What is New Testament?

 

According to Christian scholar “Mahlon H. Smith” the New Testament is defined as follows:

“The word "testament" is simply the English transliteration of the Latin word for something that has been witnessed (testamentum). This term was widely used to refer to the publication of a person's last will (a document that had to be signed by witnesses). In Latin versions of the scriptures this term was used to translate the Greek word for a dispensation (diathéké), a term that was also generally used for a final will. But diathéké could refer to any legal contract. Therefore, those who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek regularly used it for the Hebrew word for a binding pact or "covenant" (berith) between two parties.

The idea of a new covenant can be traced to the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, who --- on the eve of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem (586 BCE) --- gave this assurance to Jews that God would not abandon them:

The LORD says: "Look! The days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out the land of Egypt... But...I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God and they shall be my people. [Jer 31:31-33]

The author of an early Christian treatise "To the Hebrews" cited Jeremiah's promise of a new order to support his claim that the Christian dispensation replaced the social order established by the laws of Moses:

In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Heb 8:13]

This author's distinction between old & new dispensations was later adopted as a convenient way to distinguish Christian scriptures from the Greek translation of Jewish scriptures. So, when the Greek scriptures were translated into Latin, these two collections became known as the Old & New Testaments.

At first the books of the NT were not published in a single volume but as separate codices. By the 3rd century CE several gospels or letters were occasionally bound together. But the production of volumes containing many different types of works (gospels, letters, acts, apocalypses) did not occur until after the council of Nicea (325 CE) when the emperor Constantine ordered 50 leather- bound parchment NTs from Eusebius of Caesarea.

The contents of the NT, however, have never been officially fixed by any universally recognized church authority. Eusebius classified Christian scriptures in three groups:

§       20 that were generally accepted (4 gospels, 13 letters of Paul, Acts, 1 John & 1 Peter);

§       5 that were disputed (James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 & 3 John; Hebrews & Revelation are not even mentioned); &

§       others that were regarded as spurious (including the gospels of Thomas & Peter).

Throughout the 4th c. CE differing canonical lists of Christian scripture were published by various bishops. The list that Athanasius of Alexandria issued in his festal letter 39 (367 CE) --- including all the works in Eusebius' first two groups, plus Hebrews & Revelation --- was eventually accepted as the standard NT by most Greek & Latin churches.

Still the contents of mss. of the NT continued to vary for more than 1000 years. Some

·       lacked some material (from a portion of a canonical book to one or more whole works); and/or

·       included other non-canonical material; and/or

·       presented canonical works in different sequences.

There was no standard text of the NT before the invention of the printing press. But even after this biblical scholars & theologians continued to dispute the canonical status of various NT books (especially James, Hebrews, Revelation & the pastoral letters).

In 1546 the Roman Catholic Council of Trent affirmed the doctrinal authority of all 27 books on Athanasius' canonical list. While generally asserting the authority of the NT, Protestant & Orthodox churches have still not officially defined its contents.”

Smith also defines and describes “Manuscript” in the following words:

“Handwritten document. Before the invention of the printing press in the 15th c. all documents had to be copied by hand, a laborious process that invited all kinds of variations: misspellings, altered wording, grammatical corrections, stylistic improvements, insertions, omissions, etc. Thus, no two NT mss. are identical. In trying to establish the original version of a biblical text, modern editors have to sort through more than 1000 years of mss. with variant readings. Because new changes were introduced every time a ms. was copied, earlier mss. are generally given priority.

NT mss. are classified by material (papyrus or parchment); format (scroll or codex); & script (uncial or minuscule). Because of cost, all Christian documents surviving from the pre-Constantinian era (4th c. CE) are on papyrus. Since papyrus is fragile, only fragments of these works have been preserved. But modern editions of the NT value the contents of these mss., because they represent versions of the text before ecclesiastical authorities began to standardize the biblical text to conform to the doctrinal orthodoxy of the later era.

