
The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures is the name given to the part of the Christianity Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus. The term is a translation of the Latin ''Novum Testamentum'', which translates the Greek language Η Καινη Διαθηκη, ''Hê Kainê Diathêkê'', meaning "The New Covenant" or Testament. It was originally used by early Christians to describe their relationship with God (see 2 Corinthians 3:6-15; Epistle to the Hebrews 9:15-20) and later to designate a particular collection of 27 books. == Primary Sources == The Church Fathers said that the Gospels of Matthew and John were the first gospels written. However this has now been contested (See Authentic Matthew and the Signs Gospel). Most people now believe that the Gospel of Mark and Q are the main primary sources of the Gospels. (See Jesus' existence ''Main article: Jesus and textual evidence'') ==Books of the New Testament== The 27 books of the New Testament were written by various authors at various times and places. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in a narrow span of time, over the course of around a century, possibly more. The following is a list of the New Testament books, followed by the author traditionally associated with that book. ===The Gospels=== The Gospels focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus: *The Gospel of Matthew - Matthew the Evangelist, a tax-collector and apostle. *The Gospel of Mark - Mark the Evangelist, a follower of Saint Peter and also of Paul of Tarsus. *The Gospel of Luke - Luke the Evangelist, possibly a follower of Paul. *The Gospel of John - John the Evangelist, a fisherman and apostle. ===History=== The history of the early Christian church after the death of Christ is related here. *The Acts of the Apostles - Luke ===Epistles=== The epistles contain various letters written either to individuals or to early Christian congregations. Many of these epistles expound important theological points and give insight into the developing Christian church. ====Pauline Epistles==== The ''Pauline Epistles'' (or ''Corpus Paulinum'') constitute those epistles traditionally attributed to Paul (for modern views, see below under Authorship). Their names are based on the Christian groups or individuals to whom they are addressed. *Epistle to the Romans - Paul the Apostle *First Epistle to the Corinthians - Paul *Second Epistle to the Corinthians - Paul *Epistle to the Galatians - Paul *Epistle to the Ephesians - Paul *Epistle to the Philippians - Paul *Epistle to the Colossians - Paul *First Epistle to the Thessalonians - Paul *Second Epistle to the Thessalonians - Paul *First Epistle to Timothy - Paul *Second Epistle to Timothy - Paul *Epistle to Titus - Paul *Epistle to Philemon - Paul *Epistle to the Hebrews - Anonymous, traditionally attributed to Paul. ====General Epistles==== :''See main article: General Epistles'' The ''General'' or ''Catholic Epistles'' are those written to the church at large. They are named after their traditional author. In medieval times, they were often collected not with the Pauline epistles but with Acts to form the ''Praxapostolos''. *Epistle of James - James the Just, "the brother of the Lord" *First Epistle of Peter - Peter the Apostle *Second Epistle of Peter - Peter the Apostle (normally considered to be written by another author by modern scholars) *First Epistle of John - John the Apostle (the Johannine letters are usually attributed to members of the community of his disciples, though 1 John closely resembles the Gospel of John in style and vocabulary) *Second Epistle of John - John the Apostle *Third Epistle of John - John the Apostle *Epistle of Jude - Jude, brother of James ===Prophecy=== *Book of Revelation - John the Divine Traditionally identified with John the Apostle ==Language== The common language spoken in the time of Jesus was Aramaic language. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in first-century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably Latin, Syriac language, and Coptic language. However, many of the church fathers claimed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (language), and some fathers contended that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke the Evangelist. Neither view holds much support among modern scholars, who argue that the literary quality of Matthew and Hebrews suggests that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated. It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the gospels of Mark and John, are written in relatively poor Greek. They are far from the refined Attic or Classical Greek one finds composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. A minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation. This view is known as Aramaic primacy. ==Authorship== The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark the Evangelist and Luke the Evangelist). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for ''Hebrews'', no serious question about the authorship of any of the books as listed above was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began. Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these "undisputed" Paulines include Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Scholars are divided over the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians (listed in decreasing order of support). As a general matter, only evangelical scholars continue to accept Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Almost no current mainstream scholar, however, evangelical or liberal, holds that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, controversy about the authorship of ''Hebrews'', the only anonymous epistle, goes back to the early Church fathers. Tertullian suggested that the author was Barnabas, but Clement of Alexandria proposed was that it was written by Paul and translated by Luke or Clement of Rome. Origen in the midst of this controversy conceded that "God only knows" who the author really was. The exact authorship of most other books has not been agreed upon by any measure. The issue of authorship is somewhat different for the gospels, because they are all technically anonymous so the question becomes whether the traditional attributions (to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are correct. The Johannine writings, particularly the Gospel and the first epistle, have been accepted as coming from circles around John the Evangelist, and the main authorship question there is whether Revelation is ascribed to the same John or to another John. Of key concern is the role of presuppositions in Biblical scholarship, especially gospel and historical Jesus studies. It is now widely recognized that every individual comes to historical study with their own experiences, religious beliefs, and philosophical assumptions, and that these factors can play a defining role in the final product that any particular scholar produces. In the case of the gospels, modern research has been approached from a number of persepctives: Jewish, feminist, Protestant, Roman Catholic, agnostic, materialist, historical, and social-scientific, to name just a few. A prime example of this diversity of opinion is represented in the numerous, often contradictory, "historical Jesus" books published in the past 25 years (compare, for example, the work of the Jesus Seminar, B. Mack, J. Dominic Crossan with that of John P. Meier, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright). This has often had the effect of creating reconstructions of Jesus in the images of the particular authors, as opposed to narrating who Jesus really was, what he did, and what he taught. Nevertheless, most scholars are of the opinion that this process of often heated debate has produced viable results. The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels. Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person? The dominant view among critical scholars, the Two-Source Hypothesis, is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the Q document. from ''Quelle'', the German word for "source". The nature and even existence of Q is speculative. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. No information about its author, if it existed, can be obtained from the resources currently available, and, indeed, little or any direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable. Modern scholars are also skeptical about authorship claims for non-canonical books, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in Egypt in 1945. This corpus of fifty-two Coptic books, dated to about 350-400, includes gospels in the names of Thomas, Philip, James, John, and many others. Like almost all ancient works, they represent copies rather than original texts. None of the original texts has been discovered and scholars argue about the dating of the originals. Suggested dates run from as early as 50 or as late as the late second century. See Gospel of Thomas and New Testament Apocrypha. ==Date of composition== According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelicalism and Traditionalism scholars continue to support this dating. Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphy (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul of Tarsus, written probably 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter usually being the latest. However, John A. T. Robinson, ''Redating the New Testament'' (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Gospel of Matthew 24:15-21 and Gospel of Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals. In the 1830s, German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement I in 95, quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first draft stage, although others were probably not completed until later, while editing, some minor, some major, continued until the present day. ==The canonization of the New Testament== :''Main article: Biblical canon'' The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development. In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha. One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was his Gnosticism theology. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by Athanasius of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially Epistle of James and Book of Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians. ==Views on New Testament authority== All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authorititativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of ''inspiration'', which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the Bible's infallibility, inerrancy, and authorititativeness. One possible source of confusion is that these terms are difficult to define, because many people use them interchangeably or with very different meanings. This article will use the terms in the following manner: *''Infallibility'' relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in matters of doctrine. *''Inerrancy'' relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions). *''Authoritativeness'' relates to the correctness of the Bible in questions of practice and morality. All of these concepts depend for their meaning on the supposition that the text of Bible has been properly interpreted, with consideration for the intention of the text, whether literal history, allegory or poetry, etc. Especially the doctrine of inerrancy is variously understood according to the weight given by the interpreter to scientific investigations of the world. A brief outline of these views in different Christian denominations follows. ===Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy=== For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, there are two strands of revelation, the Bible, and the Apostolic Tradition. Both of them are interpreted by the teachings of the Church. In Catholic terminology, the Teaching Office is called the Magisterium; in Orthodox terminology, the authentic interpretation of scripture and tradition is limited to Ecumenical councils. Both sources of revelation are considered necessary for proper understanding of the tenets of the faith. The Roman Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992): :§ 83: ''As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'' :§ 107: ''The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.'' ===Protestantism=== Following the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions supposedly derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to re-evaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in some Protestant traditions even to the re-evaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. However, the adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of Scripture vary widely. ====Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestantism==== Among conservatives, Fundamentalist Christianity and neo-evangelicalism believe that the Scriptures are both human and divine in origin: human in their manner of composition, but divine in that their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers of Scripture in such a way that they recorded nothing at all contrary to the truth. Fundamentalists accept the enduring authoritativeness and impugnability of a pre-scientific interpretation of the Bible, especially on such issues as the ordination of women, abortion, and homosexuality. However, although they are overwhelmingly opposed to such things, evangelicals are increasingly willing to consider that the views of the Biblical authors may have been intentionally "culturally conditioned", and evangelicals may even argue that there is room for change along with cultural norms and scientific advancements. Fundamentalists may be therefore described as "conservatives", whereas evangelicals might be better characterized as more flexibly "traditional" on these and other issues. Both fundamentalists and evangelicals profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but the stronger emphasis on literal interpretation by fundamentalists has led to the rejection of many scientific concepts, particularly that of evolution. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to avoid interpretations of the Bible that would directly contradict generally accepted scientific assertions of fact. They do not impute error to Biblical authors, but rather entertain various theories of literary intent, which might give credibility to human progress in knowledge of the world while still accepting the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. While separation from the world and its influences may be the primary message of the New Testament for some fundamentalists, evangelicals try to remain part of wider society as a witness to personal salvation through Christ. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is an influential statement, articulating evangelical views on this issue. Paragraph 4 of its summary states: ''Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.'' Critics of such a position point out that there are many statements that Jesus makes in the Gospels or that Paul makes in his epistles, even to the point of making them commands, which are not taken as commands by most advocates of Biblical Inerrancy. Examples of this are Jesus's command to the disciples to sell all they have and give the money to the poor so as to gain the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:21), or Paul's calls to imitate him in celibacy (1 Cor 7:8). Other sections of the Bible, such as the second half of John chapter 6, where Jesus commands that the disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood, are interpreted by most adherents of Biblical Inerrancy as symbolic language rather than literally, as might be expected from the statements of the doctrine. Supporters of Biblical Inerrancy generally argue that these passages are intended to be symbolic, and that their symbolic nature can be seen directly in the text, thus preserving the doctrine. ====Mainline and liberal Protestantism==== Mainline Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but officially interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching, from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the Scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly. For example, ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches, abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal sin or a crime against an unborn person, and homosexuality is increasingly regarded as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. The most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted. Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report that: ''We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or pre-scientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail.'' Those who are more liberal view the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy (which ironically, leads them to read certain passages far more literally than most evangelicals, so that the text is interpreted in a way that necessarily conflicts with a modern, scientific view of the world). These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their Evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of Scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for justice. The message of personal salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's Ethic of Reciprocity and admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative. As such, belief in the errancy of the words of Scripture is in practice as important to Protestant liberalism as inerrancy is to its evangelical and fundamentalist counterparts. ==External links and references== *[http://www.greekbible.com Greek New Testament text (searchable) with lexical aids] *[http://st-takla.org/Bibles/Holy-Bible.html Full text of the New Testament in English, Arabic, Amharic, Hebrew and French] *[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html Greek New Testament] This is a Greek text of the New Testament, specifically the Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants. *[http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/10 New Testament at Project Gutenberg] *[http://www.romansonline.com/sources/Nwt/indxNT.asp The New Testament] *[http://www.ntgateway.com/ The New Testament Gateway - Dr. Mark Goodacre] *[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy] *[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Overview of Inerrancy] *[http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] *[http://www.bswett.com/1998-05Church300.html State Church Of The Roman Empire] *A comprehensive discussion of the development and authorship of the New Testament can be found at these pages: **[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm] **[http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm] **[http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ Synoptic Problem Home Page] *For more information on the Evangelicalism view on the time of writing, see: **[http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm] **''More Than a Carpenter'', chapter 4, by Joshua McDowell **''Redating the New Testament'' by John A.T. Robinson, who dates every book of the N.T. to before 70. *For further reading: **''Who Wrote the New Testament?'' by Burton L. Mack, Harper, 1996 **''Who Wrote the Gospels?'' by Randel McCraw Helms. *[http://www.new-testament-ethics.org/ Ethics of the New Testament] - article by V.Antonov *Raymond E. Brown's ''An Introduction to the New Testament'' is considered by many scholars to be one of the finest general introductions to the NT. ==See also== *Bible translations *the Canon of Scripture *Books of the Bible *Gospel of Thomas *New Testament apocrypha *Old Testament *Textus Receptus *:Category:New Testament books *[http://www.ApologeticsCourses.Com Apologia] - Courses Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions *[http://www.Bible4U.Info Christian Faith] - Exhaustive Information About Christian Faith *[http://thanks4supporting.us/bibles Thanks4supporting.us/bibles]Read the Bible in other versions & translations New Testament la:Novum Testamentum nds:Nieg Testament
:Revertion Cough, bias from the article and added some information. Someone then reverted it. Without getting into an edit war, could they explain what exactly is wrong with the information that the gospels were selected from a pool of hundreds around the second century CE? [- The Rev letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude were all rejected by the early council and only became part of the book afterwards. :::The fact of when the council was called together and selected the gospels that it felt were aunthentic for inclusion in the New Testament is not disputed byto be accurate). In older texts, many words are truncated or abbreviated, also, which leads to even greater ambiguity. :::The order in which the gospels are placed is also possibly incorrect, and different from the order in which early church figures put them. (Matthew, Mark and Luke is the order that Irenaeus, Oregin and Augustine, amongst others, had them in.) The synoptic problem is well known and at least warrants a mention. :::Its worth pointing out at this point that most Scholars of the Bible, even now but especially in earlier centuries, were committed Christians and, frankly, cannot be trusted to look at the issues with a NPOV or without ignoring thorny theological issues. :::It is well known that from the beginning Christianity was sundered with strong, bitter disputes over ideology, with many competing sects and claims. The letters of Paul are full of references to opponents and how he struggled to maintain his own congregations. :::There are hundreds of groups who have claimed the title 'Christian' over the years, and every edition of their bibles, including the New Testaments, are different. Edited and translated differently. :::As far as I can see when presenting an article about strongly held beliefs, presenting those beliefs as if they were totally true, including the bias of all the scholars of that belief, without consulting the evidence and facts sans that particular belief (a Unitarian, an Agnostic, or one of another religion that doesnt have beliefs regarding Jesus/ the New Testament should be able to do so) - THAT is presenting a POV. :::Reiteration: Presenting the beliefs of a particular sect (that the gospels were written concurrently with the events they describe, that they are the inerrant word of a god, that they have never been edited, etc - any of these if not all-) is extremely biased and not NPOV. - [The Rev of Bru] ::::I'm not saying that we should present only the beliefs of a particular sect. The additional books that you mention were debated, but the great majority of them are not Gospels (The Shepherd, The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.) and don't try to teach about the life of Christ. The Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James fall into a different category. These were rejected "gospels". All these works are discussed in New Testament Apocrypha. Since most of them don't talk about Jesus' life, they can't be presented as "hundreds of other Gospels". However, the New Testament Apocrypha should certainly be mentioned in the article. I will take a look to see why it is not. (Canon formation is discussed in Biblical canon and should be linked here as well -- is it not?). ::::However, I differ with you about the time of composition. I haven't seen any serious scholar suggest that any of the books accepted as part of the New Testament was originally written before about 45 AD (with most assuming a considerably later date) or later than about 120-130 AD (for 2 Peter). That's a range of one century, as the article says. There was obviously some editing thereafter, but most of the changes that we can document appear to be copyist errors or copying of material from one Gospel to the other to "harmonize" them. Thus "the documents were heavily edited over four to five centuries" is misleading, based on the information available to us. The fact is that we have far more early sources of the New Testament than for any other ancient work, and the copies are closer to being in agreement with each other than for almost any other ancient work. ::::Practically no one claims that the Gospels are in cronological order of composition. That is discussed in the page on the Synoptic problem. User:Mpolo 10:02, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) ::::See the section on "New Testament canonization" in this article, which should more or less address the issues you raise. User:Mpolo 10:09, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) :::::So basically you are agreeing that only some books out of a pool of many more were selected as part of the New Testament, with some quibbling, and are trying to downplay the editing that has gone on. Compare the King James version to the original greek. If you can claim that that is not major editing, you are not being honest. I'm changing it to reflect NPOV. And the reason we have more copies of the early sources of the New Testament than other contemporary works is that the early christian church burned or destroyed works by pagan authors. Scholars also disagree as to the dates for the 'original' gospels, with estimates ranging to over a century between them- but of course, with the large changes and additions that were wrought to harmonise the stories around the second century, they can hardly be said to have been written entirely at one time. - [The Rev of Bru] ::::::Translation is a different thing than editing. There is also a page on Bible translations that discusses this. Obviously NO translation can be perfect, as it always reflects a creative process of the translator (or else it is a computer translation and then worthless). I'm saying that the Greek text shows relatively few signs of editing compared to works of a similar age. Everything you want to add seems to already be in the article or its daughter articles, and with references, saying which scholar and which council, where you are saying "lots of people" and "a council in the 2nd century". If you notice, the article holds that the canon wasn't decided until the 4th century, citing the particular councils where it was decided. User:Mpolo :::::::Translation is indeed a different thing than editing, which is why I used the word 'Editing' as opposed to the word 'translation.' Since the oldest greek manuscripts, which are not originals but old enough to be works that have been edited and had changes wrought, the bible unquestionably changes from version to version, with one of the largest changes being, as I have already said, the King James version, which completely changes the meaning of some parts (eg slaves becomes servants.) There is a difference between a translation and changing the meaning of words in the process of translation and, unbiased observers would agree, most revisions have been more than mere translations.User:The Rev of Bru 10:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Coming back to the left... The King James Version is a ''translation'' of the Greek text. That the translators chose "servants" to translate Greek "doulos" could be termed an "editorial" decision, I suppose, but since they didn't change the Greek text, it's hard to call that an "editing" of the original text, as you are claiming. It is a better or worse ''translation''. (In general, I don't particularly like the KJV.) Looking into the specific word, in Greek, the word is first found in Homer (but only in feminine), then is widely used in Thucydides and Herodotus. It technically means a born slave (as opposed to a captive or servant), but Herodotus used it for both senses. The word was used as an adjective for "slavish, servile, subject" by Sophocles, so an argument that the word meant "servant" by the New Testament times is not altogether unreasonable. Certainly in Modern Greek it has both meanings. (This is from Liddel & Scott and a pocket Collins Modern Greek dictionary.) That said, I tend to translate the word with "slave", personally. Translation is an art, and a difficult one at that... There's no such thing as "the one true translation". We may quibble or even strongly differ on the choice of words that the translator used -- some "translations" would be better termed "paraphrases", but I think that you're going to confuse the reader calling these translations "edited versions" of the Scriptures. User:Mpolo 14:22, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) :I've clarified the authorship section as best I know how, without spending too much time writing it. Feel free to clean up the prose. Rev, you should know that much of what you have said above would not be held by modern, critical scholars of the gospels. I'm currently doing biblical studies work at Oxford University, and some of the most highly regarded scholars in the world hold positions much closer to what Mpolo has said. Granted...I didn't read every post - all four of your hands must be tired by now after all of the above! BTW - the whole discussion about the KJV is a bit off topic...if you want to get into Greek-English translation stuff, it's best to refer to the NRSV, the version most scholars use. It's edited and overseen by Bruce Metzger, basically the world expert on New and Old Testament manuscripts and English translation (he's been at it for something like 60 years now!). His preface in the front of some versions might be helpful to what you two have been discussing. Best,--User:Jcdavis 00:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Mpolo; fair anough but I really don't see how you can claim that the bible has not been substantially edited over the years. The very existence of different versions of the bible is not just ascribable to translation differences. To both of you; I know the KJV is not taken seriously nowadays; that is exactly the POINT. Its not just a translation, its an editorialised version. That nowadays, with the opening of scholarship to more people and much more openness in general towards biblical study, there are more accurate translations (and less edited), yes. But that doesnt remove the fact that in the intervening centuries the bible was changed according to the whims of those doing the translation, of which paraphrasing may be unintentional editorial or even intentional.User:The Rev of Bru ----- :Acts of the Apostles -- according to tradition, written by Luke The author of the :Acts of the Apostles identifies himself in the prologue as the same person who wrote the third gospel. If we accept Luke as the author of the latter, we must not shy away from attributing the Acts to him as well. ---- :James, "the brother of Jesus" :Jude, counted among the "brothers of Jesus" We should have a link to "brothers of Jesus", with an explanation of what degree of familiar relation (sibling or cousin) "brother" implied in the times and the culture of Jesus. ---- Is there any controversy regarding Jude ? I seem to recall Thaddeus (Jude) the apostle wrote it... ---- surely a better (and no less accurate) translation for 'synoptic' is "same view" (as in point of view) rather than "same eye"? And much as I love Austin Farrer (I regularly assign his book on Revelation), he's not the only critic to suggest that Q is an unnecessary construct. It's a whole school of thought, not restricted to pre-1960 English persons (my favorite critic of Biblical criticism is still Dorothy Sayers, whose take on the typical view of John is without equal - and entirely possible). --MichaelTinkler : Regarding the translation of "synoptic", remember that in Wikipedia, he who proposes, disposes. :) Go ahead and change it. ---- soulpatch, please don't go through the entire 'pedia changing AD to CE, just because you like it better. This kind of thing needs to be discussed by the Wikipedia community. --User:Ed Poor :Per discussion on the list, isn't CE clearly the more NPOV? Why should we revert this change? User:Graft : I agree with Graft. CE is preferable to AD, why change it back? And CE exists in several articles in the Wikipedia, so are you going to go and change all those from CE to AD? User:soulpatch If there was discussion on the list approving CE over AD, I must have missed it. I thought it was settled just the other way. I'll ask Mav, who pays closer attention to such things. --User:Ed Poor :No decision was made, as far as I can tell, other than lots of expression of opinion. Mav expresses the point of view that :: BC is still comfortably the dominant usage and since there aren't any pressing POV issues with it we should stay with it. :which is fair enough, except that I don't think it implies we should prefer BC to BCE or AD to CE, just that we shouldn't be making especial efforts to change from one to the other. But, if soulpatch wants to change AD->CE, i think NPOV is definitely in his favor. User:Graft : AD is religion-neutral in the same sense that "he" is gender-neutral. It is so, unless someone objects for partisan reasons. In that case, as far as I'm concerned, the only cost of the change to "CE" (like the change to "they"), is the stigmatization and politicization of the past, when these "POV" conventions did not have the implications that they do now. In short, not worth objecting to either way, in my personal opinion, and therefore better to yield to those who feel strongly. User:Mkmcconn :Sorry? That, to be brutally honest,mkmcconn, is nonsense. AD stands for Anno Domini: In the Year of Our Lord. It does not stand for 'years since Jesus' or whatever you seem to think it does. Incidentally, AD is properly put BEFORE the date, not after it. AD is offensive to everyone who is not Christian, and is very much not NPOV. [-The Rev of Bru] : With respect to Graft, I maintain that is incorrect to say that AD is POV, but CE is NPOV. IMO, using CE instead of AD is like trying to take a white-out to history. Yes, the bulk of scholarship believes that Jesus was not born in the year A.D. 1, however, His birth IS the reason we set the year "1" to be what it is. All current, existing, up-to-date reasons for using that date are ultimately rooted in the year that scholarship initially thought was His birth. It was not because educated people woke up one day and thought, "hmmm... let's all agree on 2004 years ago as the starting point for a common dating mechanism." Should people not have that understanding? If you still disagree with me, ask yourselves these two questions: Can you fully understand the origin, meaning and use of "A.D." without understanding "C.E."? (I would say yes.) On the other hand, can you fully understand the origin, meaning and use of "C.E." without understanding "A.D."? (I would say no.) Therefore, I assert that CE is POV, but AD is NPOV. User:BeakerK44 00:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Because of the subject matter of this article, which didn't exist before Christ, all relevant dates are AD/CE, so I think we can lighten the prose by removing all of the noise abbreviations. I boldly made the change, if you think it is confusing, change it back. User:Stephen C. Carlson ---- Is there some documentation to support the blanket statements that * ''modern biblical scholarship, with the exception of Evangelicals, no longer believe that Jesus's immediate disciples wrote any of the books. '' What is the definition of "modern", "scholarship" and "Evangelical" that makes the statement credible, that it is a distinctive of "Evangelicals" to believe that at least some, most, or even all of the books of the New Testament were written by their attributed author? Or, is the statement suggesting that such a finding is either not modern, or is not scholarship, if it occurs outside of Evangelicalism? In that case, is it an unproveable assumption? * '' Among the denominations which do not teach inerrancy include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church'' What is the definition of "inerrancy" that makes this statement credible? Especially in light of the statement later, that the Catholics and Orthodox consider Tradition infallible - do they consider Tradition to be a ''correction'' of errors in Scripture, or do they claim that Tradition infallibly interprets the Bible? If the latter and not the former then, it is irrational to conclude that they do not hold an infallible Scripture. I suspect that the statement means to imply an equivalence between "inerrant" and "literalistically infallible" (infallible if always interpreted in a literalistic sense where possible: "day" == "24 hours", "all the earth covered by a flood" == "every square inch of the face of the earth under water", 6,000 year old creation, etc.) Is that the case? User:Mkmcconn #The 6 days of creation may be seen in the light of the verse, "With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day" (quoting from memory, must look this up!). #The story of a world-wide flood was written down before the idea of the earth as a sphere was well-known. Plainly, it would talk a lot of water to cover Mt. Everest; what is it, 5 miles high? We're talking enough rain to increase the ocean's depth by 5 miles. The "covered by a flood" thing may have been meant to refer to all land within a conceivable distance; either that, or maybe the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally in every detail. --User:Ed Poor The inerrancy discussion is a muddle, and that it is probably hard to avoid because of the many definitions of inerrancy floating out there. I'm looking to making it a bit more specific, e.g. with regard to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. User:Stephen C. Carlson :Literalistic interpretation should not be made to have anything to do with [should not be made identical to] inerrancy. There is a big difference between saying that "the Bible contains lies and gets the facts wrong", and "some classic interpretations of the Bible have been re-evaluated in light of later knowledge". The former is not compatible with inerrancy, but the latter certainly is. User:Mkmcconn ::That's not for you or me to say. If theologians out there say that literalism and inerrancy are related, we have to report that. We're not trying to write an ''objective'' article but a ''neutral'' one. --User:Ed Poor ::Literalism (i.e. literalistic interpretation) and inerrancy are distinct issues, but related. The current N.T. article does address literalism, but does address inerrancy. It is my view that inerrancy is a largely evangelical view on the question of inspiration of the N.T., and other traditions have their own take on inspiration and so may not agree with the evangelical Chicago Statement on all particulars. User:Stephen C. Carlson :: It is not objective or neutral to be counter-factual. Inerrancy is simply the doctrine that there are zero errors in the Bible. Some particular defense of inerrancy may be tied to some particular literal interpretation, and another defense may not be tied in such a way. They share the same assumptions about the Bible's trustworthiness, but differ concerning the reliability of a particular interpretation. These are very different things. User:Mkmcconn ::In a particular group, their hermeneutic may require a literalistic interpretation of "God made a greater light to rule the day", and believe accordingly that the sun is the biggest light in the universe - but the fact that hardly anyone can be found who believes what used to be a common naive assumption about the relative size of the sun, is testimony to the fact that people gain insight into the Bible's intent by knowing more about the world that the Bible describes. It does not mean that people have discovered that the Bible was wrong about the size of the sun - they fixed their interpretation. If we report as though it were a fact that inerrancy is equivalent to literalistic interpretations, we will most definitely be misreporting the facts. However, I did over-state myself in saying they have nothing to do with one another. Literalism and inerrancy are not equivalent - they are very much distinct, is all I should have said. User:Mkmcconn ::: ''... history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.'' (from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ) User:Mkmcconn :::: I'm not sure I entirely understand how to interpret that quote from the Chicago statement. The "poetry and poetry" and "hyperbole as hyperbole" part makes sense, and it suggests using common sense in interpreting biblical passages. Obviously, a poem that says "The Lord is my Shepherd" is not claiming that God is literally a shepherd. So poetry and poetic metaphors are obviously not to be taken literally. But I am not sure what to make about its statement about total precision not being expected or aimed at. Suppose (hypothetically speaking, of course) that the Bible gets a few historical facts wrong when it is making some grander theological claim, such as getting the name of a king wrong or otherwise making a historical error. Does the Chicago statement admit that this is possible but acceptable under its definition of "inerrancy" because the broader claim being made in the context of that historical inaccuracy is true and inerrant? Or is the Chicago statement saying that historical inaccuracies are impossible? User:soulpatch ::::: This statement and similar ones, reject the presupposition that the Bible is only reliable when it's talking about things that are "non-factual". However, it cautions against imposing on Scripture an anachronistic measure of precision. There are many historical puzzles in the Bible - some caused by what we ''don't'' know, and others caused by what we ''do'' know. The Chicago statement advises religiously that these historical puzzles will be solved more reliably in the long run, by those who approach them in faith and reverence, than by cynicism and unbelief. User:Mkmcconn ::::: I guess I still don't understand whether that means that the assumption is that the historical puzzles will always be resolved in favor of the Bible being correct. User:soulpatch :::::: Yes, I'm sure that it is a religious presupposition that every historical puzzle will finally be resolved in favor of the Bible being correct - only, it does not prescribe what that resolution will be before it's found. User:Mkmcconn OK. I'm generally pleased with the way it worked out. Thanks to everyone's comments and to User:Mkmcconn for the expansion of the new approach to the topic. -- User:Stephen C. Carlson 17:05 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC) ---- Moving discussion of the origin of the gospels to the Gospels page. User:Stephen C. Carlson == Recent reversions == Recently, an anonymous user (200.85.34.114) made a number of changes to this article, which I reverted. Most of these were to promote one set of beliefs regarding the original language. Many of the rest were simply misguided (e.g. referring to the Old Testament as "the Tanakh, which Christians call the Old Testament"; articles about Judaism should refer to it as the Tanakh, but articles on Christianity should refer to it as the Old Testament.) The changes were also poorly written, with strained grammar. So I reverted them. I don't mean to offend you in this, 200.85.34.114. Perhaps your points could be made in an NPOV way? I'd advise you to get a login account, read the NPOV policy, and then make your changes. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 16:31, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) == WikiProject == Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! User:Mpolo 13:28, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) == Template:Books of the New Testament == I've created a Template:Books of the New Testament. Does anybody have any objections to me adding it to all linked articles (just as has been done with Template:Books of Nevi'im)? -- User:Itai 01:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Seeing as there were no objections, I took care of the addition. -- User:Itai 18:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Authorship== ''"Since Strauss the authorship of every book in the New Testament has been debated, although it is significant that a substantial number have been shown to be written by their said author."'' Quite to the contrary, what is genuinely significant is that the conclusions of two centuries of scholarship on the question are still suppressed in this traditional fashion. Several letters of Paul that are agreed to have been written by Paul must supply the intentionally vague "substantial number." The statement is an "untruth," as the expression is. User:Wetman 22:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) :As much as I wanted to disagree with you, I couldn't. So I made a bit of a change to make clear exactly what has "agreed upon" authorship. I hope that that meets with everyone's approval or near-approval. User:Mpolo 07:19, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC) == Biblical Inerrancy == I think, after consideration, my last edit could be percieved as rather POV. Could someone render it more neutral please? User:81.156.176.182 10:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) == "(in Christian context)" == What other context is there for "Greek Scriptures"? Is the phrase "Greek Scriptures" used in any other way or context? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :OK, in this case I misunderstood the word 'scripture', in Dutch 'scripture' is translated with the same word as 'script'. However, your way of reverting is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. User:Jcbos 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::OK, thanks for explaining. In English they are quite different. However, your way of inserting text without prior Talk: discussion is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Is "Christian Bible" a pleonasm, or not? == Around March 7, 2005 User:Jcbos tried to remove "Christian" in the first line of this article on the grounds of it being a pleonasm. This has been reverted immediately. On the Dutch Wikipedia a huge debate started after I inserted (a translation of) "Christian" immediately before (a translation of) "Bible" in the first sentence of the artikle about the New Testament. Quite a lot of people do state their on that discussion page that "Bible" in religious context always refers to the Holy Scriptures of the Christians. Really, that was stated in these absolute terms, notwithstanding any reference I made to "Hebrew Bible". Even some people raised the question: "Is there another Bible than the Christian Bible?" User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Or, might it be a peculiarity of the english language that Bible could also mean something else than Christian Bible? Could NPOV differ among different languages? What is the overall Wikipedia policy for this? What would be the proper place for discussion of that last question? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) :This has been debated at length. Most editors on English Wikipedia appear to think that "Christian" serves as a disambiguation for Bible. You'll find the discussion at Talk:Bible. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 17:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::It simply depends on the context, both in dutch and english, even though the connotations of the word in dutch are different from those in english. The informal vote/poll on NL wikipedia was quite unanimous, in that in the context of the article from which it was removed, it was almost certainly a pleonasm. Intuitions of native speakers of english will tend to be quite different from those of native speakers of dutch on this matter, so any decision here will not apply there and vice versa. This applies more generally to most words in either language. User:Flyingbird 02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) A poll has been open on Talk:Bible over this controversy for over a week. The poll closed yesterday. Votes are counted. The effect of the poll is that 'Christian' should not be removed right before 'Bible' in the article. User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==POV== This article is extremly POV and pro-christian. It claims that there is one "new testement" when each church has a different version, with different origins. It present items of religious dogma as fact.--User:Irate 14:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC) :Could you be a little more specific, please? Perhaps give some examples? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::King James v Good News v RC etc.--User:Irate 17:33, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) :::You mean there are different English translations of the Greek Scriptures? Obviously that's true, but could you possibly give an example where the article has become POV because of this? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::They are not different translations they often stem from different books. The RC bible does not come from the greek but secondary latin. Each version is different to suit the various religions. They are not the same book at all, it PR to claim that they are.--User:Irate 20:58, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) :::::That point is covered in extenso in Bible translations. Which passage in New Testament claims they are the same? Where is the PR?? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 21:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::I'm as confused as you are. Irate, could you point to a ''specific'' sentence or passage you disagree with? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::It PR because it is claiming that all christians use the same book, they don't. It's like claiming that West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet are the same, simple because they have common origins. It PR because Christians like to think they all beleive the same thing and gain strngth from that, when in reality they have as much in common with Jews and Muslims than various sects have in common with each other. Look at the first line of the article, it states what christians claim as fact, when the dates of some books are unclear as is even the birth of Jesus. The King James bible was written by the state to make the state important, it ripped of the tyndall version and is allegdly one of the best translations. Though you don't hear catholics asking for it a lot.--User:Irate 11:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) :::::::It is your interpretation of (the first line) of the article 'that all christinas use the same book'. There is no such explicit claim in the article, however. Should we insert after Christian Bible something like 'which exists in many different translations?' Your other point relates to 'when the dates of some books are unclear as is even the birth of Jesus'. The article does not mention (in the first line) the birth date or birth year of Jesus - it only states that those books were written after the birth of Jesus, that is, it says those books were not written before the birth of Jesus. All these books do refer to the life or dead of Jesus, so they can not be written before the birth of Jesus. How could the article be rewritten to accommodate your point of view? It is somewhat POV to claim one translation better than another. User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::"many different translations, some with debatable neutarity" would do.--User:Irate 21:49, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) :::::::The various English translations of the Bible are quite a bit more similar to on another than West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet. Regardless, can you please quote a specific sentence which you think is POV, and explain why? So far I haven't been able to find any of your claims. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Different translations are covered in Bible translations. So this article needs a link to that article. The canon lists 27 books. The article doesn't mention the books outside the canon. Is that Jirates problem? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::This article already links to Bible translations, under "See also". As for your question, I'm not sure, perhaps User:Irate can explain. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 20:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::The Authorship section already ends with links to Gospel of Thomas and New Testament apocrypha. For completeness sake I included these two links in the See also section. I can not find a POV problem anymore. How to agree on removing the NPOV-template? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I think we'll have to wait for User:Irate to explain his issues; so far he hasn't been specific enough for me to understand what is bothering him. If there is no response in a day or so, we can assume his issues have been settled. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 20:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::I really don't understand the problem. As far as I know already beginning in the 4th century there is a worldwide consensus about which books are in the New Testament. Between the translations there is much to little difference to call them different New Testaments. They are just different translations of the same New Testament, sometimes translations of a translation of the New Testament. When people refer to the New Testament, they will not mean one specific translantion. So I'm curious about the real point of Irate. User:Jcbos 00:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Historicity== I think there needs to be a section the evaluates the historical merit of the New Testament MSS, from both sides of the debate. If the Historicity section I added was a POV, you should of seen it before I edited all the real POV out of it. I added examples of scholors who do not find the New Testament reliable, the point is that this is the test for historical reliability, Bibliographical Evidence, Internal Evidence, and External Evidence. Puting the debate of the Historicity of the New Testament into this kind of a structure puts it all into a context where true dissention can occur. Jayig, if you thought it was POV, it could have been edited to include more examples on the other side of the debate. It was not submited as a completed work, but only a work in progress toward becoming complete. My final goal is a comprehensive and detailed report of all the facts from all points of view. User:Rclose 22:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Biblical books Christianity
#REDIRECT New Testament
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with New_Testament:
New_Testament
New_Testament
New_Testament
New_testament
New_Testaments
New_Testament_Apocrypha
New_Testament_Apocrypha
New_Testament_apocrypha
New_Testament_apocrypha
New_Testament_Association_of_Independent_Baptist_Churches
New_Testament_books
New_Testament_chapters
New_Testament_Hebrews
New_Testament_people
New_Testament_places
New_Testament_Recovery_Version
New_Testament_Recovery_Version
New_Testament_stories
New_Testament_verses
New_Testament_view_on_Jesus'_life
New_Testament_view_on_Jesus'_life
New Testament
The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures is the name given to the part of the Christianity Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus. The term is a translation of the Latin ''Novum Testamentum'', which translates the Greek language Η Καινη Διαθηκη, ''Hê Kainê Diathêkê'', meaning "The New Covenant" or Testament. It was originally used by early Christians to describe their relationship with God (see 2 Corinthians 3:6-15; Epistle to the Hebrews 9:15-20) and later to designate a particular collection of 27 books. == Primary Sources == The Church Fathers said that the Gospels of Matthew and John were the first gospels written. However this has now been contested (See Authentic Matthew and the Signs Gospel). Most people now believe that the Gospel of Mark and Q are the main primary sources of the Gospels. (See Jesus' existence ''Main article: Jesus and textual evidence'') ==Books of the New Testament== The 27 books of the New Testament were written by various authors at various times and places. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in a narrow span of time, over the course of around a century, possibly more. The following is a list of the New Testament books, followed by the author traditionally associated with that book. ===The Gospels=== The Gospels focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus: *The Gospel of Matthew - Matthew the Evangelist, a tax-collector and apostle. *The Gospel of Mark - Mark the Evangelist, a follower of Saint Peter and also of Paul of Tarsus. *The Gospel of Luke - Luke the Evangelist, possibly a follower of Paul. *The Gospel of John - John the Evangelist, a fisherman and apostle. ===History=== The history of the early Christian church after the death of Christ is related here. *The Acts of the Apostles - Luke ===Epistles=== The epistles contain various letters written either to individuals or to early Christian congregations. Many of these epistles expound important theological points and give insight into the developing Christian church. ====Pauline Epistles==== The ''Pauline Epistles'' (or ''Corpus Paulinum'') constitute those epistles traditionally attributed to Paul (for modern views, see below under Authorship). Their names are based on the Christian groups or individuals to whom they are addressed. *Epistle to the Romans - Paul the Apostle *First Epistle to the Corinthians - Paul *Second Epistle to the Corinthians - Paul *Epistle to the Galatians - Paul *Epistle to the Ephesians - Paul *Epistle to the Philippians - Paul *Epistle to the Colossians - Paul *First Epistle to the Thessalonians - Paul *Second Epistle to the Thessalonians - Paul *First Epistle to Timothy - Paul *Second Epistle to Timothy - Paul *Epistle to Titus - Paul *Epistle to Philemon - Paul *Epistle to the Hebrews - Anonymous, traditionally attributed to Paul. ====General Epistles==== :''See main article: General Epistles'' The ''General'' or ''Catholic Epistles'' are those written to the church at large. They are named after their traditional author. In medieval times, they were often collected not with the Pauline epistles but with Acts to form the ''Praxapostolos''. *Epistle of James - James the Just, "the brother of the Lord" *First Epistle of Peter - Peter the Apostle *Second Epistle of Peter - Peter the Apostle (normally considered to be written by another author by modern scholars) *First Epistle of John - John the Apostle (the Johannine letters are usually attributed to members of the community of his disciples, though 1 John closely resembles the Gospel of John in style and vocabulary) *Second Epistle of John - John the Apostle *Third Epistle of John - John the Apostle *Epistle of Jude - Jude, brother of James ===Prophecy=== *Book of Revelation - John the Divine Traditionally identified with John the Apostle ==Language== The common language spoken in the time of Jesus was Aramaic language. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in first-century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably Latin, Syriac language, and Coptic language. However, many of the church fathers claimed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (language), and some fathers contended that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke the Evangelist. Neither view holds much support among modern scholars, who argue that the literary quality of Matthew and Hebrews suggests that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated. It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the gospels of Mark and John, are written in relatively poor Greek. They are far from the refined Attic or Classical Greek one finds composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. A minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation. This view is known as Aramaic primacy. ==Authorship== The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark the Evangelist and Luke the Evangelist). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for ''Hebrews'', no serious question about the authorship of any of the books as listed above was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began. Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these "undisputed" Paulines include Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Scholars are divided over the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians (listed in decreasing order of support). As a general matter, only evangelical scholars continue to accept Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Almost no current mainstream scholar, however, evangelical or liberal, holds that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, controversy about the authorship of ''Hebrews'', the only anonymous epistle, goes back to the early Church fathers. Tertullian suggested that the author was Barnabas, but Clement of Alexandria proposed was that it was written by Paul and translated by Luke or Clement of Rome. Origen in the midst of this controversy conceded that "God only knows" who the author really was. The exact authorship of most other books has not been agreed upon by any measure. The issue of authorship is somewhat different for the gospels, because they are all technically anonymous so the question becomes whether the traditional attributions (to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are correct. The Johannine writings, particularly the Gospel and the first epistle, have been accepted as coming from circles around John the Evangelist, and the main authorship question there is whether Revelation is ascribed to the same John or to another John. Of key concern is the role of presuppositions in Biblical scholarship, especially gospel and historical Jesus studies. It is now widely recognized that every individual comes to historical study with their own experiences, religious beliefs, and philosophical assumptions, and that these factors can play a defining role in the final product that any particular scholar produces. In the case of the gospels, modern research has been approached from a number of persepctives: Jewish, feminist, Protestant, Roman Catholic, agnostic, materialist, historical, and social-scientific, to name just a few. A prime example of this diversity of opinion is represented in the numerous, often contradictory, "historical Jesus" books published in the past 25 years (compare, for example, the work of the Jesus Seminar, B. Mack, J. Dominic Crossan with that of John P. Meier, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright). This has often had the effect of creating reconstructions of Jesus in the images of the particular authors, as opposed to narrating who Jesus really was, what he did, and what he taught. Nevertheless, most scholars are of the opinion that this process of often heated debate has produced viable results. The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels. Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person? The dominant view among critical scholars, the Two-Source Hypothesis, is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the Q document. from ''Quelle'', the German word for "source". The nature and even existence of Q is speculative. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. No information about its author, if it existed, can be obtained from the resources currently available, and, indeed, little or any direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable. Modern scholars are also skeptical about authorship claims for non-canonical books, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in Egypt in 1945. This corpus of fifty-two Coptic books, dated to about 350-400, includes gospels in the names of Thomas, Philip, James, John, and many others. Like almost all ancient works, they represent copies rather than original texts. None of the original texts has been discovered and scholars argue about the dating of the originals. Suggested dates run from as early as 50 or as late as the late second century. See Gospel of Thomas and New Testament Apocrypha. ==Date of composition== According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelicalism and Traditionalism scholars continue to support this dating. Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphy (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul of Tarsus, written probably 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter usually being the latest. However, John A. T. Robinson, ''Redating the New Testament'' (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Gospel of Matthew 24:15-21 and Gospel of Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals. In the 1830s, German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement I in 95, quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first draft stage, although others were probably not completed until later, while editing, some minor, some major, continued until the present day. ==The canonization of the New Testament== :''Main article: Biblical canon'' The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development. In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha. One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was his Gnosticism theology. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by Athanasius of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially Epistle of James and Book of Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians. ==Views on New Testament authority== All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authorititativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of ''inspiration'', which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the Bible's infallibility, inerrancy, and authorititativeness. One possible source of confusion is that these terms are difficult to define, because many people use them interchangeably or with very different meanings. This article will use the terms in the following manner: *''Infallibility'' relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in matters of doctrine. *''Inerrancy'' relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions). *''Authoritativeness'' relates to the correctness of the Bible in questions of practice and morality. All of these concepts depend for their meaning on the supposition that the text of Bible has been properly interpreted, with consideration for the intention of the text, whether literal history, allegory or poetry, etc. Especially the doctrine of inerrancy is variously understood according to the weight given by the interpreter to scientific investigations of the world. A brief outline of these views in different Christian denominations follows. ===Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy=== For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, there are two strands of revelation, the Bible, and the Apostolic Tradition. Both of them are interpreted by the teachings of the Church. In Catholic terminology, the Teaching Office is called the Magisterium; in Orthodox terminology, the authentic interpretation of scripture and tradition is limited to Ecumenical councils. Both sources of revelation are considered necessary for proper understanding of the tenets of the faith. The Roman Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992): :§ 83: ''As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'' :§ 107: ''The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.'' ===Protestantism=== Following the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions supposedly derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to re-evaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in some Protestant traditions even to the re-evaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. However, the adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of Scripture vary widely. ====Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestantism==== Among conservatives, Fundamentalist Christianity and neo-evangelicalism believe that the Scriptures are both human and divine in origin: human in their manner of composition, but divine in that their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers of Scripture in such a way that they recorded nothing at all contrary to the truth. Fundamentalists accept the enduring authoritativeness and impugnability of a pre-scientific interpretation of the Bible, especially on such issues as the ordination of women, abortion, and homosexuality. However, although they are overwhelmingly opposed to such things, evangelicals are increasingly willing to consider that the views of the Biblical authors may have been intentionally "culturally conditioned", and evangelicals may even argue that there is room for change along with cultural norms and scientific advancements. Fundamentalists may be therefore described as "conservatives", whereas evangelicals might be better characterized as more flexibly "traditional" on these and other issues. Both fundamentalists and evangelicals profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but the stronger emphasis on literal interpretation by fundamentalists has led to the rejection of many scientific concepts, particularly that of evolution. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to avoid interpretations of the Bible that would directly contradict generally accepted scientific assertions of fact. They do not impute error to Biblical authors, but rather entertain various theories of literary intent, which might give credibility to human progress in knowledge of the world while still accepting the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. While separation from the world and its influences may be the primary message of the New Testament for some fundamentalists, evangelicals try to remain part of wider society as a witness to personal salvation through Christ. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is an influential statement, articulating evangelical views on this issue. Paragraph 4 of its summary states: ''Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.'' Critics of such a position point out that there are many statements that Jesus makes in the Gospels or that Paul makes in his epistles, even to the point of making them commands, which are not taken as commands by most advocates of Biblical Inerrancy. Examples of this are Jesus's command to the disciples to sell all they have and give the money to the poor so as to gain the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:21), or Paul's calls to imitate him in celibacy (1 Cor 7:8). Other sections of the Bible, such as the second half of John chapter 6, where Jesus commands that the disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood, are interpreted by most adherents of Biblical Inerrancy as symbolic language rather than literally, as might be expected from the statements of the doctrine. Supporters of Biblical Inerrancy generally argue that these passages are intended to be symbolic, and that their symbolic nature can be seen directly in the text, thus preserving the doctrine. ====Mainline and liberal Protestantism==== Mainline Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but officially interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching, from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the Scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly. For example, ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches, abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal sin or a crime against an unborn person, and homosexuality is increasingly regarded as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. The most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted. Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report that: ''We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or pre-scientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail.'' Those who are more liberal view the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy (which ironically, leads them to read certain passages far more literally than most evangelicals, so that the text is interpreted in a way that necessarily conflicts with a modern, scientific view of the world). These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their Evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of Scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for justice. The message of personal salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's Ethic of Reciprocity and admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative. As such, belief in the errancy of the words of Scripture is in practice as important to Protestant liberalism as inerrancy is to its evangelical and fundamentalist counterparts. ==External links and references== *[http://www.greekbible.com Greek New Testament text (searchable) with lexical aids] *[http://st-takla.org/Bibles/Holy-Bible.html Full text of the New Testament in English, Arabic, Amharic, Hebrew and French] *[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html Greek New Testament] This is a Greek text of the New Testament, specifically the Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants. *[http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/10 New Testament at Project Gutenberg] *[http://www.romansonline.com/sources/Nwt/indxNT.asp The New Testament] *[http://www.ntgateway.com/ The New Testament Gateway - Dr. Mark Goodacre] *[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy] *[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Overview of Inerrancy] *[http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] *[http://www.bswett.com/1998-05Church300.html State Church Of The Roman Empire] *A comprehensive discussion of the development and authorship of the New Testament can be found at these pages: **[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm] **[http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm] **[http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ Synoptic Problem Home Page] *For more information on the Evangelicalism view on the time of writing, see: **[http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm] **''More Than a Carpenter'', chapter 4, by Joshua McDowell **''Redating the New Testament'' by John A.T. Robinson, who dates every book of the N.T. to before 70. *For further reading: **''Who Wrote the New Testament?'' by Burton L. Mack, Harper, 1996 **''Who Wrote the Gospels?'' by Randel McCraw Helms. *[http://www.new-testament-ethics.org/ Ethics of the New Testament] - article by V.Antonov *Raymond E. Brown's ''An Introduction to the New Testament'' is considered by many scholars to be one of the finest general introductions to the NT. ==See also== *Bible translations *the Canon of Scripture *Books of the Bible *Gospel of Thomas *New Testament apocrypha *Old Testament *Textus Receptus *:Category:New Testament books *[http://www.ApologeticsCourses.Com Apologia] - Courses Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions *[http://www.Bible4U.Info Christian Faith] - Exhaustive Information About Christian Faith *[http://thanks4supporting.us/bibles Thanks4supporting.us/bibles]Read the Bible in other versions & translations New Testament la:Novum Testamentum nds:Nieg Testament
New Testament
:Revertion Cough, bias from the article and added some information. Someone then reverted it. Without getting into an edit war, could they explain what exactly is wrong with the information that the gospels were selected from a pool of hundreds around the second century CE? [- The Rev letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude were all rejected by the early council and only became part of the book afterwards. :::The fact of when the council was called together and selected the gospels that it felt were aunthentic for inclusion in the New Testament is not disputed byto be accurate). In older texts, many words are truncated or abbreviated, also, which leads to even greater ambiguity. :::The order in which the gospels are placed is also possibly incorrect, and different from the order in which early church figures put them. (Matthew, Mark and Luke is the order that Irenaeus, Oregin and Augustine, amongst others, had them in.) The synoptic problem is well known and at least warrants a mention. :::Its worth pointing out at this point that most Scholars of the Bible, even now but especially in earlier centuries, were committed Christians and, frankly, cannot be trusted to look at the issues with a NPOV or without ignoring thorny theological issues. :::It is well known that from the beginning Christianity was sundered with strong, bitter disputes over ideology, with many competing sects and claims. The letters of Paul are full of references to opponents and how he struggled to maintain his own congregations. :::There are hundreds of groups who have claimed the title 'Christian' over the years, and every edition of their bibles, including the New Testaments, are different. Edited and translated differently. :::As far as I can see when presenting an article about strongly held beliefs, presenting those beliefs as if they were totally true, including the bias of all the scholars of that belief, without consulting the evidence and facts sans that particular belief (a Unitarian, an Agnostic, or one of another religion that doesnt have beliefs regarding Jesus/ the New Testament should be able to do so) - THAT is presenting a POV. :::Reiteration: Presenting the beliefs of a particular sect (that the gospels were written concurrently with the events they describe, that they are the inerrant word of a god, that they have never been edited, etc - any of these if not all-) is extremely biased and not NPOV. - [The Rev of Bru] ::::I'm not saying that we should present only the beliefs of a particular sect. The additional books that you mention were debated, but the great majority of them are not Gospels (The Shepherd, The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.) and don't try to teach about the life of Christ. The Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James fall into a different category. These were rejected "gospels". All these works are discussed in New Testament Apocrypha. Since most of them don't talk about Jesus' life, they can't be presented as "hundreds of other Gospels". However, the New Testament Apocrypha should certainly be mentioned in the article. I will take a look to see why it is not. (Canon formation is discussed in Biblical canon and should be linked here as well -- is it not?). ::::However, I differ with you about the time of composition. I haven't seen any serious scholar suggest that any of the books accepted as part of the New Testament was originally written before about 45 AD (with most assuming a considerably later date) or later than about 120-130 AD (for 2 Peter). That's a range of one century, as the article says. There was obviously some editing thereafter, but most of the changes that we can document appear to be copyist errors or copying of material from one Gospel to the other to "harmonize" them. Thus "the documents were heavily edited over four to five centuries" is misleading, based on the information available to us. The fact is that we have far more early sources of the New Testament than for any other ancient work, and the copies are closer to being in agreement with each other than for almost any other ancient work. ::::Practically no one claims that the Gospels are in cronological order of composition. That is discussed in the page on the Synoptic problem. User:Mpolo 10:02, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) ::::See the section on "New Testament canonization" in this article, which should more or less address the issues you raise. User:Mpolo 10:09, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) :::::So basically you are agreeing that only some books out of a pool of many more were selected as part of the New Testament, with some quibbling, and are trying to downplay the editing that has gone on. Compare the King James version to the original greek. If you can claim that that is not major editing, you are not being honest. I'm changing it to reflect NPOV. And the reason we have more copies of the early sources of the New Testament than other contemporary works is that the early christian church burned or destroyed works by pagan authors. Scholars also disagree as to the dates for the 'original' gospels, with estimates ranging to over a century between them- but of course, with the large changes and additions that were wrought to harmonise the stories around the second century, they can hardly be said to have been written entirely at one time. - [The Rev of Bru] ::::::Translation is a different thing than editing. There is also a page on Bible translations that discusses this. Obviously NO translation can be perfect, as it always reflects a creative process of the translator (or else it is a computer translation and then worthless). I'm saying that the Greek text shows relatively few signs of editing compared to works of a similar age. Everything you want to add seems to already be in the article or its daughter articles, and with references, saying which scholar and which council, where you are saying "lots of people" and "a council in the 2nd century". If you notice, the article holds that the canon wasn't decided until the 4th century, citing the particular councils where it was decided. User:Mpolo :::::::Translation is indeed a different thing than editing, which is why I used the word 'Editing' as opposed to the word 'translation.' Since the oldest greek manuscripts, which are not originals but old enough to be works that have been edited and had changes wrought, the bible unquestionably changes from version to version, with one of the largest changes being, as I have already said, the King James version, which completely changes the meaning of some parts (eg slaves becomes servants.) There is a difference between a translation and changing the meaning of words in the process of translation and, unbiased observers would agree, most revisions have been more than mere translations.User:The Rev of Bru 10:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Coming back to the left... The King James Version is a ''translation'' of the Greek text. That the translators chose "servants" to translate Greek "doulos" could be termed an "editorial" decision, I suppose, but since they didn't change the Greek text, it's hard to call that an "editing" of the original text, as you are claiming. It is a better or worse ''translation''. (In general, I don't particularly like the KJV.) Looking into the specific word, in Greek, the word is first found in Homer (but only in feminine), then is widely used in Thucydides and Herodotus. It technically means a born slave (as opposed to a captive or servant), but Herodotus used it for both senses. The word was used as an adjective for "slavish, servile, subject" by Sophocles, so an argument that the word meant "servant" by the New Testament times is not altogether unreasonable. Certainly in Modern Greek it has both meanings. (This is from Liddel & Scott and a pocket Collins Modern Greek dictionary.) That said, I tend to translate the word with "slave", personally. Translation is an art, and a difficult one at that... There's no such thing as "the one true translation". We may quibble or even strongly differ on the choice of words that the translator used -- some "translations" would be better termed "paraphrases", but I think that you're going to confuse the reader calling these translations "edited versions" of the Scriptures. User:Mpolo 14:22, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) :I've clarified the authorship section as best I know how, without spending too much time writing it. Feel free to clean up the prose. Rev, you should know that much of what you have said above would not be held by modern, critical scholars of the gospels. I'm currently doing biblical studies work at Oxford University, and some of the most highly regarded scholars in the world hold positions much closer to what Mpolo has said. Granted...I didn't read every post - all four of your hands must be tired by now after all of the above! BTW - the whole discussion about the KJV is a bit off topic...if you want to get into Greek-English translation stuff, it's best to refer to the NRSV, the version most scholars use. It's edited and overseen by Bruce Metzger, basically the world expert on New and Old Testament manuscripts and English translation (he's been at it for something like 60 years now!). His preface in the front of some versions might be helpful to what you two have been discussing. Best,--User:Jcdavis 00:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Mpolo; fair anough but I really don't see how you can claim that the bible has not been substantially edited over the years. The very existence of different versions of the bible is not just ascribable to translation differences. To both of you; I know the KJV is not taken seriously nowadays; that is exactly the POINT. Its not just a translation, its an editorialised version. That nowadays, with the opening of scholarship to more people and much more openness in general towards biblical study, there are more accurate translations (and less edited), yes. But that doesnt remove the fact that in the intervening centuries the bible was changed according to the whims of those doing the translation, of which paraphrasing may be unintentional editorial or even intentional.User:The Rev of Bru ----- :Acts of the Apostles -- according to tradition, written by Luke The author of the :Acts of the Apostles identifies himself in the prologue as the same person who wrote the third gospel. If we accept Luke as the author of the latter, we must not shy away from attributing the Acts to him as well. ---- :James, "the brother of Jesus" :Jude, counted among the "brothers of Jesus" We should have a link to "brothers of Jesus", with an explanation of what degree of familiar relation (sibling or cousin) "brother" implied in the times and the culture of Jesus. ---- Is there any controversy regarding Jude ? I seem to recall Thaddeus (Jude) the apostle wrote it... ---- surely a better (and no less accurate) translation for 'synoptic' is "same view" (as in point of view) rather than "same eye"? And much as I love Austin Farrer (I regularly assign his book on Revelation), he's not the only critic to suggest that Q is an unnecessary construct. It's a whole school of thought, not restricted to pre-1960 English persons (my favorite critic of Biblical criticism is still Dorothy Sayers, whose take on the typical view of John is without equal - and entirely possible). --MichaelTinkler : Regarding the translation of "synoptic", remember that in Wikipedia, he who proposes, disposes. :) Go ahead and change it. ---- soulpatch, please don't go through the entire 'pedia changing AD to CE, just because you like it better. This kind of thing needs to be discussed by the Wikipedia community. --User:Ed Poor :Per discussion on the list, isn't CE clearly the more NPOV? Why should we revert this change? User:Graft : I agree with Graft. CE is preferable to AD, why change it back? And CE exists in several articles in the Wikipedia, so are you going to go and change all those from CE to AD? User:soulpatch If there was discussion on the list approving CE over AD, I must have missed it. I thought it was settled just the other way. I'll ask Mav, who pays closer attention to such things. --User:Ed Poor :No decision was made, as far as I can tell, other than lots of expression of opinion. Mav expresses the point of view that :: BC is still comfortably the dominant usage and since there aren't any pressing POV issues with it we should stay with it. :which is fair enough, except that I don't think it implies we should prefer BC to BCE or AD to CE, just that we shouldn't be making especial efforts to change from one to the other. But, if soulpatch wants to change AD->CE, i think NPOV is definitely in his favor. User:Graft : AD is religion-neutral in the same sense that "he" is gender-neutral. It is so, unless someone objects for partisan reasons. In that case, as far as I'm concerned, the only cost of the change to "CE" (like the change to "they"), is the stigmatization and politicization of the past, when these "POV" conventions did not have the implications that they do now. In short, not worth objecting to either way, in my personal opinion, and therefore better to yield to those who feel strongly. User:Mkmcconn :Sorry? That, to be brutally honest,mkmcconn, is nonsense. AD stands for Anno Domini: In the Year of Our Lord. It does not stand for 'years since Jesus' or whatever you seem to think it does. Incidentally, AD is properly put BEFORE the date, not after it. AD is offensive to everyone who is not Christian, and is very much not NPOV. [-The Rev of Bru] : With respect to Graft, I maintain that is incorrect to say that AD is POV, but CE is NPOV. IMO, using CE instead of AD is like trying to take a white-out to history. Yes, the bulk of scholarship believes that Jesus was not born in the year A.D. 1, however, His birth IS the reason we set the year "1" to be what it is. All current, existing, up-to-date reasons for using that date are ultimately rooted in the year that scholarship initially thought was His birth. It was not because educated people woke up one day and thought, "hmmm... let's all agree on 2004 years ago as the starting point for a common dating mechanism." Should people not have that understanding? If you still disagree with me, ask yourselves these two questions: Can you fully understand the origin, meaning and use of "A.D." without understanding "C.E."? (I would say yes.) On the other hand, can you fully understand the origin, meaning and use of "C.E." without understanding "A.D."? (I would say no.) Therefore, I assert that CE is POV, but AD is NPOV. User:BeakerK44 00:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Because of the subject matter of this article, which didn't exist before Christ, all relevant dates are AD/CE, so I think we can lighten the prose by removing all of the noise abbreviations. I boldly made the change, if you think it is confusing, change it back. User:Stephen C. Carlson ---- Is there some documentation to support the blanket statements that * ''modern biblical scholarship, with the exception of Evangelicals, no longer believe that Jesus's immediate disciples wrote any of the books. '' What is the definition of "modern", "scholarship" and "Evangelical" that makes the statement credible, that it is a distinctive of "Evangelicals" to believe that at least some, most, or even all of the books of the New Testament were written by their attributed author? Or, is the statement suggesting that such a finding is either not modern, or is not scholarship, if it occurs outside of Evangelicalism? In that case, is it an unproveable assumption? * '' Among the denominations which do not teach inerrancy include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church'' What is the definition of "inerrancy" that makes this statement credible? Especially in light of the statement later, that the Catholics and Orthodox consider Tradition infallible - do they consider Tradition to be a ''correction'' of errors in Scripture, or do they claim that Tradition infallibly interprets the Bible? If the latter and not the former then, it is irrational to conclude that they do not hold an infallible Scripture. I suspect that the statement means to imply an equivalence between "inerrant" and "literalistically infallible" (infallible if always interpreted in a literalistic sense where possible: "day" == "24 hours", "all the earth covered by a flood" == "every square inch of the face of the earth under water", 6,000 year old creation, etc.) Is that the case? User:Mkmcconn #The 6 days of creation may be seen in the light of the verse, "With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day" (quoting from memory, must look this up!). #The story of a world-wide flood was written down before the idea of the earth as a sphere was well-known. Plainly, it would talk a lot of water to cover Mt. Everest; what is it, 5 miles high? We're talking enough rain to increase the ocean's depth by 5 miles. The "covered by a flood" thing may have been meant to refer to all land within a conceivable distance; either that, or maybe the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally in every detail. --User:Ed Poor The inerrancy discussion is a muddle, and that it is probably hard to avoid because of the many definitions of inerrancy floating out there. I'm looking to making it a bit more specific, e.g. with regard to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. User:Stephen C. Carlson :Literalistic interpretation should not be made to have anything to do with [should not be made identical to] inerrancy. There is a big difference between saying that "the Bible contains lies and gets the facts wrong", and "some classic interpretations of the Bible have been re-evaluated in light of later knowledge". The former is not compatible with inerrancy, but the latter certainly is. User:Mkmcconn ::That's not for you or me to say. If theologians out there say that literalism and inerrancy are related, we have to report that. We're not trying to write an ''objective'' article but a ''neutral'' one. --User:Ed Poor ::Literalism (i.e. literalistic interpretation) and inerrancy are distinct issues, but related. The current N.T. article does address literalism, but does address inerrancy. It is my view that inerrancy is a largely evangelical view on the question of inspiration of the N.T., and other traditions have their own take on inspiration and so may not agree with the evangelical Chicago Statement on all particulars. User:Stephen C. Carlson :: It is not objective or neutral to be counter-factual. Inerrancy is simply the doctrine that there are zero errors in the Bible. Some particular defense of inerrancy may be tied to some particular literal interpretation, and another defense may not be tied in such a way. They share the same assumptions about the Bible's trustworthiness, but differ concerning the reliability of a particular interpretation. These are very different things. User:Mkmcconn ::In a particular group, their hermeneutic may require a literalistic interpretation of "God made a greater light to rule the day", and believe accordingly that the sun is the biggest light in the universe - but the fact that hardly anyone can be found who believes what used to be a common naive assumption about the relative size of the sun, is testimony to the fact that people gain insight into the Bible's intent by knowing more about the world that the Bible describes. It does not mean that people have discovered that the Bible was wrong about the size of the sun - they fixed their interpretation. If we report as though it were a fact that inerrancy is equivalent to literalistic interpretations, we will most definitely be misreporting the facts. However, I did over-state myself in saying they have nothing to do with one another. Literalism and inerrancy are not equivalent - they are very much distinct, is all I should have said. User:Mkmcconn ::: ''... history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.'' (from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ) User:Mkmcconn :::: I'm not sure I entirely understand how to interpret that quote from the Chicago statement. The "poetry and poetry" and "hyperbole as hyperbole" part makes sense, and it suggests using common sense in interpreting biblical passages. Obviously, a poem that says "The Lord is my Shepherd" is not claiming that God is literally a shepherd. So poetry and poetic metaphors are obviously not to be taken literally. But I am not sure what to make about its statement about total precision not being expected or aimed at. Suppose (hypothetically speaking, of course) that the Bible gets a few historical facts wrong when it is making some grander theological claim, such as getting the name of a king wrong or otherwise making a historical error. Does the Chicago statement admit that this is possible but acceptable under its definition of "inerrancy" because the broader claim being made in the context of that historical inaccuracy is true and inerrant? Or is the Chicago statement saying that historical inaccuracies are impossible? User:soulpatch ::::: This statement and similar ones, reject the presupposition that the Bible is only reliable when it's talking about things that are "non-factual". However, it cautions against imposing on Scripture an anachronistic measure of precision. There are many historical puzzles in the Bible - some caused by what we ''don't'' know, and others caused by what we ''do'' know. The Chicago statement advises religiously that these historical puzzles will be solved more reliably in the long run, by those who approach them in faith and reverence, than by cynicism and unbelief. User:Mkmcconn ::::: I guess I still don't understand whether that means that the assumption is that the historical puzzles will always be resolved in favor of the Bible being correct. User:soulpatch :::::: Yes, I'm sure that it is a religious presupposition that every historical puzzle will finally be resolved in favor of the Bible being correct - only, it does not prescribe what that resolution will be before it's found. User:Mkmcconn OK. I'm generally pleased with the way it worked out. Thanks to everyone's comments and to User:Mkmcconn for the expansion of the new approach to the topic. -- User:Stephen C. Carlson 17:05 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC) ---- Moving discussion of the origin of the gospels to the Gospels page. User:Stephen C. Carlson == Recent reversions == Recently, an anonymous user (200.85.34.114) made a number of changes to this article, which I reverted. Most of these were to promote one set of beliefs regarding the original language. Many of the rest were simply misguided (e.g. referring to the Old Testament as "the Tanakh, which Christians call the Old Testament"; articles about Judaism should refer to it as the Tanakh, but articles on Christianity should refer to it as the Old Testament.) The changes were also poorly written, with strained grammar. So I reverted them. I don't mean to offend you in this, 200.85.34.114. Perhaps your points could be made in an NPOV way? I'd advise you to get a login account, read the NPOV policy, and then make your changes. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 16:31, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) == WikiProject == Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! User:Mpolo 13:28, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) == Template:Books of the New Testament == I've created a Template:Books of the New Testament. Does anybody have any objections to me adding it to all linked articles (just as has been done with Template:Books of Nevi'im)? -- User:Itai 01:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Seeing as there were no objections, I took care of the addition. -- User:Itai 18:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Authorship== ''"Since Strauss the authorship of every book in the New Testament has been debated, although it is significant that a substantial number have been shown to be written by their said author."'' Quite to the contrary, what is genuinely significant is that the conclusions of two centuries of scholarship on the question are still suppressed in this traditional fashion. Several letters of Paul that are agreed to have been written by Paul must supply the intentionally vague "substantial number." The statement is an "untruth," as the expression is. User:Wetman 22:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) :As much as I wanted to disagree with you, I couldn't. So I made a bit of a change to make clear exactly what has "agreed upon" authorship. I hope that that meets with everyone's approval or near-approval. User:Mpolo 07:19, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC) == Biblical Inerrancy == I think, after consideration, my last edit could be percieved as rather POV. Could someone render it more neutral please? User:81.156.176.182 10:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) == "(in Christian context)" == What other context is there for "Greek Scriptures"? Is the phrase "Greek Scriptures" used in any other way or context? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :OK, in this case I misunderstood the word 'scripture', in Dutch 'scripture' is translated with the same word as 'script'. However, your way of reverting is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. User:Jcbos 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::OK, thanks for explaining. In English they are quite different. However, your way of inserting text without prior Talk: discussion is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Is "Christian Bible" a pleonasm, or not? == Around March 7, 2005 User:Jcbos tried to remove "Christian" in the first line of this article on the grounds of it being a pleonasm. This has been reverted immediately. On the Dutch Wikipedia a huge debate started after I inserted (a translation of) "Christian" immediately before (a translation of) "Bible" in the first sentence of the artikle about the New Testament. Quite a lot of people do state their on that discussion page that "Bible" in religious context always refers to the Holy Scriptures of the Christians. Really, that was stated in these absolute terms, notwithstanding any reference I made to "Hebrew Bible". Even some people raised the question: "Is there another Bible than the Christian Bible?" User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Or, might it be a peculiarity of the english language that Bible could also mean something else than Christian Bible? Could NPOV differ among different languages? What is the overall Wikipedia policy for this? What would be the proper place for discussion of that last question? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) :This has been debated at length. Most editors on English Wikipedia appear to think that "Christian" serves as a disambiguation for Bible. You'll find the discussion at Talk:Bible. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 17:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::It simply depends on the context, both in dutch and english, even though the connotations of the word in dutch are different from those in english. The informal vote/poll on NL wikipedia was quite unanimous, in that in the context of the article from which it was removed, it was almost certainly a pleonasm. Intuitions of native speakers of english will tend to be quite different from those of native speakers of dutch on this matter, so any decision here will not apply there and vice versa. This applies more generally to most words in either language. User:Flyingbird 02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) A poll has been open on Talk:Bible over this controversy for over a week. The poll closed yesterday. Votes are counted. The effect of the poll is that 'Christian' should not be removed right before 'Bible' in the article. User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==POV== This article is extremly POV and pro-christian. It claims that there is one "new testement" when each church has a different version, with different origins. It present items of religious dogma as fact.--User:Irate 14:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC) :Could you be a little more specific, please? Perhaps give some examples? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::King James v Good News v RC etc.--User:Irate 17:33, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) :::You mean there are different English translations of the Greek Scriptures? Obviously that's true, but could you possibly give an example where the article has become POV because of this? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::They are not different translations they often stem from different books. The RC bible does not come from the greek but secondary latin. Each version is different to suit the various religions. They are not the same book at all, it PR to claim that they are.--User:Irate 20:58, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) :::::That point is covered in extenso in Bible translations. Which passage in New Testament claims they are the same? Where is the PR?? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 21:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::I'm as confused as you are. Irate, could you point to a ''specific'' sentence or passage you disagree with? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::It PR because it is claiming that all christians use the same book, they don't. It's like claiming that West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet are the same, simple because they have common origins. It PR because Christians like to think they all beleive the same thing and gain strngth from that, when in reality they have as much in common with Jews and Muslims than various sects have in common with each other. Look at the first line of the article, it states what christians claim as fact, when the dates of some books are unclear as is even the birth of Jesus. The King James bible was written by the state to make the state important, it ripped of the tyndall version and is allegdly one of the best translations. Though you don't hear catholics asking for it a lot.--User:Irate 11:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) :::::::It is your interpretation of (the first line) of the article 'that all christinas use the same book'. There is no such explicit claim in the article, however. Should we insert after Christian Bible something like 'which exists in many different translations?' Your other point relates to 'when the dates of some books are unclear as is even the birth of Jesus'. The article does not mention (in the first line) the birth date or birth year of Jesus - it only states that those books were written after the birth of Jesus, that is, it says those books were not written before the birth of Jesus. All these books do refer to the life or dead of Jesus, so they can not be written before the birth of Jesus. How could the article be rewritten to accommodate your point of view? It is somewhat POV to claim one translation better than another. User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::"many different translations, some with debatable neutarity" would do.--User:Irate 21:49, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) :::::::The various English translations of the Bible are quite a bit more similar to on another than West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet. Regardless, can you please quote a specific sentence which you think is POV, and explain why? So far I haven't been able to find any of your claims. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Different translations are covered in Bible translations. So this article needs a link to that article. The canon lists 27 books. The article doesn't mention the books outside the canon. Is that Jirates problem? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::This article already links to Bible translations, under "See also". As for your question, I'm not sure, perhaps User:Irate can explain. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 20:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::The Authorship section already ends with links to Gospel of Thomas and New Testament apocrypha. For completeness sake I included these two links in the See also section. I can not find a POV problem anymore. How to agree on removing the NPOV-template? User:Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I think we'll have to wait for User:Irate to explain his issues; so far he hasn't been specific enough for me to understand what is bothering him. If there is no response in a day or so, we can assume his issues have been settled. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 20:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::I really don't understand the problem. As far as I know already beginning in the 4th century there is a worldwide consensus about which books are in the New Testament. Between the translations there is much to little difference to call them different New Testaments. They are just different translations of the same New Testament, sometimes translations of a translation of the New Testament. When people refer to the New Testament, they will not mean one specific translantion. So I'm curious about the real point of Irate. User:Jcbos 00:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Historicity== I think there needs to be a section the evaluates the historical merit of the New Testament MSS, from both sides of the debate. If the Historicity section I added was a POV, you should of seen it before I edited all the real POV out of it. I added examples of scholors who do not find the New Testament reliable, the point is that this is the test for historical reliability, Bibliographical Evidence, Internal Evidence, and External Evidence. Puting the debate of the Historicity of the New Testament into this kind of a structure puts it all into a context where true dissention can occur. Jayig, if you thought it was POV, it could have been edited to include more examples on the other side of the debate. It was not submited as a completed work, but only a work in progress toward becoming complete. My final goal is a comprehensive and detailed report of all the facts from all points of view. User:Rclose 22:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
New Testament
Biblical books Christianity
New testament
#REDIRECT New Testament
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
N
NA | NB | NC | ND | NE | NF | NG | NH | NI | NJ | NK | NL | NM | NO | NP | NR | NS | NT | NU | NW | NX | NY | NZ |Words begining with New_Testament:
New_Testament
New_Testament
New_Testament
New_testament
New_Testaments
New_Testament_Apocrypha
New_Testament_Apocrypha
New_Testament_apocrypha
New_Testament_apocrypha
New_Testament_Association_of_Independent_Baptist_Churches
New_Testament_books
New_Testament_chapters
New_Testament_Hebrews
New_Testament_people
New_Testament_places
New_Testament_Recovery_Version
New_Testament_Recovery_Version
New_Testament_stories
New_Testament_verses
New_Testament_view_on_Jesus'_life
New_Testament_view_on_Jesus'_life
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
