Vinnie

Lets settle this. I am working with all Christian texts before the end of the first century. Included are some borderline texts which could go either way.

I do not restrict my study here only to NT work because for a historian that would be special pleading.


Any other books missed can be discussed later. For now I am interested in two things first for each work:

Its dating and any attestation of its contents withing the first hundred years of its life. I will accept dependence arguments. For example, if you accept the 2st then Matthean and Lukan manuscripts attest to substantial portions of the text of Mark as well.



Here we go:


The Lost sayings Gospel Q

1 Thess

Philippians

Galatians

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Romans

Philemon

Colossians

Signs Gospel

Hebrews

Didache

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Mark

Epistle of James

Egerton Gospel

2 Thessalonians

Ephesians

Matthew

Luke

John

Acts

1 Clement



Remember, I want a datee and all instances of textual attestation from within the first one hundred years of the work.

In part two of this study I would lik to go over some major instances of redaction//problems associated with each work--if applicable.

Vinnie

Celsus

Slightly off-topic, but did you ever get round to a formal debate on textual stability at Theology Web?

Joel

Vinnie

No, it was panning out into a "discussion" and it was Holding's position that "the NT is better attested than other works". I found that too vague and I agreed with it anyways. I've become even more skeptical of textual claims since then though.

Vinnie

CX

Quite an ambitious undertaking, one I certainly don't have time to pursue. Perhaps it would elicit more of a response if you did the homework and presented your findings here.

Vinnie

I'd be willing to take on some of the work load but not all of it. If anyone else is interesting in say, researching all the attestation for one boo in its first few hundre year existence sign up.

If we get enough people eventually they could all be done. But yeah, I'm not doing it all myself.

Vinnie

Doctor X

Are you looking for the earliest witnesses?

--J.D.

Vinnie

I'll take the earliest. How about froim ground zero up until 200 years after each text was supposedly written. Of these witnesses I would like them broken up into two sections:

For example:

Gospel of Mark:

Written ca 70 ad

Section 1: attestation from first 100 years (70 -170 c.e.)


Section 2: attestation from second 100 years (171 -270 c.e)

Now this is complicated by the fact that if you subscribe to the 2ST Matthew and Luke attest to Mark so you have to list "Matthean and Lucan manuscripts or attestation from the years 70-170 C.E for these documents under Mark. Of course if the attestation is for a special M or L or Q pericope not found in mark it should not be listed. Only triple tradition or Markan-Luke or markan-matthew material should be listed.

I'll start off as best as I can with the Gospel of Mark if I just get a few people who say they are interested in joing in//discussing this//doing a little leg work.

It would be a lot of work to do it all but it would probably be worth it.

Vinnie

Doctor X

Well, I am away from my library, but I believe Metzger wrote a book which is listed in Recommended Reading in which he lists all of the witnesses to the NT texts and evaluates and classes them.

Of course one can disagree with his classification, but I think that the basic leg work has been done.

--J.D.

jonatha

What is "2ST Matthew" shorthand for?

Secular Pinoy

You must be referring to Vinnie's remark: if you subscribe to the 2ST Matthew and Luke attest to Mark. The 2ST is is the Two Source Theory (sometimes referred to as the 2SH or Two Source Hypothesis). Basically, it is an attempt to answer the Synoptic Problem. You see, if you place the first three gospels (known as the synoptic gospels) side by side you would notice significant similarities in their stories and wordings, so much so that there is good reason to believe that they all must share a common source (or sources).

The common version of the 2ST says that Matthew's and Luke's gospels have as their sources two earlier gospels: the gospel of Mark (it is uncertain if the Gospel of Mark that they used is the one we have now, or another version of it) and a hypothetical Gospel Q (mostly sayings and aphorisms in Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark). A derivative of this theory is the Four Source Hypothesis, where, aside from Mark and Q, Matthew and Luke also used certain oral or written traditions that is unique to them (respectively M-Tradition and L-Tradition). This picture can give you a visual idea for the theory (the other material being referred to are the M and L Traditions of the 4SH) :



You can consult this website for a more comprehensive idea of the 2ST.