Clivedurdle

How much can the New Testament be seen as one work, yes from disparate sources, but consciously put together and edited into a whole?

mountainman

from here

Toto

A single editor with the intention of creating a single coherent work would surely have done a better job of smoothing out the differences and inconsistencies.

The NT looks more like a committee report that tries to accommodate a variety of factions.

storytime

Why would there have been a need for a new testament[testimony] from a Jewish sage/prophet? Did Jewish rabbi's at the time agree to the new testament as a valid resource to their tradition in laws and covenants?

Cesc

Dunno if there was a "need" for a new covenant (testament), but I believe that Jews in general had been expecting a savior ever since the Babylonian capture. And that trying to identify him/it was a big hit for Jewish writers in the centuries leading up to the turn of the era.

Jeremiah, chapter 31, prophesises about a "new testament" (covenant) with the laws "written on the hearts of men":
For comparison, IIRC, the followers of the Teacher of Righteousness, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, call themselves "the men of the new testament".

avi

here is a summary of the "Teacher of Righteousness". The article clarifies that there exists no clear consensus on his identity, with claims favoring figures of history from ~~200BCE at the earliest, to John the Baptist at the latest. No one identifies Iesous of Nazareth as this teacher.

Cesc

I know. Except John Allegro and some Swedish professor and some others, I think. At least as the basis for the Jesus of Nazareth character.

Clivedurdle

If you mean Ellegard that technically is not Jesus as he is commonly understood as he pushes Jesus back to 100 BCE.

storytime

On coming out of Egypt they had the covenant of circumcision. Moses would supply the laws that would be written in their hearts and minds which provided the elements for a new covenant.

In the story, Jesus doesn't make a new covenant with uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. He recruited people into his way, truth and life of Judaism. So I don't see any new covenant at all. Maybe instead of the Gentiles via Constantine/Eusebius having declared a new testament, they should have declared a new sect of God fearers within Judaism and which would have excluded Gentiles. But they needed a base, something to work their magic from, so they decided to have non Jews remain connected to Judaism via the character Paul in Pauls gospel.

If at Nicaea there were 318 bishops contributing to the whole book, (were they all Gentile?) and one man credited with its being written as valid precepts, then what can we conclude from that arrangement? It was their point of view from their authority to declare it? Where were the Jewish rabbi's and did they agree? I can't seem to find anything on what the rabbi's might have said on the matter.

Cesc

True, not as such.
The Holy Spirit kinda does, though, in Acts. Not in those words, of course.
Anyway, early Christians, at any time, had great Scriptural support for including Gentiles, such as Isaiah's universal God and 'Servant of the Lord' (42:1, 42:4, 49:6, etc.)


When was the title "New Testament" first applied to Christian writings?
And did 'the Scriptures' first recieve the name "Old Testament" at that same time?

Yes, I was thinking of Ellegaard. If Ellegaard means that the Teacher, 100 BCE, is the historical basis for the Jesus character we know, then I would say yes, that would be "Jesus" of the NT. (Perhaps not as he is "commonly understood", whatever that means)
Allegro has the Teacher crucified in 88 BCE.