Talk:New Testament

Archives

• /2004
• /2005
• /2006
• Archive 1

Throw the article away?

People, I happened to come by and saw this article, which is stuffed full of weaselling and amateur opinion.

For instance there's "most scholars say..." all over the place. Who says so? The editor, who is an amateur?! Or is this from some reliable source? If the latter, who, precisely, and can we have a reference containing his exact words?

Then there's "traditional". None of us received any "tradition". The views expressed are either in some book -- which? with reference -- or they are not, in which case they shouldn't be there. It also carries a value-loading of "wrong" in some people's eyes. "Modern" when used as a term of approval, rather than a calendar indicator opposed to some older scholarly opinion, is also POV.

The article is terribly unencyclopedic, and probably needs to be torn up and rewritten, with every sentence justified by a footnote quoting a reliable source or sources that say exactly what the text says.

I haven't troubled to read the article to see what opinions it espouses -- no doubt it does push some position. But as an example of Wikipedia it is dreadful. Wikipedia should express no opinion. It should merely describe, with references.

We could start by simply deleting all the sentences that have no reference for them, all the weasel-wording. Start with something like Metzger's Text of the NT, and write brief, non-loaded, descriptive text. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Or we could start by throwing away POV and explaining the POV of the editors. There has been a back-and-forth between conservative and liberal interpretations. There are no POV statements. It's fairly neutral now, but the statements do need citations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is riddled with with the problems you mention, Roger Pearse. I gave up trying to make it more accurate and based upon historically verifiable information yielded by critical scholarship months ago because of strong opposition to such accuracy and regular alterations of my edits. Part of the problem has to do with the nature of Wikipedia (where anyone can edit anything they like - whether they know anything about the topic or not), the other with the peculiar idea among some here that academic historians do not employ a form of the scientific method, but are driven by either "liberalism" or "conservatism" (whatever those are supposed to mean). As long as users try to equitably balance unverifiable pontifications (even if they appear in published books) with the cogent findings of historians, this article will remain unencyclopedic. It's sad really. The topic is important, and although this is a prime example of the unreliability of the source, a lot of people will nevertheless turn to Wikipedia to learn about the New Testament or early Christian literature or history. At present, perhaps all we can do is warn people to steer clear of these articles on Wikipedia.134.2.246.245 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What you call "accuracy" I call "liberal scholarship". The problem with such "scholarship" is that it takes the stance that God does not exist and so Jesus was not God and miracles attributed to him were simply added to make this man appear more important. Its bias is no better than the pure faith and miracle bias of conservative scholarship. That makes it inaccurate since it approaches the text with an agenda. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• The problem "Walter" is that there is no such thing as "liberal scholarship" or "conservative scholarship". There is, however, such a thing as "good scholarship": namely, the efforts of individuals who believe that we can understand the world around us, and our history and ourselves by careful observation and critical assessment of the data using a tried and true method that is accessible to all people of any persuasion, anywhere and at all times. It is--by definition--not biased and its sole agenda is to gain an understanding of reality that is universally verifiable. There is also "bad scholarship": i.e., mere pronouncements by ideologues who aim to apologetically undergird belief in something irrespective of any basis it may have in reality. The first sort ("good scholarship") belongs in an encyclopedia, and that is presumably what Wikipedia aspires to be. I'm not sure that "bad scholarship" belongs anywhere, but it certainly doesn't belong here. All of this, of course, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is a God or gods, etc.134.2.162.119 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. There is such a thing as liberal, conservative and other types of scholarship. When one approaches the text with preconceived notions of whether you're studying scripture or myth, whether there is or isn't a God (which affects questions about the plausibility of miracles, the deity of Christ, the existence of the Holy Spirit and a myriad of other issues in the text), and the accuracy of what the text describes, it makes a difference as the outcome of scholarship. Liberal scholarship is no better than conservative scholarship, and your attempts to undermine the latter as "bad" is a hollow effort from a straw man. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever perspective it may be attempting to support or undermine, ideologically driven writing is not scholarship. Which is why, to the degree that anyone attempts to do "liberal" or "conservative" scholarship, they're simply doing bad scholarship. Again, this has no place here.134.2.162.119 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, so your your liberal "scholarship", isn't. Q.E.D. Thanks for making my point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Entire Bible
Jesus - Old Testament
Nazareth - Judas Jesus Thomas - New Testament
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.228.89 (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Authorship

I redid the section on authorship to align it with Authors of the Bible which itself condenses the information in the individual biblical books. The section before was poorly cited and full of weasel words. The section is now well cited.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Epistle to the Laodiceans

I copied over a bit about the Epistle to the Laodiceans from the article for that work to the canon section. It appears to have been considered canonical in several Latin, German, and English bibles. I'm seeing this as a counterpart to the bit about Luther excluding 4 NT books from his canon. I've avoided combining the sections for now. I think it puts a little perspective on what Luther was doing, in as much as there had been books included in bibles in the region that were later deemed non-canonical. It makes him look a little less radical. Ekwos (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of Revelation

Here is a segment from my term paper on Revelation's authorship - which my professor said was highly insufficient - notice however that it contains more information than this wiki-article.

So it must be settled for this study, who wrote Revelation, the presbyter John or the Apostle John? Lioy lists: “Justin (the) Martyr (ca 150-ca 215), Irenaeus (ca 130-ca 200), Clement of Alexandria (ca 150-ca 215), Tertullian (ca 155-ca 220), Hippolytus of Rome (ca 170-ca 236), and Origen (ca 185-ca 254)” as early Church fathers who all attributed authorship to the Apostle John.4 It was only “Dionysius of Alexandria (ca 190-ca 265)” “who did not believe it was the work of an apostle” and “Eusebius of Caesaria (ca 260-ca 341)” who attributed Revelation to the presbyter John.5 Lioy concludes that “the consensus of the early church consistently favored the apostle John as the author of Revelation, and there seems to be insufficient evidence to overturn this view.”6

4. Daniel Lioy, The Book of Revelation in Christological Focus (Studies in Biblical Literature, V. 58) (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2003), 5. 5. Ibid., 5-6. 6. Ibid., 9.

I do not know how to edit this article but you now have a lead to some more thorough information on Revelation's authorship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.76.102 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse/Revelation

I was about to make a quick change when it dawned on me that this is likely quite a contentious article, and therefore I'd better come here first. In several places in this article, the Book of Revelation, is referred to as the Apocalypse, or the Apocalypse of John. "Revelation", or "The Revelation of John" is more commonly used. Would there be serious objection to using "The Revelation of John, also known as the Apocalypse of John"? Joefromrandb (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It should definitely be standarized throughout the article. I would prefer Book of Revelation or Revelation, with an initial mention of Apocalypse, but I don't care that strongly as long as it's made uniform. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is more commonly referred to as Apocalypse in Roman Catholic circles, but I would take the lead from the Book of Revelation article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is more commonly referred to as the Apocalypse in Roman Catholic circles, so we should probably leave that in the article. The minority terminology can also be given parenthetically after the first occurrance.

Written in Greek?

I have searched and searched for proof that the New Testament was written in Greek and have found no evidence. Why do the dogmatic editors here not want this information out.

Please state the evidence in the article or change the statement to something like: "it is widely believed to have been written in Greek" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rziga (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is written because it's true. There's even a reference for it in the Languages section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the proof? How can anyone take this article serious? - "it is because I say it is", sorry, that does not make it fact. Where is the evidence? State the evidence! comment added by Rziga

The NT comprises 27 books. All the oldest manuscripts are in (Koine) Greek. There is a minority opinion that Matthew was first written in Hebrew. ^rossnixon 02:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The proof is in the same place that the proof for any other article on Wikipedia is: in the references. The evidence is two textbooks on Biblical studies. I have a few more here that state the same thing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

State the same thing? What? State what? You count on the fact that 99% of the readers of this article will just take your word that there is actual evidence in your "references". I searched those references, they do not provide evidence that the original documents were written in Greek. Only someone with an agenda would use flimsy arguments such as yours. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE, STATE THE EVIDENCE HERE! DON'T POINT TOWARDS OBSCURE REFERENCES! comment added by Rziga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.5.112 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I expect the readers of the article to actually read the references. The evidence is that the earliest manuscripts are in Koine Greek and the early church fathers, and they wrote stating before 100 AD, state that they were originally written in Koine Greek. You are not reading the article. You are not even being reasonable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not being unreasonable. I want the evidence. I guess if one wants evidence one is unreasonable in your view. You keep alluding to references, why not just state the evidence? If the evidence exists, (which it does not), then why don't you place the evidence in this article, why would you refer to nebulous "church fathers"? Why so dogmatic without proof? What IS your agenda? And remember this, if you believe in the Creator, you will account for your actions and words, particularly for what you have done here. comment added by Rziga

You stated that you read the references "searched those references". The evidence is that as was presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so that you stop ranting, please Google "what language was the New testament written in?" and "was the New testament written in Hebrew?" follow the links. I particularly liked http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr08.html where it reads "One of the subtle attacks on the Christian Faith comes from the notion that the New Testament was not written in Greek". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

However, if you would like to add some reliable sources to back the claims that the New Testament was written in Hebrew, the article would be the better for it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And people wonder why Wikipedia is a joke.134.2.243.182 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. What kind of moron doubts that the NT was written in Koine? That user should not be contributing to any article whatsoever. WholeWheatIgnatius (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink from this article REDIRECT to new article

For anyone with their settings "watching" this article, and therefore the Talk Page, they may wish to be aware of the discussion on Talk:canonical gospels. That wikilink, which is linked from this article, used to REDIRECT from this article to Gospel#Canonical gospels but now REDIRECTs to new article written over the REDIRECT by a single editor. The new article appears to have several issues including:

• 1. Wikipedia:Content forking (which qualifies among Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion)
• 2. to be counter to two of Wikipedia's "three core policies", namely (A) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, (B) Wikipedia:No original research.
• 3. to actually be 30% duplicate of material at Gospel#Canonical gospels and 70% about the noncanonical gospels

There is discussion at Talk:canonical gospels of how to proceed and whether to restore the REDIRECT as follows:

• canonical gospels as original REDIRECT to Gospel#Canonical gospels
• noncanonical gospels REDIRECTS to New Testament apocrypha
• apocryphal gospels REDIRECTS to New Testament apocrypha

In ictu oculi (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman

How can you quote Ehrman in this article. He has been recently rebuked by even his secular peers for the book Forged claiming that a document that does not claim authorship is somehow forged.

65.215.93.238 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Are you serious.

Please take it up with WP:RS. Remember to defend your claim on the books quoted in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will state again

" He has been recently rebuked by even his secular peers for the book Forged claiming that a document that does not claim authorship is somehow forged."

The book I claim is his own. You conviently removed the source document last time.... Would you like me to revert the document back yet again?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.93.238 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for stating that again. Where is this quote from? What reference was removed? Was it removed here or in the article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with who makes it. The reason Ehrman is cited in this article is because Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, and Ehrman is one of the leading scholars of early Christian literature in the world. In an encyclopedia entry it's probably not appropriate to cite his popular works, but to the degree that any of his positions are based on the evidence and cogent (and virtually all of them are--though I don't know why he keeps calling the Gospel of Thomas "gnostic" and considers the Mar Saba "letter" a modern forgery), then his arguments can and should be cited.134.2.243.182 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Language paragraph, Correcting POVfork in mainwikilink

I have made this edit as NPOV breakout of the text from "Language of the New Testament". The rationale is to put the mainstream view (as per text anyway) as the main wikilink, and relegate the Aramaic primacy (which is an article that probably needs renaming) to the foot of the paragraph clearly identifying it as a minority view. While instinctively "unfair" to present academic mainstream views first in this way it is what WP:POVFORK and WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE require. As we wouldn't expect to have in the article Hamlet under a paragraph Language the mainwikilink "main English primacy/Danish primacy" as two equal mainwikilink options, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually this edit is mine. The new article needs to be improved before we direct people to it. And removing material from the existing articles is also not acceptable even if you're adding that material to your new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Walter, yes, that edit is your reversion of mine. The point is the "new article" is the "old article"; it is not "my new article" the only thing that has changed is a rename/move leaving the unrelated material of Hellenism behind. And yes I note that I did leave behind a chunk tagged OR because I wasn't sure whether to move it to Talk. So back to the problem here, the current linking on this paragraph represents a WP:POVFORK. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The new article is the old article? It is your new article as you are the one who created it without input from any of the existing editors. You removed material from existing articles without checking first to see what else links to those existing articles. I have no problems with making radical edits, but be prepared to back-up your actions with reasons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter. I'm sorry but the move of relevant content from Greek primacy to language of the New Testament was not "without input from any of the existing editors"? Please if you will kindly look at Talk:Greek_primacy#Rename.3F you'll see I mooted this move (of the relevant material) to Language of the New Testament on 5 June, got 1 approval 6 June, then no response, and waited till 20 June for further input, got none so did it. If you were that interested in the Greek primacy page then perhaps you should have had it on your watchlist. But anyway, better late than never, do you object to the move? Do you want it moved back to Greek primacy (which is what you've done without discussing on Talk:Greek_primacy#Rename.3F). I'm sorry but the Greek primacy page did not have a note on the Talk page, "do not touch this without first discussing on Talk of New Testament since it is linked there."

It's somewhat unusual for a link to wag the dog (in this case a link here to override the Talk page of the other article) but I'm fine with that as New Testament is a more important article with a wider selection of editors. So what do you want? In restoring the equal weight wikilinks that recreates the equal-weight WP:POVFORK between Greek and Aramaic. Is that what editors here want? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made the change before reading the talk page (my apologies), but it seems only natural that the Language section in this article should have more detail in an article called Language of the New Testament. Now maybe that secondary article could use some work, but it still seems the natural article title. 75.15.197.96 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that possibly resolves the issue as regards this Talk page and this New Testament article. I haven't reverted Walter's edits to "Greek primacy" since he and any others are very welcome to participate in the discussion at Talk:Greek_primacy#Rename.3F. The Greek primacy -> Language of the New Testament move, while de-POVforking per Wikipedia policy, does present an odd situation - under normal circumstances I would have done a straight move, and deleted the (history of Hellenism) "Greek primacy" (the real thing, not the Wikipedia editor's invention) content, which I'm not sure is notable, other than as a footnote to articles like Megasthenes etc. That would have carried the page edit history. And I'm still of two minds, as to whether that wouldn't be better and develop "Greek primacy" out of the stub left by a move-redirect. But am more than happy for others to input/play around on that. The important thing is that the POVfork has gone, while (?) maybe leaving room for a properly sourced description of the Syrian church's view of the canonicity of the Peshitta (?) to develop from the "Aramaic primacy" POVfork - which appears to probably be in line with exceptions to Wikipedia POVfork policy. (?) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags

These seem a bit excessive, so I removed them from the top of the page:

• Coat rack|date=May 2010
• Off-topic|biblical authority|date=May 2010
• Off-topic|biblical inspiration|date=May 2010
• Off-topic|biblical hermeneutics|date=May 2010
• Merge to|biblical inspiration|date=May 2010
• Ibid|date=October 2010

Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Epistle vs. letter to the Hebrews

As far as I can see, the usual term these days for Hebrews is "The Letter to the Hebrews". Certainly that is the term used un the New Living Translation 1996 and the Good News Translation 1966.

I am aware that historiclly the Englich word for an item of correspondence was "Epistle" and works dating from the medeival period, such as the KJV 1611 will use "Epistle", however I am not aware of any work penned in the last quarter century of so which describes Hebrews as an "Epistle". Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "letter" or some variant thereof has probably been the standard English word for an item of correspondence (nicely put phrase, by the way) since in or around the 14th century. Before that, there was apparently used an Anglo-Saxon word, "aerandgewrit" (an "errand writ", it seems). "Epistle" is merely an Anglicisation of the original Greek description for these New Testament works, "epistole". So, "epistle" is chosen when the editor wants to affect an English which is closer to the original language, and "letter" is chosen when the editor wants to use a more common English.--Atethnekos (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lingua Franca

As English are today, so Greek and Latin used (once) to be the lingua franca of many regions, the former especially in Middle East and Asia Minor and Egypt, because of the greek colonies there and the greek speaking merchants e.t.c. e.t.c.. Most (not all) of the christian texts were written in greek because the authors intended to make them available and understood by the majority. Also greek was not like latin, the language of the overlords, so were more easily accepted and spoken as lingua franca from many nations. The authors ment also to use a common language that would not alieanate any nation of the mediterranean world wishing it would not "spark" ethnic disputes. Finally, (though Greece is now widely known for its buncrupcy and misery, being an -ex does not mean you were never important:) greek used to be for many centuries the language of the literate in that region. The article has sources and it is sad to see this "cleanup" signGreekolga (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem of dates for 1 Tim., 1 John, and Acts.

This is in response to Hashem Sfarim's request for discussion on recent edits. The following is in support of the assertion that describing texts to which Tertullian refers in Against Praxeas without qualification (including 1 Timothy, 1 John, and the Acts of the Apostles) as 'first-century' is problematic.

Re Acts:

"Thus I would place the date of the publication of Acts at about AD 110, though a release anytime within the first two decades of the second century (ca. AD 100-120) would have provided sufficient time for Polycarp's knowledge of the book." Parsons, Mikeal C. Acts. Baker Academic, 2008, p. 17.

"The burden of this lengthy and multi-faceted argument and the weight of evidence marshaled in its support is that Acts should be dated c. 115." Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts. Polebridge Press, 2006, p. 346.

Re 1 Tim:

"All this evidence, indirect and inconclusive as it is when examined piece by piece, does seem to build up a fair case for dating the Pastorals at about A.D. 105." Hanson, Anthony T. The Pastoral Letters Commentary. Cambridge University Press, 1966, p. 10.

"If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. " "The First Letter to Timothy" in NABRE-Compact. Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 1373.

Re 1 John:

"All this suggests that 1 John was known in patristic circles in the first half of the second century. Earlier than this we cannot go with any confidence, since the alleged echoes in 1 Clement are too doubtful to be of any use. The patristic citations provide only an ante quem: the Johannines might have been newly written when cited, or much older." Edwards, Ruth B. The Johannine Epistles. Continuum International, 1996, p. 54.

"How much later Polycarp is writing than the author of 1J himself is uncertain. The consensus of opinion is that this part of the Epistle dates from c. 135 AD. If GJ is to be dated, as most scholars now believe, at the turn of the century, the Johannine Epistles may come about mid-way between the two dates" Houlden, James L.The Johannine Epistles. Continuum International, 1994, p. 40.

To be clear, I wish to say, I don't mean to establish second-century authorship for any of these texts, but only to establish that verification in reliable sources for the claim of first-century authorship for them is problematic. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We should really in all disputed issues present both views - it seems to be the cases with most religious texts that there will be at least 2 views, traditional and critical. In the case of the Bible Authorship and Dating probably needs to be the 1st subheading, and have 2 sets of sources traditional view and critical view (in the relevant article and in summary overview here). It shouldn't be an either/or, unless one view is definitely WP:fringe. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)