FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2007, 01:27 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii
Posts: 6,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Hengel must be pretty bright.


spin
Oh, you are just too modest.
RAFH is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 01:40 AM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 96
Default

Could be off-topic, but does anyone knows where are the original manuscript of the 4 Gospels and have it even gone through carbon-dating test like the Gospel of Judas did?
Johann Sin is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 01:55 AM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Oh, you are just too modest.
Hmm, I guess you're right. :angel:
spin is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 04:16 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johann Sin View Post
Could be off-topic, but does anyone knows where are the original manuscript of the 4 Gospels and have it even gone through carbon-dating test like the Gospel of Judas did?
We have no original manuscripts, everything we have is quite late. Also, carbon dating is not very accurate, no more so than paleography, and would not settle any of the dating issues generally discussed.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 06:31 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian View Post
We have no original manuscripts, everything we have is quite late. Also, carbon dating is not very accurate, no more so than paleography, and would not settle any of the dating issues generally discussed.
True. There are a couple of other points that people might wish to consider, which pertain equally to all literary texts from antiquity.

The idea of an 'original manuscript' rather infers something like the modern process of producing a manuscript which is then sent to the printers for dissemination. Once we consider that no such thing was involved, in the era of hand-copying, it becomes obvious that a lot of questions are being begged here. For the "Life of St. Columba" by Adomnan, for instance, there isn't one; Adomnan worked on the text throughout his life and copies were taken at various stages, whenever anyone wanted one.

Likewise the idea of a manuscript reflects a written culture. But since most works of the period would have been dictated, possibly to several scribes, this also raises various questions.

No authorial manuscript of any ancient literary text exists for any work composed before the 13th century (so Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars).

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 07:02 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
No authorial manuscript of any ancient literary text exists for any work composed before the 13th century (so Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars).
True, and the various components of the NT certainly qualify as "literary texts."

Note that we do have the originals of various "documentary texts," such as personal letters, contracts, receipts, and other kinds of day-to-day records because they were buried in a trash heap and later excavated.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 08:20 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
There is another angle to consider. It seems likely that some Christian texts were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. (Consider what Papias, for instance, has to say about Matthew, or what various fathers have to say about a Syriac or Aramaic gospel.) But those texts are lost to us, and it is quite possible that they were lost precisely because their currency, unlike that of texts written in Greek, was limited.

In that case, it is not really the case that early Christian literature is all Greek; rather, only the Greek specimens have survived.

Ben.
I wonder how the appearance of the LXX changed the accessibility of the Bible among the Jewish literate classes in the Diaspora, not simply because language issues but because of proscriptions that existed among Jews to copy the texts in Hebrew. The scribal authority was traditionally part of the priestly functions of the tribe of Levi. I note the hostility of the synoptics to the Levite scribes whom it classes with the Pharisees. This is noticeable especially in Matthew (7 'woes' to Luke's 1), which would be the closest to the Palestinian origins of the movement.

I strongly suspect a 'democratization' of biblical studies took place among the Jewish intellectuals with the spread of the Septuagint, with the resulting greater confidence of laity (like Paul) to interpret the texts. This would likely become another spot of friction for cosmopolitan Jews repatriating, or having regular ties, to Palestine.

(I am reasoning along the lines of the spread of Protestantism through the vernacular Bibles - of course minus Gutenberg. I.e. Did Paul and Luther have both a highly developped sense of smell when it came to the sociology of the middle classes/lower ranks of nobility- and the psychology of the graphomaniac ?)

Has anyone looked at this aspect of literary creativity at the break of the ages ? Much obliged.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 10:32 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
Default

From Catholic Encyclopedia :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11446b.htm
Quote:
Pantaenus : Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria about 180 (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, x), still alive in 193 (Eusebius, "Chron." Abr., 2210). As he was succeeded by Clement who left Alexandria about 203, the probable date of his death would be about 200. He was trained in the Stoic philosophy; as a Christian missionary, he reached India (probably South Arabia), and found there Christians possessing the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, which they had received from St. Bartholomew. All this is given by Eusebius as what was "said" (Hist. eccl., V, xi).
The fact that we have the Greek versions of the gospels does not mean necessarily that their initial versions were written in Greek.
Huon is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 10:46 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

I have several of the patristic comments on the original language of Matthew, including the Eusebian account of Pantaenus that Huon alluded to, on one of my web pages. It is far from exhaustive.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 05-02-2007, 10:56 AM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huon View Post
From Catholic Encyclopedia :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11446b.htm


The fact that we have the Greek versions of the gospels does not mean necessarily that their initial versions were written in Greek.
But the fact that there is direct word for word copying among them does.

Matthew couldn't have been written in Hebrew because it copies directly from Mark.

Even if Mark were written in Hebrew and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark in Hebrew, that all of them would have been translated identically is basically impossible.

Plus there are many other good linguistic reasons that show that Mark was originally written in Greek, probably by a Latin speaker, same goes for Luke. Since Matthew shares text identically with these, word for word, it too was originally written in Greek.
Malachi151 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.