earliest version of the gospels

[jsimms615]

I was talking to a devout atheist on another forum and he said that some writings that were not included in the New Testament predate the gospels. Is that true? I was under the impression he read this from one of his atheistic magazines or something.
I also heard him say that he thinks a writer other than the gospel writers edited the scriptures decades after the apostles. I argued with him for a while, but gave up since we were kinda talking in circles and getting nowhere. A truly frustrating experience since I don't usually converse with atheist and really don't know any.

 

[a_ntv]

I was talking to a devout atheist on another forum and he said that some writings that were not included in the New Testament predate the gospels. Is that true? I was under the impression he read this from one of his atheistic magazines or something.
I also heard him say that he thinks a writer other than the gospel writers edited the scriptures decades after the apostles. I argued with him for a while, but gave up since we were kinda talking in circles and getting nowhere. A truly frustrating experience since I don't usually converse with atheist and really don't know any.

He is mainly right.

Ad instance the Gospel of Thomas is probably older of the Gospel of John. We have some excerpts also of the Gospels of Peter, Mary, Hebrews...(to speak only of Gospels...there were many other letters and revelations)
These books are called sometime 'apocriphas', but this term is used also for a very different question (some books of OT retained by CC and EO and deleted bu Mr Luther): so to say apocriphas is misleading.

In the IV century, the Church Tradition decided the canon of the NT, what to be included (bc orthodox in faith and old), what to be considered good but not inspired (like the shepard of Herma), what to be deleted bc un-orthodox, like the Gospel of Thomas.

The 'canon' matter is a hot topic here in CF. There are many threads about that.

Yes, many verses of the NT were edited decades after the apostles. Most of scolars agrees in this. (ad instance: Mt 28:19..). In fact we have no codexes of NT older than the IV century, and the ones we have have many differences in.

The Bible is God-inspirated indeed, but was not faxed from the Heaven

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I was talking to a devout atheist on another forum and he said that some writings that were not included in the New Testament predate the gospels. Is that true? I was under the impression he read this from one of his atheistic magazines or something.
I also heard him say that he thinks a writer other than the gospel writers edited the scriptures decades after the apostles. I argued with him for a while, but gave up since we were kinda talking in circles and getting nowhere. A truly frustrating experience since I don't usually converse with atheist and really don't know any.

I have to disagree in part with a_ntv, but the canon is a subject that is a bit complicated. I have written a little bit on the subject here. I can recommend two very good book on the subject:

The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce

The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger

Both these men are fine Christian scholars, Metzger has written a good bit more on the subject, but I have yet to read his other books on this subject.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[a_ntv]

I have to disagree in part with a_ntv, but the canon is a subject that is a bit complicated. I have written a little bit on the subject here. I can recommend two very good book on the subject:

The Canon of Scriptureby F.F. Bruce

The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger

Both these men are fine Christian scholars, Metzger has written a good bit more on the subject, but I have yet to read his other books on this subject.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

I have read the The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger: nice book, a little too protestant in attitude, but it is not on the apocryphas.

A nice easy reading is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman (nice to start...even if not a scolar book).

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have read the The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger: nice book, a little too protestant in attitude, but it is not on the apocryphas.

A nice easy reading is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman (nice to start...even if not a scolar book).

Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out. I read all the letters between St. Augustine and St. Jerome, because I knew they differed on the Deutro-Canon/Apocrypha, because of their disagreement on that subject. FF Bruce deals with the issue more than Metzger does.

BTW: The deutrocanon/Apocrypha are not deleted by Luther. Thy are in his translation of the Scriptures in to German, though he ddid not regard them as canon. They are also in the original KJV (though no regarded as Canon) they were placed between the OT and the NT.

In Christ,
Keith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have read the The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger: nice book, a little too protestant in attitude, but it is not on the apocryphas.

A nice easy reading is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman (nice to start...even if not a scolar book).

Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out. I read all the letters between St. Augustine and St. Jerome, because I knew they differed on the Deutro-Canon/Apocrypha, because of their disagreement on that subject. FF Bruce deals with the issue more than Metzger does.

BTW: The deutrocanon/Apocrypha are not deleted by Luther. Thy are in his translation of the Scriptures in to German, though he ddid not regard them as canon. They are also in the original KJV (though no regarded as Canon) they were placed between the OT and the NT.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[a_ntv]

Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out. I read all the letters between St. Augustine and St. Jerome, because I knew they differed on the Deutro-Canon/Apocrypha, because of their disagreement on that subject. FF Bruce deals with the issue more than Metzger does.

BTW: The deutrocanon/Apocrypha are not deleted by Luther. Thy are in his translation of the Scriptures in to German, though he ddid not regard them as canon. They are also in the original KJV (though no regarded as Canon) they were placed between the OT and the NT.

In Christ,
Kenith

The problem is not if some book are printed or not, but is they are in the canon.

Well, honestly for catholics and orthodoxes this is not a so big problem as per protestants, that base ALL their faith on the Bible.

 

[imind]

before reading any of those, an exceptional primer would be misquoting jesus by bart ehrman.

you will notice many books by ehrman, as he is a very well respected NT scholar. the book above, as i mentioned, is a good primer, meant to be read by someone with little or no knowledge of of the history of christianity or the bible.

and to answer your question, no, the gospels were most likely not written by matthew, mark, luke, and john, and yes they have been edited extensively over the years. many books contain more 'information' than our earliest known 'copies' of them, meaning that they have been added to (and in some instances, subtracted from).