20th c. versions of the NT are primarily based on parchment uncial codices of the 4th-9th c. Many of the earliest of these, like Sinaiticus, have undergone extensive "correction" by later scribes. Scholars trying to establish the original contents of the biblical text often prefer the "uncorrected" wording of the original. Many NT mss. have marginal notes added by other scribes. These marginalia were often copied into the main text of later mss. Therefore, modern versions of the NT text usually print such passages in footnotes or brackets to indicate that they were not found in the oldest mss. Mark 16:9-20 & John 8:1-11 are the most notable examples.

[For a catalog of the major insertions in later gospel mss. see "Orphan Sayings & Stories" in The Complete Gospels revised edition (R.J. Miller, ed., Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1994), pp. 449-455].”

Papyrus, plural Papyri         

The earliest form of paper, made by compressing layers of strips from the pith of a water reed that grew in the Nile delta (Egypt). In the pre-Christian era sheets of papyri were usually glued together to form scrolls that were written only on one side. But by the end of the first c. CE a pile of papyrus sheets were sewn & folded up the middle to form a codex written on both sides.

In 1897 a major hoard of papyrus fragments from the first-to-ninth c. CE was discovered at the site of ancient Oxyrhynchus (Egypt). Scholars number papyri in the order in which they were discovered. Fragments from two papyrus scrolls of the non-canonical gospel of Thomas (pOxy 644 & pOxy 655) are among the oldest known texts containing sayings ascribed to Jesus (ca. 200 CE). Most other surviving Christian papyri, including fragments of another copy of Thomas (pOxy 1), are from codices. Only 5 papyri of canonical gospels can be dated to the same era or earlier. These are:

p52 -- a fragment of John 18 (written ca. 125 CE)
p90 -- a fragment of John (ca 175 CE)
p66 -- portions of John 1, 6, 15-16, 20-21 (ca. 200 CE)
p64; p67 -- fragments of Matthew 3, 5, 26 (ca. 200 CE)

Papyri containing more than one gospel date only after 200 CE. There are two mss. containing the texts of Luke & John, one of Matthew & John, and one of Mark & John. The oldest papyrus to present the four gospels in their current canonical order (p45) also comes from the 3rd c. Yet even this contains only fragments of Matt 20-26, Mark 4-12, Luke 6-13, John 10-18 & Acts 4-17.

Parchment 

The skins of sheep, goats or calves processed for writing on both sides. The name comes from the city of Pergamum (Asia Minor) where an improved method of scraping and preparing leather was developed in the 2nd c. BCE. The introduction of parchment allowed both sides of the leather to be used as a smooth writing surface, which in turn led to the development of the codex that began to replace the more cumbersome & less efficient scroll as the preferred text format during the early years of the Christian movement. Since parchment was expensive, however, it was not generally used for Christian writings before the legalization of Christianity in the 4th c. CE.

Q Synoptic Sayings Source       

Conventional symbol for the source of material in both Matthew and Luke that differs significantly from the text of Mark. This symbol was coined in a 1890 essay by Johannes Weiss, who used it as shorthand for the German word "source" (Quelle). But the Q hypothesis itself is credited to C. H. Weisse (1838), who was the first to maintain that Matthew & Luke independently edited Mark and the same "sayings source" (Redenquelle).

The idea that the Greek gospels are based on some primitive collection of sayings (Greek: logia) goes back to the very first commentary on the gospels. Early in the 2nd c. CE, Papias reported that Matthew compiled the logia of Jesus which others interpreted as best they could. Here already was the kernel of the hypothesis that more than one gospel was based on the same collection of sayings. Later writers assumed that Papias was referring to the canonical gospel ascribed to Matthew until 1832, when F. Schleiermacher pointed out that Papias did not call this sayings collection a gospel. Schleiermacher concluded that the gospel of Matthew was a later composition that must have used this early sayings collection. Six years later Weisse showed that Luke must have used it too. H. J. Holtzmann's 1863 study of the historical origins of the synoptic gospels made the theory that Matthew & Luke had independently edited the same Greek collection of Jesus' sayings the dominant working hypothesis among NT scholars.

Four factors have contributed to scholarly controversy over Q:

§       Lack of a separate text: The discovery of Q did not involve the unearthing of a previously unknown ms. (like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the gospel of Thomas) but rather the meticulous analysis of the composition of the synoptic gospels. The text of Q is embedded in the gospels of Matthew & Luke. Thus, Q is a hypothetical source. Recognition of its existence is a scientific corollary of two other conclusions about the relation of the synoptic texts:

·       the priority of Mark as the prime literary source for Matthew & Luke; &

·       the independence of Matthew & Luke as editors of Mark.

Once one recognizes the evidence for a literary relationship between the synoptic gospels, the only logical alternative to Q is a rival source hypothesis that maintains Luke edited Matthew. There are three major variations of this position, formulated first by Augustine, J. J. Griesbach, & A. M. Farrer. Yet, for the past century, none of these hypotheses has been able to muster enough support from gospel scholars to dispense with the Q hypothesis.

§       Lack of reference: The absence of a ms. of Q is not a major problem, since most Christian literature written before the Constantinian era (4th c. CE) is no longer in existence. A stronger objection against Q is the fact that early Christian writers do not mention it. We know of lost gospels, letters, commentaries, etc. because some ancient writers referred to them. The only evidence for Q's existence is the presence of parallel non-Markan material in Matthew & Luke. Q is not the sayings source referred to by Papias, since that was allegedly written in Hebrew, while Q was clearly composed in Greek.

Yet this objection is not as serious as first appears, since (except for Papias) Christian writers before 150 CE do not generally refer to any document (including the canonical gospels) as their source for Jesus' sayings. First century Christianity was, after all, still primarily an oral culture. There are, in fact, several references to the "words of the Lord Jesus" & even more unacknowledged echoes of Jesus sayings in 1st c. Christian writings. Thus, early collections of Jesus sayings are more than likely. The gospel of Thomas, which was discovered less than a century ago is evidence that such collections did exist.

Paradoxically, lack of reference to Q was probably a consequence of its influence on canonical gospels. Once Matthew & Luke had incorporated the contents of Q into their works there was no need to copy it as a separate document. For the copying of mss. was expensive & time-consuming. Uncopied mss. wear out & disappear. If Q disappeared by 110 CE, the silence of later writers is to be expected.

§       Questions of literary unity: A bigger problem for advocates of the Q hypothesis is explaining how & why the variety of non-Markan parallels in Matthew & Luke came to be part of the same work. Q contained sayings with no connecting narrative & only minimal prefaces to some clusters. But as a written composition, it can be expected to show some coherence. Unlike the gospel of Thomas, Q was comprised primarily of sayings clusters. But these are quite diverse. In addition to many small blocks of related Jesus sayings, Q contained:

·       oracles of John the Baptist

·       a dialogue between Jesus & the devil

·       a well-organized sermon encouraging the oppressed

·       a healing story with dialogue between Jesus & a Roman centurion

·       sayings about Jesus' relationship to John

·       a list of instructions to missionaries

·       an exorcism leading to debate over the source of Jesus' authority

·       oracles against Jerusalem & cities in Galilee 

·       prayer instructions

·       oracles against scribes & Pharisees

·       several parables

·       predictions of the appearance of the son of man.

The links between these blocks of material are sometimes puzzling. Several Q sayings are prophetic in tone, with dire warnings directed against opponents. Others are wisdom sayings designed to encourage people in adverse circumstances.

Analysis of Q's structure leads many scholars to think that Q was revised more than once. For sayings collections are easily expanded by later scribes. Several books in the Hebrew Bible containing prophetic oracles or wisdom sayings had later insertions of various types of material. So questions about the coherence of Q material concern the tradition history of the text, rather than its existence.

