii ze kazdy biblista zgadza sie z datowaniami ewangelii na 1 wiek."

Otóż, jako interesujący się historią doskonale wiem, że datowanie ewangelii na I wiek jest mocno kontrowersyjne. Z powodów, które Paulina doskonale wypisała.


Jezeli WIESZ ze jest kontrowersyjne to znaczy ze napewno poznales to co obie strony maja do powiedzenia.. wiec czemu ode mnie potrzebujesz jeszcze jakichs dowodow?


Cytat:

Prawda jest taka, że nie możesz udowodnić swoich racji.
Inna sprawa, że mnie twoje prawdy nie obchodzą.
Obawiam się, że tobie wcale nie chodzi o rzetelną dyskusję, tylko o dziecinne przekomarzanie się.


Skoro "moje" prawdy cie nie obchodza to chyba jest jasne ze nie chodzi o dyskusje.
 
 
kato
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 10:59   

Obchodzą mnie FAKTY.
Nic więcej.
Czy to takie trudne?
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:00   

ok... fakty... fakty... i jeszcze raz fakty.. wszystko pochodzi z netu ale wszystko jest sprawdzalne w ksiazkach (wiekszosc jest podana).
beda 2 posty bo w jednym sie nie zmiesci...

no to zaczynamy...czesc 1...