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

before reading any of those, an exceptional primer would be misquoting jesus by bart ehrman.

you will notice many books by ehrman, as he is a very well respected NT scholar. the book above, as i mentioned, is a good primer, meant to be read by someone with little or no knowledge of of the history of christianity or the bible.

and to answer your question, no, the gospels were most likely not written by matthew, mark, luke, and john, and yes they have been edited extensively over the years. many books contain more 'information' than our earliest known 'copies' of them, meaning that they have been added to (and in some instances, subtracted from).

That is certainly the liberal "Christian" position. Don't forget to mention that these same folks (theological liberals) deny such "minor" parts of our faith like the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the resurrection, etc...

Ehrman is no friend of orthodoxy Christianity or a more conservative understanding of the Bible. IF you want read works on the canon by solid biblical scholars, who also happen to have a conservative position on the Canon, than read Metzger and Bruce.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[jsimms615]

That is certainly the liberal "Christian" position. Don't forget to mention that these same folks (theological liberals) deny such "minor" parts of our faith like the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the resurrection, etc...

Ehrman is no friend of orthodoxy Christianity or a more conservative understanding of the Bible. IF you want read works on the canon by solid biblical scholars, who also happen to have a conservative position on the Canon, than read Metzger and Bruce.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Thanks, I am familiar with Bruce, so I will probably start there. Thanks for the help.
Jeff

 

[imind]

That is certainly the liberal "Christian" position. Don't forget to mention that these same folks (theological liberals) deny such "minor" parts of our faith like the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the resurrection, etc...

Ehrman is no friend of orthodoxy Christianity or a more conservative understanding of the Bible. IF you want read works on the canon by solid biblical scholars, who also happen to have a conservative position on the Canon, than read Metzger and Bruce.

hahahaha. simply throwing the word liberal' in front of a mans name is a sure way to discredit him, heh?

ehrman began as a 'conservative' scholar: 'born again' his sophomore year of high school, graduate of the moody bible institute majoring in bible theology, finished fourth year at wheaton college(highly respected evangelical college) where he majored in english but also studied greek and hebrew, after which he decided to commit himself to textual criticism at princeton theological seminary under the guidance of bruce m. metzger.

opening the first few pages of misquoting jesus, one finds that ehrman actually dedicated this book to whom? bruce m. metzger, and ends his list of acknowledgements with...

i have dedicated this book to my mentor and "doctor-father,' bruce m. metzger, who taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work.

ehrman is one of the most respected biblical scholars in the country. lets not forward strawmen arguements to belittle him simply because someone told you to disagree (without even possessing the theological background he has).

 

[a_ntv]

Ehrman is no friend of orthodoxy Christianity or a more conservative understanding of the Bible. IF you want read works on the canon by solid biblical scholars, who also happen to have a conservative position on the Canon, than read Metzger and Bruce.

I do not agree with the underline statment.

We shall have no fear of the historical truth.

And the historical work cannot be lead by any 'undestanding' of the Bible.

Ehrman alwasy states in his books that "the Bible was not faxed by the heaven". He works studing the first centuries (very) different undestandings. Metzger ususally looks only at the 'orthodox' undestanding.

If you read some good scolar book on the critic of the NT text (comparing different papyrs and codex, like Aland & Aland The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions, probably the best on this argunet), you can understand that the greek text more used (textus receptus) is not the original one.

Ad instance, John 7:53-8:11 (Jesus saves the samaritan woman from lapidation), was surely not in the original Gospel of John (was omitted by P66,75 À Avid B Cvid L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 565 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 1333* 1424* 2193 2768 Lez ita,f,l*,q sirc,s,p,h copsa,pbo,bo(pt),ach2 got armmss geo slav Diatessaron Clemensvid Origen Crisostom Ciril Tertullian Ciprian)

Scolars stop here.
Now we shall ask ourself if John 7:53-8:11 is inspired or not. We like Jesus sayng: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her", but it was not in the original John.
Your ideas?

IMO this passage is anyway inspired, not bc written by John, but bc the Tradition of the Church have considered it inspired.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Ehrman's scholarship is not in question, however none of us live in a vacuum and no one is "unbiased." We all bring presuppositions and prejudices to every thing we do. I do this. You do this. Metzger does this and Ehaman does this also.

Ehrman's scholarship is not discredited by the term "liberal," just as Metzger's and Bruce's scholarship are not discredited by the titles "conservative" or "Protestant." But these terms do put them into certain important categories that are important.

Ehrman was a student of Metzger's at Princeton and has written introductions for some of Metzgers works. They obviously have high regard for one another.

I am not a KJV or Textus Receptus only person. I think textual criticism is important, but I also believe there are good and bad ways to do this and I know that ALL scholars have their biases, no matter how hard they may try to suppress them.

Ehrnman is on the liberal side of the spectrum and Metzger and Bruce are on the conservative side of the spectrum. THis is an important thing to keep in mind as you read all their works.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[imind]

you've made some valid points, cajunH, and i especially agree with the following...

Ehrnman is on the liberal side of the spectrum and Metzger and Bruce are on the conservative side of the spectrum. THis is an important thing to keep in mind as you read all their works.

one must have views from both sides in any discussion.