We Don't Have the Original Manuscripts

[porthos11]

Please provide references and official church documentation for this.

There isn’t any; and the Church neither supports nor rejects ‘Q’.

However, there are other ways of reconciling the Synoptic Problem without introducing ‘Q’. The main problem with Q is that it’s completely hypothetical, and hasn’t been found even in fragmentary forms. The Q theory also ignores the witness of the early Church writers, who attest to an existing Matthew in Aramaic (e.g. Papias). Even if there was a chance that they were in error, it is a mistake to disregard them.

I tend to lean towards the solution proposed by the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, which proposes an Aramaic Matthean priority (consistent with early Patristic testimony), Markan Greek priority, and with Greek Matthew and Luke referencing Mark and Aramaic Matthew (IIRC, I’ll have to look it up).

Unfortunately, some would rather resort to polemics rather than reason when presenting their objections to Q or other modern hypotheses.

 

[paarsurrey]

As a humanist/freethinker, it doesn’t undermine anything except if someone is saying that the NT contains eyewitness accounts. You can only say it contains probable accounts about accounts.

Hi
I agree with you.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[paarsurrey]

The saints do what they do not on their own capacities or pride or authority,but on commandment from Jesus Christ,who did what he did and said what he said on authority from his Father.
This is all the proof of the authenicity of what is said in the Gospels and letters that is necessary.

Hi
The original is the original, it cannot be dispensed with.The saints are human beings, they could err.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[LogosSokratikos]

There isn’t any; and the Church neither supports nor rejects ‘Q’.

However, there are other ways of reconciling the Synoptic Problem without introducing ‘Q’. The main problem with Q is that it’s completely hypothetical, and hasn’t been found even in fragmentary forms. The Q theory also ignores the witness of the early Church writers, who attest to an existing Matthew in Aramaic (e.g. Papias). Even if there was a chance that they were in error, it is a mistake to disregard them.

I tend to lean towards the solution proposed by the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, which proposes an Aramaic Matthean priority (consistent with early Patristic testimony), Markan Greek priority, and with Greek Matthew and Luke referencing Mark and Aramaic Matthew (IIRC, I’ll have to look it up).

Unfortunately, some would rather resort to polemics rather than reason when presenting their objections to Q or other modern hypotheses.

That’s very interesting. New to me. Any online resource where I can learn more about this position? I’m no historian, but I find it interesting.

Furthermore, do you know which position is more popular in Catholic circles? (not necessarily Vatican, I know the Vatican has to make “political” decisions, so it’s unidimensional and rather uninteresting, dogma is always final but science is open and always new and exciting).

 

[LogosSokratikos]

I meant that even if someone were to discover the very earliest written sources,there would be no way to prove conclusively that they were,in fact,the originals,because the history gets so murky and indistinct prior to the 2nd century AD. We are talking about hypothetical,“undocumented” documents of unverifiable origin from two thousand years ago and events that took place without having been documented when they took place. Outside of the New Testament,Jesus is practically a historical non-entity. As to the methods of Biblical historians,there is always some philosophy behind those methods,as with exegesis.
As to the Q source, if it is hypothetical , how can anyone seriously “know” in a scientific way if it is a source of Matthew?

They can’t. It’s a hypothesis. Some say [some early, maybe lost, version of] Matthew was the first written rendering of the oral tradition. All are hypothetical. Before the earliest extant version of Matthew, there is historical silence.

Interesting LINK i just found, but it’s wikipedia… I wonder if anyone of you knows anything more “scholarly” and esp. Catholic?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

They can’t. It’s a hypothesis. Some say [some early, maybe lost, version of] Matthew was the first written rendering of the oral tradition. All are hypothetical. Before the earliest extant version of Matthew, there is historical silence.

Interesting LINK i just found, but it’s wikipedia… I wonder if anyone of you knows anything more “scholarly” and esp. Catholic?

An interesting piece of information is this:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others, while liberal scholars usually date later. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996 (for a fuller discussion of dating, please see the articles for each Gospel):

• Mark: c. 68–73
• Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
• John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

So, the Gospels being eyewitness accounts is quite unlikely, unless the authors were inordinately long-lived and died of an implausibly old age, and not in martyrdom at the height of their ministry (when they would still be young enough to be able to perform it) as tradition has it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Is there a dupicate thread or was I deleted again?