Głównym historycznym źródłem informacji o Jezusie jest Nowy Testament. Z tego powodu wielu historyków w dziewiętnastym i dwudziestym wieku kwestionowało wiarygodność tych dokumentów. Są one pod stałym obstrzałem oskarżeń pozbawionych podstaw historycznych lub takich, które zostały już obalone dzięki odkryciom i badaniom archeologicznym.
Kiedy prowadziłem wykłady na Uniwersytecie Stanowym w Arizonie, po jednym z wykładów podszedł do mnie pewien profesor literatury wraz z grupą studentów i powiedział: "Panie McDowell, wszystkie swoje twierdzenia na temat Jezusa opiera pan na dokumencie z drugiego wieku, który jest przestarzały. Dzisiaj na zajęciach mówiłem o tym, że Nowy Testament, napisany tak późno po śmierci Chrystusa, nie mógł być dokładny w swoim zapisie".
Odparłem na to: "Pańskie wnioski i opinie na temat Nowego Testamentu są od 25 lat nieaktualne".
Opinie owego profesora na temat zapisów dotyczących Jezusa miały swoje źródło we wnioskach niemieckiego krytyka F.C. Baura. Baur wychodził z założenia, że większa część Pisma Świętego Nowego Testamentu została spisana dopiero pod koniec drugiego wieku po narodzeniu Chrystusa. Wywnioskował więc, że zapisy te wywodziły się głównie z legend i mitów powstałych w długim okresie między śmiercią Chrystusa a spisaniem owych opowieści.
Odkrycia archeologiczne jeszcze sprzed dwudziestego wieku potwierdziły jednak dokładność manuskryptów Nowego Testamentu. Odkrycie wczesnych manuskryptów papirusowych (manuskrypt Johna Rylanda, 130 rok po Chr.; papirus Chestera Beatty'ego, 155 rok po Chr. i II papirus Bodmera, 200 rok po Chr.) zapełniło przestrzeń czasową między latami życia Chrystusa a istniejącymi późniejszymi manuskryptami.
Millar Burrows z Yale mówi: "Porównanie greckiego Nowego Testamentu z językiem papirusów upewniło nas także co do dokładności przekazu Nowego Testamentu" [Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones, Meridian Books, New York 1956, s. 52.]. Tego typu odkrycia zwiększyły zaufanie uczonych do wiarygodności Biblii.
William Albright, który był jednym z najświetniejszych archeologów zajmujących się tematyką związaną z wydarzeniami opisanymi w Biblii, pisał: "Możemy już z pewnością stwierdzić, że nie ma żadnej solidnej podstawy do tego, by datować którąkolwiek z ksiąg Nowego Testamentu na okres po 80 roku po Chr., czyli o dwa pełne pokolenia przed latami 130-150, podawanymi przez bardziej radykalnych krytyków Nowego Testamentu" [William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, Funk and Wagnalls, New York 1955, s. 136.]. Powtórzył ten pogląd w wywiadzie udzielonym magazynowi "Christianity Today": "Moim zdaniem wszystkie księgi Nowego Testamentu zostały spisane przez ochrzczonego Żyda między piątą a dziewiątą dekadą pierwszego wieku po Chr. (najprawdopodobniej między około 50 a 75 rokiem)" ["Christianity Today", 1963, 18 stycznia, s. 3.].
Sir William Ramsay uważany jest za jednego z najwybitniejszych archeologów wszechczasów. Wywodzi się z niemieckiej szkoły historyków, którzy utrzymywali, że Dzieje Apostolskie to rzekomo produkt połowy drugiego stulecia po Chr., a nie pierwszego. Po przestudiowaniu współczesnej mu krytyki Dziejów Apostolskich doszedł do przekonania, że Dzieje nie są godnym zaufania opisem tamtych czasów (50 rok po Chr.), toteż nie zasługują na uwagę historyka. W konsekwencji, prowadząc badania nad historią Azji Mniejszej, Ramsay prawie wcale nie zwracał uwagi na Nowy Testament. Jednak jego badania zmusiły go w końcu do rozważenia zapisów św. Łukasza. Zaobserwował u niego skrupulatną dokładność co do szczegółów historycznych i stopniowo jego stosunek do Dziejów Apostolskich zaczął się zmieniać. Musiał wreszcie dojść do wniosku, że "Łukasz jest pierwszorzędnym historykiem (...) jako autor powinien być umieszczony wśród najwybitniejszych historyków" [Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder and Stoughton, London 1915, s. 222.]. Ramsay ostatecznie przyznał, że ze względu na dokładność Dziejów w najdrobniejszych szczegółach niemożliwe jest, aby były one dokumentem z drugiego wieku, lecz raczej z połowy pierwszego.
Wielu liberalnych uczonych zostało zmuszonych do przyjęcia wcześniejszych dat powstania Nowego Testamentu. Wnioski dr. Johna A.T. Robinsona zawarte w jego książce Redating the New Testament (Nowe datowanie Nowego Testamentu) są zadziwiająco radykalne. Jego badania doprowadziły go do przekonania, że cały Nowy Testament został napisany przed upadkiem Jerozolimy w 70 roku po Chr. [John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM Press, London 1976.]
Dzisiaj krytycy formaliści (mowa o zwolennikach tzw. Formgeschichte - przyp. red.) twierdzą, że informacje zawarte w Ewangelii, zanim zostały spisane, były przekazywane z ust do ust. Mimo iż okres ten był znacznie krótszy niż pierwotnie sądzono, twierdzą, że zapis Ewangelii przybrał formę literatury ludowej (legend, baśni, mitów i przypowieści).
Jednym z głównych argumentów przeciw twierdzeniu formalistów o rozwoju tradycji ustnej jest fakt, że aby dokonały się rzekome zmiany w ustnych przekazach, musi upłynąć znacznie więcej czasu. Nawiązując do krótkotrwałości okresu, związanego ze spisaniem Nowego Testamentu, profesor Simon Kistenmaker, biblista z Dordt College, pisze: "Zwykle ukształtowanie się folkloru wśród prymitywnych ludów trwa wiele pokoleń; jest to stopniowy proces, rozłożony na wiele stuleci. Zgodnie ze sposobem myślenia formalistów musielibyśmy dojść do wniosku, że relacje ewangeliczne zostały stworzone i zebrane w ciągu zaledwie jednego pokolenia. Według podejścia formalistów formowanie poszczególnych części Ewangelii musiałoby być rozumiane jako skrócony proces zachodzący w ostro przyspieszonym tempie" [Simon Kistenmaker, The Gospels in Current Study, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids 1972, s. 48-49.].
A.H. McNeile, były profesor teologii na Uniwersytecie Dublińskim, kwestionuje koncepcję formalistów dotyczącą tradycji ustnej. Wskazuje, że formaliści nie zajmują się nazbyt dokładnie tradycją związaną ze słowami Jezusa. Uważne przestudiowanie Pierwszego Listu do Koryntian (por. 7,10.12.25) dowodzi pieczołowitego kultywowania i istnienia prawdziwej tradycji zapisywania Jego słów. W religii żydowskiej istniał wśród uczniów zwyczaj zapamiętywania nauk rabina. Dobry uczeń był niczym "zagipsowane naczynie, które nie uroni ani kropli" (Miszna, Abot, ii, 8). Jeśli przyjmiemy teorię C.F. Burneya, przedstawioną w książce The Poetry of Our Lord (Poezja naszego Pana), wydanej w 1925 r., możemy założyć, że większość nauki Jezusa miała formę poezji aramejskiej, co sprawiało, że łatwiej można je było zapamiętać [A.H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, London 1953, s. 54.].
Paul L. Maier, profesor historii starożytnej na Uniwersytecie w Michigan, pisze: "Argumenty, jakoby chrześcijaństwo tworzyło mit Wielkanocy w ciągu bardzo długiego czasu lub że źródła zostały spisane wiele lat po wydarzeniach, są po prostu niezgodne z faktami" [Paul L. Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story, Harper and Row, New York 1973, s. 122.]. Analizując krytykę formalistów, także Albright napisał: "Tylko współcześni uczeni, którzy nie stosują ani metody historycznej, ani perspektywy, mogli wysnuć taką sieć spekulacji, w którą zwolennicy Formgeschichte zaplątali tradycję ewangeliczną". Wniosek Albrighta był następujący: "okres od dwudziestu do pięćdziesięciu lat jest zbyt krótki, aby doszło do jakichkolwiek dostrzegalnych zafałszowań pierwotnej treści, a nawet przekręcenia oryginalnych sformułowań użytych przez Jezusa" [William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore 1946 (wyd. 2), s. 297, 298.].
Często gdy rozmawiam z kimś o Biblii, słyszę sarkastyczną odpowiedź, że nie można wierzyć w to, co Biblia mówi. Przecież napisano ją prawie 2000 lat temu. Jest pełna błędów i nieścisłości. Mówię wtedy, że ja jestem jednak przekonany o jej wiarygodności. Przedstawiam następnie pewien incydent, który zdarzył się podczas mojego wykładu na wydziale historii. Stwierdziłem wówczas, że moim zdaniem istnieje więcej dowodów wiarygodności Pisma Świętego niż jakichkolwiek dziesięciu pozycji literatury klasycznej razem wziętych. Siedzący w kącie profesor prychnął, jak gdyby chciał powiedzieć: "O rany - dajże pan spokój". Zapytałem: "Co pana tak oburza?". Odpowiedział: "Czelność, z jaką twierdzi pan między studentami historii, że Nowy Testament jest wiarygodny. To śmieszne". Cóż, cenię sobie, gdy ktoś tak stawia sprawę, ponieważ zawsze lubię wtedy zadać jedno niewinne pytanie (na które zresztą nikt jeszcze nie odpowiedział pozytywnie). Zapytałem go: "Proszę mi powiedzieć, jako historyk, jakie stosuje pan kryteria do określenia, czy dana pozycja literatury historycznej jest godna zaufania lub wiarygodna". Zdumiewające, ale nie stosował żadnych kryteriów. Powiedziałem wtedy: "Ja natomiast stosuję". Uważam, że historyczna wiarygodność Pisma Świętego powinna być sprawdzana przy zastosowaniu tych samych kryteriów, co wiarygodność wszystkich pozostałych dokumentów historycznych. Historyk wojskowości C. Sanders wymienia i opisuje trzy testy, należące do podstaw historiografii. Są to: test bibliograficzny, test dowodów wewnętrznych i test dowodów zewnętrznych [C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History, MacMillan Company, New York 1952, s. 143nn.].
4.1 Test bibliograficzny
Test bibliograficzny polega na zbadaniu procesu przekazu tekstu, dzięki któremu dokument dociera do nas. Innymi słowy, gdy nie posiadamy oryginalnego dokumentu, oceniamy, jak wiarygodne są będące w naszych rękach kopie, biorąc pod uwagę liczbę manuskryptów i czas, który upłynął między powstaniem oryginału a napisaniem ocalałej kopii.
Możemy w pełni docenić ogromne bogactwo źródeł Nowego Testamentu porównując je z materiałem tekstowym innych sławnych dzieł starożytnych.
Historia Tukidydesa (460-400 przed Chr.) jest nam znana dzięki zaledwie ośmiu manuskryptom pochodzącym z około 900 roku po Chr., powstałym prawie 1300 lat po tym, jak została napisana. Manuskrypty Historii Herodota są równie późne i nieliczne, a mimo to, jak konkluduje F.F. Bruce: "Żaden humanista nie będzie chciał słuchać twierdzenia, że autentyczność Herodota lub Tukidydesa jest wątpliwa, mimo iż najwcześniejsze manuskrypty ich prac, z których możemy skorzystać, są o ponad 1300 lat późniejsze od oryginału" [F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1964, s. 16.].
Arystoteles napisał Poetykę około 343 roku przed Chr., natomiast najwcześniejsza posiadana przez nas kopia pochodzi z 1100 roku po Chr. (przerwa ponad 1400 lat i tylko pięć istniejących manuskryptów).
Cezar stworzył swoją Historię wojen galijskich między 58 a 50 rokiem przed Chr., a jej wiarygodność manuskryptowa opiera się na dziewięciu lub dziesięciu kopiach sporządzonych tysiąc lat po jego śmierci.
Kiedy dochodzi do oceny wiarygodności manuskryptowej Nowego Testamentu, bogactwo materiału w porównaniu z innymi pozycjami niemalże wprawia w zakłopotanie. Po odkryciu wczesnych manuskryptów papirusowych, które wypełniły przerwę między czasami Chrystusa a drugim stuleciem, ujrzało światło dzienne mnóstwo innych manuskryptów. Obecnie znamy ponad 20 000 kopii manuskryptowych Nowego Testamentu. Iliada z 643 manuskryptami zajmuje drugie miejsce pod względem wiarygodności manuskryptowej po Nowym Testamencie.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, który był dyrektorem i głównym bibliotekarzem w British Museum i największym autorytetem w dziedzinie manuskryptów, stwierdził: "Okres między powstaniem oryginału a najwcześniejszym ocalałym dowodem staje się tak krótki, że właściwie nie ma on żadnego znaczenia. Toteż ostatnie źródło niepewności, czy Pismo Święte dotarło do naszych czasów w formie praktycznie nie zmienionej, zostało usunięte. Zarówno autentyczność, jak i ogólna integralność ksiąg Nowego Testamentu zostały, jak można sądzić, ostatecznie ustalone" [Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, Harper and Row, New York 1940, s. 288, 289.].
Znawca greki, uczony J. Harold Greenlee, zajmujący się Nowym Testamentem, dodaje: "Skoro uczeni uważają dzieła starożytnych klasyków za generalnie godne zaufania, mimo iż ich najwcześniejsze manuskrypty pochodzą z czasów tak odległych od napisania oryginałów, a liczba ocalałych manuskryptów jest w wielu przypadkach tak niewielka, nie ma wątpliwości, że wiarygodność tekstu Nowego Testamentu nie może być podważona" [J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids 1964, s. 16.].
Zastosowanie testu bibliograficznego w stosunku do Nowego Testamentu utwierdza nas w przekonaniu, że jego wiarygodność manuskryptowa jest większa od jakiegokolwiek innego dzieła literatury starożytnej. Dodając do tej wiarygodności ponad 100 lat intensywnych badań krytycznych Nowego Testamentu można dojść do wniosku, że autentyczność tekstu Nowego Testamentu została stwierdzona ponad wszelką wątpliwość.
4.2 Test dowodów wewnętrznych
Test bibliograficzny ustala tylko, że posiadany przez nas tekst jest taki sam jak tekst oryginalnie zapisany. Trzeba zatem jeszcze ustalić, czy sam zapis oryginalny był wiarygodny i do jakiego stopnia. Zajmuje się tym drugi test historiograficzny wymieniony przez Sandersa.
Na tym etapie krytycy literaccy stosują ciągle zasadę Arystotelesa: "Dokumentowi należy przyznać prawo wątpienia. Krytyk nie może przypisywać tego prawa sobie". Innymi słowy, jak podsumowuje John W. Montgomery: "Trzeba dać posłuch prawdom głoszonym przez dokument, który analizujemy, a nie zakładać z góry fałszerstwo lub zakłamanie, chyba że jego autor sam siebie dyskwalifikuje podając sprzeczne lub nieścisłe dane" [John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1971, s. 29.].
Dr Louis Gottschalk, były profesor historii na Uniwersytecie Chicagowskim, przedstawia w ogólnych zarysach swoją metodę historyczną w podręczniku używanym przez wielu naukowców w badaniach historycznych. Gottschalk zauważa, że zdolność wypowiedzenia prawdy przez pisarza lub świadka jest pomocna historykowi w ustaleniu wiarygodności "nawet jeśli mamy do czynienia z dokumentem uzyskanym przemocą lub nieuczciwie, lub w jakikolwiek inny podejrzany sposób, lub gdy oparty został na pogłoskach" [Louis R. Gottschalk, Understanding History, Knopf, New York 1969 (wyd. 2), s. 150.].
Owa "zdolność wypowiedzenia prawdy" jest ściśle związana z bliskością świadka, zarówno w czasie, jak i w przestrzeni, od opisywanych wydarzeń. Nowotestamentowe relacje o życiu i nauce Jezusa pochodzą od ludzi, którzy albo sami byli naocznymi świadkami, albo relacjonowali wypowiedzi naocznych świadków wydarzeń lub nauki Chrystusa.
Łk 1,1-3 - "Wielu już starało się ułożyć opowiadanie o zdarzeniach, które się dokonały pośród nas, tak jak je przekazali ci, którzy od początku byli naocznymi świadkami i sługami słowa. Postanowiłem więc i ja zbadać dokładnie wszystko od pierwszych chwil i opisać ci po kolei, dostojny Teofilu".
2 P 1,16 - "Nie za wymyślonymi bowiem mitami postępowaliśmy wtedy, gdy daliśmy wam poznać moc i przyjście Pana naszego Jezusa Chrystusa, ale [nauczaliśmy] jako naoczni świadkowie Jego wielkości".
1 J 1,3 - "oznajmiamy wam, cośmy ujrzeli i słyszeli, abyście i wy mieli współuczestnictwo z nami. A mieć z nami współuczestnictwo znaczy: mieć je z Ojcem i z Jego Synem Jezusem Chrystusem".
J 19,35 - "Zaświadczył to ten, który widział, a świadectwo jego jest prawdziwe. On wie, że mówi prawdę, abyście i wy wierzyli".
Łk 3,1 - "Było to w piętnastym roku rządów Tyberiusza Cezara. Gdy Poncjusz Piłat był namiestnikiem Judei, Herod tetrarchą Galilei, brat jego Filip tetrarchą Iturei i kraju Trachonu, Lizaniasz tetrarchą Abileny".
Ta bliskość wydarzeń w stosunku do czasu dokonania samego zapisu jest nadzwyczaj skutecznym narzędziem upewnienia się, czy świadectwo zawiera dokładne dane. Historyk jednak spotyka się także z naocznymi świadkami, którzy, mimo iż znajdowali się blisko relacjonowanych wydarzeń i świadomie lub nieświadomie mówią nieprawdę, mimo iż są w stanie powiedzieć prawdę.
Zapisy nowotestamentowe o Chrystusie były w obiegu już za życia tych, którzy pamiętali Jezusa. Ludzie ci z pewnością mogli potwierdzić prawdziwość tych relacji lub im zaprzeczyć. Przedstawiając argumenty przemawiające za wiarygodnością Ewangelii, Apostołowie odwoływali się (nawet w konfrontacjii z najzacieklejszymi wrogami) do powszechnej wiedzy o Jezusie. Mówili nie tylko: "Widzieliśmy to" lub: "Słyszeliśmy tamto...", lecz także odwracali sytuację i przed najbardziej wrogo nastawionymi krytykami mówili: "Wy także o tym wiecie... Widzieliście to; sami to wiecie". Należy uważać, gdy mówimy oponentowi: "Sam to wiesz", ponieważ, jeśli nie mamy racji choćby w najmniejszym szczególe, od razu zostanie nam to wytknięte.
Dz 2,22 - "Mężowie izraelscy, słuchajcie tego, co mówię: Jezusa Nazarejczyka, Męża, którego posłannictwo Bóg potwierdził wam niezwykłymi czynami, cudami i znakami, jakich Bóg przez Niego dokonał wśród was, o czym sami wiecie."
Dz 26,24-26 - ""Tracisz rozum, Pawle - zawołał głośno Festus, gdy on tak się bronił - wielka nauka doprowadza cię do utraty rozsądku". "Nie tracę rozumu, dostojny Festusie - odpowiedział Paweł - lecz słowa, które mówię, są prawdziwe i przemyślane. Zna te sprawy król, do którego śmiało mówię. Jestem przekonany, że nic z nich nie jest mu obce. Nie działo się to bowiem w jakimś zapadłym kącie"".
Co do wartości zapisów Nowego Testamentu jako materiału źródłowego wypowiedział się F.F. Bruce, profesor na Uniwersytecie Manchesterskim zajmujący się krytyką i egzegezą biblijną: "Pierwsi głosiciele musieli brać pod uwagę nie tylko tych naocznych świadków, którzy byli przyjaźnie nastawieni. Byli też inni, mniej życzliwi, którzy byli równie dobrze obeznani z głównymi faktami dotyczącymi działalności i śmierci Jezusa. Uczniowie nie mogli ryzykować nieścisłości (nie mówiąc już o celowym przekręcaniu faktów), byłyby one bowiem natychmiast wykryte przez tych, którzy z radością zdemaskowaliby każdy fałsz. Jednym z mocnych punktów pierwszych kazań apostolskich jest jednak stanowcze odwoływanie się do wiedzy słuchaczy; mówili nie tylko: "Byliśmy świadkami tych rzeczy", lecz także: "o czym sami wiecie" (Dz 2,22). Gdyby pojawiła się najmniejsza tendencja do odchodzenia od prawdy pod jakimkolwiek zauważalnym względem, obecność wrogo nastawionych świadków wśród słuchaczy spowodowałaby z pewnością korektę" [F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents..., op. cit., s. 33.].
Lawrence J. McGinley z Saint Peter's College podkreśla jak ważne było istnienie wrogo nastawionych świadków w odniesieniu do zapisu wydarzeń: "Przede wszystkim naoczni świadkowie relacjonowanych wydarzeń wciąż jeszcze żyli, gdy tradycja przekazu została już całkowicie uformowana; a wśród tych świadków byli także zaciekli wrogowie tworzącego się ruchu religijnego. Mimo to, jak wiemy, opowiadano o słynnych czynach i publicznie nauczanych doktrynach w czasie, gdy fałszywe stwierdzenia mogłyby być i byłyby zakwestionowane" [Lawrence J. McGinley, Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives, Woodstock College Press, Woodstock, Maryland, 1944, s. 25.].
Robert Grant, uczony, znawca Nowego Testamentu z Uniwersytetu Chicagowskiego, pisze: "W czasie gdy były [Ewangelie synoptyczne] spisane lub przypuszczamy, że były spisane, żyli jeszcze naoczni świadkowie wydarzeń, których świadectwo nie było całkowicie ignorowane. (...) Co oznacza, że Ewangelie należy uważać za niezwykle rzetelne źródło wiadomości o życiu, śmierci i zmartwychwstaniu Jezusa" [Robert Grant, Historical Introduction to the New Testament, Harper and Row, New York 1963, s. 302.].
Will Durant, który kształcił się w dziedzinie badań historycznych i który spędził całe swoje życie analizując starożytne teksty, pisze: "Pomimo przychylnego nastawienia i teologicznych przekonań ewangeliści przelali na papier wiele wydarzeń, które przez zwykłych oszustów byłyby pominięte - spór Apostołów o pierwszeństwo, ich ucieczka po pojmaniu Jezusa, zaparcie się Piotra, niepowodzenia Jezusa w Galilei przy dokonywaniu cudów [z powodu niedowiarstwa Galilejczyków - przyp. red.], wzmianki niektórych słuchaczy o Jego rzekomym szaleństwie, wczesna niepewność Jezusa co do przyjęcia Jego misji, przyznanie się do nieznajomości niektórych elementów przyszłości, chwile goryczy, rozpaczliwy krzyk na krzyżu. Każdy, kto o tym czyta, nie wątpi w prawdziwość tej postaci. To, że kilku prostych ludzi w ciągu jednego pokolenia wymyśla tak silną i pociągającą osobowość, tak wzniosłą etykę i tak inspirującą wizję ludzkiego braterstwa, byłoby dużo bardziej niewiarygodnym cudem niż wszystkie cuda opisane w Ewangeliach. Po dwóch wiekach ostrej krytyki opisy życia, osobowości i nauk Chrystusa pozostają wyraźne i stanowią najbardziej fascynujący element w historii cywilizacji zachodniej" [Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, [w:] The Story of Civilization, Simon & Schuster, New York 1944, t. 3, s. 557.].
4.3 Test dowodów zewnętrznych
Trzecim testem historiograficznym jest test dowodów zewnętrznych. Jego istotą jest sprawdzenie, czy inne materiały historyczne potwierdzają wewnętrzne świadectwa samego tekstu, czy zaprzeczają im. Innymi słowy, jakie istnieją źródła poza analizowanym tekstem, które udowodniłyby jego zgodność z faktami, wiarygodność i autentyczność.
Gottschalk utrzymuje, że "zgodność z innymi znanymi faktami historycznymi lub naukowymi jest często decydującym testem dowodowym; nieważne, czy dowód pochodzi od jednego, czy od większej liczby świadków" [Louis R. Gottschalk, Understanding History, op. cit., s. 161, 168.].
Dwóch przyjaciół św. Jana potwierdza wewnętrzną autentyczność tekstu Ewangelii. Historyk Euzebiusz zachował zapisy Papiasza, biskupa Hierapolis (od 130 r. po Chr.): "Starszy [Apostoł Jan] zwykł też mówić: "Marek, będąc tłumaczem Piotra, spisał dokładnie wszystko to, co [Piotr] mówił, czy to o wypowiedziach, czy o dokonaniach Jezusa, choć nie w porządku chronologicznym. Nie był bowiem ani słuchaczem, ani towarzyszem Pana; ale, jak powiedziałem, potem towarzyszył Piotrowi, który adaptował swoje nauczanie tak jak wymagała tego konieczność, choć nie robił tego tak jakby zamierzał przygotować zestaw wypowiedzi Pana. Marek nie mógł się pomylić spisując Jego słowa; zwracał bowiem szczególną uwagę, żeby nie ominąć niczego i żeby nie zawrzeć żadnych nieprawdziwych informacji"" [Euzebiusz, Historia Kościoła, księga 3, rozdział 39.].
Ireneusz, biskup Lyonu (od ok. 180 r. po Chr.; w młodości Ireneusz był uczniem Polikarpa, biskupa Smyrny, który był chrześcijaninem przez osiemdziesiąt sześć lat i uczniem Jana Apostoła), napisał: "Mateusz opublikował swoją Ewangelię wśród Hebrajczyków [tzn. Żydów] w ich własnym języku, podczas gdy Piotr i Paweł nauczali w Rzymie i zakładali tam Kościół. Po ich odejściu [tzn. śmierci, która tradycyjnie przypisywana jest na okres prześladowań za Nerona w 64 r. i latach następnych] Marek, uczeń i tłumacz Piotra, sam przekazał nam w formie pisemnej zasadniczą treść nauk Piotra. Łukasz, towarzysz Pawła, spisał Ewangelię głoszoną przez swojego nauczyciela. Także Jan, uczeń naszego Pana, który także spoczywał na Jego piersi [jest to odniesienie do J 13,25 i 21,20], sam napisał własną Ewangelię mieszkając w Efezie w Azji" [Ireneusz, Przeciw Herezjom, 3. 1. 1.].
Często źródłem znaczących dowodów zewnętrznych jest archeologia. Wnosi ona duży wkład do studiów biblijnych, może nie w sferze inspiracji czy objawienia, lecz poprzez dostarczanie dowodów potwierdzających autentyczność opisywanych wydarzeń. Joseph Free, archeolog, pisze: "Archeologia potwierdziła wiarygodność niezliczonych fragmentów Biblii, które krytycy odrzucili jako niehistoryczne lub sprzeczne ze znanymi faktami" [Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press, Wheaton, Illinois, 1969, s. 1.].
Wspomniałem już, w jaki sposób archeologia spowodowała, że sir William Ramsay zmienił swoje początkowo negatywne stanowisko co do zapisów dokonanych przez św. Łukasza i doszedł do wniosku, że Dzieje Apostolskie są dokładne w opisie geografii, życia codziennego i społeczeństwa Azji Mniejszej.
F.F. Bruce zauważa, że "w miejscach, w których podejrzewano Łukasza o nieścisłości, jego wiarygodność została obroniona dzięki pewnym inskrypcjom [dowody zewnętrzne], można więc bez wahania uznać, że archeologia potwierdziła zapisy Nowego Testamentu" [F.F. Bruce, Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament, [w:] Revelation and the Bible, red. Carl Henry, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids 1969, s. 331.].
Historyk A.N. Sherwin-White, specjalizujący się w historii starożytnej, pisze: "co do Dziejów Apostolskich, potwierdzenie ich historyczności jest poza wszelką wątpliwością" i "jakiekolwiek próby obalenia ich historyczności, nawet w kwestii szczegółów, muszą wydawać się dzisiaj absurdalne. Historycy zajmujący się starożytnym Rzymem już dawno przyjmują to za rzecz oczywistą" [A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1963, s. 189.].
Po tym, jak osobiście próbowałem obalić historyczność i wiarygodność Pisma Świętego, doszedłem do wniosku, że jest ono historycznie godne zaufania. Jeśli ktoś odrzuca Biblię jako nierzetelną pod tym względem, musi też odrzucić prawie całą literaturę starożytną. Problem, z którym stale się spotykam, polega na tym, że wiele osób chciałoby stosować inne normy lub kryteria do świeckiej literatury starożytnej, a inne do Biblii. Musimy stosować ten sam test bez względu na to, czy badany tekst ma charakter religijny, czy też nie. Zrobiwszy to, uważam, że możemy powiedzieć: "Biblia jest godna zaufania i historycznie rzetelna w swoim świadectwie o Jezusie".
Dr Clark H. Pinnock, profesor teologii systematycznej w Regent College, stwierdza: "Nie ma innego dokumentu będącego wytworem świata antycznego, który byłby poświadczony tak wspaniałym zestawem tekstowych i historycznych dowodów i który przedstawiałby tak znakomite źródło danych historycznych, które można rozumnie wykorzystać. Uczciwy [człowiek] nie może odrzucić takiego skarbu. Sceptycyzm dotyczący historycznych listów uwierzytelniających chrześcijaństwa opiera się na irracjonalnym uprzedzeniu do nadprzyrodzoności" [Clark Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case, The Craig Press, New Jersey 1968, s. 58.].

