Gospel Dates

[patg]

Like the Rylands fragment?

Or you mean an intire Gospel completely unscathed by the passage of time? What are you inferring, exactly?

I’m merely saying that the original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The translations all scholars use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

The translations all scholars use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament.

I think we should be surprised that some of the fragments have lasted as long as they did. It seems that you’re making the statment that since we don’t have “complete Gospels” until the 300’s, we can’t use the Gospels to know anything about the Historical Jesus, or we can’t say the Gospels were complete before the 300’s, or that they have been substantially altered, that we don’t have the Gospels in the basic original form Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s communities had them in. Right?

 

[patg]

It seems that you’re making the statment that since we don’t have “complete Gospels” until the 300’s, we can’t use the Gospels to know anything about the Historical Jesus, or we can’t say the Gospels were complete before the 300’s, or that they have been substantially altered, that we don’t have the Gospels in the basic original form Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s communities had them in. Right?

I’m not trying to make any “absolute” statements. I was just emphasizing that the quality of the sources for the gospel materials does not lend itself to the extreme literal historical statements made by some writers.

The following comment by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. on “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels” (Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 21, 1964) sums up some of my feelings:

*"The most significant thing in the whole document, when all is said and done, is that the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists. This form, however, reflects the two previous stages, and the second more than the first. It is good to recall that this redacted form of the sayings and deeds of Jesus which the Evangelists give us is the inspired form. The Evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit to compile and write down the accounts as they did. This inspiration guarantees their Gospel truth, which is free from error. But it is also good to recall that neither the Church in her official pronouncements on the nature of inspiration, nor the theologians in their speculative treatments of it, have taught that the necessary formal effect of inspiration is historicity." *

 

[buffalo]

Are the Gospels Historical?

In the wake of the movie The Passion of The Christ many have asked if the Gospel accounts are reliable sources of information on the death of Jesus, or on His life and teaching for that matter. Some scholars and clergy, even Catholics, have argued that the Gospels are statements of faith and not history, that they were written well after the fact, even as late as the second century, and that they therefore represent the teachings of the developing Church not the events as they actually occurred. This view, unfortunately, has also found its way into parish catechetics and homiletics, as evidenced by efforts to explain away the miracles, healings and exorcisms of the Lord. These “theories”, however, run counter to the witness of the Gospels themselves, the testimony of the Fathers and the constant and unanimous teaching of the Church. Consider, for example, what St. Luke reports he was doing in writing his Gospel.

…Finally, the Catechism gives special mention to the circumstances of Jesus’ death, since the Passion, Death and Resurrection are the foundation of the Christian faith. To deny the veracity of the accounts is tantamount to denying the faith, placing it on the sands of human opinion, or retroactive wishful thinking by the early Church, rather than history.

 

[buffalo]

**The Historicity of the Gospels

****Instruction of the Pontifical Bible Commission

…**Care must be taken "that the heated atmosphere of dispute does not overstep the bounds of mutual charity; that such disputes do not give the impression that divine truths and sacred Traditions are being called into question. If the spirit of harmony and full respect for principles does not exist, we cannot expect much progress in this field from the varied studies undertaken by many different people."4

 

[buffalo]

and specially fo ryou patg, since you so often quote Dei Verbum.

What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?

 

[patg]

…Finally, the Catechism gives special mention to the circumstances of Jesus’ death, since the Passion, Death and Resurrection are the foundation of the Christian faith. To deny the veracity of the accounts is tantamount to denying the faith, placing it on the sands of human opinion, or retroactive wishful thinking by the early Church, rather than history.

Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.

Appeals to New Testament canon as a timeless source of unchanging Truth obscure both the living processes of religious faith and practice, and suffocate human responsibility under the cloak of authoritarianism.

Tradition is not simply the unchanged materials handed down from the past; rather people living in the present decide on and indeed fight for what will constitute their true tradition. In doing so, they appropriate some elements of the past and reject others. Even the elements of the past that are kept take on new meanings by being deployed in new and changing contexts.

 

[patg]

and specially fo ryou patg, since you so often quote Dei Verbum.

What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?

As I have said many times before in these discussions, Dei Verbum can be selectively quoted to support almost any position. Several of us have discussed this issue in the past and it has net been clarified since then. I’ll use my quotes and you can use yours and we’re both still searching for the truth.

What essentially we have here is the collision of two views of the Church. On the one hand a juvenile and superstitious fundamentalism which ranges on issues from Adam and Eve to Noah’s arc to the resurrection of the dead. And the other, a group often equally as devoted to the Truth but simultaneously recognizing the past mythological nature of so much which has been handed down, misunderstood and misappropriated as inerrant revelation.

 

[buffalo]

As I have said many times before in these discussions, Dei Verbum can be selectively quoted to support almost any position. Several of us have discussed this issue in the past and it has net been clarified since then. I’ll use my quotes and you can use yours and we’re both still searching for the truth.

What essentially we have here is the collision of two views of the Church. On the one hand a juvenile and superstitious fundamentalism which ranges on issues from Adam and Eve to Noah’s arc to the resurrection of the dead. And the other, a group often equally as devoted to the Truth but simultaneously recognizing the past mythological nature of so much which has been handed down, misunderstood and misappropriated as inerrant revelation.

Then we agree not to use Dei Verbum in our debate anymore?

 

[Maranatha]

Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.

I agree that we should apply the historical method when analyzing the documents. The method should be consistent when applied to all periods of history: Christian and Non-Christian. What we can’t do is apply the historical critical method with an unstated assumption that miracles can not happen. When that method and assumption are used you automatically start with a conclusion that Christian history is false.

If you start from a philosophical position that the supernatural does not exist then you will have predetermined outcome against the historicity of Christianity. If your philosophical position is open minded to the possibility that there may be more then the natural world, then the resurrection becomes a fact that has more evidence then any other ancient event.

 

[Gnosis]

I think its very clear that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. Yes, a tradition says they are, but in actually examining them, we find the contrary.

Why doesn’t Mark attach his name to his document? Why does he fail to mention he was a companion of any of the Apostles? How come he seems to have no direct knowledge of the epistles of Paul? How come none of it is written in the first person?

The same goes with Matthew. Why doesn’t the author actually indicate that he was there and witnessed these things? Wouldn’t that make sense to someone trying to prove the outstanding and nearly unbelievable claims of the work? “I saw Jesus do this…”?

The fact is the actual works provide no evidence that they are linked to the apostles eye witness accounts. Why would we believe traditions that came decades later suddenly claiming they were? Especially during a time in which competing versions of Christianity were circulating. Claiming your work to be an eyewitness account is the best way to assert your version is true!

 

[lak611]

The early Church Fathers believed the Gospels to be true and to be written by the people whose names are given as the authors. That is all I need to know. The Evangelists were practicing Christian humility by not giving their names in the text.

 

[thistle]

I think its very clear that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. Yes, a tradition says they are, but in actually examining them, we find the contrary.

Why doesn’t Mark attach his name to his document? Why does he fail to mention he was a companion of any of the Apostles? How come he seems to have no direct knowledge of the epistles of Paul? How come none of it is written in the first person?

The same goes with Matthew. Why doesn’t the author actually indicate that he was there and witnessed these things? Wouldn’t that make sense to someone trying to prove the outstanding and nearly unbelievable claims of the work? “I saw Jesus do this…”?

The fact is the actual works provide no evidence that they are linked to the apostles eye witness accounts. Why would we believe traditions that came decades later suddenly claiming they were? Especially during a time in which competing versions of Christianity were circulating. Claiming your work to be an eyewitness account is the best way to assert your version is true!

You are obviously not a Catholic or even a Protestant.
What you saying is total rubbish!!! What credible scholars over the past two thousand years up to now would go along with such heresies!

 

[lak611]

You are obviously not a Catholic or even a Protestant.
What you saying is total rubbish!!! What credible scholars over the past two thousand years up to now would go along with such heresies!

The early Church Fathers believed the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts (in the case of Matthew and John) or written by persons who knew eyewitnesses (Mark, a companion of St. Peter; and Luke, a companion of St. Paul, who was an eyewitness of Christ at his conversion). It is rubbish to try to say that the Gospels are not historical, because then that means Jesus never lived on earth, His miracles never happened, He never died and rose, etc. The Evangelists did not record ALL events of Jesus’ life on earth, but the events they recorded ARE true.

 

[Maranatha]

Why doesn’t Mark attach his name to his document? Why does he fail to mention he was a companion of any of the Apostles? How come none of it is written in the first person?

Humility.

This is one reason it’s hard for a non-Christian to understand the historicity of the documents. In the early Christian Church a very high value was placed on individual and group humility. It’s a cultural thing that exists down to this day.

How come he seems to have no direct knowledge of the epistles of Paul?

I don’t understand how you can even ask this question. One was a gospel (God’s Tale) and one was a letter.

 

[buffalo]

I think its very clear that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. Yes, a tradition says they are, but in actually examining them, we find the contrary.

Why doesn’t Mark attach his name to his document? Why does he fail to mention he was a companion of any of the Apostles? How come he seems to have no direct knowledge of the epistles of Paul? How come none of it is written in the first person?

The same goes with Matthew. Why doesn’t the author actually indicate that he was there and witnessed these things? Wouldn’t that make sense to someone trying to prove the outstanding and nearly unbelievable claims of the work? “I saw Jesus do this…”?

The fact is the actual works provide no evidence that they are linked to the apostles eye witness accounts. Why would we believe traditions that came decades later suddenly claiming they were? Especially during a time in which competing versions of Christianity were circulating. Claiming your work to be an eyewitness account is the best way to assert your version is true!

Actually John does speak as an eyewitness. . Let’s not forget about the letters either.

Gospel of St. John

…
(2) The express testimony of the author
Still clearer grounds for this view are to be found in the express testimony of the author. Having mentioned in his account of the Crucifixion that the disciple whom Jesus loved stood beneath the Cross beside the mother of Jesus (John 19:26 sqq.), he adds, after telling of the Death of Christ and the opening of His side, the solemn assurance: “And he that saw it hath given testimony; and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true: that you also may believe” (xix, 35). According to the admission of all John himself is the “disciple whom the Lord loved”. His testimony is contained in the Gospel which for many consecutive years he has announced by word of mouth and which he now sets down in writing for the instruction of the faithful. He assures us, not merely that this testimony is true, but that he was a personal witness of its truth. In this manner he identifies himself with the disciple beloved of the Lord who alone could give such testimony from intimate knowledge. Similarly the author repeats this testimony at the end of his Gospel. After again referring to the disciple whom Jesus loved, he immediately adds the words: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). As the next verse shows, his testimony refers not merely to the events just recorded but to the whole Gospel. It is more in accordance with the text and the general style of the Evangelist to regard these final words as the author’s own composition, should we prefer, however, to regard this verse as the addition of the first reader and disciple of the Apostle, the text constitutes the earliest and most venerable evidence of the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel.

 

[buffalo]

This is one reason it’s hard for a non-Christian to understand the historicity of the documents. In the early Christian Church a very high value was placed on individual and group humility. It’s a cultural thing that exists down to this day.

I

Too bad there weren’t any book publishing companies or attornies around to make sure he signed his name to all he wrote.

 

[patg]

I agree that we should apply the historical method when analyzing the documents. The method should be consistent when applied to all periods of history: Christian and Non-Christian. What we can’t do is apply the historical critical method with an unstated assumption that miracles can not happen.

No, we have to separate the supernatural from history. That is really the issue - miracles are part of the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of human history. In human experience, water doesn’t turn into wine, bodies don’t resurrect, etc.

When that method and assumption are used you automatically start with a conclusion that Christian history is false.

No, you start with a conclusion that Christianity is based on *faith. *
Faith is what allows you to include the supernatural, not history. Christians historically believe in the resurrection but that is very different than saying that the resurrection is part of what is defined as history.

If you start from a philosophical position that the supernatural does not exist then you will have predetermined outcome against the historicity of Christianity.

No, the supernatural does exist, it just exists in ones faith, outside the realm of the human science of history.

If your philosophical position is open minded to the possibility that there may be more then the natural world, then the resurrection becomes a fact that has more evidence then any other ancient event.

No, the resurrection can not become a fact in the sense of history - it is purely and only and totally a matter of faith. There is no way to fit it into the definition of history.

 

[Maranatha]

No, we have to separate the supernatural from history. That is really the issue - miracles are part of the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of human history. In human experience, water doesn’t turn into wine, bodies don’t resurrect, etc.

No, you start with a conclusion that Christianity is based on *faith. *
Faith is what allows you to include the supernatural, not history. Christians historically believe in the resurrection but that is very different than saying that the resurrection is part of what is defined as history.

No, the supernatural does exist, it just exists in ones faith, outside the realm of the human science of history.

No, the resurrection can not become a fact in the sense of history - it is purely and only and totally a matter of faith. There is no way to fit it into the definition of history.

This is core disagreement then. The CC states that the miracle of the resurrection and the other miracles of Jesus are historical facts not just based on faith.

Can we agree that 1) if miracles are presupposed to be impossible then we get a late date for the gospel writing and 2) if we are open to the possibility that miracles are potentially possible then we get a very early date for the gospels.

If we can agree on the above then we have turned the question from one of history in to one of philosophy.

 

[patg]

This is core disagreement then. The CC states that the miracle of the resurrection and the other miracles of Jesus are historical facts not just based on faith.

I don’t think that is exactly correct. The church does state that the resurrection definitely occured and that you must believe it. But I doubt the church states that “according to the standards of scholarly historical analysis, the resurrection (or any other miracle) can be proven to have occured”.

Can we agree that 1) if miracles are presupposed to be impossible then we get a late date for the gospel writing and 2) if we are open to the possibility that miracles are potentially possible then we get a very early date for the gospels.

I don’t see the connection. Miracles were often attributed to people in the ancient world in order to increase their stature in the eyes of readers. There is significant documentation that there were many Jewish holy men and women to whom the same miracles Jesus performed (and others) were attributed. So in reality, Jesus’ miracles tell us nothing about him except that the authors considered him to be a typical Jewish holy man.

Posthumously assigning extra accomplishments to a renowned person is a common practice throughout history, so common that it has been given a literary term: epic concentration. The Dominican theologian Edward Schillebeeckx cites a straightforward example in Matthew, where tax collectors confront Jesus and Peter about paying the Temple tax. They have no money. Jesus tells Peter to cast a line into the lake; the first fish he catches, he says, will have a coin in its mouth. The coin in the mouth of the fish, Schillebeeckx says, was a motif common in ancient folk literature: “Obviously, a fabulous motif is being employed here simply to say that should he need it, Jesus has everything readily available, because the Father is looking after him. No reader at that time would have taken the passage literally.”