 

[Erich]

Interesting LINK i just found, but it’s wikipedia… I wonder if anyone of you knows anything more “scholarly” and esp. Catholic?

www.churchinhistory.org, per its home page, “endeavours to make information regarding the involvement of the church in history more easily available.”

One of the first links on the left hand side is to an article entitled “Authors of Gospels” which certainly appears to fit the “more scholarly” bill.

 

[Manfred]

For all those who choose to doubt the “historical” Jesus outside of the NT:

There’s this rather important document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission “On the Historicity of the Gospels”.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

 

[anthony022071]

For all those who choose to doubt the “historical” Jesus outside of the NT:

There’s this rather important document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission “On the Historicity of the Gospels”.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

That link doesn’t provide evidence for the “historical” Jesus outside the New Testament. We just have to go on the New Testament. The New Testament is historical,but not in the way that modern scholars recognize history – that is,history which disallows the reality of God who intervenes,the supernatural,and miracles. Modern historians are generally agnostic or atheistic in the writing of history. So Jesus Christ needs to be an “explained” Jesus,understandable to people,to an age and civilization, that can’t accept him as he is presented in the New Testament.

 

[porthos11]

That’s very interesting. New to me. Any online resource where I can learn more about this position? I’m no historian, but I find it interesting.

Furthermore, do you know which position is more popular in Catholic circles? (not necessarily Vatican, I know the Vatican has to make “political” decisions, so it’s unidimensional and rather uninteresting, dogma is always final but science is open and always new and exciting).

Unfortunately, I can’t find any online resource that matches the proposal of the JB exactly. There is a similar hypothesis posited in an article of “This Rock” but I can’t recall right now. I can look it up.

Several years ago, Catholic scholarship went the way of liberal Protestant scholarship and advocated Q as a solution to the Synoptic Problem, and most students embraced it almost like dogma (I guess the novelty of it was appealing). In recent years, there seems to be a return to a more traditional acceptance of Matthean priority, at least in its Aramaic form, and more credence given to early Church historians.

Q has its merits, and can actually give insights with regards to the Synoptic Problem, but by itself is deficient because it assumes too much and disregards too much.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why is it wrong to believe that the gospels were written by the people whose names are on the books?

If God didn’t lie about what was in those books why would He lie about the people’s names that are on them?

Why wouldn’t the holy spirit inspire the writers to say the gospel according to Q?

In other words don’t the people who believe in Q just believe that the books are a hodgpodge of stories and not the Inerrant word of God stamped as authentic by the Councils of the Catholic Church?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Originally Posted by LogosSokratikos
Interesting LINK i just found, but it’s wikipedia… I wonder if anyone of you knows anything more “scholarly” and esp. Catholic?

Thank you, Erich. Very interesting links. Very good read.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Why is it wrong to believe that the gospels were written by the people whose names are on the books?

If God didn’t lie about what was in those books why would He lie about the people’s names that are on them?

Why wouldn’t the holy spirit inspire the writers to say the gospel according to Q?

In other words don’t the people who believe in Q just believe that the books are a hodgpodge of stories and not the Inerrant word of God stamped as authentic by the Councils of the Catholic Church?

Read from Erich’s links (reproduced in my last post right above). One thing is sunday school, and another what the experts have concluded. Also, remember that the author names aren’t necessarily a forgery… Mark, for instance, could be anybody with that name. The important issue is that they are ancient. For Christians, their vintage is good enough.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I wouldn’t call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DERISIVELY “Sunday School”–they were real people and the Catholic Church has always taught that they were real people who yes wrote real gospels.

These linguistic experts who claim to know better–exactly how many centuries are they removed from these people who they wish to castigate as being fictional?

People in 200 or 300AD believed these were real people.

Who knew better–these people or the so call biblical geniuses?

And why is it when we have a Roman historian that gets much history wrong speak of a person by name–we accept his witness even if it is a witness of one–but we’re so quick to doubt the witness of Jesus’ apostles when they are attested to by hundreds over many more centuries?

