Linguists, scholars and the NT

[roelblomsma]

According to linguists and scholars some of the Gospels of the NT are not written in the time they indicate that they are written and are not written by the person they indicate that they are written by. This is one of the most prominent anti-Christian propaganda means. Because, as they argue, it means that the Gospels were invented. What do you make out of that?

 

[Poco]

Not sure who these “linguists and scholars” are. I’d probably just ignore them. It’s possible they are folks with an agenda rather than doing objective work.

:twocents:

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
"For there shall be a time,
when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but,
according to their own desires,
they will heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears:"
2 Timothy 4:3

As God’s beloved Christian Catholic children . . . we are blessed with the sound holy guidance from our Holy Mother Church to . . . love . . . seek out . . . and revere . . . the teachings and guidance of the Vicar of Christ seated on the Holy Chair of St. Peter . . . the Pope . . . and the Magisterium of the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . . and to embrace wholeheartedly Sacred :bible1: Scripture as the **Holy Infallible Word of God **. . .

The enemy of souls down through the ages . . . *in every day and age *. . . has always found souls among fallen sinful mankind who have called themselves “linguists” and “scholars” who . . . pridefully . . . consider themselves experts in spiritual matters which are far far beyond their understanding and comprehension . . .

**

. . . :compcoff: . . .
**
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

**CHAPTER III

SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION **

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred :bible1: Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore ***

:bible1:
“All Scripture is divinely inspired
and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error,
for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,
so that the man who belongs to God***
may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred :bible1: Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred :bible1: Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

According to linguists and scholars some of the Gospels of the NT are not written in the time they indicate that they are written and are not written by the person they indicate that they are written by. This is one of the most prominent anti-Christian propaganda means. Because, as they argue, it means that the Gospels were invented. What do you make out of that?

If you want real answers you’re going to have to narrow it down, because to be quite frank it sounds like you’re parroting a throwaway line you saw in another propaganda video. Who? What did they say? Sources? I have heard the exact opposite from many, many scholars, and even the liberal theologians have given up trying to say the Gospels were written “hundreds of years later” and with “heavy hellenization.”

 

[Vince1022]

According to linguists and scholars some of the Gospels of the NT are not written in the time they indicate that they are written and are not written by the person they indicate that they are written by. This is one of the most prominent anti-Christian propaganda means. Because, as they argue, it means that the Gospels were invented. What do you make out of that?

The Gospels, themselves, do not indicate the time they are written in.

Nor do they indicate who they are written by (the “title” e.g. “The Gospel of Matthew” was something added later). The titles are not part of the original manuscripts.

So I don’t make anything out of those objections.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The Gospels, themselves, do not indicate the time they are written in.

Nor do they indicate who they are written by (the “title” e.g. “The Gospel of Matthew” was something added later). The titles are not part of the original manuscripts.

So I don’t make anything out of those objections.

According to Dr. Brant Pitre, this is a widespread myth. Mark, for instance, has the name as part of the original manuscript.

 

[patg]

According to linguists and scholars some of the Gospels of the NT are not written in the time they indicate that they are written and are not written by the person they indicate that they are written by. This is one of the most prominent anti-Christian propaganda means.

Since there is no church teaching on when the gospels were written or who wrote them, how can this be prominent anti-Christian propaganda?

Because, as they argue, it means that the Gospels were invented. What do you make out of that?

This doesn’t necessarily follow at all. The church clearly states that the gospels are not eyewitness literalistic accounts. You might want to read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available online).

 

[Big_Dummy]

See, A.T. Robertson’s Redating the New Testament to refute them, they are using way outdated materials.

 

[Vince1022]

According to Dr. Brant Pitre, this is a widespread myth. Mark, for instance, has the name as part of the original manuscript.

I’ve never heard that before, can you provide a reference? Thanks!

Especially if you have any reference regarding Catholic teaching on this matter. Individual scholars will of course have their own theories.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I’ve never heard that before, can you provide a reference? Thanks!

Especially if you have any reference regarding Catholic teaching on this matter. Individual scholars will of course have their own theories.

It’s on his Christology audio series, he’s a scholar, had access to the original documents, etc etc. I don’t know of any official Church teaching on the matter, although I may suggest that it possibly meets the criteria of “unanimous consensus of the fathers,” since although many NT books were disputed, to my knowledge the four gospels never were.

 

[Vince1022]

It’s on his Christology audio series, he’s a scholar, had access to the original documents, etc etc. I don’t know of any official Church teaching on the matter, although I may suggest that it possibly meets the criteria of “unanimous consensus of the fathers,” since although many NT books were disputed, to my knowledge the four gospels never were.

John’s Gospel was highly disputed in the early Church. Many credit St. Irenaeus with “saving” its canonicity in the late 2nd century.

Anyway, can you give a more definitive reference to the audio series you refer to? Also, what “original documents” are you referring to? I think any such documents are widely available today, not exclusively to scholars.

Thanks.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

John’s Gospel was highly disputed in the early Church.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince1022;7350218:

By who? Irenaeus isn’t exactly a late father, so what statements are you basing this off of? St. Ignatius, who speaks of Jesus’ three year ministry that is found nowhere except the gospel of John? St. Polycarp? St. Clement? Justin Martyr? Who exactly? For you to make this claim, it would seem that you have to seriously read some ideas into history that the evidence doesn’t support. Perhaps a statement showing positive evidence for your claim rather than a seemingly unsupported inference? If you’re going off the opinion of a scholar, a rough citation or work would be appreciated, particularly since I know you are very careful to ask for specific references yourself.

Sorry to be slow responding to you.

No, of course none of the people you referred to dispute the canonicity of John’s Gospel (though only Irenaeus argues in favor of it, the rest don’t mention it).

Mostly, it was Gnostics favoring John’s Gospel that raised the question of its canonicity. Irenaeus refers to Valentinian’s commentary on John’s Gospel (and defends the correct understanding of it). The earliest commentary we have on the Gospel of John was written by a Gnostic (Heracleon).

Irenaeus does not spend the same amount of time defending the Gospels (and interpretations) of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as he does with John; again, as the Gnostics found the Gospel of John particularly suited to their ideas. Irenaeus was writing primarily against issues raised by the Gnostics. The Gospel of John is so different, in style, from the Synoptics that it’s understandable why questions might be raised about how it “fits” with the other Gospels.

Hope that clarifies what I meant. thanks.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Nathan Wagar;7350347:

Sorry to be slow responding to you.

No, of course none of the people you referred to dispute the canonicity of John’s Gospel (though only Irenaeus argues in favor of it, the rest don’t mention it).

Mostly, it was Gnostics favoring John’s Gospel that raised the question of its canonicity. Irenaeus refers to Valentinian’s commentary on John’s Gospel (and defends the correct understanding of it). The earliest commentary we have on the Gospel of John was written by a Gnostic (Heracleon).

Irenaeus does not spend the same amount of time defending the Gospels (and interpretations) of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as he does with John; again, as the Gnostics found the Gospel of John particularly suited to their ideas. Irenaeus was writing primarily against issues raised by the Gnostics. The Gospel of John is so different, in style, from the Synoptics that it’s understandable why questions might be raised about how it “fits” with the other Gospels.

Hope that clarifies what I meant. thanks.

St. Ignatius mentions Jesus’ three-year ministry, which is only found in the gospel of John. Whether this was due to the gospel itself, due to his direct contact with John himself, or both, can only be conjecture on my part, although my inclination is that he relied on both sources for this statement. Your post did clear up what you meant, however, thank you.

 

[NHInsider]

Vince1022;7350218:

Original documents as in the original scroll it’s on. I can’t really narrow the reference down for you since it’s a 22 disk series that’s divided up into over 100 mp3 sound clips. Like I said, it’s on his Christology series, and it wasn’t a “it’s on Qumran scroll 345A” type of statement. I’d have to find a program containing photos of the original documents the same as you. It’s on my to-do list, but not anytime soon.

I’m quite sure Dr. Pitre never claimed to have access to original NT manuscripts (as far as anyone knows at this time, there are none extant). The oldest known copies of the NT date to the fourth century. There are some earlier fragments on papyrus, the very oldest of these (all Johannine) date to the early part of the second century. So ancient and fascinating, but not “original.” Given the fragile nature of papyrus it’s not surprising that many of these fragments are just that, containing a few words or a couple of verses.

The Dead Sea scrolls contain OT books, not NT (and are not “original,” obviously).

The Gospel of Mark does not claim to have been written by Mark, but there is ancient documentation (Papias) attributing it to Mark’s hand and claiming that it was Peter’s authorized account.

To the original question, however, and some of the responses - the observation that the book of Matthew (or John) was probably not written by Matthew does not mean it’s not Matthew’s account. It can mean it was written down by those who heard it from Matthew. So that is not necessarily a challenge to the authenticity of the material.

There ARE scholars and linguists who have attempted to undermine the authority of the NT by challenging traditional attributions and dating, but the corrollary is not necessarily true. And, yes, it is true that many of the theories that were predominent in academia forty or fifty years ago have fallen from grace, as it were, with subsequent scholarship and discovery. (On a related note, if you haven’t read the National Geographic article on the archaeological arguments about King David, it’s very worthwhile.)

 

[Crumpy]

These objections attack the credibility of the Church. It isn’t the documents themselves that support themselves, but the Church.

Sure, Josephus wrote historical documents and I haven’t heard anyone (so far) dispute his authorship. Sure, so why didn’t the authors of the gospels identify themselves. I don’t know, but it has the intended effect of putting the emphasis on Jesus Christ, where it should be.

In the Old Testament, the “books of Moses” were surely not authored by Moses, in the literal sense, either. There is too much internal evidence that there were a variety of authors (scribes) who wrote in certain various traditions, for example.

In the United States, it is not so much the authorship of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that is so important, as much as the assent that was given to them. In the case of the gospels, this is also true.

Jesus challeges each of us, on the pages of the gospels, Who do you say that I am?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Nathan Wagar;7350347:

I’m quite sure Dr. Pitre never claimed to have access to original NT manuscripts (as far as anyone knows at this time, there are none extant). The oldest known copies of the NT date to the fourth century. There are some earlier fragments on papyrus, the very oldest of these (all Johannine) date to the early part of the second century. So ancient and fascinating, but not “original.” Given the fragile nature of papyrus it’s not surprising that many of these fragments are just that, containing a few words or a couple of verses.

The Dead Sea scrolls contain OT books, not NT (and are not “original,” obviously).

The Gospel of Mark does not claim to have been written by Mark, but there is ancient documentation (Papias) attributing it to Mark’s hand and claiming that it was Peter’s authorized account.

To the original question, however, and some of the responses - the observation that the book of Matthew (or John) was probably not written by Matthew does not mean it’s not Matthew’s account. It can mean it was written down by those who heard it from Matthew. So that is not necessarily a challenge to the authenticity of the material.

There ARE scholars and linguists who have attempted to undermine the authority of the NT by challenging traditional attributions and dating, but the corrollary is not necessarily true. And, yes, it is true that many of the theories that were predominent in academia forty or fifty years ago have fallen from grace, as it were, with subsequent scholarship and discovery. (On a related note, if you haven’t read the National Geographic article on the archaeological arguments about King David, it’s very worthwhile.)

Perhaps I should clarify. I don’t mean original in the sense of inspired originals. I mean original in the sense of the original copies that we currently have (as opposed to a translation, etc). It’s irrelevant when it was written, since the widespread myth is that it does not say on the actual manuscripts who it was written by. Whether the name was written by the disciples themselves or by the later Church is up for debate, but ultimately irrelevant, since that is not the claim I am dealing with. The comment about the dead sea scrolls was an analogy, so Im not sure what your point is there.

Yes I have read the King David article, it was a good read

 

[ProVobis]

Good questions posed here:

catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-introduction.htm

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Good questions posed here:

catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-introduction.htm

I take this with a large grain of salt. Many scholars accept the Greek idea based on linguistic grounds, something he doesn’t even seem to seriously touch upon. I don’t think he is giving enough credence to the overwhelming influence of the Septuagint. Also, given that Targums were written and read in Aramaic in the synagogues, it is doubtful that Hebrew was as crucial as he seems to believe. Scholars debate whether the early father references to “writing to the Hebrews in their own language” refers to Hebrew, or to Aramaic.

Another difficulty of assuming a prior language translation without supporting evidence is seen by the impossibility of “reverse translating” our Greek manuscripts into Aramaic or Hebrew, for instance. Those from different scholars doing the same gospel always differ from each other, and often differ markedly from the original text, so that the original meaning in the Greek is lost in the reverse translation, and completely conjectural. See Chilton for comments about this.

A large part of his argument is not based on linguistic grounds but on the idea that “because they are writing to this audience, they must have written in this language.” Then he seems to concoct imaginary postulations on the problems this may have caused based on what evidence? Merely conjecture. This is not a solid basis for an argument that flies against nearly every single NT scholar and linguist on this matter. The fact remains that because of not just hellenizing influences on the culture, but equally widespread Septuagint impact on both Hebraic and Hellenized Jews, a Greek translation makes the greatest sense across the board, particularly since “Hebraic Jews” is a very niche audience to cater to in matters of salvation. They would have still been familiar with Greek, there is no evidence except possibly in the Gospel of Matthew to suggest anything other than Greek manuscripts, and until more evidence comes to the forefront we cannot really assume otherwise.

 

[Vince1022]

Nathan Wagar;7350347:

I’m quite sure Dr. Pitre never claimed to have access to original NT manuscripts (as far as anyone knows at this time, there are none extant). The oldest known copies of the NT date to the fourth century. There are some earlier fragments on papyrus, the very oldest of these (all Johannine) date to the early part of the second century. So ancient and fascinating, but not “original.” Given the fragile nature of papyrus it’s not surprising that many of these fragments are just that, containing a few words or a couple of verses.

The Dead Sea scrolls contain OT books, not NT (and are not “original,” obviously).

The Gospel of Mark does not claim to have been written by Mark, but there is ancient documentation (Papias) attributing it to Mark’s hand and claiming that it was Peter’s authorized account.

To the original question, however, and some of the responses - the observation that the book of Matthew (or John) was probably not written by Matthew does not mean it’s not Matthew’s account. It can mean it was written down by those who heard it from Matthew. So that is not necessarily a challenge to the authenticity of the material.

There ARE scholars and linguists who have attempted to undermine the authority of the NT by challenging traditional attributions and dating, but the corrollary is not necessarily true. And, yes, it is true that many of the theories that were predominent in academia forty or fifty years ago have fallen from grace, as it were, with subsequent scholarship and discovery. (On a related note, if you haven’t read the National Geographic article on the archaeological arguments about King David, it’s very worthwhile.)

Great points, thanks for sharing.

I, too, really enjoyed the National Geographic article.