Scriptural textual history is not my particular area, and so I will leave the details of this to others (and suggest that you should read this to get some idea of it), but I do want to point out that history very rarely works on the basis of incontrovertible deduction from irrefutable proof. The best that we have is almost always strong inference from sources whose reliability depends upon other sources whose reliability depends upon…*]What actual, verifiable historical evidence is there that the books were written before 70 C.E.?
Scribes, working for many hours a day in poorly-lit scriptoria, tended to miscopy things: they would skip words, lines, or even whole paragraphs; they would repeat words, lines, or even whole paragraphs; they would misspell things, especially when copying from languages in which they were not fluent. Some scribes wrote in styles which turned many of their letters into minims: 1 for an ‘i’, 2 for an ‘n’ or a ‘u’, 3 for an ‘m’ or a ‘w’ (later).Pages got lost, torn, burnt, wet, or just faded with age. In the case of some manuscripts, we have the joy of trying to read what was first written on a parchment across which someone else later wrote another, completely-unrelated text.Why are some early manuscripts different from others? Some do not include verses that other contain, such as the end of Mark. Also I’ve heard it is thought 1 John 5:7-8 on the Trinity was likely added later.
Have you ever listened to eye-witness reports? They can contradict one another on very significant and supposedly-obvious details within minutes of witnessing the event. Some people will tell you that, in the Bible, these differences highlight important spiritual aspects of the events. Personally, I just go with the fact that the inclusion of those differences is good evidence that no one came along later and “tidied up” the accounts of what happened.Why are there clear conflicts in the text itself? E.g., different narration of the nativity, variations in the telling of the resurrection, etc.
How did the first statement leads to the conclusion of the second? Time is not the factor with respect to the contents of the Gospels. Even if those were written a few hundred years later, it can still be correctly attributed to the source.I read a book recently that theorized that the gospels weren’t written until the mid to late 2nd century. If so, that would mean that the attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was false.
It is not claimed that the attributed authors actually wrote it. That’s why it is claimed “according to”.How do we know that these books were actually written by their attributed authors?
seeker of God #4
Some questions, then:
You have the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the books written before the destruction of Jerusalem, declared binding by Pope Pius X. [Post #3]. Real Catholics do not pay any attention to “hearsay”.What actual, verifiable historical evidence is there that the books were written before 70 C.E.?
Why are some early manuscripts different from others? Some do not include verses that other contain, such as the end of Mark. Also I’ve heard it is thought 1 John 5:7-8 on the Trinity was likely added later.
Why are there clear conflicts in the text itself? E.g., different narration of the nativity, variations in the telling of the resurrection, etc.
, #11, The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, 1983, Servant Books, p 158].You have the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the books written before the destruction of Jerusalem, declared binding by Pope Pius X. [Post #3]. Real Catholics do not pay any attention to “hearsay”.
You also have the authority of the Magisterium established by Christ as to the Books, no more no less, declared by the Magisterium as the Word of God.
There are no doctrinal contradictions and the attempts by detractors to portray such out of acceptable differences from the different authors betray the efforts to discredit Christ and the Church He established.
‘Christ’s Church teaches infallibly that what the inspired authors affirmed teach the truth which God wants written down in Scripture “for the sake of our salvation.” This truth – the Council’s dogmatic constitution on divine revelation insists – is taught “firmly, faithfully and without error.” ’ [Citing Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum
Well we have a fragment of the Gospel of John which dates to 100-150AD.I read a book recently that theorized that the gospels weren’t written until the mid to late 2nd century. If so, that would mean that the attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was false. How do we know that these books were actually written by their attributed authors?
Every reputable scholar in the subject has found that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written in the mid/late 1st century and John no later then 90-100 A.D. Any other contention is in the category of Dan Brown fiction.I read a book recently that theorized that the gospels weren’t written until the mid to late 2nd century. If so, that would mean that the attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was false. How do we know that these books were actually written by their attributed authors?
A real Catholic believes that Christ is God and that He gave us His Church to lead us to all truth. The reality here is concerning the truths of the Catholic Church which Christ established on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and His Apostles, sending the Holy Spirit as He promised: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)seeker of God #8
I couldn’t care less what the Church might say is true. Just because they say something true does not, therefore, make it true.
Sorry, but doesn’t believing the Church constitute the definition of Catholicism?No offense, but I couldn’t care less what the Church might say is true. Just because they say something true does not, therefore, make it true.
Maybe seeker of God forgot that he claimed he was Catholicseeker of God;12643109:
Sorry, but doesn’t believing the Church constitute the definition of Catholicism?No offense, but I couldn’t care less what the Church might say is true. Just because they say something true does not, therefore, make it true.
Alternatively, s/he may merely be closer to the centre of Catholic orthopraxy than the centre of Catholic orthodoxy. That is not (from my perspective) necessarily a bad thing, but it is something which s/he probably ought to take into account when self-identifying to others as a Catholic.Maybe seeker of God forgot that he claimed he was Catholic
Correct. Even if people disagree on whether the gospels are written before or after AD 70, or which gospel came first, nobody nowadays seriously believes that the gospels are later than the late 1st-early 2nd century. Everyone who claims so simply rely on outdated 19th-century theories; they are misled or are seeking to mislead.Every reputable scholar in the subject has found that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written in the mid/late 1st century and John no later then 90-100 A.D. Any other contention is in the category of Dan Brown fiction.
Yes, this is actually a mistake many people (including Christians) make. In reality, the date of composition of a New Testament gospel in relation to the events reported is not relevant for its historicity or accuracy. An ‘early’ date does not automatically guarantee that it would be 100% accurate, nor does a ‘late’ date automatically guarantee that it is unreliable and useless. The Christian message or the historicity of the events reported in the gospels is not dependent on what year the gospels are written in or in what order they were written; they’re just side issues that have gathered an undue level of attention. In fact, look at other ancient biographies: at times they could be written a century or so after the subject had died, but people are still willing to accept them as being accurate, even if at least on a basic level. The same should have held true for the gospels.How did the first statement leads to the conclusion of the second? Time is not the factor with respect to the contents of the Gospels. Even if those were written a few hundred years later, it can still be correctly attributed to the source.