Dates for early Christian writings

I always assumed that the order of the books in the New Testament echoed the order in which they were written. But that’s not true. The Epistles came first, then the biography of Jesus.

It’s notable that the epistles of don’t tell of Jesus as a person who, on a certain occasion, said a particular thing that would settle the current argument. Instead he speaks to the apostles in their hearts. The biographical details came a century later.

  1. The letters of the apostles come first, but they are fifty or more years after Christ.
  2. Then there’s the Gospel of Mark, 65 - 80 years after Christ. Mark is described by early writers as an apostle of Peter who never met the Lord (and he is clearly unfamiliar with Palestine).
  3. The book of Matthew (80 - 100 C.E.) was copied from, and elaborated on, the book of Mark.
  4. The author of Acts of the Apostles also wrote the Gospel of Luke some time between 80 and 130 C.E. This Luke was not an apostle of Jesus; as describe in “Luke” itself, he is someone who knew Paul and travelled with him.
  5. John is a later author (90 - 100 C.E.), who is also not an eyewitness, as we can tell from the dates of the controversies and events that he mentions.

So what we have in the New Testament is a tradition of Christianity not by eye-witnesses, but by writers who believe in Christ and speak of him largely as evangelists do today when listening to the “voice of God.” Then we have later writings that spoke of Jesus as a person and were ascribed, based on tradition rather than scholarhsip, to his disciples.

On the cultural side we have the Hellenistic ideals that were sweeping Judea at the time, Greek ideals of the philosphical school called Cynicism, and a very standard hero myth.

This story was built up in a way that reminds me of Santa Claus. The story of Father Christmas, a generous ideal who would reward children who were good all year, came first. Only later was he transformed into Santa Claus with eye-witness accounts. His packsack became miraculous (magical), larger outside than in and able to supply multitudes. He acquired flying reindeer that carried him into the sky. Other writers added Mrs. Claus, elves, Rudolph, and a taste for cookies & milk. If Santa made all the toys in the world, he must have a factory staffed by elves and we began to hear about his labour troubles.

Similarly, in the American legend, Paul Bunyan the giant logger came first, then was given Babe the Blue Ox and miracles (called “tall tales”) such as creating the Grand Canyon by dragging his ax-head on the ground. Babe acquired verismilitude through detail such as the fact that she measured 42 ax-handles and a plug of tobacco between the horns.

So Jesus came first, then the iconic events of his life such as miracles, persecution, and death, and finally Joseph & Mary and a childhood. Instead of having details of his life fade away in later writings, they are added when he is outside the scope of human memory.

See also “Biblical scholarship” (previous) or “Did Christ Exist?” (next).

Giant hockey player


There are advantages to being stopped in traffic on the highway. The other day I was able to get a photopgraph of the giant hockey player on a roof at the Canadian National Exhibition grounds.

At first glance I thought he was a Maple Leaf, but he’s a Marlie.

Biblical scholarship

From the Truth Journal, “Modern Biblical Scholarship, Philosophy of Religion and Traditional Christianity” by Professor Eleonore Stump:

In recent decades biblical scholarship as practiced in secular universities has been dominated by a certain historical approach…. [W]ith the related disciplines of archaeology, classical languages, and near-Eastern studies, this approach has made significant contributions to our understanding of the historical context in which the biblical texts were composed. But to many outsiders what has been at least equally noteworthy about this approach is the havoc it has wreaked on traditional Christian and Jewish beliefs. In their effort to discover and present what is historically authentic in the Bible, the practitioners of this approach have in effect rewritten the Bible. They have cut the Old and New Testaments into a variety of snippets; some they have discarded entirely as not historically authentic, and others they have reassembled in new ways to form what these scholars consider the truly original historical documents or traditions. They have denied the traditional authorship of certain books of the Bible-for example, they tend to hold that the pastoral apostles (the one to Titus and the two to Timothy) were not really written by Paul-and they have claimed to find the sources for other biblical texts in such clearly human products as Hittite suzerainty treaties and Hellenistic philosophy.The general result of such scholarship is, for example, that a text which a church father such as Augustine may have used to support a particular theological doctrine on the grounds that the text was composed by a disciple of Jesus who was an eye-witness to the events recorded may now be classified as a much later document fabricated by certain anonymous Christians for theological motives and derived by them from identifiable pagan sources. But if the biblical passages on which traditional doctrines are based are truly of such a character, they provide no credible support for the doctrines. [Yes.] And so the general effect of this approach to biblical studies has been a powerful undermining of classical Christian doctrines and a powerful impetus to religious skepticism.

And that’s a bad thing because…?
The author uses rhetorical innuendo to make research into the sources and history of biblical text seem questionable (”a certain approach, “as practiced,” even “But”–where’s the contrast? And why should outsiders care? I should think church insiders would take more note.)

She says they’ve rewritten the bible–why not restored it, or un-re-written it?

The researchers have cut the bible into “snippets” and “discarded” parts of it–how callous and disrespectful of them! Discarding suspect texts is a fine old Biblical tradition: that’s where we got the Apocrypha–books of the bible that were discarded because they were unreliable or contained unpalatable teachings, such as stories of heroic women.

They have “denied the traditional authorship”–or should we say “disproved folklore attribution?

They “tend to hold” opinions — not “they’ve spent years analyzing and now believe that the balance of probabilities is strongly…”

They have “claimed to find” that some epistles weren’t written by the purported author, Paul, but composed later. As someone once said, “Do you claim to have had breakfast this morning or did you have breakfast?”

And an eye-witness texts “may now be classified as”–how about “has been revealed as” a much later document? (Although it’s odd that anyone thinks we have eye-witness reports at all–who are these Biblical naifs?) I’m sure I’ve read that the first mention of Mary and Joseph was in 107 A.D., in a letter from a Bishop.

See also “Christ’s ascent into heaven” or “Dates for early Christian writings“.

Biblical alterations: Christ’s ascent into Heaven

Again, careful comparisons of manuscripts shows that many familiar parts of the New Testament, including much of the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, was added later. The tale of Philip running to the tomb and finding the grave cloths, is a later addition. So is the whole extended tale in Mark 16, 9-20, of the apostles meeting Jesus after the Crucifixion, speaking with him, and watching him ascend into Heaven.


Source: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
See also “Women should keep silent” or “Biblical scholarship

Sunday palm: the Everglades Palm

The Everglades Palm, or Acoelorraphe wrightii, is a member of the Arecaceae family. It is a clump-forming palm that is found in southern Florida, the West Indies, and Central America.

(Photograph taken by me at Fullerton Arboretum)
Previous palm: Palm au naturel
Next palm: Mediterranean Fan Palm

Posted in plants. Tags: , . No Comments »

Quick quotes on religion

“A thing isn’t necessarily true because a man dies for it”—Oscar Wilde

… and other fortune-cookie quotes