Textual Criticism - Tumblr Posts
Scholarly Debate: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? - Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig "Although I believe in Jesus, I hold to Ehrman's view because Craig relies on dubious evidence." —― Eli Of Kittim, author of The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days
https://youtu.be/5-9-vWtTcU8
Scholarly Debate: Shabir Ally Vs William Lane Craig Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
“In my view, the gospels are true, not historically, but theologically, or, as I would argue, prophetically! What we have is, the Messiah’s history written in advance in story form.“ ― Eli of Kittim, author of The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days
The Jesus Story: History or Prophecy?
By Author Eli of Kittim
There is no good evidence to support that Jesus is a real historical figure. The mainstream view concerning the New Testament account of Jesus is fatally flawed. It is inconsistent, and in order for it to work, it must either ignore or gloss over many critical passages. For instance, it contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-times Messiah (cf. Zeph. 1:7, 15-18; Isa. 2:2, 19; Dan. 12:1-2; Zech. 12:9-10; Heb. 1:1-2; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:1-3, 7-8; Rev. 12:1-5), and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous. The existing schema simply does not fit in with the context and content of these passages, nor does it fit into any of the Old or New Testament prophecies either.
What is more, this historical interpretation of Jesus is in error because it confuses theology with history, and tradition with scripture! Let us not forget that much of what we know about this subject is based on tradition, not scripture. And the prevailing view is largely based on a superficial, surface reading of the gospels. In retrospect, it appears that the gospels are giving us a theological outline of Christ’s life, not a purely historical one. For example, scholars now dispute that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And even if we suppose that it were true, then why doesn’t Paul mention that? Let us not forget that some of Paul’s writings predate the gospels. The idea that Jesus is born in Bethlehem is a theological statement intended to connect Jesus with the Old Testament and to assure us that he is indeed the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. Anything more than that would be reading too much into the text. Similarly, Jesus is called the King of the Jews in order to show that he is the new David, the Messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture. Just as he supposedly goes to Egypt in order to show that he is the new Moses. These passages are not meant to be taken literally. They are theological statements.
But, in contrast to Christian Mythicism, I firmly believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. Hence I accept the authority of Scripture. However, I am convinced that, according to the Bible, Jesus neither existed, nor was he meant to exist during the time of Antiquity. Therefore, I still believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Lord (God-incarnate), who will appear on earth (for the first time) at the end of the world!
Furthermore, I believe there were eyewitness reports coming from the earliest Christian prophets, but these contained visions of Jesus, not physical encounters. The eyewitnesses saw Jesus just as Paul had seen him. And everyone knows that Paul saw visions of Christ. But Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh! There are many scriptural references to that effect. For example, 1 Peter 1:11 states that the account of Jesus was prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “As he [the Holy Spirit] predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.” Revelation 19:10 further reveals that the New Testament account of Jesus is not historical: “For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.“ And Hebrews 9:26 confirms this view by issuing the following statement concerning the precise chronological timing of Christ’s appearance and sacrifice: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels because they allude to Christ’s manifestation as occurring in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question. Thus, according to my research, both the Old and New Testaments agree that the Messiah will come once at the end of time!
There is no mention of Jesus in any secular writings until about 100 AD
(The following is an excerpt from The Washington Post, “Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.” Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. Religious scholar)
“The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his ‘Heavenly Jesus.’ Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12). Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitnesses or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of who are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.”
(The following is an excerpt from Valerie Tarico’s article, “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed,” published in ExChristian.net)
“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman.
No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Jesus. In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself thinks the Jesus stories were built on a historical kernel):
“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)
“The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts. Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the ‘Silence of Paul’ on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!
Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. 'Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.’
Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are 'signed' by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, 'I was there.' Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who … .”
Conclusion
These are Biblical Scholars who are giving us all of the critical, historical, and textual data to date. They are experts in the field (academics) who are informing us of the facts of scholarship. Even if we disagree with them, there are still certain facts that most scholars agree on that are indisputable, which give us a very clear picture of early Christianity and of Jesus. This cannot be denied.
However, this does not mean that the biblical story of Jesus is “fraudulent” or “manufactured,” as some writers have suggested. These writers got stuck on the Gospels without consulting the rest of the New Testament, namely, the Epistles and the book of Revelation, which tell us categorically and unequivocally that the biblical story of Jesus is a matter of prophecy, not history. In the final analysis, the Gospels are non-historical stories that foretell the prophecy of Christ’s coming!
How Credible is the Evidence for the Historical Jesus?
By Author Eli Kittim
I recently had a discussion with a Christian apologist who, in reaction to our conversation, posted on his blog a list of 9 sources outside the New Testament and a series of texts composed in subsequent centuries to prove the existence of Jesus.
He mentions Josephus, who is writing roughly 70 years after the purported events, and whose references to Jesus have been the source of much controversy in that they may have been subject to Christian redaction (interpolation/expansion/alteration). Incidentally, the scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of Jesus is largely influenced by the writings of Josephus. But Josephus was presumably familiar with some of the early gospels and other NT writings. So, why should his reference to John the Baptist be considered as constituting factual history? The same could be said about his references to Jesus!
Next, he mentions Phlegon who is writing in the second century about a rumored eclipse that allegedly occurred in 29 AD. Then he mentions a group of people like Suetonius, Thallus, Mara Bar Serapion, all of whose writings are considered ambiguous with regard to Jesus (we’re not sure if the references are to Christ or not), and which range from the late 1st to the 3rd century CE.
Some of these writings refer to Christian superstitions, such as the virginal conception of Christ, including those of Celsius (whom the blogger cites) who defends paganism and actually refers to Jesus as a person born to a Roman father. Celsius is not only writing 150 years later, but he’s also embellishing the story with anti-Christian sentiment.
Firstly, these are not independent eyewitness accounts. Secondly, some of these writers have obviously been influenced by the gospels—as is the case with Celsius who is probably drawing on Matthew and Tacitus who is presumably drawing on Luke—and, thirdly, they are writing approximately 70 to 200 years after the purported events.
In other cases, we are either dealing with explicit historical inaccuracies, or with authors who are known for sometimes embellishing a story with myth. For example, Josephus is also known for his expansion on the Moses story, as we find in the Midrash, making it difficult for us to ascertain what is real and what is mythical in some of his works. Take Justin Martyr, for example, whom the blogger cites. Writing in the second century, he proved to be historically inaccurate. In his “Apology” (1.31), for instance, he incorrectly claimed that Ptolemy, under whom the Septuagint had been translated, was a contemporary of Herod. Given his inattention to historical detail, how credible is his reference to the trial of Jesus? Not to mention his reference to the census under Quirinius, which did not exist, or at least not in the way that Luke describes it. So, he’s obviously drawing on the gospel of Luke, and he is, after all, a Christian apologist.
Despite all these discrepancies and historical inaccuracies, this Christian blogger nevertheless mentions all these figures and suggests that they provide indisputable truth for the historical existence of Jesus.
In the final analysis, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere outside the New Testament for about 70 years after his alleged death should certainly raise some red flags about his existence. It means that Jesus is missing from the historical record until the late first century AD. And the earliest New Testament texts do not mention anything about a historical Jesus, or about his birth or ministry, as we find in later developments (expansions).
And yet, despite the lack of historical evidence, Christ is still who he claims to be, to wit, the son of God! After reading this essay, you might understandably wonder how I can possibly make such a claim. How could I say that Jesus never existed and in the same breath claim to believe in him? Well, because if you study the New Testament you’ll find that Jesus was never meant to come in Antiquity, but rather at the end of the world (Luke 17:30; 1 Peter 1:5, 20; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Hebrews 1:1-2; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 12:1-5; etc.).
The historical Jesus is based more on mistaken assumptions about the evangelists’ intentions than careful interpretation of their writings. I’m arguing that the traditional Christian understanding of the theology of the gospels is fundamentally incorrect. We have confused apocalyptic literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It’s not just the evangelists’ theological problem in finding the literary means to get Jesus to Bethlehem so as to fulfill Micah’s prophecy, it’s ours as well since our “theological needs here create biographical ‘facts’" (W.D. Davies, and E.P. Sanders).
Even so, the gospels are still valid as they give us a theological outline of Christ’s life using stories that are filtered down from the Old Testament. So, in conclusion, the gospels are prophetic parables or apocalyptic stories that are to be believed (paradoxically) and handed down to posterity until the time of their fulfillment:
“Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. … After this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:26-27).
The Quran: Revelation or Forgery?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Did Muhammad Exist?
Before we embark on a brief criticism of the Quran, it’s important to note that there is “very little biographical information” (Wiki) concerning the historicity of its founder, Muhammad:
Attempts to distinguish between the
historical elements and the unhistorical
elements of many of the reports of
Muhammad have not been very successful
(Wiki).
(see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_of_secular_historians).
Of course, this opens up the possibility of whether or not the unknown author of the Quran invented the Muhammad tradition to bolster his credibility. In order to determine the answer to this question, it is crucial to consider the evidence of *intertextuality* in the Quran, that is to say, the literary dependence of the Quran on earlier texts and sources.
——-
How historically reliable is the Quran?
Firstly, with regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works that were written hundreds of years after the purported events and which claim to be legitimate Christian gospels but are not. Case in point, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is thought to
be Gnostic in origin. . . . Early Christians
regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as
inauthentic and heretical. Hippolytus
identified it as a fake and a heresy in his
Refutation of All Heresies, and his
contemporary Origen referred to it in a
similar way in a homily written in the early
third century. Eusebius rejected it as a
heretical ‘fiction’ in the third book of his
fourth-century Church History, and Pope
Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical
books in the fifth century. While non-
canonical in Christianity, the Infancy Gospel
of Thomas contains many miracles and
stories of Jesus referenced in the Qur'an,
such as Jesus giving life to clay birds (Wiki).
So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as canonical or as “inspired” either by Jews or Christians. Thus, at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious.
Secondly, in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?
Thirdly, the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world as well as the most scrutinized book in history, and one which has a critical edition. By contrast, the Quran has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner, nor does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence or textual discrepancies or omissions, such that “(some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39) or that (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817).
Fourthly, Orientalists have often questioned the historical authenticity of the Quran by charging Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) of consigning variant copies of the Quran to the flames during his reign.
Fifthly, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original. Hence its textual integrity is seriously compromised. By contrast, in the case of the New Testament, for example, since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the documents. In the case of the Quran, however, the text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, it would have been extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner. For example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrates textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy.
In conclusion, the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed!
——-
The Quran is Based on Dubious Sources
Besides the numerous and traceable Judeo-Christian apocryphal works that the author used within the Quran itself, he also got a lot of his ideas from a group that was an offshoot of the Ebionites called the “Sabians,” variously known as Mandaeans or Elcesaites. The Sabians followed Hermeticism and adored John the Baptizer:
Occasionally,
Mandaeans are called
‘Christians of Saint
John’ . . . the ‘Sabians’
are described several
times in the Quran as
People of the Book,
alongside Jews and
Christians (Wiki).
According to Origen and Eusebius, the Sabians used an extra-biblical book that they claimed was given by an Angel (maybe another idea adopted by Muhammad?) to deny portions of Scripture as well as the writings of Paul! So, this idea of challenging Christianity and claiming to have received a new revelation from an angel is quite common in ancient times. It is not unique to Islam. Others had made similar claims. Thus, without completely rejecting the possibility of *revelation* in at least some portions of the Quran, the majority of its theological narratives are largely based on dubious and questionable sources, derived from spurious texts that were under the radar of heresiologists across the ancient world!
——-
Two Apocryphal Works Employed by the Quran to Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus
//Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century. The author is unknown, and the Seth referenced in the title appears nowhere in the text. Instead Seth is thought to reference the third son of Adam and Eve to whom gnosis was first revealed, according to some gnostics. The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance”// (Wiki).
//The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, this one also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
He whom you saw on the
tree, glad and laughing,
this is the living Jesus.
But this one into whose
hands and feet they
drive the nails is his
fleshly part, which is the
substitute being put to
shame, the one who
came into being in his
likeness. But look at him
and me// (Wiki).
This is attested in the Quran:
That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ
Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah’—but they killed him not, nor crucified
him, but so it was made to appear to them,
and those who differ therein are full of
doubts, with no [certain] knowledge, but
only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they
killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto
Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power,
Wise (Sura 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali).
——-
A Possible Forgery: Is Muhammad Copying Augustine?
Muhammad (570 – 632 CE) seems to have modelled his conversion on Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE), who was without a doubt the greatest theologian and philosopher of his day! Case in point, in 386 CE, Augustine converted to Christianity from the pagan Machanean religion. Similarly, in 610 CE, Muhammad converted to Islam from the “Jahiliyya" religion, which worshipped Allah as the creator god as well as the Kaaba in Mecca. About 224 years earlier St. Augustine had heard a voice that told him to “take up and read,” a line which became very famous and reverberated through the centuries:
As Augustine later told it, his conversion
was prompted by hearing a child's voice
say ‘take up and read’ (Latin: tolle, lege).
Resorting to the Sortes Sanctorum, he
opened a book of St. Paul's writings (codex
apostoli, 8.12.29) at random and read
Romans 13: 13–14: Not in rioting and
drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying, but
put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no
provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof (Wiki).
By comparison, Muhammad appears to have used a similar line to claim that he, too, heard an Angel’s voice repeatedly say to him: “Read.” Given that Muhammad was presumably familiar with Judaism and Christianity (and especially with the foremost leading authority of his day, the African Augustine of Hippo), it seems very likely that he modelled his conversion on the latter. And, if true, that would certainly constitute a forgery!
——-
Are Allah’s Oaths Self-contradictory in the Quran?
The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.
——-
Is Muhammad the Prophesied False Prophet of Revelation?
During the Early Middle
Ages, Christendom
largely viewed Islam as a
Christological heresy
and Muhammad as a
false prophet (Wiki).
In short, following the Arab conquest of the Middle East and due to the *military expansion* of Islam into Europe and Central Asia since the 700’s (toppling one country after another), Muhammad was increasingly seen as a possible candidate for the office of the *false-prophet-of-Revelation* (cf. Rev. 16.13; 19.20; 20.10): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Christian_views_on_Muhammad
——-
Conclusion
Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious!
Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!
——-
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
By Writer Eli Kittim
——-
The New Testament: Book by Book
Matthew.
Place Written: Antioch?
Written in 80-85 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he is the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.
Mark.
Place Written: Rome?
Written in 70 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Mark, the personal secretary of the apostle Peter. The earliest record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which portrays him as the messiah no one expected or understood, who was sent to die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead.
Luke.
Place Written: Antioch.
Written in 80-85 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he was the final prophet sent from God, destined to be rejected by his own people so salvation would go to gentiles.
John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written in 90-95 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection focusing on his identity as a pre-existent divine being sent from above to bring eternal life to all who believe in him.
Acts.
Place Written: Rome.
Written in 85-90 CE.
Author: anonymous: same author as Gospel of Luke. An account of the miraculous spread of the Christian church after Jesus’ resurrection, through the preaching and miracles of the apostles, especially Paul, who took the message to gentiles.
Romans.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written 60-64 CE.
Author: Paul. Written to the Christian church of Rome to explain the essentials of Paul’s gospel message, that only the death of Jesus can bring salvation from sin, for both Jews and gentiles.
1 Corinthians.
Place Written: Macedonia.
Written: mid 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Written to the church in Corinth, in response to numerous problems experienced after Paul’s departure, including divisions in the church, sexual immorality, proper worship, and the reality of the future resurrection.
2 Corinthians.
Place Written: Macedonia.
Written: mid 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians, which attacks “super-apostles” who claim precedence over Paul and explains that followers of Jesus in this age will experience hardship rather than glory.
Galatians.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written: late 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Written with urgency to gentile churches throughout region of Galatia to attack those arguing that gentile Christians must adopt the ways of Judaism, especially circumcision.
Ephesians.
Place Written: Rome.
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter to church of Ephesus, giving a plea for the unity provided by Christ and the free salvation he provides, to a church experiencing splits between Jewish and gentile factions.
Philippians.
Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?
Written: late 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Joyful letter thanking the church in Philippi for its moral and material support and urging church unity among members who should live for others in imitation of Christ.
Colossians.
Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter urging Christians in Colossae not to worship spiritual powers other than Christ, who alone provides all that is needed for salvation and spiritual completion.
1 Thessalonians.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written: 49-50 CE.
Author: Paul. Paul’s earliest letter. A joyful recollection of his time with the church, stressing the imminent arrival of Christ from heaven and the salvation he will then bring, even to believers who had already died.
2 Thessalonians.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written: ca 70s CE?
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Written in imitation of 1 Thessalonians, an appeal to Christians not to think the return of Christ is immediate. The end is coming, but it will be preceded by clear signs.
1 Timothy.
Place Written: Macedonia.
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Allegedly written to Paul’s young follower Timothy, pastor of church in Ephesus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.
2 Timothy.
Place Written: Rome.
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 Timothy and Titus, also addressed to Timothy, giving Paul’s final thoughts and instructions as he is preparing soon to die.
Titus.
Place Written: Macedonia?
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 and 2 Timothy. Addressed to Paul’s follower Titus, pastor of church on Cyprus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.
Philemon.
Place Written: Rome.
Written: late 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Letter written to a wealthy Christian, Philemon, urging him to receive back and forgive his slave Onesimus, who had absconded with his property and fled to Paul for help.
Hebrews.
Place Written: Rome?
Written: end of first century.
Author: Anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Paul. A plea to readers not to leave the Christian faith for Judaism, since Christ is superior to everything in the Hebrew Bible, which foreshadowed the salvation he would bring.
James.
Place Written: unknown.
Written: end of first century.
Author unknown, in the name of Jesus’ brother James. A moral essay correcting Christians who believed that “faith alone” would save, by stressing the need to do “good works,” since faith without works “is dead.”
1 Peter.
Place Written: Babylon/Rome?
Written: end of first century.
Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter encouraging Christians experiencing suffering for their faith, emphasizing that Christ himself suffered, as would all those who strive to be his witnesses in the world.
2 Peter.
Place Written: Rome?
Written: ca. 120 CE.
Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter explaining why the “imminent” return of Jesus had not yet happened, assuring its readers that a delay was necessary but all was going according to God’ plan.
1 John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An essay written to urge followers of Jesus to be fulling loving to one another and not to be led astray by a separatist faction that suggested Jesus was a phantasmal being and not fully human.
2 John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Brief letter addressing a church leader’s community urging unity in love and the avoidance of false teaching.
3 John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Very brief letter addressing similar issues of 2 John in light of a specific problem, the reception of a visiting church leader who was rejected by some in the congregation.
Jude.
Place Written: Unknown.
Written: end of first century.
Author anonymous; in the name of Jude, the brother of Jesus. Brief and vitriolic letter attacking false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian community, without indicating the nature of their teaching.
Revelation.
Place Written: Patmos Island.
Written 90-95 CE.
Author: an unknown John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple, John the Son of Zebedee. A description of mysterious visions of the heavenly realm and the cataclysmic disasters to strike the earth before all God’s enemies are destroyed and a new utopian world arrives for the followers of Christ.
Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman (edited)
——-
Conclusion
Most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! Astoundingly, not a single New Testament Book was ever written in Palestine by a Jew! Not one! Not even the letters of James and Jude. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of these epistles could not have possibly been written by Jerusalem Jews! Besides, according to Bart Ehrman, “most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write. They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it.”
What is more, there are more Epistles addressed to Greek communities than any other: 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. And most of the New Testament letters are written in Greece. Nine in all! It’s also important to note that when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the Hebrew scriptures per se. It’s true that Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! This indicates that the New Testament authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. This lends plausibility to the argument that the New Testament authors were not Hebrews, but Greeks! For example, it could be argued that the “New Perspective on Paul” needs to be revisited, given Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers, his extraordinary command of the Greek language, his extensive quotations from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Bible, as well as the puzzling discrepancies regarding his supposed Jewish identity (cf. Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 9.20)!
To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by non-Jews who used the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. It seems, then, that the New Testament is an entirely sui generis Greek Book, which was largely composed in Greece by Greeks. Thus, the Greek origin of the New Testament speaks volumes about its Hellenistic *messianic* message, ideas, and content!
——-
Textual Criticism: The Reliability of the New Testament
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
One has to be au courant with lower criticism to understand the significance and reliability of the New Testament. If we look at the number of extant NT manuscripts together with the relatively short period of time within which they were written (i.e, the time between the purported events and the written documents), no other book from Antiquity even comes close. First, we have over 5,800 manuscripts just in Greek (not counting those in other languages), more than any other book in history. Second, the texts were written within approximately two decades after the purported events. Other books have a much wider time-gap between the historical events and their initial documentations, as most were written hundreds of years later. Third, the New Testament has also been the most scrutinized book in all of literature. Its textual integrity has been relentlessly challenged down through the centuries. To date, no other book in history has been criticized and attacked as much as the New Testament. And yet its textual reliability has stood the test of time. Critical scholars still find it reliable! In fact, most of the variants are due to simple spelling errors, which do not significantly affect the meaning of the text. So, the textual reliability of the New Testament is well known among scholars. It’s the best attested book from the ancient world, as well as the bestseller of all time! And if you don’t think that it’s reliable, then you have no grounds to believe in Caesar, Homer, or Alexander the Great, whose biography, by the way, was written 400 years later! That’s how reliable the New Testament really is! In his blog, Bart Ehrman, the world-renowned textual scholar, writes:
“He [Bruce Metzger, Bart’s mentor] thought
that at the end of the day, we can be
reasonably confident of something like 99%
[reliability] of the text of the New
Testament. Textual scholars, in his
judgment, argue about that other 1%. As it
turns out, I don’t disagree with most of
that.”
Was the Charge Against Jesus Insurrection or Blasphemy?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Many have written on Jesus the Galilean——often portraying him as someone who “was involved in anti-Roman seditious activity” and “put to death as an insurrectionist” (see e.g. Dr. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “[Why] Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.2 [2013] 127-154; & “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” a book by Muslim writer and scholar Reza Aslan).
But these speculative reconstructions have nothing to do with the New Testament literary accounts. These religious scholars should not be allowed to tamper with the internal evidence by altering it to suit their theological objectives. Let me give you an example why that would run counter to the standards of textual criticism. If modern scholars, who are far removed from ancient times, were to be given such artistic license as to change the words of Homer or Virgil, for instance, then it would no longer be Homer or Virgil that we would be reading but rather a modern 21st century forgery or adaptation of their works. Classicists would rightly be outraged! So then, if these interpolations are inexcusable in classical literature (e.g. in ancient Greco-Roman works), why are these religious scholars allowed to rewrite history and change the words of the New Testament accounts by superimposing their own imaginations on the text? Who gave them the licentia poetica (poetic license) to do so? Such books abound in the popular literature whose authors helped shape our modern views of Jesus!
Sadly, it would seem that none of these scholars have carefully consulted the Greek New Testament to see what it says on the matter, including the scriptural *messianic context* in which it says it. For example, Matthew 26.63-66 says categorically and unequivocally that Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders. Specifically, Jesus purportedly blasphemed by claiming to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews (i.e. the new David cf. Ezekiel 37.24 [NRSV]: “My servant David shall be king over them;” Ezekiel 37.25 “and my servant David shall be their prince forever”). In fact, during Caiaphas’ interrogation, Jesus purportedly responded by identifying himself with the Danielic Son of Man (Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), a messianic figure who will one day come in the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26.64). That’s precisely when the high priest cried out (v. 65): “He has blasphemed!” (Ἐβλασφήμησεν). Then at Matthew 26.66, the high priest asked the attending council:
What is your verdict? They answered, ‘He
deserves death.’
The members of the Sanhedrin (vv. 57, 59) answered in unison: “He deserves death” (Ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστίν)! This is explicitly recorded at Mark 15.26 as well, where the official charge against Jesus was said to be inscribed on his cross:
The inscription of the charge against him
read, ‘The King of the Jews.’
Conclusion
The context of the literary account in Gethsemane, prior to the crucifixion, is one of prayer and supplication. It has absolutely nothing to do with violence or any plans to overthrow the Roman legions. Moreover, the Sanhedrin’s verdict, that was later inscribed on Jesus’ cross, was NOT insurrection but rather blasphemy, namely, that he claimed to be the Messiah: “The King of the Jews” (i.e. Mashiach Ben David cf. Jn 19.7)! In fact, the so-called charge against Jesus of political insurrection is never once mentioned in the New Testament!
So, if we’re going to engage in academic exegesis, we must avoid presuppositions, assumptions, speculations, & conjectures. We must allow expositional constancy or the analogy of scripture, and the original biblical languages, to guide our hermeneutic. In other words, we must not impose our own private interpretations on the text. Rather, we must allow the text ITSELF to give us the authorial intent (meaning)! Thus, even though some liberal scholars are very familiar with the gospel literature, nevertheless they’re constantly inserting or imposing extraneous, extra-biblical material to put a Roman spin on it. This is a clear violation of the standard principles of biblical interpretation!
Was the Septuagint Destroyed When the Library of Alexandria Was Burnt Down in 48 BC?
By Author Eli Kittim 🎓
The Argument
Some people (typically Jewish apologists) claim that the Septuagint doesn’t exist because it was destroyed when the Library of Alexandria was burnt down in 48 BC.
This conclusion, however, is both textually misleading & historically erroneous.
First
The Alexandrian Library and its collection were not entirely destroyed. We have evidence that there was only partial damage and that many of its works survived. According to Wiki:
The Library, or part of its collection, was
accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during
his civil war in 48 BC, but it is unclear how
much was actually destroyed and it seems
to have either survived or been rebuilt
shortly thereafter; the geographer Strabo
mentions having visited the Mouseion in
around 20 BC and the prodigious scholarly
output of Didymus Chalcenterus in
Alexandria from this period indicates that
he had access to at least some of the
Library's resources.
Second
The Septuagint had already been written and disseminated among the diaspora since the 3rd century BC, and so many of its extant copies were not housed in the Library of Alexandria per se.
Third
Textual Criticism confirms that the New Testament authors used the Septuagint predominantly and quoted extensively from it. If the Septuagint didn’t exist, where did the New Testament authors copy from? And how do you explain the fact that the New Testament and the Septuagint often have identical wording in their agreements?
Fourth
The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that the Septuagint was far more accurate than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text. See, for example, the textual controversy surrounding Deuteronomy 32:8. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint have “sons of God.” The Masoretic text is demonstrably inaccurate because it has “sons of Israel,” a later redaction. Israel didn’t even exist at that time!
Fifth
Emanuel Tov, a leading authority on the Septuagint who has explained the various textual families (or text-types) of the Old Testament, never once mentioned that we lost the Septuagint, or that it was destroyed, or that it was no longer in circulation. On the contrary, he claims that it continued to be in use during the Christian period and that it is much more older than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text, which the Jews call the “Hebrew Bible.”
Sixth
If the Septuagint was completely destroyed, as some have erroneously suggested, from where were the later revisionists and translators copying from? We have historical evidence that they were, in fact, copying from the Septuagint itself. Wiki writes:
Theodotion … was a Hellenistic Jewish
scholar, … who in c. 150 CE translated the
Hebrew Bible into Greek. … Whether he was
revising the Septuagint, or was working
from Hebrew manuscripts that represented
a parallel tradition that has not survived, is
debated.
So there’s evidence to suggest that the Theodotion version is a possible *revision* of the Septuagint. This demonstrates that the Septuagint existed in the second century AD! Otherwise, where was Theodotion copying from if the Septuagint didn’t exist?
Seventh
The great work of Origen, Hexapla, compiled sometime before 240 AD, is further proof that the Septuagint was still in use in the 3rd century AD! Wikipedia notes the following:
Hexapla … is the term for a critical edition
of the Hebrew Bible in six versions, four of
them translated into Greek, preserved only
in fragments. It was an immense and
complex word-for-word comparison of the
original Hebrew Scriptures with the Greek
Septuagint translation and with other Greek
translations.
Encyclopedia Britannica adds:
In his Hexapla (“Sixfold”), he [Origen]
presented in parallel vertical columns the
Hebrew text, the same in Greek letters, and
the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the
Septuagint, and Theodotion, in that order.
Eighth
Besides Origen’s Hexapla, we also have extant copies of the Septuagint. According to wiki:
Relatively-complete manuscripts of the
Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar
recension, and include the fourth-century-
CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century
Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-
surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of
the Old Testament in any language; the
oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date
to about 600 years later, from the first half
of the 10th century.
Ninth
There’s also historical and literary evidence that the Greek Septuagint was in wide use during the Christian period and beyond. Wiki says:
Greek scriptures were in wide use during
the Second Temple period, because few
people could read Hebrew at that time. The
text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted
more often than the original Hebrew Bible
text in the Greek New Testament
(particularly the Pauline epistles) by the
Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek
Church Fathers.
Tenth
Today, Biblical scholarship has a *critical edition* of the Septuagint. If it was destroyed in 48 BC, where did the critical edition come from? The Göttingen Septuaginta (editio maior) presents *a fully critical text* and should silence the skeptics and critics who try to mislead the public. They deliberately mislead the public by trying to discredit the far more reliable and much older Septuagint in order to get people to accept the much later Hebrew Masoretic text from the Middle Ages!
How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?
By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓
John 1.1:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:
Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!
Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:
That’s an interpretation!
Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.
But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.
Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.
In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.
By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.
Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!
At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!
However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:
Coverdale Bible of 1535
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the
worde was with God, and God was ye
worde.
Smith's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Literal Emphasis Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Catholic Public Domain Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Lamsa Bible
THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that
Word.
Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning
the Word having been and the Word having
been unto God and God having been the
Word.
Concordant Literal New Testament: In the
beginning was the word, and the word was
toward God, and God was the word.
Coptic Version of the New Testament: In
(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and God was the Word.
Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the
begynnynge was the worde, and the worde
was wyth God: and God was the worde.
New English Bible: When all things began,
the Word already was. The Word dwelt with
God, and what God was, the Word was.
Revised English Bible: In the beginning the
Word already was. The Word was in God’s
presence, and what God was, the Word
was.
Today’s English New Testament: In the
beginning was the Logos. And the Logos
was with God. And God was the Logos.
The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In
the bigynnynge was the word and the word
was at god, and god was the word.
Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et
Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat
Verbum.
Vulgate translation: in the beginning was
the Word and the Word was with God and
God was the Word.
See also:
Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?
https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj
A Study in Textual Criticism: Who’s Copying Who in First Timothy 5:18 & Luke 10:7
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
First Corinthians 9:9 is the first New Testament verse to quote Deuteronomy 25:4. The Septuagint version reads:
Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads
out the corn.
Remember that 1 Corinthians was written around 53–54 ce. by Paul.
First Corinthians 9:9 (SBLGNT) reads as follows:
ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται · Οὐ
κημώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν
μέλει τῷ θεῷ.
Translation (NASB):
For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘You
shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.’
God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
Then, 1 Cor. 9:10 gives us the “interpretation”:
ἢ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ
ἐγράφη, ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ⸃ ὁ ἀροτριῶν
ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ
μετέχειν.
Translation:
Or is He speaking entirely for our sake? Yes,
it was written for our sake, because the
plowman ought to plow in hope, and the
thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in the
crops.
Interestingly enough, 1 Cor. 9:9 must be copying an alternative version of the Septuagint because it uses the word κημώσεις instead of the Septuagint’s φιμώσεις. Both words mean “to muzzle.”
Then, the unknown author of 1 Timothy——who composed the letter around the end of the first century——seems to be quoting directly from the Greek Septuagint, rather than from 1 Cor. 9:9. First Timothy 5:18 is actually quoting the Greek Septuagint verbatim but switching the word order around:
First Timothy 5:18 says:
λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή · Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ
φιμώσεις, καί · Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ
αὐτοῦ.
Translation:
For the Scripture says, ‘YOU SHALL NOT
MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING,’
and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’
But notice that the quotation from 1 Tim. 5:18 is backwards:
Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις.
Compare Deut. 25:4 (LXX):
Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.
Perhaps 1 Tim. 5:18 is involved in a mop-up job to clean up the verse that 1 Cor. 9:9 kind of changed a little bit.
Anyway, 1 Tim. 5:18 also adds the “interpretation”:
Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Translation:
The laborer is worthy of his wages.
Luke 10:7 reads:
ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Luke omits the “saying” from Deut. 25:4 and simply states the “interpretation,” which is found in 1 Cor. 9:10. But, surprisingly, Luke seems to be quoting from Exod. 22:15 (LXX):
ἐὰν δὲ μισθωτὸς ᾖ, ἔσται αὐτῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ
μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
but if it be a hired thing, there shall be [a
compensation] to him instead of his hire.
So it’s unclear whether Luke 10:7 is copying 1 Cor. 9:9-10, or an entirely different context from Exod. 22:15 (LXX). Remember that the saying “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing” was first quoted in the NT by 1 Cor. 9:9, which then added the “interpretation” (NASB):
the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in
the crops.
But the Greek text of Luke seems to be copying from elsewhere when it says: “the laborer is deserving of his wages” (Lk 10:7). Let’s not forget that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in the 50s, prior to Luke’s gospel, which was written c. 80-85 ce.
Neither 1 Tim. 5:18 nor Lk 10:7 seem to be copying directly from 1 Cor. 9:9-10, even though the “saying” that we are studying (from Deut. 25:4) was first quoted and interpreted in 1 Corinthians back in the 50s. Rather, it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is quoting Luke almost verbatim. The unknown author of 1 Tim. 5:18 simply omits the word γὰρ. Notice the 3 versions side by side (SBLGNT):
First Corinthians 9:10:
καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν.
First Timothy 5:18:
Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Luke 10:7:
ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
To sum up, 1 Cor. 9:9 was the first to quote Deut. 25:4, probably using an alternative Septuagint reading from the pluriform textual tradition. And it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is sanitizing 1 Cor. 9:9-10 by quoting the LXX verbatim, but simply altering the word order. Interestingly enough, 1 Tim. 5:18 uses Luke’s interpretation nearly verbatim, and doesn’t quote Paul from 1 Cor. 9:9-10. If Paul had written 1 Tim., we would have expected him to quote himself (from 1 Cor. 9:9). First Timothy 5:18 may also be sanitizing Luke, who might be copying a wrong verse, thus tying Luke to Paul. The connection between 1 Cor. 9:9-10 & Luke 10:7 only becomes apparent in 1 Tim. 5:18’s editorial work which harmonizes the two! So the copying sequence runs from Deuteronomy to 1 Corinthians to Luke to 1 Timothy. Given that 1 Timothy was written after Luke, it’s fair to assume that it is copying Luke. But this is not Paul. It’s an unknown author. The point of all these verses is that the followers of Christ, who labor for the kingdom, should know that they will be handsomely rewarded for their toil!
Is Paul Teaching an Imminent Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:51?
Eli Kittim
Some commentators have claimed that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referencing an imminent eschatology. Our primary task is to analyze what the critical Greek New Testament text actually says (not what we would like it to say), and then to ascertain if there are any proofs in it of an imminent eschatology. Let’s start by focusing on a particular verse that is often cited as proof of Paul’s imminent eschatology, namely, 1 Corinthians 15:51. It is alleged that this verse seems to suggest that Paul’s audience in Corinth would live to see the coming of Christ. But we must ask the question:
What in the original Greek text indicates that Paul is referring specifically to his immediate audience in Corinth and not to mankind collectively, which is in Christ? We can actually find out the answer to this question by studying the Greek text, which we will do in a moment.
At any rate, it is often asserted that the clause “We shall not all die" (in 1 Corinthians 15:51) does not square well with a future eschatology. These commentators often end up fabricating an entire fictional scenario that is not even mentioned in the original text. For starters, the plural pronoun “we” seems to be referring to the dead, not to people who are alive in Corinth (I will prove that in a moment). And yet, on the pretext of doing historical criticism, they usually go on to concoct a fictitious narrative (independently of what the text is saying) about how Paul is referring to the people of Corinth who will not die until they see the Parousia.
But, textually speaking, where does 1 Corinthians 15:51 mention the Corinthian audience, the Parousia, or that the Corinthians will still be alive to see it? They have rewritten a novel. None of these fictitious premises can be found in the textual data. Once again, I must ask the same question:
What in the original Greek text indicates that Paul is referring to his audience (which is alive) in Corinth and not to the dead in Christ (collectively)?
We can actually find out the answer to this question by studying the Greek text, which we will do right now!
As I will demonstrate, this particular example does not prove an imminent eschatology based on Paul’s words and phrases. In first Corinthians 15:51, the use of the first person plural pronoun “we” obviously includes Paul by virtue of the fact that he, too, will one day die and rise again. In fact, there is no explicit reference to the rapture or the resurrection taking place in Paul’s lifetime in 1 Corinthians 15:51. In the remainder of this commentary, I will demonstrate the internal evidence (textual evidence) by parsing and exegeting the original Greek New Testament text!
Commentators often claim that the clause “We shall not all die" implies an imminent eschatology. Let’s test that hypothesis. Paul actually wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 15:51 (according to the Greek NT critical text NA28):
πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ
ἀλλαγησόμεθα.
My Translation:
“We will not all sleep, but we will all be
transformed.”
In the original Greek text, there is no separate word that corresponds to the plural pronoun “we.” Rather, we get that pronoun from the case endings -μεθα (i.e. κοιμηθησόμεθα/ἀλλαγησόμεθα). The Greek verb κοιμηθησόμεθα (sleep) is a future passive indicative, first person plural. It simply refers to a future event. But it does not tell us when it will occur (i.e. whether in the near or distant future). We can only determine that by comparing other writings by Paul and the eschatological verbiage that he employs in his other epistles. Moreover, it is important to note that the verb κοιμηθησόμεθα simply refers to a collective sleep. It does not refer to any readers in Corinth!
Similarly, the verb ἀλλαγησόμεθα (we will all be transformed) is a future passive indicative, first person plural. It, too, means that all the dead who are in Christ, including Paul, will not die but be changed/transformed. The event is set in the future, but a specific timeline is not explicitly or implicitly given, or even suggested. Both expressions (i.e. κοιμηθησόμεθα/ἀλλαγησόμεθα) refer to all humankind in Christ or to all the elect that ever lived (including, of course, Paul as well) because both words are preceded by the adjective πάντες, which means “all.” In other words, Paul references “all” the elect that have ever lived, including himself, and says that we will not all perish but be transformed. We must bear in mind that the word πάντες means “all,” and the verb “we will all be changed” (ἀλλαγησόμεθα) refers back to all who sleep in Christ (πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα). Thus, the pronoun “we,” which is present in the case endings (-μεθα), is simply an extension of the lexical form pertaining to those who sleep (κοιμηθησόμεθα). So, the verb κοιμηθησόμεθα simply refers to all those who sleep. Once again, the adjective πάντες (all/everyone)——in the phrase “We will not all sleep”—— does not refer to any readers in Corinth.
There is not even one reference to a specific time-period in this verse (i.e. when it will happen). Not one. And the plural pronoun “we” specifically refers to all the dead in Christ (πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα), not to any readers alive in Corinth (eisegesis).
And that is a scholarly exegesis of how we go about translating the meanings of words accurately, while maintaining literal fidelity. It’s also an illustration of why we need to go back to the original Greek text rather than to rely on corrupt, paraphrased English translations (which often include the translators’ theological interpretative biases).
Conclusion
What commentators often fail to realize is that the first person plural pronoun “we” includes Paul because he, too, is part of the elect who will also die and one day rise again. Koine Greek——the language in which Paul wrote his epistles——is interested in the so-called “aspect” (how), not in the “time” (when), of an event. First Corinthians 15:51 does not suggest specifically when the rapture & the resurrection will happen. And it strongly suggests that the plural pronoun “we” is referring to the dead, not to the readers who, by contrast, are alive in Corinth.
Some commentators are simply trying to force their own interpretation that doesn’t actually square well with the grammatical elements of 1 Corinthians 15:51 or with Paul’s other epistles where he explicitly talks about the Day of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) and the last days (1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1 ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις), a time during which the world will look very different from his own. The argument, therefore, that 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referring to an Imminent Eschatology is not supported by the textual data (or the original Greek text).
What is more, if we compare the Pauline corpus with the eschatology of Matthew 24 & 2 Peter 3:10, as well as with the totality of scripture (canonical context), it will become quite obvious that all these texts are talking about the distant future!
If anyone thinks that they can parse the Greek and demonstrate a specific time-period indicated in 1 Corinthians 15:51, or that the phrase “all who sleep” (πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα) is a reference to the readers in Corinth, please do so. I would love to hear it. Otherwise, this study is incontestable/irrefutable!
The same type of exegesis can be equally applied to 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in order to demonstrate that the verse is not referring to Paul’s audience in Thessalonica, but rather to a future generation that will be alive during the coming of the Lord (but that's another topic for another day):
ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν
παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου.
“we who are alive, who are left until the
coming of the Lord.”
If that were the case——that is, if the New Testament was teaching that the first century Christians would live to see the day of the lord——it would mean that both Paul and Jesus were false prophets who preached an imminent eschatology that never happened.
Is Paul Teaching an Imminent Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:51?
Koine Greek——the language in which Paul wrote his epistles——is interested in the so-called “aspect” (how), not in the “time” (when), of an event. First Corinthians 15:51 does not suggest specifically when the rapture & the resurrection will happen. And it strongly suggests that the plural pronoun “we” is referring to the dead, not to the readers who, by contrast, are alive in Corinth. The argument, therefore, that 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referring to an imminent eschatology is not supported by the original Greek text. What is more, if we compare the Pauline corpus with the eschatology of Matthew 24 & 2 Peter 3:10, as well as with the totality of scripture, it will become quite obvious that all these texts are talking about the distant future!