Spare me the higher criticism posing.

One doesn’t have to be an ignorant fundamentalist–one can be a highly intelligent Catholic that trusts the witness of centuries of the Catholic Church’s teaching and legitimately believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John!

For that matter you can believe that the epistle of Peter was written by the actual Peter whose bones have been found to be resting under St. Peter’s basilica!

The greatest historical biblical Critics are critical enough to understand that the the Bible Really is True!

 

[Hellisreal]

Historians have their methods.

Christian scholars know they aren’t the original ones. For example, they know that two of the synoptic gospels are based on Matthew, and that Matthew is based on some hypothetic source they call “Q” (German for ‘Quelle’, which means ‘source’).

I Was just informed on another thread that “Q” does not exist when I brought it up.

I asked if the Church has declared this.

I am still waiting for a response. I do not recall any such declaration.

I happen to think its hard to ignore it that dismissively without proof of certainty that it does not exist.

This is why I love being Catholic. Especially when speaking to bible literalists or borderline bible idolotrists.

IT changes nothing about the faith. Not a thing.

 

[Hellisreal]

I was wondering if anyone has ever heard a sound rebuttal or reply in defense of the faith to the charge that we don’t have the original manuscripts of the gospels and letters of the New Testament. I was made aware of this by reading Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus; as far as I know its basically undisputed historical information. None of the critical book reviews I’ve read of Ehrman’s book take him to task for stating that we don’t have the originals. In your view, does this seroiusly undermine the reliability of the Bible and the Catholic faith? Anyone’s thoughts would be appreciated.

I have the book in my hands as we speak. I dont know why a Catholic needs a rebuttal to it. Seriously, we dont.

 

[porthos11]

I Was just informed on another thread that “Q” does not exist when I brought it up.

I asked if the Church has declared this.

I mentioned this earlier. The Church has not taken a position in favor or against Q. So no, there is no such declaration.

I am still waiting for a response. I do not recall any such declaration.

I happen to think its hard to ignore it that dismissively without proof of certainty that it does not exist.

Well, it is just a hypothesis, and not an unreasonable one. However, as mentioned, it is subject to grave difficulties:

1. It assumes Markan priority and cavalierly dismisses Patristic traditions that Matthew existed first in an Aramaic form. Even if such a primitive Aramaic Matthew isn’t found, the witness of the Fathers, even if in error, cannot be ignored just like that;
2. Q has never been found; and there has been no reference whatsoever to a document like it. Such an important document should at least have some existence in fragmentary forms.

Neverthess, even IF it is shown that Q did exist (perhaps through archaeology) AND Mark indeed came first and there is no Aramaic Matthew, as you said, it changes nothing. The Gospels are inspired.

 

[Hellisreal]

I mentioned this earlier. The Church has not taken a position in favor or against Q. So no, there is no such declaration.

Well, it is just a hypothesis, and not an unreasonable one. However, as mentioned, it is subject to grave difficulties:

1. It assumes Markan priority and cavalierly dismisses Patristic traditions that Matthew existed first in an Aramaic form. Even if such a primitive Aramaic Matthew isn’t found, the witness of the Fathers, even if in error, cannot be ignored just like that;
2. Q has never been found; and there has been no reference whatsoever to a document like it. Such an important document should at least have some existence in fragmentary forms.

Neverthess, even IF it is shown that Q did exist (perhaps through archaeology) AND Mark indeed came first and there is no Aramaic Matthew, as you said, it changes nothing. The Gospels are inspired.

Good points. I think I still have questions though, but this is a great response.

 

[Zooey]

Hmmmmm…By the logic of “no original manuscripts=things have been invemted, changed, made-up,etc”, if we don’t have the original sheets of paper on which Shakespeare wrote his plays, can I claim I wrote Macbeth, and collect all those royalties?

See, I think its funny, how its only the Bible that gets this kind of scrutiny. Nobody has any problem believeing that Julius Caesar lived when & where he did, and that he conquered Gaul…but of course, Julius Caesar doesn’t make any difference when it comes to somebody maybe having to break down & admit that they need a Saviour…

:twocents: