Talk:New Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Archives
[edit] Greek Wikisource
Can somebody verify that the link to Wikisource of the Greek text is the original text, and make a note of which text it is. Or is it a modern translation from Koine Greek into modern Greek?
[edit] Writing of the original New Testament
"It was written in..."
The New Testament today is not the same as the original writing...so I shall change the statement accordingly.
"The original texts were written..."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.159.4 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
- I don't see how you can say that. Except for some transmission corruption here and there, each NT book is the same today as in the autograph.--Hurtstotalktoyou 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The corruption was major.--SubtleV
- It may have been, but if so there is no evidence for it.--Hurtstotalktoyou 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, variant readings and interpolations are covered in the "additions to the text" section.--Hurtstotalktoyou 04:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the orginal texts were written at that time is saying nothing. It implys a possibility that the texts that were written years ago are not identical to the ones that are being printed today. Even though, historically, the texts are were changed greatly by the vatican. SubtleV
I deleted "of some" from the discussion of Paul's authorship - the inclusion had implied that certain epistles are not disputed as being of Pauline authorship (plainly false from a cursory glance at the critical literature).Topologyrob 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NT use of the OT
I wrote up an article on the New Testament use of the Old Testament at Theopedia. Is that something that would be linked to from this page? I can't find an article on Wikipedia along the lines of this issue. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JordanBarrett 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Replacement of summaries
I wish to rewrite the summaries of the Gospels on this page- I will leave this comment here for a week for feedback before I edit. Certainly current content like this, "Summary of John. A dove landed on Jesus when he was baptized, so he went into a temple and forced them to close the shop selling doves", is incorrect and does not aid the page! I will rewrite the summaries a lot less biased and definately more factually.
Please do. This page is a disgusting mess.
- I have been reverting those additions, which read as personal interpretation of the NT. I'm not sure if summaries of every book are need, since the books have their own articles linked from the NT article. —Wayward Talk 07:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits
I'm not sure what 4.241.xx.xx was trying to do over the past couple of days. The result wa na article that had become hard to read or understand. Someone might want to look and see if they were doing anything useful or just putting up a POV. Here's an example and another. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
After seeing this it's clear that the editor is just vandalising. Read the "Books of the New Testament" section in the above difference. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] intro of new testament page
{{Editprotected}} The New Testament is the final forth of the Bible, the history of an ancient religion that believes in one God. It's about how that religion changed its practices to get more people to join, because of invaders who believed in many gods. The book often includes maps and a concordance, which is a written search engine printed in the back of the book. The New Testament is also published alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.241.33.155 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 April 2006.
- This seems like a bizarre and inappropriate introduction, for several reasons. If the reasons aren't immediately obvious, let me know and I'll try to spell them out, but in brief, the reasons are: (1) speling errors; (2) inaccurate or misleading description; (3) confusing publisher's supplementary material with the text of the New Testament itself. Wesley 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've read it. It's about the old teatament religion being changed into christianity. It is the last fourth of the Bible. Compare the total new testament pages with the total pages of the entire bible. The New Testament is a book. Since nobody speaks ancient greek, that language is probably like Klingon from Star Trek, a lot younger than English. Shouldn't the introduction be about what the book is, rather than some of the other names it's called? I looked at the 2001 intro, and it wasn't so messy looking.
- The first line of the entry makes reference to the NT as a "collection of ancient Hebrew writings". The vast majority of Christian biblical scholars accept the NT as originally written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew. There is a school of though of (mostly conservative literalist) Christians that holds that the Greek texts were a translation from Hebrew (not even Aramaic, but Hebrew), but that idea is usually considered to be revisionsist history and without much real scholarly validity. I was alarmed to see the Wikipedia entry so blatantly state the minority opinion without comment about the scholarly dispute. However, given the highly contested nature of this particular page, I don't feel comfortable editing it myself.
I've removed the editprotected request, as the page is no longer protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
+ + +
Chuck Marean added the following to the introduction: "It was translated into Greek by various authors..." It was, in fact, originally written in Koine Greek, not translated into it later. He also added a would-be clarification of the New Covenant: "the promise of salvation by God to people as individuals on the basis of grace rather than law or irrational acts." I think there are Christians who would dispute that, especially given the implication that works play no role. In addition to those two corrections, I've made some minor changes in an effort to improve the language. --hurtstotalktoyou
Oh, I forgot to add this: Scholarship has quite firmly placed the NT between 45-140. There is little or no dissention to those dates, except that evangelicals would argue a narrower range of 45-100, which is a minority view which is compatible with the 45-140 range anyway. --hurtstotalktoyou
[edit] Keven A Tolken
- "Καινή Διαθήκη" (translit. Kaine Diatheke) is Greek for New Covenant and is the term I learned. The article intro has problems, but none of the reverted edits was an improvement. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Intro
Chuck as a show of good faith that should have been discussed on the talk page prior to inserting to obtain consensus. You have now introduced the same errors (spelling & capitalization) that you did when editing as the anon. I would suggest merging the two introductions as follows:
See New Covenant for the concept translated as "New Testament" in the KJV.
The New Testament is the collection of ancient Hebrew writings that Christianity is based upon. It's the last fourth of the Bible, which also includes the Old Testament of pre-Christian monotheism. The New Testament uses the term New Covenant. The earliest known codices of the New Testament are written in the ancient Greek language (Καινή Διαθήκη). These codices are sometimes called the Greek Testament, the Greek Scriptures or New Covenant.
They were written by various authors c. AD 48–140 and gradually collected into a single volume over the next few centuries. Some minor groups commonly refers to the New Testament as the B'rit Chadashah, Hebrew for New Covenant, or the Apostolic Writings.
CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected spelling, New Covenant is linked, We don't speak Hebrew, Some groups refer, Luke refers.
[edit] "New Testament Covenant" section
What is up with the last section? In addition to having POV issues, there are two redlinks (one with improper capitilization). "Michael zarlengo" gets 277 google hits. I'd propose removing this section, but I wanted to see what others felt, and perhaps give other editors a chance to improve this section if it is necessary.--Andrew c 05:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- It has to do with Christians not offering burnt offerings like the Mosaics did in BC times. I also wonder where they get the dates claiming it took 90 years to to write the New Testament. Would it take you 90 years to write such a short book as Luke or any of the others? My suggested outline for revision of this article was already posted.[2]--Chuck Marean 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it is pov pushing. It should be referenced with Wikipedia: Reliable Sources or deleted as Original Research. See also What wikipedia is not.63.201.27.144 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Very POV, badly written. Almost sounds like a promo for a book. A little blight on the end of an otherwise good article. Jaems 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] c. AD 48–140
If you think about it, c. AD 48–140 seems a bit long and after the fact . . . where ever that figure comes from. Let's see . . . 140 minus 48 . . . That's 92, and 48 minus 33 . . . that's 15. Why would it have taken 15 years for anybody to start writing, and why would it have taken 92 years instead of 92 days to write the New Testament? I seems writers are confusing age of artifacts & publication dates.
- To say that the New Testament was written c. AD 48-140 does not suggest that it took that whole period to write the text. The NT is composed of many different individual texts, none of which probably took very wrong to pen, but they were penned at different times over that time period--the earliest ca 48, and the lastest ca 140. Various explanations are offered for the 15 year gap before anyone "started writing". Many scholars find evidence for an earlier, possibly written, source ("Q") that both Matthew and Luke relied upon. Many point to the expectation of the very first Christians that the "end of the age" would come very soon, and that there was no real need for written documents. Remember that the society at that time was much more oral than our own very literate society. Once you get into the epistles, you're dealing with very practical writings that deal with issues encountered as the Christian church spread beyond its birthplace and into the greater Roman Empire.–RHolton≡– 22:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutralisation of Dates
Since the date of the New Testament is still disputed, I have written in that "the majority of scholars believe it to have been written.." instead of "It was written...". This means that anyone with contrasting views shall be less offended by these claims.
[edit] Date of composition
In the second last sentence of the section it mentions "Clement". Which one? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't that Pope Clement I, one of the Apostolic Fathers?63.201.27.144 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is also a source document called "The Sayings of Jesus" that was most probably the earliest source
[edit] This page needs loads of work
...to put it mildly. While most of the information seems fairly accurate, some of it is a bit presumptuous, while more is just plain off-topic. Consider the historical Jesus paragraph in the "authorship" section, for example of the latter. As for the former, I'm concerned there's an emphasis on anti-Christian scholarship. Granted, the line between Christian and non-Christian scholarship must be difficult to walk, but it seems like the Christian POV is largely ignored. New Testament scholarship is deeply divided; we cannot ignore the Christian perspective, however non-scientific it may seem to non-Christians.
I propose a major re-work of the article. I'm afraid to do it myself, because I have an impatient streak, and I might jump the gun without expertise.
If nothing else, let's clean up the structure of the article; help to organize it.
Thoughts?
Recent edits seem to be very POV. Who dates the Muratorian fragment c. 170-*400* AD? Also, the Eusebius quote verbatim is confusing; better to summarize it, as had been done. Another Muratorian mention has been deleted, suggesting an anti-Muratorian sentiment. What's more, the editing user didn't log in to be identified. Because of this, I have simply reverted edits.
- See Biblical Canon. The Anchor Bible Dictionary dates Muratorian as late as the end of the fourth century. The Eusebius quote is not at all confusing, it is a direct quote, better a direct quote than a pov summary. The Muratorian fragment need only be mentioned once, there is no need for an additional sentence latter on to mention it again, removing multiple mentions of the same thing is hardly an "anti-Muratorian sentiment". As for logging in, there is no wikipedia requirement to do so. 209.78.19.213 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Firstly, I'll need a page number and publisher info so I can verify the alleged Anchor Bible Dictionary reference. I've certainly never heard of any date other than the late second century for the Muratorian fragment. Even if this source of yours says what you claim it does, I hardly think it matters in the face of centuries of scholarship on the text, placing it squarely between 170 and 200 AD. Secondly, this is not original research. While the Eusebius quote is informative, a simple list by categories is more efficient and therefore better suited to this wiki entry. The list is by no means pov, as you claim. I'd very much like to revert to the last edit, but I will wait for other input. Also, please log in so we know who you are. --hurtstotalktoyou
-
-
- The Anchor Bible Dictionary is a Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. That you discredit it: "Even if this source of yours says what you claim it does, I hardly think it matters in the face of centuries of scholarship on the text, placing it squarely between 170 and 200 AD." shows your pov bias. As for your contention that a "simple list by categories is more efficient" than a direct quote from Eusebius doing the same thing, this shows that you are pov pushing. See What Wikipedia is Not. I also point out that your "simple list by categories" is incorrect, see the direct Eusebius quote to discover your error. See also No Original Research. 209.78.19.213 21:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This is ridiculous. I have no POV bias; rather, I'm just trying to keep this page as honest and truthful as possible. I am not attempting to discredit the Anchor Bible Dictionary. I've just never seen any reliable source give such a broad range of dates for the Muratorian fragment. Always it has been c.170-200, or thereabouts. Now, certainly there are some who believe the fragment was written much later, but to my knowledge those scholars are very much in the minority. Anyway, I'm headed to the library soon, so I'm still waiting on a page number so I can look up your reference. As for the Eusebius quote, I don't much mind having it there. I just think a simple list would be more efficient. Such a list would certainly not violate NPOV or NOR standards as you claim. --hurtstotalktoyou
-
-
Look up Muratorian Fragment of course.
Some more refs:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Muratorian.html
The date of the original Greek composition lying behind the present Latin text has generally been agreed to lie in the middle or end of the second century because of the statement in the fragment that "Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently in our times in the city of Rome, when Bishop Pius, his brother, was sitting in the chair of the Church of Rome." More recently, Sundberg and Hahneman have contended for a fourth century date for the original of the fragment, emphasizing especially comparisons with eastern fourth century canon lists. Although their arguments have been persuasive to some, many scholars remain skeptical of their late dating. All would probably agree, however, that their work has stimulated fresh consideration of the development of the New Testament canon, to which the Muratorian Fragment is an important witness. Bibliography
Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. "Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List." Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 1-41.
Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198263414/104-9962040-5612751?v=glance&n=283155
The traditional date of the fragment, however, was questioned in 1973 by Albert C. Sundberg, Jr, in an article of the Harvard Theological Review that has since been generally ignored or dismissed. In this book, Hahneman re-examines the traditional dating of the fragment in a complete and extensive study that concurs with Sundberg's findings. Arguing for a later placing of the fragment, Hahneman shows that the entire history of the Christian Bible must be recast as a much longer and more gradual process. As a result, the decisive period of canonical history moves from the end of the second century into the midst of the fourth. As a decisive contribution to our understanding of the development of the New Testament canon, this book will be of considerable importance and interest to New Testament scholars and historians of the early Church.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/fragment_hill.pdf
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
The Muratorian Canon, by an unknown author, is usually dated to the end of the second century; attempts to date it later have been unconvincing, according to Metzger, although McDonald provides an opposite view dating it to much later that contains some persuasive elements. A very persuasive case for a fourth-century date is presented by Hahneman[Hahn.MurFrag], from whom we gain much of our material below on the subject.
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/42/42-4/42-4-pp645-671_JETS.pdf
The date of the Muratorian Fragment is still in dispute. A. C. Sundberg, Jr. argues for a fourth-century date in “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List,” HTR 66 (1973) 1–41. An earlier date and a response to Sundberg is provided by E. Ferguson, “Canon Muratori: Date and Provi- dence,” Studia Patristica 18/2 (1982) 677–683.
[edit] "Eusebius quote verbatim is confusing"
Can you be more specific? What is it exactly that you find confusing about this direct quote?:
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:
- "1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
- "3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books"
- "6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
Revelation is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the Church Fathers, we know that it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity. EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style."
A direct quote is always preferable to an unreferenced pov summary. In addition, it is easier to detect and correct vandalism and pov pushing when direct quotes are used. 209.78.19.213 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Authorship
Hey, all. The authorship section was a bit redundant. Without significantly altering the content, I have cleaned it up a bit. The problem is, I need some expansion of and a citation for one paragraph, which is currently a single sentence: "The authorship of the non-Pauline books remains disputed, with most secular scholars rejecting traditional ascriptions, and many, perhaps most Christian scholars accepting them." I'm almost 100% sure this statement is true, but it is far too general, and should have some backing sources. Any help would be much appreciated! --hurtstotalktoyou
- I re-added the caveat about Hebrews in the "Pauline epistles" section. Since the epistle is anonymous, I think it is a good idea to note in that section why it is listed as Pauline. I think it's bad form to list it as Pauline and then say it is anonymous, and not explain the disparity.
- The section on "Authorship" currently has two sentences discussing the dispute over Paul's actual involvement with Hebrews, but it does not mention other potential candidates, link to the other wiki article on the Epistle itself, or mention why the epistle is listed as Pauline. If you want to move the information from the "Pauline epistle" listing to the authorship section, that's probably reasonable; but in your edit you called the information "redundant". It isn't redundant if it isn't repeated.
- Just my two cents. --shift6 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi there, Shift6. My reason for removing the caveat was twofold: First, by focusing on Hebrews alone as not Pauline, an implication is given that all of the other traditional Pauline epistles are authentic, which is not the case. To avoid this implication, one must either talk about every pseudographical epistle, which I think would be redundant and off-topic for that section, or else remove the caveat. Second, you said in your caveat that the "themes...are Pauline and for that reason the epistle is listed here." That is not quite true. The reason Hebrews is listed in the Pauline corpus is because it has traditionally been attributed to Paul. Even today some Bibles give Paul's name in the title!
-
- That said, you do have a point about the other candidates of authorship not being mentioned elsewhere. I have therefore moved the caveat to the authorship section, with some small changes in language which I think are fitting. Check it out and see what you think. --hurtstotalktoyou
-
-
- Looks good to me. Certainly it explains the whole thing better. shift6 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Tetragrammaton in the New Testament
This article has been worked up well, and mainly discusses why some scholars feel the name should be included in the NT. Anyone care to join in? George 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assignment of authors
I don't think this assignment is true. I don't believe that any of the gospel writers were part of the original group of apostles. Can someone check this out and give evidence that Matthew and John were part of the original 12 apostles? jdoherty
- There is no evidence as to who actually wrote the gospels of Matthew and John. Tradition attributes the Gospel of Matthew to the apostle Matthew (Levi), and the Gospel of John to the apostle John (the son of Zebedee; the "disciple whom Jesus loved"). —Wayward Talk 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of anyone's opinion, the only evidence of the list of origianl apostles is in the accounts themselves, attested to since the second century, and they tell us that Matthew and John were among the twelve. The only thing requiring evidence would be the claim that they were not a part of the original twelve. George 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Gospels are internally anonymous, and external evidence for authorship only dates back to the second century, at least 80 or so years after they were supposed by Christian tradition to have been written. Given the general gullibility and deep bias of these second-century church fathers, their testimonies do not hold much weight. In the mean time, internal evidence (textual & form criticism) places the earliest Gospel at c. 66-70 (corresponding to the Jewish revolt) and the latest Gospel shortly thereafter. This late time frame, in conjunction with other textual and even early external evidence, makes it extremely unlikely that any of the Gospels were written by any eyewitness (which rules out any of the alleged Twelve). Whether or not the Gospel authors were disciples of eyewitnesses is another story, however. It remains possible that GMark and GLuke were written by John Mark, disciple of Peter, and Luke the physician, disciple of Paul, respectively. Nevertheless, that their involvement cannot be ruled out does not mean that it is likely tradition holds true. IMHO--and this sentence must be read carefully--Mark and Luke remain the most likely of all individual candidates for authorship of GMark and GLuke, but each tradition is still unlikely, taken individually. These disputes are discussed, albeit with little detail, in the Authorship section of the article.--Hurtstotalktoyou 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copy Errors
Should there be an extensive section on the large amount of variation within the New Testament within the first four centuries of the C.E. due to mistakes in copying. There are key passages in the New Testament which are either absent or heavily modified in the earliest drafts found. In the words of Bart D. Ehrman (Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina): "There are more variations among our manuscripts [of the New Testament] than there are words in the New Testament."--Roland Deschain 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- For example: the last twelve verses of Mark are added much later by scribes.
[edit] Protestantism
The stuff on Protestantism is a very American POV and in an international perspective not a NPOV. I have clarified it by adding words liek "American", "in the USA" etc. But as a non-American Protestant I could relate to some of it. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" have different means in the USA and the UK and I do not consider them NPOV words. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) only relates to the USA and the Creationism/evolution debate is not such of a big deal outside the USA.
Ideally this whole section could be rewritten to be country-neutral and not be so USA-centric, although it was quite interesting to find out the American perspectives.
[edit] Apocrypha notes
To user:75.15.207.241: The Didache's "teachings" are attributed to the Apostles, but the document itself is not. The Gospel of Thomas was not actually written by Thomas, but is an anonymous document written by an unknown author. Thankyou, though, for correcting the Gospel of Peter entry. I added some further info, too.--Hurtstotalktoyou 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller editor: "Prologue: These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded." In the note of the prologue: "The title, which occurs at the end of the gospel, ascribes it to the apostle Thomas, who was thought by the early church to have evangelized eastern Syria and India."
Sure, that's what the document says, but of course it wasn't actually written by Thomas.--Hurtstotalktoyou 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Apostolic Fathers, Michael Holmes editor, 2nd ed.: "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles" See also Talk: Didache. 75.15.207.241 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the document claims its authority and message is from the Apostles, but it does not claim the author of the text is an Apostle or Apostles. I've therefore reverted that bit.--Hurtstotalktoyou 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This kind of statement:
-
- Gospel of Peter, mostly lost Synoptic narrative which falsely claims Simon Peter as its author (14:3, 7:2); written by an unknown author c. AD 70–160.
is not NPOV. 75.15.207.241 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see how that's NPOV. The document claims to be written by Peter but was not. The author is unknown. I've restored the "by an unknown author" but omitted "falsely" in the new edit.
Also, while I appreciate your additional entries, I think the list is becomming to long, which detracts from the topic of the overall article. I propose we limit the entries to ten. These are the entries I'd keep: Didache (due to its uniqueness and early date), GThomas (this one's a no-brainer), Epistle of Barnabas (due to its importance in early canons), 1 Clement (unique for its probable authenticity), Apocalypse of Peter (because we should include at least one example from the apocalyptic genre), Shepherd (due to its importance in early canons), Gospel of Judas (another no-brainer), Infancy Gospel of James (because we should include at least one example from the infancy genre), Laodiceans (to demonstrate the existence of apocryphal Pauline literature), and the Gospel of the Egyptians (just because it makes an even ten). --Hurtstotalktoyou 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dates (general range)
Finding a scholarly consensus of dates is very difficult. As far as I can tell, the earliest NT writing was probably 1 Thes, c. 45-50 AD. The latest writing is unknown. It could be 2 Timothy, Acts, or perhaps even GJohn. It seems to me that all these writings were completed before c. 110 AD, but there is sufficient doubt to extend the range somewhat further. I thought 140 AD was appropriate. Perhaps we should tighten it back to 110 or 120, though. What do you all think?
[edit] Dating Is Too Arrogant
Although I agree that the original New Testament writings were written in the times specified, we do still do not know everything. I think we should consider philosophically what we can really be sure of, and realise that todays fact could be tommorows myth.
This is why I say we should state the dating of the New Testament as the major opinion, instead of a fact.
- But it is a fact. That some folks dispute the exact dates isn't at issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a philosophy. Every fact has some chance of being proven wrong. That doesn't mean we need to put a caveat on every assertion.--64.107.201.150 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ummmm no, the dates are based on opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.200.208 (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Written dates
If it was really written sometime long after Jesus died, how can it even be accurate? Why is it written from a 1st person perspective? Are you telling me the people Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply held everything in for 10-20 years moved to Greece and then wrote their gospels? I don't believe that. There were obviously early lost documents the Greek New Testament was based on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.101.237.13 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
- The information was given by God to them to write! Yes I am a Christian and God is real!Yet to keep wikipedia nuetral I can only say that God is real on the talk pages. 76.100.206.73 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Two words for you: oral tradition. The "early lost documents" are lost because they were never written down, but were conveyed orally. The gospel writers clearly selected from a common oral tradition when they composed their narratives. Wesley (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Church of latter Day Saints
I undid User:Amuffler's entry on the Mormons. Thousands of churches take the New Testament as the gospel, ergo, this entry is hardly fitting. Nothing against the Mormons, it's just a non sequitor.
[edit] Accuracy
Parts of this article are not accurate and/or clear regarding recent liberal scholarship being at odds with orthodoxy (esp. the sections on the development of the canon).
[edit] Authority section
I removed a lengthy POV note in the Authority section. This section seems quite at odds with an encyclopedia entry - it veers into off-topic areas and needs a major cleanup.Topologyrob 13:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Type-types
"For example, Codex Washingtonianus consists of only the four gospels, and yet, different parts are written in different type-types."
I suspect this should read "...different parts of it are written in different text-types." D021317c 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The first edition of the New Testament
is not mentioned in this article. Assuming that the NT was written in Greek, the date of the editio princeps is not in doubt, but is frequently given incorrectly. As 1516, the date of Erasmus' version printed by Froben at Basle. The NT was in fact printed on 10 April 1514 by De Brocar at Alcala de Henares as the 5th volume (but first to be completed) of the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes. This confusion arose because, although printed in 1514, the set was not published until 1522. Colcestrian 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus commands
I was just wondering...does Jesus actually command people to "believe" on Him to be saved in the original Greek/Aramaic, or did He say something else that was twisted in the translations? Scorpionman (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The New Testament Is Origionally Hebrew
I bet yiu guys didn't know this, but after searching and studing the origion of the New Testament I found out that it was not origionally Greek but Hebrew. We should add this to the article for one reason and one reason only, it's true. If you don't believe me study for yourself and later on I'll try to find the site so yuo can look there if you need proof.The K.O. King (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't what evidence you would adduce for this, but the scholarly consensus denies it. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the site yet but they found the New Testament in Hebrew writings under the old Yerushalem (Jerusalem).The K.O. King (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Though Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament (including the Gospels) was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire"
Would it be safe to say it was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the EASTERN Roman Empire? In the Western Roman Empire (even before it was partitioned for administrative purposes in ) Latin prevailed, but in the Eastern Roman provnices (and some of the places Hellenized after Alexander the Great-especially in the cities. Ex:Alexandria, Egypt), I believe Greek was always the de facto language with the exception of government officials. Small change, but I think it would be an relevant one..
See 'background' in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire and... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Roman_Empire and... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Greek and... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jire%C4%8Dek_Line Im assuming all these things have sources and are the facts (this is Wikipedia, lol)..
Check this out too...
Under the "History" section: "Militarily Greece itself declined until it was conquered by the Romans from 168 BC onwards, though Greek culture would in turn conquer Roman life. A province of the Roman Empire, Greek culture would continue to dominate the eastern Mediterranean and when the Empire finally split in two the Eastern or Byzantine Empire, centred on Constantinople, would be Greek in nature, as well as encompassing Greece itself." > http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/greek
I just think that it would give people a more accurate idea of the possible places where the New Testament was most likey written (Eastern Roman Empire, specifically the places where Greek was the dominant language of the day), places that were Hellenized during the Hellenistic Era. I dont know if it should be taken into account in the article or not..because it could have been written by anyone anywhere - who knows..a Spanish guy in Iberia.
My two cents 134.121.247.116 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