http://www.ewangelia.com/page.php3?_text=ciesla4

==================

reszta bedzie niestety po angielsku:


Papias, A.D. 70-155, a pupil of the Apostle John ..., wrote, in his "Explanation of the Lord's Discourses," that he had made it his business to inquire of the Elders and followers of the Elders, and "The Elder said this also: Mark, having become the Interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he remembered—not, however, in order—of the Words and Deeds of Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor was he a follower of his, but later on, as I said, he attached himself to Peter, who would adapt his instruction to the need of the occasion, but not teach as though he were composing a connected account of the Lord's Oracles; so that Mark made no mistake in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For one object was in his thoughts—to omit nothing that he had heard, and to make no false statements.

===================

Rev. C.I. Scofield, editor of the Scofield Reference Bible gives a range of 57 to 63 CE.

H.L. Wilmington, author of Wilmington's Bible Handbook estimates 57-59 CE.

L.P. Pherigo, author of an article about the gospel in the The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, estimates 64 to 75 CE.

R. Shorto, author of "Gospel Truth" states that "Scholars believe that Mark was written about 70 CE."

================

When Were the New Testament Gospels Written?
Part 3 of series: Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?
Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005
When we're considering the reliability of the New Testament gospels, the date when they were first written seems relevant. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were composed fairly soon after Jesus's death, this would seem to increase their historical value. But if they were written much later, this would appear to minimize their trustworthiness as historical sources. (We must remember, however, that an eyewitness could fabricate events, while a careful historian writing much later could accurately portray the facts. But the basic idea that earlier gospels would tend to be more accurate is correct.)
There are dozens of documents called "gospels" that date from the first few centuries of the Christian era. Four of these appear in the New Testament; the others appear today in various collections, like the Nag Hammadi Library, the New Testament Apocrypha, and so on. Many of the non-canonical gospels don't resemble the New Testament models, except insofar as they contain information about Jesus. Almost without exception, the non-canonical gospels were written in the second or third centuries A.D. So, for example, The Da Vinci Code bases its notion of Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalene upon two "gospels," the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip. When were these "gospels" written? Almost all scholars date the writing of these texts to the second (Mary) or third (Philip) centuries. (The possible exception to the rule of the non-canonical gospels being written in the second century or later is the Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars would date in the first century. The majority, however, would place its composition in the first half of the second century.)

How does the dating of the New Testament gospels compare with the non-canonical gospels? Almost every scholar, of no matter what theological stripe, would date Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John earlier than all the apocryphal gospels (except for Thomas). Yet identifying the precise time of authorship is difficult and fraught with subjectivity. If, as I suggested in my last post, text critical scholarship leads to some of the most certain results when it comes to gospel studies, the dating of the gospels leads to some of the least certain.
We can be sure, however, that by 180 A.D., the New Testament gospels were well-known in church circles and believed to be authoritative. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his treatise Against Heresies, specifically mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that order, and refers to them as authoritative "gospels" that affirm the same basic rule of faith. The details mentioned by Irenaeus, having largely to do with who wrote these gospels, place their authorship in the latter half of the first century A.D. (Against Heresies 3.1.1-2).
"The Four Evangelists" by Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1614. Rubens uses traditional symbols for the four evangelists (gospel writers): Matthew/human; Mark/lion; Luke/ox; John/eagle.


Fifty years earlier than Irenaeus, a bishop named Papias, who lived in Heirapolis (modern Turkey), wrote a document known as An Exposition of the Lord's Sayings. It doesn't exist anymore, but it is quoted in other early Christian writings that we do have today. One of these quotations, in the writings of the church historian Eusebius, mentions that Mark wrote down things that Peter taught about Jesus, and that Matthew complied reports about Jesus "in a Hebrew dialect" (Eusebius, History, 3.39.15-16). Though the precise meaning of this passage from Papias isn't clear, it seems likely that he is referring to what we know as the gospels of Mark and Matthew. If so, then we have a reliable latest possible date for the writing of these two gospels: prior to 130 A.D., when Papias died. Moreover, what Papias says about these gospels dates their authorship into the first century.
Other arguments for the dating of the New Testament gospels refer to "internal evidence," to hints in the documents themselves that suggest a certain period in which the first writing occurred. For example, scholars pay close attention to the ways that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John talk about Jerusalem, especially in light of its destruction in 70 A.D. Yet if you read the arguments of this sort, they are filled with subjective judgments as to what an author "surely would have said" or "might have meant," and so forth and so on.
When all is said and done, almost all biblical scholars believe that the New Testament gospels were written in the latter half of the first century A.D. The most common dates for the writing of these gospels are:
Matthew: 70-80 A.D.
Mark: 60-70 A.D.
Luke: 70-80 A.D.
John: 80-90 A.D.
It should be noted, however, that there may have been earlier editions of these gospels, and that they may well contain earlier written sources. I'll say more about this later.
The New Testament gospels are assuredly earlier than all the other so-called "gospels," with the possible exception of Thomas, which may have been written in the latter part of the first century, though most scholars think it is somewhat later. This suggests that the biblical gospels are more reliable as historical sources than their non-canonical counterparts. But the conclusion that the New Testament gospels were written 30-60 years after the death of Jesus makes one wonder whether they can be trusted as historical sources. How did the gospel writers get back to what really happened two or three generations earlier? This, in turn, leads to questions about the sources used by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. To these questions I'll turn in my next post.

http://www.markdroberts.c...ble.htm#sep2805


======================


Scripture scholars were challenged to find one
passage in the four Gospels
giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D.
The dates of the Gospels
By George H. Duggan

When were the Gospels written? Or, to frame the question more precisely, when had the Gospels arrived at the state in which we now have them? The present text, we have reason to believe, was preceded by earlier drafts. If that is so, we could not say that the Gospel of St. Mark was written in 45, as we can say, for example, that Second Corinthians was written in 55 or 56.
If we accept the Gospels as the inspired word of God, does it really matter, one might ask, when they were written? In the days when everyone accepted the traditional dating,1 one could perhaps have dismissed the question as unimportant. But those days are long gone. Ever since Reimarus (1694-1768) sought to convict the evangelists of conscious fraud and innumerable contradictions, his rationalist followers have put the writing of the Gospels late, in order to lessen their value as sources of reliable information about the life of Christ and his teaching.
D. F. Strauss (1808-1874), in his Life of Jesus, (published in 1835-6), anticipated Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) in holding that the Gospels, although they contain some historical facts, were mainly mythology and were written late in the 2nd century. Similarly F. C. Baur (1792-1860), an Hegelian rationalist, held that the Gospels were written between 130 and 170. But Strauss, in the words of Giuseppe Ricciotti, “honestly confessed that his theory would collapse if the Gospels were composed during the first century.”2 If they were so early, there would not be enough time for the myths to develop. Moreover, it is plain that, the nearer a document is to the facts it narrates, the more likely it is that it will be factually accurate, just as an entry in a diary is more likely to be accurate than memoirs written forty or fifty years afterwards. John A. T. Robinson was therefore justified when he ended his book Redating the New Testament with the words: “Dates remain disturbingly fundamental data.”3
The current dating of the four Gospels, accepted by the biblical establishment, which includes scholars of every persuasion, is: Mark 65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s. These dates are repeated by the columnists who write in our Catholic newspapers and the experts who draw up the curricula for religious education in our Catholic schools.
For much of this late dating there is little real evidence. This point was made by C. H. Dodd, arguably the greatest English-speaking biblical scholar of the century. In a letter that serves as an appendix to Robinson’s book Redating the New Testament, Dodd wrote: “I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic’s prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud.”5
Many years earlier the same point was made by C. C. Torrey, professor of Semitic Languages at Yale from 1900 to 1932. He wrote: “I challenged my NT colleagues to designate one passage from any one of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D. . . . The challenge was not met, nor will it be, for there is no such passage.”6
In 1976, the eminent New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson, “put a cat among the pigeons” with his book Redating the New Testament, published by SCM Press. He maintained that there are no real grounds for putting any of the NT books later than 70 A.D. His main argument is that there is no clear reference in any of them to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple which occurred on September 26th of that year. This cataclysmic event brought to an end the sacrificial worship that was the center of the Jewish religion and it should have merited a mention in the NT books if they were written afterwards. In particular, one would have expected to find a reference to the event in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for it would have greatly strengthened the author’s argument that the Temple worship was now obsolete.
Robinson dated the composition of Matthew from 40 to 60, using dots to indicate the traditions behind the text, dashes to indicate a first draft, and a continuous line to indicate writing and rewriting. Similarly, he dated Mark from 45 to 60, Luke from 55 to 62, and John from 40 to 65.
Robinson’s book was the first comprehensive treatment of the dating of the NT books since Harnack’s Chronologie des altchristlichen Litteratur, published in 1897. It is a genuine work of scholarship by a man thoroughly versed in the NT text and the literature bearing on it. But it was not welcomed by the biblical establishment, and it was not refuted, but ignored. “German New Testament scholars,” Carsten Thiede has written, “all but ignored Redating the New Testament, and not until 1986, ten years later, did Robinson’s work appear in Germany, when a Catholic and an Evangelical publishing house joined forces to have it translated and put into print.”7
In 1987, the Franciscan Herald Press published The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac, a scholar who for some years was a member of the team working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He tells us he would have preferred “Twenty Years of Work on the Formation of the Synoptic Gospels” as a title for the book, but the publishers ruled this out as too long.
Carmignac is sure that Matthew and Mark were originally written in Hebrew. This would not have been the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, nor that of the Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.) but an intermediate form of the language, such as the Qumran sectaries were using in the 1st century A.D.
Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who died about 130 A.D., tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and Carmignac has made a good case for holding that the same is true of Mark. He found that this compelled him to put the composition of these Gospels much earlier than the dates proposed by the biblical establishment. He writes: “I increasingly came to realize the consequences of my work . . . . The latest dates that can be admitted for Mark (and the Collection of Discourses) is 50, and around 55 for the Completed Mark; around 55-60 for Matthew; between 58 and 60 for Luke. But the earliest dates are clearly more probable: Mark around 42; Completed Mark around 45; (Hebrew) Matthew around 50; (Greek) Luke a little after 50.”8
On page 87 he sets out the provisional results (some certain, some probable, others possible) of his twenty years’ research and remarks that his conclusions almost square with those of J. W. Wenham.9
In 1992, Hodder and Stoughton published Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke by John Wenham, the author of a well-known grammar of New Testament Greek. Born in 1913, he is an Anglican scholar who has spent his life in academic and pastoral work. He tells us that his attention was drawn to the Synoptic Problem in 1937, when he read Dom John Chapman’s book Matthew, Mark and Luke. He has been grappling with the problem ever since and in this book he offers his solution of the problem; but his main concern is the dates of the Synoptics.
Wenham’s book received high praise from Michael Green, the editor of the series I Believe, which includes works by such well-known scholars as I. Howard Marsall and the late George Eldon Ladd. The book, Green writes, “is full of careful research, respect for evidence, brilliant inspiration and fearless judgement. It is a book no New Testament scholar will be able to neglect.”
Green may be too optimistic. Wenham will probably get the same treatment as Robinson: not a detailed refutation, but dismissed as not worthy of serious consideration.
Wenham puts the first draft of Matthew before 42. For twelve years (30-42) the Apostles had remained in Jerusalem, constituting, in words of the Swedish scholar B. Gerhardsson, a kind of Christian Sanhedrin, hoping to win over the Jewish people to faith in Christ. Matthew’s Gospel, written in Hebrew, would have had an apologetic purpose, endeavoring to convince the Jews, by citing various Old Testament texts, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of David and the long-awaited Messiah.
The persecution of the Church in 42 by Herod Agrippa I, in which the Apostle James suffered martyrdom, put an end to those hopes. Peter, miraculously freed from prison, went, we are told “to another place” (Acts 12:17). There are grounds for thinking that this “other place” was Rome, where there was a big Jewish community and where he would be out of the reach of Herod Agrippa. There, using Matthew’s text, and amplifying it with personal reminiscences, he preached the gospel. When Agrippa died in 44, Peter was able to return to Palestine. After his departure from Rome, Mark produced the first draft of his Gospel, based on Peter’s preaching.
Luke was in Philippi from 49 to 55, and it was during this time that he produced the first draft of his Gospel, beginning with our present chapter 3, which records the preaching of John the Baptist.10 It was to this Gospel, Origen explained, that St. Paul was referring when, writing to the Corinthians in 56, he described Luke as “the brother whose fame in the gospel has gone through all the churches” (2 Cor. 8:18).
We know that Luke was in Palestine when Paul was in custody in Caesarea (58-59). He would have been able to move round Galilee, interviewing people who had known the Holy Family, and probably making the acquaintance of a draft in the Hebrew of the Infancy Narrative, and so gathering material for the first two chapters of the present Gospel. In the finished text he introduced this and the rest of the Gospel with the prologue in which he assures Theophilus that he intends to write history.
There are no grounds for putting Luke’s Gospel in the early 80s as R. F. Karris does,11 or, with Joseph Fitzmyer, placing it as “not earlier than 80-85.”12
The date of Luke’s Gospel is closely connected with that of Acts, its companion volume, for if Acts is early, then Luke will be earlier still. In 1896, Harnack put Acts between 79 and 93, but by 1911 he had come to the conclusion that “it is the highest degree probable” that Acts is to be dated before 62. If Luke does not mention the outcome of the trial of Paul, it is, Harnack argued, because he did not know, for when Luke wrote, the trial had not yet taken place.
C. J. Hemer, in his magisterial work, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, which was published posthumously in 1989, gives fifteen general indications, of varying weight but cumulative in their force, which point to a date before 70. Indeed, many of these point to a date before 65, the year in which the Neroian persecution of the Church began.13
In 1996, Weidenfeld and Nicholson published The Jesus Papyrus by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d’Ancona. Thiede is Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany, and a member of the International Papyrological Association. Matthew d’Ancona is a journalist and Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph, a London newspaper.
The book is about several papyrus fragments, and in particular three found in Luxor, Egypt, which contain passages from the Gospel of St. Matthew, and one found in Qumran, which contains twenty letters from the Gospel of St. Mark.
The three Luxor fragments—the Jesus papyrus—came into the possession of the Reverend Charles Huleatt, the Anglican chaplain in that city, who sent them in 1901 to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he had graduated in 1888. They did not attract scholarly attention until 1953, when Colin H. Roberts examined them. He dated them as belonging to the late 2nd century. Then in 1994, they came to the notice of C. P. Thiede, who suspected that they might be much older than Roberts thought. Examining them with a confocal laser scanning microscope, and comparing them with the script in a document dated July 24, 66, he came to the conclusion that the fragments should be dated as belonging to the middle of the first century.
The Qumran fragment is small—3.3 cm x 2.3 cm—an area that is slightly larger than a postage stamp. It contains twenty letters, on five lines, ten of the letters being damaged. It is fragment no. 5 from Cave 7 and it is designated 7Q5. A similar fragment from the same Cave—7Q2—has one more letter—twenty-one as against twenty, on five lines. The identification of this fragment as Baruch (or the Letter of Jeremiah) 6:43-44 has never been disputed.
In 1972 Fr. José O’Callaghan, S.J., a Spanish papyrologist, declared that the words on 7Q5 were from the Gospel of St. Mark: 6:52-53. This identification was widely questioned, but many papyrologists rallied to his support, and there are good reasons for thinking that O’Callaghan was right. Thiede writes: “In 1994, the last word on this particular identification seemed to have been uttered by one of the great papyrologists of our time, Orsolina Montevecchi, Honorary President of the International Papyrological Association. She summarized the results in a single unequivocal sentence: ‘I do not think there can be any doubt about the identification of 7Q5.’”14 This implies that St. Marks’ Gospel was in being some time before the monastery at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in 68.
Those who object that texts of the Gospels could not have reached such out of the way places as Luxor or Qumran as early as the 60s of the first century do not realize how efficient the means of communication were in the Empire at that time. Luxor was even then a famous tourist attraction, and, with favorable winds a letter from Rome could reach Alexandria in three days—at least as quickly as an airmail letter in 1996. Nor was Qumran far from Jerusalem, and we know that the monks took a lively interest in the religious and intellectual movements of the time.
New Testament scholars dealing with the Synoptic Gospels will obviously have to take more notice of the findings of the papyrologists than they have so far been prepared to do, however painful it may be to discard received opinions.
When was St. John’s Gospel written?
That John, the son of Zebedee, and one of the Apostles, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, was established long ago, on the basis of external and internal evidence, by B. F. Westcott and M. J. Lagrange, O.P., and their view, though not universally accepted, has not really been shaken.
St. Irenaeus, writing in 180, tells us that John lived until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, which began in 98. From this some have inferred that John wrote his Gospel in the 90s. But this inference is obviously fallacious. The majority of modern scholars do indeed date the Gospel in the 90s, but a growing number put it earlier, and Robinson mentions seventeen, including P. Gardner-Smith, R. M. Grant and Leon Morris, who favor a date before 70. To them we could add Klaus Berger, of Heidelberg, who puts it in 66. Robinson decisively refutes the arguments brought forward by Raymond Brown and others to establish a later date, viz. the manner of referring to “the Jews,” and the reference to excommunication in chapter 9.15 He adds: “There is nothing in the Gospel that suggests or presupposes that the Temple is already destroyed or that Jerusalem is in ruins—signs of which calamity are inescapably present in any Jewish or Christian literature that can with any certainty be dated to the period 70-100.”16
Robinson also points out that John, when describing the cure of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, tells us that this pool “is surrounded by five porticos, or covered colonnades” (5:2). Since these porticos were destroyed in 70, John’s use of the present tense—“is”—seems to imply that the porticos were still in being when he wrote. “Too much weight,” he admits, “must not be put on this—though it is the only present tense in the context; and elsewhere (4:6; 11:18; 18:1; 19:41), John assimilates his topographical descriptions to the tense of the narrative.”17
This article will have served its purpose if it has encouraged the reader to consider seriously the evidence for an early date for the Gospels, refusing to be overawed by such statements as that “the majority of modern biblical scholars hold” or that “there is now a consensus among modern biblical scholars” that the Gospels are to be dated from 65 to 90 A.D.
The account I have given of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels is categorical in style, but it is presented only as a likely scenario. However, it would seem to be more likely than one based on the assumption that among the Jews, a literate people, it was thirty years or more before anyone wrote a connected account of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
“I do not wish,” C. S. Lewis once said to a group of divinity students, “to reduce the skeptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.”18 This something else, I suggest could include the widely accepted view that the Gospels were written late.
It will be easier to do this if the reader is acquainted with the judgment of the eminent jurist, Sir Norman Anderson, who describes himself as “an academic from another discipline who has browsed widely in the writings of contemporary theologians and biblical scholars.” At times, he is, he tells us, “astonished by the way in which they handle their evidence, by the presuppositions and a priori convictions with which some of them clearly (and even, on occasion, on their own admission) approach the documents concerned, and by the positively staggering assurance with which they make categorical pronouncements on points which are, on any showing, open to question, and on which equally competent colleagues take a diametrically opposite view.”19

1 The traditional dating is given in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version in its introductions to the Gospels: Matthew about 36; Mark about 40; Luke about 54; John about 93.
2 Ricciotti, The Life of Christ (E.T. Alba I. Zizzamia), Bruce, Milwaukee, 1944, p. 186.
3 Redating the New Testament, SCM Press, London, 1976, p. 358.
4 Thus in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1989, D. J. Harrington puts Mark before 70; B. T. Viviani, O.P., puts Matthew between 80 and 90; R. J. Karris, O.F.M., puts Luke 80-85; Pheme Perkins puts John in the 90s.
5 Redating the New Testament, p. 360.
6 Quoted in J. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Hodder and Stoughton, London, p. 299 note 2.
7 C. P. Thiede and M. d’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1996, p. 45.
8 J. Carmignac, The Birth of the Synoptics, (E. T. Michael J. Wrenn) Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1987, pp. 6, 61.
9 Ibid., p. 99 note 29.
10 Robinson suggests that this may be the case, op. cit. p. 282 note 142.
11 R. J. Karris, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 670.
12 Richard Dillon and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice-Hall International, London, 1968, Vol. 2, p. 165.
13 J. Wenham, op. cit., pp. 225-226.
14 C. P. Thiede and M. d’Ancona, op. cit., p. 56.
15 Robinson, op. cit., pp. 272-285.
16 Ibid., p. 275.
17 Ibid., p. 278.
18 “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism” in Christian Reflections, Geoffrey Bles, London, 1967, p. 164.
19A Lawyer Among Theologians, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1973, p. 15.

http://www.catholic.net/r...97/gospels.html

=======================


Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.
Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. , Luke and Acts
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.
"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
"It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4
For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.
Matthew
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5
"Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6
This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.
"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).
Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9
John
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.
Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.
____________
1. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
2. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
3. Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper’s Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988.
4. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.
5. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
6. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985
7. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
8. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
9. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:01   

fakty o datowaniu ewangelii... czesc 2 (czesc 2 musi byc podzielona na 2 posty bo sie nie zmiesci:


czesc 2, scena 1


Gospels, the external evidence and dating
Front page: Jesus, a historical reconstruction

1. General comments:
"In his own book Papias gives us accounts of the Lord sayings obtained directly from Aristion or learnt direct from the presbyter John."
"And whenever anyone came who had been
[let's notice the past tense: the follower is alive then but the presbyters are likely deceased]
` a follower of the presbyters, I [Papias] inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord,
[Papias is getting third hand what the aforementioned disciples allegedly said]
` and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying. For I did not imagine that things out of books
[Papias knew of a "writing" by Mark, about the sayings & doings of Jesus]
` would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice."
The preference for "the utterances of a living and abiding voice", and also the anonymity of the (canonical) gospels, with their highly noticeable flaws & contradictions between them, would explain why they were not outrightly acknowledged soon after their publication.
In '2Peter', "we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (1:16), "cunningly devised fables" likely refers to gospel material, because next, Jesus' divinity is known only through a voice from heaven, and nothing else (such as witnessed extraordinary feats!):
2Pe1:17-18 "For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."
Notes:
a) This is obviously extracted from the transfiguration story of the Synoptics. Let's notice the embellishments ("from God the Father", "Excellent Glory" & "holy mountain"), as compared with the gospels.
b) The alleged words of God are more similar to the ones in GMatthew than those in the other gospels:
Mt17:5b "... "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!""
Mk9:7b "... "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!""
Lk9:35b "... "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!""
In '1Timothy', fables and genealogies appear to be an issue among Christians:
1Ti1:4 "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."
GLuke and GMatthew have long genealogies of Jesus, which are totally different between David and Joseph (names and numbers) and were likely the ones causing disputes.
Notes:
a) '2Peter' and '1Timothy' are dated 110-150 by most critical scholars.
b) Eusebius reported on the Christians being concerned by the two different genealogies:
'History of the Church', I, 7 "Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages ..."
c) The author of '1Timothy' appears also to have known GLuke:
1Ti5:18 "For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain [Dt25:4]," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages [Lk10:7].""
Still later, Tatian (around 165) is on the defensive when he wrote, in his 'Address to the Greeks', chapter XXI:
"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations [likely a reference to the gospels then, canonical & uncanonical]."
But next, after exposing Pagan beliefs:
"Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame. Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men [as Christ!]. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction."
Tatian asked:
"Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe [condescend to grant] us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales."
The message: you are not qualified to mock us about our own legend-like stories: you are believing in similar (or worst!) ones than ours!
Still later, Tertullian, in his Apology, dealt with Pagan criticism on stories showing up in the gospels:
Chapter XXI: "This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ. Receive meanwhile this fable, --it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved ..."
Chapter XXIII: "But at once they will say, Who is this Christ with his fables? is he an ordinary man? is he a sorcerer? was his body stolen by his disciples from its tomb? is he now in the realms below? or is he not rather up in the heavens, thence about to come again, making the whole world shake, filling the earth with dread alarms, making all but Christians wail ...? Mock as you like, ..."
For most of the 2nd century, these gospels were not always called 'gospel' (originally from the Greek "good news").
Let's note the same words were used extensively earlier on by Paul, but not as an alleged account of the earthly Jesus. Actually, the appellation "good news" for these Christian texts is rather odd, because they are only partially about happy claims. So it should not be surprising it took time for the name to be adopted. And the progression can be seen
- from Mark's gospel (70-71):
Mk1:1 "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ."
- to the 'Didache' (93-96, except for later interpolations):
Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray thus: " [the Lord's prayer, GMatthew version (6:9-13)] ..."
- to Aristides (124-129):
"And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein ..."
- to the Ignatian epistle 'to the Smyrnaeans' (125-145):
5:1 "But certain persons ignorantly deny Him [Christ] ... and they have not been persuaded by the prophecies nor by the law of Moses, nay nor even to this very hour by the gospel ..."
7:2 "but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished."
- to '2Clement' (140-160):
"For the Lord saith in the gospel, If ye kept not that which is little, who shall give unto you that which is great? [Lk16:10 (approximately)]"
- to Justin Martyr (150-160) (see quotes later)
When Christian writers started to use gospel quotes, no (or little) indication was given about their literary origin. That was the situation before the four gospels were declared to be sacred by the very prominent St. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, France) around 180:
Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", III, 11, 8:
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
In the same chapter (also III, 1, 1), he introduced an author for each one of the four: Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.
Note: in Irenaeus' surviving works, the author of the 4th gospel and 'Revelation' is often called "John, the disciple of the Lord". However, this John is never specified as a son_of_Zebedee/fisherman/Galilean/one_of_the_twelve or even "apostle" (but Peter, Matthew & the twelve are). That will be done later by Origen (203-250C.E.):
Commentary on John, I, 14: "John, son of Zebedee, says in his Apocalypse: "And I saw an angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the Eternal Gospel, to preach it to those who dwell upon the earth ... [Rev14:6-7]"
Commentary on John, V, 3: "What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast, namely, John, who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? But he wrote also the Apocalypse, being commanded to be silent and not to write the voices of the seven thunders. But he also left an epistle of very few lines. Suppose also a second and a third, since not all pronounce these to be genuine; but the two together do not amount to a hundred lines."
Irenaeus also gave plenty of identified quotes from each gospel.
Prior to that, from Eusebius 'History of Church', 3, 39, Papias (writing around 125) knew about a writing allegedly by Mark and supposedly commented upon by presbyter John (who died around 100-105?).
However "It was not, however, in exact order that he [Mark] related the sayings or deeds of Christ."
Why would Papias write that?
Most likely because he was addressing an on-going concern: in some cases, GMark order is conflicting with the one of other gospels, such as GLuke (see next note). That would be causing disputes. Consequently, in order to solve the problem, Papias provided an explanation (allegedly) from presbyter John (dead by then!):
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings."
With GLuke as the reference, whose author claimed:
"it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account ..." (1:3)
what would look out-of-order in GMark?
As examples:
A) About doings:
a) The visit to Nazareth:
- GLuke (4:16-30): at the start of Jesus' public life
- GMark (6:1-6): much later
b) The anointment:
- GLuke (7:36-38): before the trip to Jerusalem
- GMark (14:3): in Bethany, after arriving in the holy city
B) About sayings:
a) Lk10:27 <=> Mk12:30-31a
b) Lk16:18 <=> Mk10:11-12
c) Lk17:2 <=> Mk9:42
d) Parts of the apocalyptic speech (GMark13:1-37) are placed somewhere else in GLuke:
Lk12:11-12 <=> Mk13:11
Lk17:31 <=> Mk13:15-16a
C) About relative location of sayings and doings:
In relation with the feeding of the 5000 (Lk9:10-17 & Mk6:30-44), the parable of the mustard seed appears after in GLuke (13:18-19), but before in GMark (4:30-32).
Notes:
a) Papias likely knew about GJohn, because "... on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions" [as in Jn14:2] ..." (Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', V, 36) appears in one of the few surviving fragments of Papias' works. And then, as explained in John's gospel, from original to canonical, the author(s) of GJohn knew about GLuke. So it should not be surprising that people in Papias' community would also be aware of the third gospel.
b) Papias reported also about sayings (oracles) compiled in Aramaic by "Matthew". Because those are sayings ("logias") only, I do not see here any relation with GMatthew, more so owing to "compiled" (rather than "composed"), as shown in most copies of Eusebius' work (HC). Furthermore, the fact that "Matthew" was attributed a collection of sayings (therefore emphasizing Jesus as a sage) is supported by the gospel of Thomas: logion 13 "... Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."..."
Once again, it seems Papias was addressing concerns when he wrote:
"Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could [explaining why the "logias" came in different versions!]."
c) It seems Papias knew also about 'Acts' because the following, from his surviving writings, appears to provide an explanation on (or extrapolation from) how Judas "having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Ac1:18b Darby):
"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." (attributed to Papias by Oecumenius & Theophylact)
It is also the first time this Judas is mentioned, outside the gospels & 'Acts'. And because there is no attempt here to harmonize with GMatthew version (27:3-10), which has Judas hanging himself, it is likely Papias & his community did not know (or rejected) this gospel.
PS: other mention of Judas by Papias, from Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', V, 33:
"And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him. And he says in addition, "Now these things are credible to believers." And he says that, "when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, `How then can things [food products] about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord? 'the Lord declared, `They who shall come to these [during the kingdom of God] shall see.'""
Around 150, Ptolemy commented about the gospel prologue written by "John, the disciple of the Lord", as recorded by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', 1.8.5:
"John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it "Son" and "Only-Begotten God." ...
By this (Son), he says, was emitted the Word, ...
Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God." [Jn1:1-2] First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. ...
"The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made." [Jn1:3] For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aions that came after it.
But furthermore (he says), "That which came into being in it was Life." [Jn1:4a] Here he discloses a pair. ...
Indeed, inasmuch as he adds, "and Life was the light of human beings" [Jn1:4b], in speaking of human beings he has now disclosed also the Church by means of a synonym, so that with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair. ...
Paul, too, says this: "For anything that becomes visible is light." [Eph5:13?] ...
For he calls him a light that "shines in the darkness" [Jn1:5a] ...
And its glory was like that of the Only-Begotten, which was bestowed on him by the Father, "full of grace and truth" [Jn1:14b] And he speaks as follows: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld its glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." [Jn1:14a] ..."
Another point: because the first gospel(s) were not well established for a long time, many anonymous authors wrote other gospels and also numerous pseudo-historical Christian writings, about 200 of them, many in the name of Jesus' followers (or Paul). At least one got caught in the act:
Tertullian (160?-225?) wrote about books "which wrongly go under Paul's name," and the author of the 'Acts of Paul', which includes the unauthentic epistle 3Corinthians:
"in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office" (On Baptism 17)
They wanted to satisfy their brand of Christianity and the requirements & problems of their own community, with various degree of respect for what was written before. That would include the Gnostic writers, the author of John's gospel and also the ones of the two later Synoptics, who "improved" a lot from GMark (especially true for "Luke").
Another likely side effect of this explosion of "inspired" (and controversial) "histories":
Apologists (except Justin) avoided the "gospels Jesus" and based their argumentation mainly on the O.T., doctrinal/philosophical items and going on the offensive against pagan myths.
But other texts, such as the 'gospel of the Lord' (drawn from GLuke), written by Marcion around 130-140 and the 'Epistle of the apostles' (incorporating many elements from GLuke, GMatthew and GJohn), written 140-150, were faithful to the earlier gospels tradition.

The apology of Aristides, addressed to emperor Hadrian (117-138) (according to Eusebius), probably in 124-125 or 129, contains elements from GJohn and the Synoptics:
"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews,
[it is likely Aristides removed references of 'Pilate' and 'crucifixion' (performed only by the Romans) because the apology was addressed to the emperor]
` and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples ..."
Notes:
a) There is no mention of post-mortem appearances and "he rose and ascended" is only as heard from the twelve!
b) "God came down from heaven, and ... assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God ..."
It is very similar of the description from the introduction in GJohn:
Jn1:1 "... the Word was God." and Jn1:14 "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us ... who came from the Father ..."
Quadratus of Athens wrote also an apology at the same time of Aristides' one, according to Eusebius. A small fragment is preserved, containing probably the first reference (outside the gospels) of healing & resurrections by an earthly Jesus:
"Our Saviour's works, moreover, were always present: for they were real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth, but also a considerable time after His departure ..."
Basilides (120-140), as reported by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', I, 24, 4 "[Basilides thought] He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead, so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."
Note: Gnostic "teacher" Basilides, because he thought Christ could not die, used the synoptic gospels mention of 'Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross' to have the same Simon crucified on it, instead of Jesus.
According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book)
- Basilides knew about GJohn:
Chapter X "The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he [Basilides] says, from nonentities; the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."[words in italics are as in Jn1:9]" and
Chapter XV "And that each thing, says [Basilides], has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient [witness] when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come." [words in italics are as in Jn2:4]"
- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; "and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee," [words in italics are as in Lk1:35]"
- Basilides knew about GMatthew:
Chapter XV "And the Magi [afford similar testimony] when they gaze wistfully upon the star [according to Mt2:1-2,9-10]. For [Jesus] Himself was, he [Basilides] says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars,"
2. The case of Justin Martyr (150-160):
Justin Martyr, the most famous Christian apologist of the 2nd century, left us many writings. As other apologists of his times (Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch & Minucius Felix), Justin was initially a Hellenistic & Platonic philosopher who got converted late to Christianity.
Justin was most familiar with GMatthew and GLuke (with some knowledge of GMark: Trypho CVI quoted in next paragraph) and called those books 'gospels' (plural):
1Apology LXVI "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;
[scholars have proposed Justin was quoting from a harmony, but this is rather disproved by the aforementioned quote: Justin knew of several gospels!]
` that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone [the above rendition is a harmonization of the ones of GLuke & GMark/GMatthew]."
Trypho C "...but also in the gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father; [Mt11:27, Lk10:22]' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him. [Mt11:27, Lk10:22]'"
Note: "the gospel" appears to be an appellation for the combination of the known gospels, and not one in particular. This would apply to the previously quoted mentions of 'gospel' in the Apology of Aristides, the Ignatian letter 'to the Smyrnaeans', '2Clement' and:
Trypho X "Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them."
Actually, Justin greatly preferred to call these writings 'memoirs' (13 times in 'Trypho'!) rather than 'gospels'. As examples:
1Apology LXVII "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;"
Trypho CVI "He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder [only in GMark (3:17)];"
Trypho CV "For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,' [only in Lk23:46] as I have learned also from the memoirs."
Trypho CIII "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them,
[as for Mark and the author of GLuke (according to Lk1:1-2)]
` [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, [only in Lk22:44]"
Note: Lk22:43-44 is likely a later interpolation, because not showing in some early ancient Greek manuscripts. Furthermore, accepting that Lk22:19b-20 (with the only other reference of Jesus' blood) was probably also a late insertion because:
a) it is lacking in Codex Bezae & some early Latin translations.
b) it duplicates the cup offering.
c) it suggests 'Jesus died for your sins', but this concept never appears again in GLuke/'Acts'.
d) it copies from 1Co11:24-25, with words like "new covenant", "for you", "do this in remembrance of me", not appearing in GMark & GMatthew's versions of the Last Supper.
there was initially no mention of Jesus' blood in GLuke. Consequently, Lk22:43-44 might have been added later to counteract Docetists.
Justin quoted a fair amount of gospels material, but rather inaccurately and without naming his sources, introducing the quotes of saying as follows:
"His word being", "He taught us", "He said", "He thus persuaded us", etc, or, at best, as shown already, from the "memoirs".
Here is an example:
1Apology XV "Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire.""
Let's compare it with:
Mt5:28-29 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
Notes:
a) Justin was also inaccurate in quoting the O.T.:
1Apology XXXII "Moses ... spoke in these words [in which book? no mention]: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the nations ...""
Ge49:10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people."
Let's consider also:
1Apology XXXVII "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, and My people hath not understood. Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed, children that are transgressors, ye have forsaken the Lord."
Isa1:3-4 "The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not consider. Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD ..."
b) Justin introduced many O.T. quotes as coming from the "Spirit of Prophecy", often with no other identification.
Quotes about doings are often not introduced, and just paraphrases with some additions:
1Apology XXXIII "... but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her [only in Lk1:35], and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news [only in Lk1:26-27], saying, "Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus [approximate quote of Lk1:31-32a]; for He shall save His people from their sins [only in Mt1:21] ...""
But most of the argumentation is based on Old Testament texts, including many psalms, often quoted out-of-context, to "prove" that Christ's existence & crucifixion have been predicted. Also, Greek mythology and philosophers, such as Plato (a favorite of Justin), are extensively referred to.
From the gospels, Justin is mostly interested by sayings, the virgin birth/nativity, the baptism, the Last Supper and the arrest/crucifixion/ascension. He also mentioned 'Jesus on the donkey' (Trypho LIII, LXXXVIII), 'the disturbance in the temple' (Trypho XVII), and 'John the Baptist's preaching & imprisonment' (Trypho XLIX). Extraordinary deeds by Jesus are briefly mentioned in 1Apology XLVIII:
"heal all diseases and raise the dead" (as in Quadratus' apology, quoted earlier)
and Trypho LXIX:
"Christ ... healed those who were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their birth, causing them to leap, to hear, and to see, by His word. And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, ..."
However 'walking on water', 'calming the sea', 'the transfiguration' and 'the miraculous feedings' are never mentioned.

3. Introduction to the graphics:
a) The dating of the gospels does not take in account the later interpolations, as evidenced by the many additions/variations which do not appear in all the ancients manuscripts (such as Mk16:9-20). Other very likely interpolations include Mt27:8b-10, Mt28:16-20 & (as already explained on this page) Lk22:19b-20.
b) This web site provides explanations for the critical dating (through the internal evidence):
The four canonical gospels, "Q", 'GThomas' and (at the bottom of this page) '1Clement', 'Didache' & 'Barnabas'.
Concerning the gospels, the internal evidence for GMark is strong (70-71), moderate for GMatthew (85-95), weak for GJohn and more so for GLuke.
c) The relationship between GLuke & 'Acts' is examined in the 1st section of HJ-3b ('Acts' followed the gospel and not vice versa).
d) The relationship between "Luke" and Josephus' works is analysed in Appendix A ("Luke" knew of 'Wars', explaining historical mistakes in the gospel & 'Acts'; but the author was unaware of 'Antiquities' (published 93), which would have prevented the aforementioned errors).
e) For additional information and contents of early Christian texts used for external reference, please consult Peter Kirby's web site, Early Christian writings.
f) The dating allows for wide range of dates for many ancients texts. Also the strength of a particular writing is evaluated regarding its value as providing external evidence.
g) Because I consider the Ignatian letters to be unauthentic, the dating of those is considerably pushed back (125-145 applies for most of the "seven"; 'to Polycarp' was written later). For more info, see my page here. Of great interest is the following:
Ac10:41 ".... us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."
'To the Smyrnaeans' 3:3 "And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them ..."
h) Subsequent gospel(s) is/are used for external evidence, as other Christian texts.
i) Not included are writings/preachers relating to gospel material generally, such as the apologies (120-130) of Aristides and Quadratus (as quoted earlier). Also in the same category, with some synoptic content:
- Cerinthus, an early "Gnostic/heretic/Ebionite" (late 1st to early 2nd century)
According to Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', book I, chapter XXVI, 1:
"Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, ... He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles ..."
- The gospel of the Hebrews (written 90??-120)
- The secret book of James (written 100?-150?)
- Polycarp's epistle (written 130-150)
- '2Clement' (written 140-160)
- The gospel of the Savior (written 120-180?)
This Gnostic gospel seems also dependent on GJohn, and possibly GThomas (or vice versa).
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:02   

4. The two graphics:
The first graphic shows the external evidence mostly for GMark and GMatthew.
The second graphic is about GLuke and GJohn.

Note:
Mt24:30 "... and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven ..."
Rev1:7 "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, ... And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. ..."

Note: GJohn, the original version, could have been written as early as around 75C.E. See here for justifications.
Remarks:
A) Four examples of external evidence in ancient writings:
a) Let's consider the external evidence for Josephus and his works.
Josephus was the most important Jewish historian in antiquity. He wrote in his own name, enjoyed the support of the Flavian emperors and his main (titled!) writings ('Wars', 78 & 'Antiquities', 93) were well distributed. "Luke" (85) and Tacitus ('History of the Jews') (110) used some of the data from his books.
So we should have early unequivocal external evidence about Josephus and his writings?
Not really: Justin Martyr (150-160) may be the first to name Josephus, only in one writing, 'Hortatory Address to the Greeks', which is contested as pseudo-Justin. Here just one work is acknowledged ('Antiquities'), without quote from the historian, named solely in connection with Moses.
The first uncontested mention of 'Josephus' is from Irenaeus (175-185), again relative to Moses. No works of the historian are identified.
b) And what about Philo of Alexandria and his works?
Philo (died 45-50) was the most important Jewish philosopher/theologian in antiquity and the author of many books (some of them disappeared). But the first external reference of Philo appears not earlier than in Josephus' Antiquities (published 93). There (XVIII, VIII, 1), Philo is briefly mentioned as a Jewish leader and philosopher but not as an author.
c) Emperor Tiberius (died 37C.E.) is mentioned, with few details, in Philo's works (30-50) and Josephus' ones (78-93); but a complete description of his life & rule does not come before Tacitus' Annals (around 110). The earliest surviving manuscript of (part of) the Annals dates from around 850.
d) Under the influence of the Rabbis/Pharisees of Jamnia (70-100), Judaism considerably reshaped itself to become what it is today. But this crucial phase in the development of Judaism is known to us only by writings (such as the Mishnah), compiled/written not earlier than some one hundred years later.
B) This is typical of most authors, writings and events in antiquity:
Generally, the external evidence is scarce and comes late. This is mostly due to:
a) Few writings were produced then, reducing the odds of mention about earlier texts.
b) Later authors might not have known about pertinent earlier works, available only through a few scattered copies (example: "Luke" not aware of Paul's main epistles).
c) Few manuscripts were recopied before they wore out and other writings got destroyed by fire, wars, etc.
C) However, some contemporary "thinkers" apply modern expectations to the gospels external evidence (& assuming wrongly those were immediately seen as sacred). And by observing the late (unequivocal) identification of the four canonical ones (by Irenaeus around 180), they date them not earlier than the mid-2nd century!

5. Did '1Clement' (to the Corinthians) know about GMark?
5.1 Let's review two passages in '1Clement':

5.1.1 First passage:
1Clement, ch.13 "... being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy [1]; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you [2]; as you do, so shall it be done to you [3]; as you give, so shall it be given unto you [4]; as you judge, so shall you be judged [5]; as you are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you [6]; with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you [7]." ..."
Let's compare this with:
Mk 4:24 NASB "And He was saying to them, "Take care what you listen to. By your standard of measure it will be measured to you [7], and more will be given you besides""
and
Mk11:25 NASB "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you [2] your transgressions"
That's it. So if "Clement" copied from GMark, he added up more variations on the same theme (principle of reciprocity).
"Luke" and '1Clement':
If we suppose "Luke" knew about '1Clement' (confirmation later), but as Christian authors almost always do, rewrote and added on, then the following may be inspired from it:
Lk6:36-38 NASB "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful [1]. Do not judge, and you will not be judged [5]; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned [5+2?]; pardon, and you will be pardoned [2]. Give, and it will be given to you [4]. They will pour into your lap a good measure pressed down, shaken together, and running over [?]. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return [7].''
a) Let's notice:
- The "do not condemn" & "pour into your lap" clauses are only in GLuke.
- The word "pardon" (Greek root 'apoluo') differs from the one used by 'Clement", "forgive" (Greek root 'aphieni').
- The "do" clause of '1Clement' appears in GLuke, but in a different place (Lk6:31--see next) (also Mt7:12).
- The "do not judge" clause seems to have been relocated. And with the new rearrangement, the first four items in Lk6:36-38 are about dealing with foes, the last three about giving & receiving to/from friends. Therefore this re-ordering by "Luke" is logical and makes sense.
- The "give" clause is in GLuke but not in the other gospels.
b) Three of these clauses (not already in GMark) appear also in GMatthew, begging the questions:
Did "Clement" know about "Q"?
OR
Were items of "Q" generated from '1Clement'?
OR/AND
Did "Matthew" know about '1Clement'?
Here they are:
1) Mt5:7 NASB "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy [1]."
The Greek root for "merciful" ('eleemon') is the same in '1Clement' and here, but different in Lk6:36-38 ('oiktirmon').
Also GMatthew is closer to '1Clement' ("Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy") than GLuke ("Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful").
2) Mt7:12 "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them [3] ..."
This is also appearing (outside Lk6:36-38) in:
Lk6:31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise [3]."
Both versions are close to each other but differ significantly from '1Clement' ("as you do, so shall it be done to you")
3) Mt7:1-2 NASB "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged [5] ..."
This first sentence is almost word by word as in Lk6:36-38 ("Do not judge, and you will not be judged") but again differing from '1Clement' ("as you judge, so shall you be judged"). However, the second one is very similar to the one by "Clement".
And it appears we have a contradiction here: first "do not judge", then "as you judge"! It seems "Matthew" accommodated the two versions, that is the one from "Q" and the one from '1Clement' (as he did for the parable of the mustard seed, combining the "Q" version with Mark's).
What to conclude?
It is likely "Matthew" & (more so) "Luke" had '1Clement'.
But (for clauses 3 & 5) 'did "Clement" know "Q"?' or 'did "Q" use '1Clement'?' cannot be answered, more so because "Clement" modified many of his quotes (see later). Please note my dating of '1Clement' (see later on this page) and of "Q" (on this other page) allows me to accept any one of the two possibilities.
And still written later, 'Polycarp to the Philippians' has another order:
2:3 "but remembering the words which the Lord spoke, as He taught; Judge not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you [2nd as in 1Cle]. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy [#1 in 1Cle & GLuke!]. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again [last as in 1Cle & GLuke]."
Note: Polycarp knew about GLuke & GMatthew, possibly also about GMark & '1Clement', which did not prevent him to be innovative.
More about '1Clement' and "Luke":
a) 1Clement, ch.18 "... God said 'I have found a man after my own heart, David the son of Jesse; and in everlasting mercy have I anointed him?'"
The closest O.T. passages are Psalm89:20:
"[God saying] I have found my servant David with My holy oil I have anointed him"
and 1Sa13:14 LXX:
"[Samuel says] the Lord shall seek for himself a man after his own heart"
Let's notice the conflation, a specialty of "Clement"! More to come ...
And in 'Acts', we have:
Ac13:22 "... [as testified by God] I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, who will do all My will."
Who copied whom?
In '1Clement', David is named four times but never as "servant" (however Moses is declared God's servant four times!). But "Luke" did not have a problem with "servant David", which appears in Lk1:69 & Ac4:25. And if "Luke" copied from Psalm80:20, there was no reason to drop "my servant", more so because it fits "who will do all My will". All of that suggests strongly "Luke" used '1Clement', and NOT vice versa. Furthermore, "Clement" had to know about Psalm89:20, because he obviously extracted "I ... anointed him" from it. But "Luke" needed only '1Clement' when writing Ac13:22!
b) 1Clement, ch.27 "for nothing is impossible with God"
Lk1:37 NASB "[the angel Gabriel to Mary] For nothing will be impossible with God."
The expression "(nothing) ... impossible with God" appears only here in all the N.T.
c) 1Clement, ch.48 "make straight their way in holiness and righteousness ['en hosiotati kai dikaiosuna']"
Lk1:75 "... serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness ['en hosiotati kai dikaiosuna'] ..."
The expression "holiness and righteousness" appears only here in all the N.T.
d) 1Clement, ch.2 "And you were all humble-minded and in no wise arrogant, yielding subjection rather than demanding it, giving more gladly than receiving"
Let's notice "Clement" did not introduce the words in bold as being from Jesus. But "Luke" did embellish, as it seems:
Ac20:35 "... Jesus Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
5.1.2 Second passage:
1Clement, ch.46 "... Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ
["remember" implies the author thought those words were already known by the Christians of Corinth]
` "Woe to that man [2a]! It were better for him that he had never been born [2b], than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect [3]. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones [1] ...""
Let's compare this with:
Mk9:42 NASB " Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea [1]."
and:
Mk14:21 NASB "... but woe to that man [2a] by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born [2b (this segment has no counterpart in GLuke)].''
and:
Mk14:20,22,27 NASB "... elect [3] ..."
The aforementioned passage in ch.46 includes some rewriting (as for the example from ch.13), and then a 'cut & paste' from two sayings in GMark, all of that in order to fit the author's purpose. But the same occurs also in Mk1:2-3, combining Mal3:1 with Isa40:3; and Mk1:11, combining Isa42:1 with Psalm2:7; and Mk11:17, combining Isa56:7 with Jer7:11; and Paul's 1Co1:31 & 2Co10:17, combining loosely Ps34:2,44:8 with Jer9:23-24; and also Paul in:
Ro9:31-33 Darby "But Israel, pursuing after a law of righteousness, has not attained to [that] law. Wherefore? Because [it was] not on the principle of faith, but as of works. They have stumbled at the stumblingstone, according as it is written, Behold, I [God] place in Zion [Jerusalem] a stone of stumbling and rock of offence: and he that believes on him [Christ] shall not be ashamed."
What "is written" is parts of Isa8:14 & Isa28:16, with significant rewriting by Paul in order for him to make his point:
Isa8:14 "He [the Lord God] will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Isa28:16 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.""
See also Ro11:26-27 where "as it is written" incorporates parts drawn from Isa59:20-21 & Isa29:9, plus Paul's own redaction, once again in order to serve his purpose.
As we can see, "Clement" had examples to follow! And he was also prone to combine quotes, from the O.T. and other sources, to fit his agenda! More about Clement's creative quotations later ...
5.1.3 More about GMark and '1Clement':
The two aforementioned passages (in ch.13&46) are the only two occurrences of Jesus' alleged words in the whole of '1Clement'. And I am doubting very much Jesus' words in Mk9:42,14:21 can be his; most likely, they come from "Mark". And GMark was not the only early Christian work "Clement" knew about: he named Paul twice & was well aware of some of his epistles (ch.5,47) and also of 'Hebrews' (ch.36), the later using out-of-context quotes in order to support the author's agenda (as "Clement" appears to have done in ch.46!).
In chapter 16, "Clement" quoted the LXX version of the suffering servant (Isaiah53), "as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him [Jesus]". He kept close to the Septuagint except for his addition of three occurrences of the word "stripes" (Greek root 'plege').
a) "He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering" --> LXX (3) "he was a man in suffering"
b) "He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction" --> LXX (4) "him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction"
c) "the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes" --> LXX (10) "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke"
'Stripes' means strokes or blows with a rod or lash (or/and resulting wounds).
The three additions of 'stripes' cannot be a coincidence and is most likely a reference to the flogging of Jesus in Mk15:15.
'1Clement' also features other elements which appear in GMark, but not presented as Jesus' words:
a) 1Clement, ch.15 "For saith in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips ['Outos ho laos tois cheilesin me tima'], but their heart is far from Me."
Mk7:6 "... as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.""
Note: the order of the Greek wording 'Outos ho laos' is the same in '1Clement' and GMark, but different ('Ho laos outos') in the corresponding passages of GMatthew (15:8-9) and the LXX (Isa29:13). The quote is not existing in GLuke.
b) 1Clement, ch.27 "for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie"
This appears to be a conflation from:
Mk10:27 "... "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.""
and
Heb6:18 "... it is impossible for God to lie ..."
c) 1Clement, ch.24 "The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered ..."
Mk4:3-5a "... a sower went out to sow. ... As he sowed ... Some fell on stony ground ..."
d) 1Clement, ch.27 "When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away"
Mk13:30-31 "... till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away."
Did "Clement" also "mix & match" from O.T. scriptures, added on and altered?
The answer is YES. Here are some examples:
a) 1Clement, ch.17 "Who am I, that Thou sendest me? Nay, I am a man of feeble speech, and a slow tongue"
This is a conflation of Ex3:11 ("Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh...") and Ex4:10 ("I am slow of speech and tongue.").
b) 1Clement, ch.34 "Behold, the Lord, and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work"
This is from Isa62:11 "... Behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him."
and Pr24:12 "And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?"
c) 1Clement, ch.39 has a number of passages from LXX Job (4:16-18;15:15;4:19-5:5) but it is a mixture of exactness and inexactness, even though introduced with "for it is written".
The section from Job4:16-18 is an exact match, the section from Job15:15 is almost exact (although it is inserted right in the middle of the passage!), but the section from Job4:19-5:5 has significant changes.
And there are more of those in '1Clement' ...
d) Preceding "... Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Clement, ch.46) is the following:
"Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we should follow; since it is written, "Cleave to the holy, for those that cleave to them shall be made holy." And again, in another place, saith, "With a harmless man thou shalt prove thyself harmless, and with an elect man thou shalt be elect, and with a perverse man thou shalt show thyself perverse.""
First, let's notice there is no indication about where the two quotes come from (presumably the scriptures), just "it is written" and shows "in another place" (this is usual in '1Clement'. Sometimes the citations are not even introduced at all).
The first quote is most likely from:
Ex30:29 "You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy."
See how much approximate is Clement's citation. Same thing for the second quote, this one drawn from:
Psalm18:25-26 "To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd."
It is highly noticeable "Clement" made changes and inserted the bit about the "elects".
e) And "Clement" was prone to "massage" the scriptures to fit his own agenda. At the end of chapter 42, he wrote "For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.""
The closest we come from this quote is the LXX version of Isa60:17b, "I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy overseers in righteousness."
Concluding this paragraph, it appears that "Clement" treated Mark's gospel the same as for the O.T. scriptures: with conflations, additions, reshuffling and inaccuracies, and with little (or no) identification of the sources.
And there is more to come ...
"Clement" and 'Hebrews':
It is interesting to see how "Clement" treated 'Hebrews' (changes, additions & deletions!):
1Clement, ch.36 "... Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings ...
[this title is suddenly assigned to Jesus with no explanation. However, there are ten occurrences of Jesus as "High Priest" in 'Hebrews' (with extensive justification). None in the rest of the N.T.]
` who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
[from Heb1:3-4, with rewriting & deletion: "who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."]
` For it is thus written, "Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire."
[Heb1:7 "And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire."]
` But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: "Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.
[Heb1:5a "For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You"?
Notice the change in the order: 1:7 then 1:5a. The rest of the alleged God's words does not appear in 'Hebrews':]
` Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."
And again He saith to Him, "Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."
[Heb1:13 "But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool?"" Let's notice the progression: the author of 'Hebrews' enticed his audience to identify God's addressee, but "Clement" knows he is the Son! The same comment applies for Clement's rendition of Heb1:5a, quoted earlier]
` But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God [back to Clement's agenda!]."
More about 'Hebrews' and '1Clement':
a) Heb3:5 "... ['pistos en holo to oiko autou'] ..."
1Clement, ch.17 "Moses was called faithful in all God's house ['pistos en holo to oiko autou']"
It is word for word, letter for letter the same as the 'Hebrews' quote. The likely O.T. inspiration of the author of 'Hebrews', LXX Nu12:7, has a different wording: 'en holo to oiko mou pistos estin'.
b) Heb7:18 "... it is impossible for God to lie ..."
1Clement, ch.27 "for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie."
c) Heb11:36 "... They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins ..."
1Clement, ch.26 "Let us be imitators also of those who in goat-skins and sheep-skins went about proclaiming the coming of Christ; I mean Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel among the prophets ..."
'Hebrews' does not specify the preaching & the identities of those wanderers, but "Clement" added them up!
5.2 Dating:
Most scholars contend that '1Clement' was written in 96C.E., right after Domitian's persecution. The evidence they cite is solely from a sentence in ch.1:
"Owing, dear brethren [the Corinthians], to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves [the Christians of Rome], we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us"
However any persecution under Domitian (93-96C.E.) could hardly be referred as "sudden and successive calamitous events". Furthermore, Domitian's persecutions (supported from scanty evidence) were not momentous in Rome itself (and not even necessarily against Christians!).
But here, the calamities appear to be local: "...events which have happened to ourselves".
But if Domitian's persecution is not the events alluded to, do we have a record of successive calamities afflicting the Romans prior to 96C.E?
The answer is YES.
Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum--Divus Titus, c. 110 C.E.:
"There were some dreadful disasters during his reign [Titus], such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania [August 79C.E.], a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights [80], and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before [80]. In these many great calamities ..."
Note: the plague affected Rome and most of Italy, but not the rest of the empire.
Furthermore, there are a few passages in '1Clement' which point to a date of composition earlier than 96C.E. Let's review them:
a) 1Clement, ch.5 "Let us take the noble examples [Peter and Paul] furnished in our own generation."
Peter and Paul probably died in the 60's and would still be considered of the same generation as the recipients of the letters, some fifteen years later.
b) According to ch.42&44, some presbyters, who were allegedly appointed by the first apostles themselves, had just been deposed:
1Clement, ch.44 "Those who were thus appointed by them [the apostles], or afterwards by other men of good repute, ... and who for a long time have obtained a good report from all, these, we think, have been unjustly deposed from the ministry."
c) 1Clement, ch.23 "These things we have heard [the second coming & related events] even in the times of our fathers [when those were still alive]; but, behold, we have grown old,
[if the "we" were in their forties in 80, then they would be around twenty when Paul started to preach the gospel to them]
` and none of them has happened unto us."
d) 1Clement, ch.46 "Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you."
The author thought recipients of the letter were among the same ones addressed by Paul around 55C.E.
e) 1Clement, ch.6 "To these men [Paul & Peter] ... there was gathered a great multitude of the elect, who ... became a most excellent example among us."
Initial elects would still be alive among the Christians then.

6. The Didache, dependency and dating:
6.1 Dependency on GMatthew:
Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites, but [what follows is according to Mt6:9-13, with minor variations] as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, pray thus: "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us to-day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us from the Evil One
[above words of prayer in bold are specific to GMatthew and not found in Luke's version (11:2-4)]
for Thine is the power and the glory for ever
[those same words appear in chapter 10 and possibly (before an interpolation) also in chapter 9. This expression is therefore typical of the Didache. However, some ancient manuscripts of GMatthew show the same words (plus "Thine is the Kingdom and power" &, at the very end, "Amen") at the end of the prayer. What does that suggest?
GMatthew prayer was first, then copied in the Didache with the addition put at the end, then later copyist(s) "harmonized" the gospel according to the Didache version (and then added up some more!)]."
Ch.11 "And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel [what follows is an elaboration of Mt10:8b-14] ..."
There are other items from the Didache which appear only in GMatthew among the canonical gospels:
a) Ch.1 "If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two
["And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two." (Mt5:41)]."
b) Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites
["And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites." (Mt6:5a)]"
c) Ch.9 "... did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs
["Do not give what is holy to the dogs" (Mt7:6a)].""
d) Ch.10 "Hosanna to the God of David
["Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mt21:9&21)]"
e) Ch.16 "the false prophets ... the sheep shall be turned into wolves
["Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Mt7:15)]"
f) Ch.16 "then the sign of the sound of the trumpet
["with a great sound of a trumpet" (Mt24:31)]"
Generally speaking, all gospel-like material in the Didache have parallels in GMatthew (such as Mt5:39-44,46-47 (mainly "Q" for chapter 1)). Some material in chapter 16 is shared by all the Synoptics.
In other words, each of the gospel parallel in the Didache appears either in all the Synoptics, or in both GLuke & GMatthew only ("Q"), or solely in GMatthew.
Notes:
a) Ch.16 "let your lamps not be quenched and your loins not ungirded, but be you ready; for you know not the hour in which our Lord come"
A would-be parallel appears in GLuke:
Lk12:35-40 YLT ""Let your loins be girded, and the lamps burning, and ye like to men waiting for their lord, ... become ye ready, because at the hour ye think not, the Son of Man doth come.'"
First, let's notice the reverse order and the negative form in the Didache, certainly not copied from GLuke!
In GMatthew, we have the parable of the ten virgins (25:1-13) which features "lamps ... going out [quenched]" because of lack of oil (preventing some to join the wedding feast) and "those ready" (the ones who have extra oil).
The conclusion of the parable is "`Watch therefore, for ye have not known the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man doth come.'"
Let's consider also:
Mt24:44 "become ye ready, because in what hour ye do not think, the Son of Man doth come."
In conclusion, the above quote from the Didache may not be coming from Luke's gospel, even if it seems closer to GLuke than GMatthew; the "girded loins", an expression of readiness, could be coincidental.
Let's note "girded loins" appears also in '1Peter', as meaning "state of readiness" in the context of the expected "day of the Lord".
1Pe1:13 YLT "Wherefore having girded up the loins of your mind, being sober, hope perfectly upon the grace that is being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ"
b) Let's go back to:
Ch.10 "Hosanna to the God of David
["Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mt21:9&21)]"
"Son of David" is a favorite title in GMatthew (Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0). "Matthew" had Jesus called David's Son by (only in GMatthew) blind men (9:27), a crowd (12:23), a Gentile Canaanite woman (15:22) and children in Jerusalem temple (21:15). So it is very predictable he would have Jesus also acclaimed as "Son of David" by the crowd during the all important "triumphal entry" (21:9).
Therefore, the expression "Hosanna to the ... of David" originated most likely from GMatthew (with "Matthew" getting the very odd word 'hosanna' (Hebrew for "save") from Mk11:9). And with the wording extracted from GMatthew, "Son" was substituted by "God" in the Didache. It looks the author did not like that a particular someone be called "the Son of David"!
c) See here for more of my comments on the Didache
6.2 Dating:
A passage of the last chapter is most unflattering for the title of "Son of God":
Ch.16 "... and then shall appear the deceiver of the world as a son of god [also translated as "the Son of God" but ancient Greek has no capital letters], and shall do signs and wonders
[in Mt24:24, "great signs and wonders" will be given by false christs & false prophets, right before the "end"]
` and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began [Mt24:21].
... And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet [Mt24:31]. And third, the resurrection of the dead"
Here, a "son of god" is Satanic and the quoted 1st part of the passage is in the same frame of mind as elements of 'Revelation', with the "beast" and its "false prophet" (Rev19:20).
The "deceiver" is most likely emperor Domitian (81-96C.E.), the one of the great tribulation of 93-96: Domitian asked to be called "lord and god" during his rule. Also, he was the son of Vespasian, deified earlier (80C.E.) by Titus.
Suetonius (69-122), Roman historian, 'The Lives of the Caesars', Book VIII, Domitian XIII:
"With no less arrogance he [Domitian, early in his reign] began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, "Our Lord and our God [Latin: 'Dominus et Deus noster'] bids that this be done." And so the custom arose of henceforth addressing him in no other way even in writing or in conversation."
So "deceiver of the world" and "son of god" are most justified for Domitian (from a "Didachee" point of view!).
Because the "end" (and Kingdom) was supposed to be in the days of this great deceiver, it appears the Didache (the one with chapter 16 and minus a few later interpolations) was published then, that is before Domitian's death (Sept. 96C.E.).
PS: the latter interpolations (probably made around 140-170C.E.) would be:
- Whole of chapters 7, 12 & 15
- Part of verses 9:9 ("through Jesus Christ", with "power" & "glory" reversed), 10:2 ("and immortality"), 10:5 ("and eternal life") and 14:1 ("Lord's" out of "Lord's day of the Lord", the accurate translation from the Greek)
(chapter & verse according to J.B. Lightfoot's translation)
For translations and commentaries, go to Peter Kirby's page on the Didache


czesc 2 scena 2 nastapi . . .
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:02   

czesc 2, scena 2:


7. The epistle of Barnabas, dependency and dating:
Introduction:
The epistle of Barnabas is in reality anonymous. The author never called himself "Barnabas" (a contemporary of Paul and also an apostle to the Gentiles) or even pretended to be an early Christian missionary. He was against Jewish Christians:
Barnabas12:10 "Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesied being afraid and understanding the error of sinners ... David called Him Lord, and called Him not Son [of David]."
His letter to Gentile Christians was written after the temple & Jerusalem destruction (in 70C.E.):
Barnabas16:4-5 "... for because they went to war it [the temple] was pulled down by their enemies. Now also the very servants of their enemies shall build it up. Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed."
The uncanonical long epistle is very much in line with the earlier one, 'to the Hebrews', but much more extreme in its "allegories", with noticeable lack of logic & clarity.
Note: chapter & verse according to J.B. Lightfoot's translation
For more translations and commentaries, go to Peter Kirby's page on the Epistle of Barnabas
7.1 Dependency on GMatthew:
The epistle has numerous quotes from the scriptures and also allegedly from Jesus, which are not known from any other early Christian texts. However, it is likely "Barnabas" knew about bits & pieces of GMatthew (and possibly also GLuke and 'Acts'), probably by mouth to ears or recollection from past readings. Let's review the evidence:
a) Barnabas7:3 "But moreover when crucified He had vinegar and gall given Him to drink ..."
Only in GMatthew, Jesus is given a mixture of vinegar and gall at his crucifixion:
Mt27:34 "they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink."
Note: the gall is not necessary for the argument developed by "Barnabas" in 7:3-5.
b) Barnabas7:9 "... For they shall see Him in that day wearing the long scarlet robe about His flesh, and shall say, Is not this He, Whom once we crucified and set at nought and spat upon;"
Only in GMatthew (27:28) Jesus wears a scarlet robe prior to his crucifixion. The same robe is purple in GMark (15:20) and GJohn (19:2). No color is mentioned in GLuke (23:11).
Jesus is spat upon only in GMark (15:19) & GMatthew (27:30).
c) Barnabas5:9 "He came not to call the righteous but sinners"
Mt9:13 (also Mk2:17) "... I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners ..."
d) Barnabas4:14 "as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
It appears "Barnabas" was confused about the origin of this citation, not appearing in the O.T. But in the N.T., it shows in GMatthew and only here:
Mt22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Furthermore, the saying is typically Matthean, and about the treatment of undesirables:
Mt7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"
Also, the saying fits very well into the heavily "colored" all-Matthean ending (22:11-14) of the parable of the wedding banquet. More about Matthew's undesirables here.
PS:
a) 'Barnabas' and the gospels (generally):
Barnabas5:8 "... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel"
In the N.T., only the gospels describe Jesus as doing wonders & miracles and choosing his own apostles.
b) 'Barnabas' and GLuke?
Barnabas15:8 "... the eighth day [Sunday] for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens [same day]."
This is according to GLuke (24)
c) 'Barnabas' and 'Acts'?
Barnabas7:2 "... the Son of God, being Lord and future Judge of quick and dead ..."
Ac10:42 "He [Jesus] who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead."
7.2 Dating:
As we saw already, the epistle was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70C.E.
Can we determine a more accurate dating?
Let's consider:
Barnabas4:3-4 "The last offence is at hand, concerning which the scripture spoke, as Enoch said. For to this end the Master has cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.
[The end" was expected soon, as also in 4:9 "... let us take heed in these last days ..." and 21:3 "The day is at hand ...". This is typical of 1st century Christian writings]
` And the prophet also spoke on this wise; Ten reigns shall reign upon the earth, and after them shall arise another king, who shall bring low three of the kings under one."
The prophet is obviously Daniel (as named in the next verse); but do these ten and three kings make sense in a 1st century context?
The three kings might be the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and sons Titus & Domitian). It was ended by the accession to the Roman throne by Nerva (96-98), the same day of Domitian's murder. Nerva may have been thought to be the king who brought low the previous threesome.
Also, in chapter 16, "Barnabas" attacked the inadequacy of any man-made God's temple, past or future: did some Jewish Christians (or/and Jews) think Nerva, not from the same family of the ones who destroyed it (Vespasian & Titus), would allow its rebuilding? It is probable:
Barnabas16:1 "Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God."
What about the other seven kings?
This series of kings, obviously Roman emperors (as the following four ones, Vespasian to Nerva), had just to make some sense in order to be believed as part of a fulfilled prophecy. Who are the candidates?
1) Julius Caesar (49-44)
2) Augustus (44-14)
3) Tiberius (14-37)
4) Caligula (37-41)
5) Claudius (41-54)
6) Nero (54-68)
7) Galba (Jun68-Jan69)
8) Otho (Jan69-Apr69)
9) Vitellius (Apr69-Dec69)
Out of these nine "kings", two of them never got to be emperor ("princeps"): Julius was dictator for life and Vitellius took only the title of consul for life.
Or one might keep Julius Caesar, the true founder of the imperial system, and remove Otho & Vitellius, the short-lived inept usurpers.
PS: Clement of Alexandria provided two lists of Roman emperors in 'Stromata', I, XXI. The first one excludes Julius, Otho and Vitellius; the second includes the three of them:
"And nothing, in my opinion, after these details, need stand in the way of stating the periods of the Roman emperors, in order to the demonstration of the Saviour's birth. Augustus, forty-three years; ... Galba, one year; Vespasian, ten years; ...
Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus: Caius Julius Caesar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus ... Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian ..."


http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html


wasz sluga w Chrystusie

wyznawca_
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:03   

dodatkowo znalazlem pare ciekawych danych z roznych encyklopedii...

oto wyciagi...

encyklopedia Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA:
http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/20735_1.html

"Chronologicznie najstarszą jest Ewangelia Marka (ok. 70 r. n.e.); wraz z tzw. Źródłem Q i in. materiałami była ona podstawą do spisania Ewangelii Łukasza i Ewangelii Mateusza: te 3 Ewangelie zwane są Ewangeliami synoptycznymi. Natomiast Ewangelia Jana, literacko niezależna od nich, choć częściowo korzystająca z podobnych przekazów, powstała ok. 100 r. n.e.
L. STACHOWIAK Ewangelia według św. Jana, Poznań 1975;
J. KUDASIEWICZ Ewangelie synoptyczne dzisiaj, Warszawa 1986"


encyklopedia (interia.pl)
http://encyklopedia.interia.pl/haslo?hid=129422

"(gr. dobra nowina) nazwa wczesnochrześc. relacji o życiu i nauce Jezusa Chrystusa spisanych ok. 60-90 n.e. przez ewangelistów Mateusza, Marka, Łukasza i Jana; wchodzą do kanonu Nowego Testamentu; "

encyklopedia wikipedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewangelia

"Ewangelie wchodzą w skład Nowego Testamentu, zostały zredagowane w okresie 70-100r. Współczesne kościoły chrześcijańskie uznają za natchnione 4 ewangelie:"


jak wiec widac OFICJALNE ZRODLA podaja rowniez datowanie ewangelii na 1 stulecie naszej ery.

wasz sluga w Chrystusie

wyznawca_
 
 
kato
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:03   

Czyli MOŻNA podać jakieś źródła. Cieszy mnie.
Fajna sprawa (pomijając ten angielski bełkot), ale zastanawia mnie, że manuskrypty datowane na 130-150 r. n.e. mają potwierdzać zdarzenie, które nastąpiło bez mała 100 lat wcześniej.

Ale kierunek dyskusji dobry. Zaczynam mieć nadzieję
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:04   

kato,

Cytat:

Czyli MOŻNA podać jakieś źródła. Cieszy mnie.
Fajna sprawa (pomijając ten angielski bełkot),


angielski nie jest belkotem tylko jezykiem takim jak kazdy inny na swiecie ktorym mozna przekazac informacje.


Cytat:

ale zastanawia mnie, że manuskrypty datowane na 130-150 r. n.e. mają potwierdzać zdarzenie, które nastąpiło bez mała 100 lat wcześniej.


celem dowodow datowania ewangelii na 1 wiek naszej ery w tym temacie (nazaret) NIE JEST udowodnie rzeczy ktore nastapily bez mala 100 lat wczesniej tylko istnienie SPISANEJ ewangelii przed 3 wiekiem. moja rozmowa z paulina byla o tym ze paulina twierdzila ze NIKT nie napisal przed 3 wiekiem o miescie nazaret co ja nazwalem absurdem gdyz wszystkie 4 ewangelie ktore zostaly napisane w 1 stuleciu o tym PISZA. Radze kato przestudiowac nasza rozmowe dokladnie bo widze ze watek rozmowy sie zmienia.

wasz sluga w Chrystusie

wyznawca_
 
 
Paulina_____
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:04   

wyznawca_ napisał/a:

Ireneusz, biskup Lyonu (od ok. 180 r. po Chr.; w młodości Ireneusz był uczniem Polikarpa, biskupa Smyrny, który był chrześcijaninem przez osiemdziesiąt sześć lat i uczniem Jana Apostoła), napisał: "Mateusz opublikował swoją Ewangelię wśród Hebrajczyków [tzn. Żydów] w ich własnym języku, podczas gdy Piotr i Paweł nauczali w Rzymie i zakładali tam Kościół. Po ich odejściu [tzn. śmierci, która tradycyjnie przypisywana jest na okres prześladowań za Nerona w 64 r. i latach następnych] Marek, uczeń i tłumacz Piotra, sam przekazał nam w formie pisemnej zasadniczą treść nauk Piotra. Łukasz, towarzysz Pawła, spisał Ewangelię głoszoną przez swojego nauczyciela. Także Jan, uczeń naszego Pana, który także spoczywał na Jego piersi [jest to odniesienie do J 13,25 i 21,20], sam napisał własną Ewangelię mieszkając w Efezie w Azji" [Ireneusz, Przeciw Herezjom, 3. 1. 1.].


To jak było z Łukaszem? Łukasz cytował Pawła bo był jego uczniem i wszysto co sie dowiedział pochodziło własnie od Pawła, czy to Paweł cytował Łukasza bo tak był napiane w PISMIE które podobno sam dyktował ? :)

Poza tym co wiedział o zyciu Jezusa Paweł skoro naocznym świadkiem nie był i poznał Jezusa dopiero po jego śmierci? Jaką wiedzę o życiu doczesnym Jezusa mógł Łukaszowi przekazac Paweł?

Świadkiem czego był Paweł jeśli nie własnych nauk i przekonań?

Dlaczego Paweł w swych listach nie wymienia ani razu Nazaretu?
Dlaczego Paweł ani razu nie wymienia ani imienia matki Jezusa ani imienia jego ojca?

Skad więc pochodzi wiedza Łukasza o Nazarecie ?
Świadkiem czego był Łukasz jesli nie wyłacznie nauk Pawła?

Co do Ireneusza, który żył w drugiej połowie II w i zmarł na poczatku III., to jak on może zaświadczyć że jakieś 130 lat wczesniej zostały spisane ewnagelie?

Wyznawco, To tak jak ty byś chciał zaświadczyć ze w 1880 roku coś miało miejsce i ja bym twoje stwierdzenie uznała za dowód. Chyba żartujesz naprawde :lol:
 
 
Paulina_____
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:05   

wyznawca_ napisał/a:


Odkrycie wczesnych manuskryptów papirusowych (manuskrypt Johna Rylanda, 130 rok po Chr.; papirus Chestera Beatty'ego, 155 rok po Chr. i II papirus Bodmera, 200 rok po Chr.) zapełniło przestrzeń czasową między latami życia Chrystusa a istniejącymi późniejszymi manuskryptami.


Papirusy Chester Beaty sa datowane na 180-250, z czego listy Pawła na ok 180-200 a ewagelia Jana na 250 ne. Do tego się przyznaje sama Biblioteka Chester Beaty.
Inne instytuty papirologii maja podobne datacje:
http://www.cbl.ie/imagegallery/gallery.asp?sec=3
http://www.cbl.ie/imagega...p?sec=3&order=2
http://www.bibleandscienc...esterbeatty.htm

wyznawca_ napisał/a:

Albrighta, który był jednym z najświetniejszych archeologów zajmujących się tematyką związaną z wydarzeniami opisanymi w Biblii, pisał: "Możemy już z pewnością stwierdzić, że nie ma żadnej solidnej podstawy do tego, by datować którąkolwiek z ksiąg Nowego Testamentu na okres po 80 roku po Chr., czyli o dwa pełne pokolenia przed latami 130-150, podawanymi przez bardziej radykalnych krytyków Nowego Testamentu" [William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, Funk and Wagnalls, New York 1955, s. 136.]. Powtórzył ten pogląd w wywiadzie udzielonym magazynowi "Christianity Today": "Moim zdaniem wszystkie księgi Nowego Testamentu zostały spisane przez ochrzczonego Żyda między piątą a dziewiątą dekadą pierwszego wieku po Chr. (najprawdopodobniej między około 50 a 75 rokiem)" ["Christianity Today", 1963, 18 stycznia, s. 3.].


No to jest dowód co się zowie.... :D
A moim zdniem, stwierdzenie, że "moim zdniem" nie jest zadnym dowodem i nigdy nie bedzie. Zdanie takie może zresztą miec, i o ile wiem Albrighta miał do smierci... tylko co z tego, skoro dzis jego teorie zostały odrzucone

Zacytuje choćby:

Dzieło Albrighta jest ogromne. Jego wyniki zmierzały do wykazania podobieństw pomiędzy rzeczywistoscią Biblii a światem otaczającym Palestynę. Prace Albrighta są bezcenne dla wszystkich zajmujących się historią i religią Palestyny, jako zbiór informacji archeologicznych, wraz z toczacymi się wokół nich dyskusjami.
Stanowisko Albrighta nie było jednak neutralne. Głównie zadanie, jakie sobie stawiał, wydaje sie polegać na udowodnieniu historyczności przekazu biblijnego. Na podstawie tekstów z Ebli dowodził historyczności Abrahama, a w listach z el-Amarna widział dowody na historyczność przedmonarchistycznych wydarzeń opisanych w Biblii. Wysoce idealistyczne podejście Albrighta do badanej problematyki stawia go w rzedzie uczonych nie szukajacych prawdy, lecz jedynie dowodów dla poparcia swoich tez. Szereg nowych odkryć archeologicznych w dużym stopniu zdezaktualizowało jego syntezy, dodając nowe informacje źródłowe, lub też dokonująć rewizji twierdzeń, na których Albright sie opierał. Sztandarowym przykładem takiej rewizji danych archeologicznych, i w efekcie odrzucenie twierdzeń Albrighta, jest ustalenie historyczności wyjścia z Egiptu i podboju Kanaanu (według relacji z ksiąg Jozuego) oraz badanie poczatków osadnictwa izraelskiego w epoce brązu.

Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spano

Wara czyni cuda... ale nie w nauce [/b]
 
 
Paulina_____
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:05   

A tu cos o Łukaszu:

...Autor trzeciej ewangelii synoptycznej nigdy nie był najprawdopodobniej w Palestynie, co można wywnioskować z nieznajomości szczegółów topograficznych. Czy nadarzała mu się okazja praktykowania zawodu lekarza podczas wędrówek ze świętym Pawłem? Sądząc ze wzmianki uczynionej przez Pawła zapewne tak, chociaż ograniczały się one najprawdopodobniej do opatrywania ran i ulgi w schorzeniach, na które pomagała ówczesna wiedza medyczna. ...

To co wiedział Łukasz o Nazarecie i od kogo ? Jak sobie tłumaczył to że Jezusa nazywano nazarejczykiem ?
http://www.magazyn.ekumen...18092445204.htm
 
 
wyznawca_
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:05   

czekam na twoja odpowiedz na reszte punktow Paulinko (zostalo tego jeszcze sporo). jak odpowiesz na wszystkie to wtedy to skomentuje.

wasz sluga w Chrystusie

wyznawca_
 
 
Paulina_____
Gość
Wysłany: 2006-06-24, 11:06   

wyznawca_ napisał/a:


Odkrycia archeologiczne jeszcze sprzed dwudziestego wieku potwierdziły jednak dokładność manuskryptów Nowego Testamentu.
...
Millar Burrows z Yale mówi: "Porównanie greckiego Nowego Testamentu z językiem papirusów upewniło nas także co do dokładności przekazu Nowego Testamentu"
....
Sir William Ramsay ... Musiał wreszcie dojść do wniosku, że "Łukasz jest pierwszorzędnym historykiem (...) jako autor powinien być umieszczony wśród najwybitniejszych historyków"
...
Ramsay ostatecznie przyznał, że ze względu na dokładność Dziejów w najdrobniejszych szczegółach niemożliwe jest, aby były one dokumentem z drugiego wieku, lecz raczej z połowy pierwszego.
...
Wnioski dr. Johna A.T. Robinsona zawarte w jego książce Redating the New Testament (Nowe datowanie Nowego Testamentu) są zadziwiająco radykalne. Jego badania doprowadziły go do przekonania, że cały Nowy Testament został napisany przed upadkiem Jerozolimy w 70 roku po Chr.
...
Owa "zdolność wypowiedzenia prawdy" jest ściśle związana z bliskością świadka, zarówno w czasie, jak i w przestrzeni, od opisywanych wydarzeń. Nowotestamentowe relacje o życiu i nauce Jezusa pochodzą od ludzi, którzy albo sami byli naocznymi świadkami, albo relacjonowali wypowiedzi naocznych świadków wydarzeń lub nauki Chrystusa.
Łk 1,1-3 - "Wielu już starało się ułożyć opowiadanie o zdarzeniach, które się dokonały pośród nas, tak jak je przekazali ci, którzy od początku byli naocznymi świadkami i sługami słowa. Postanowiłem więc i ja zbadać dokładnie wszystko od pierwszych chwil i opisać ci po kolei, dostojny Teofilu".
...
Historyk A.N. Sherwin-White, specjalizujący się w historii starożytnej, pisze: "co do Dziejów Apostolskich, potwierdzenie ich historyczności jest poza wszelką wątpliwością" i "jakiekolwiek próby obalenia ich historyczności, nawet w kwestii szczegółów, muszą wydawać się dzisiaj absurdalne.
...
Po tym, jak osobiście próbowałem obalić historyczność i wiarygodność Pisma Świętego, doszedłem do wniosku, że jest ono historycznie godne zaufania.
...
"Biblia jest godna zaufania i historycznie rzetelna w swoim świadectwie o Jezusie".
...
Dr Clark H. Pinnock, profesor teologii systematycznej w Regent College, stwierdza: "Nie ma innego dokumentu będącego wytworem świata antycznego, który byłby poświadczony tak wspaniałym zestawem tekstowych i historycznych dowodów i który przedstawiałby tak znakomite źródło danych historycznych, które można rozumnie wykorzystać.


Poza zapewnieniam o wiarygosności tekstu biblijnego nikt nie przedstawia zadnych konkretnych dowodów.
Nie bede cytowała wszystkiego, wiekszosc jest w tym samym duchu napisana.
Napisanie tekstu w stylu: zbadałe i wyszło mi ze wszystko sie zgadza, to troche za mało...
Ja bym wolała wiedzić jak na przykład Ramsay udowdnił zgodnośc z faktami Dziejów, na czym sie opierała, do jakich źródeł śięgał etc. Ale tego włąsnie brak. Za to mamy w to miejsce, ze "wszystko sie zgadza". Skad Ramsay wie ze wszystko się mu zgadza tego już nie da się z tekstu wyczytać.
Czyli trzeba mu wierzyc na słowo.
 
 
Wyświetl posty z ostatnich:   
Odpowiedz do tematu
Nie możesz pisać nowych tematów
Nie możesz odpowiadać w tematach
Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów
Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów
Nie możesz głosować w ankietach
Nie możesz załączać plików na tym forum
Możesz ściągać załączniki na tym forum
Dodaj temat do Ulubionych
Wersja do druku

Skocz do:  

Powered by phpBB modified by Przemo © 2003 phpBB Group

Strona wygenerowana w 0,17 sekundy. Zapytań do SQL: 10