§       Redactional problems: The text of Q has to be reconstructed from the texts of Matthew & Luke. These writers did not simply copy Jesus' sayings, they edited & paraphrased them. Since we have the text of Mark their revisions of Mark are clear, as in the pericope on Jesus' true kin. The shape of Q & the original wording of Q sayings is often less certain, since we do not have a separate ms.

Experts on Q sometimes debate the reconstruction of particular sayings or whether a certain passage came from Q or another source. But this is no different than the debates over the reconstruction of the Dead Sea scrolls or any fragmentary ms.

The primary reason most scholars resist tracing Q material to separate hypothetical sources is the philosophical principle called Ockham's razor: "Do not multiply unnecessary imaginary objects." If Mark is the primary source of Matthew & Luke, then Q is necessary to account for the non-Markan parallels in Matthew & Luke unless Luke also used Matthew. Fragmentation of Q material into smaller sources only increases speculation & compounds the problems of reconstruction.

Synoptic Problem             

The question of the relationship & sources of the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke. Even a casual comparison of the contents of these works points to one or more basic sources. The Synoptic Problem is the challenge confronting any student of the gospels: find a working hypothesis that is adequate to account for all the similarities & differences in these 3 compositions.

The assumption that gospels preserve the memoirs of separate apostles does not explain the patterns of agreement & divergence in the contents of Matthew, Mark & Luke. Three reporters covering the same events might make the same observations. But reports by independent eyewitnesses are expected to differ in organization & style, since these depend on the individual memory & verbal skills of each author.

A substantial amount of similarly worded material in 2 texts is a clear signal of a common source. Either one author has plagiarized from the other or both are echoing someone else. The question is: who is copying from whom?

§       Contents: The synoptics vary considerably in length from Mark (the shortest) to Luke (the longest).

Separate

Matt

Mark

Luke

verses

1068

661

1098

scenes

117

95

120

sayings*

225

80

182

*distinct units other than dialog dependent on story

Yet the bulk of the synoptic material is repeated by at least two works. Note that the preponderance of parallel passages between Matthew & Luke is in sayings, while Matthew has more scenes in common with Mark.

Repeated

Mt+Mk+Lk

Mt+Mk

Mk+Lk

Mt+Lk

verses

232*

454*

350*

450**

scenes

59

77

67

64

sayings

60

77

62

137

*=Markan count
** =Lukan count

Note also the material presented by 2 gospels that is omitted by the third . Though Matthew omits fewer lines found in the other synoptics, note that Mark omits the fewest scenes & the most sayings.

Omitted

by Luke

by Matt

by Mark

verses

222

118

218

scenes

18

8

5

sayings

17

2

77

Mark presents most of the narrative common to the synoptics but less than half of the aphorisms & parables ascribed to Jesus by both Matthew & Luke. Any literary source theory must account for Mark's failure to present such a large proportion of Jesus sayings.

A survey of material unique to each gospel shows that (aside from sayings) the core of the common synoptic tradition is preserved in Mark. Matthew & Luke have only 5 brief scenes in common that have no parallel in Mark [4th column].

Unique

to Matt

to Mark

to Luke

to Mt + Lk

verses

396

89

530

218

scenes

35

10

48

5

sayings

38

1

39

77

§       Order: Sequence is even more important than quantity of material in establishing literary dependence between texts. Given decent memories, any number of authors could reproduce many of the sayings & stories that they have heard in similar wording. But like any search engine, the human memory recalls most items by motif & keywords rather than the order in which these items were learned. Except in cases of inevitable cause/effect, events are rarely recalled in the sequence in which they actually occurred.

Without some built-in logical markers, stories & sayings can be repeated in almost any sequence. While dramatic openings, climaxes & conclusions may be easy to recall, details in between are hard to keep straight. For the randomness of aural memory increases with the passage of time. This is particularly evident in the memorization of long stories or speeches.

Thus, the clearest evidence of literary dependence among the synoptic gospels is the fact that Matthew, Mark & Luke present the material they have in common in the same basic sequence from Jesus' baptism thru his burial. The outline common to all 3 synoptics is:

At many points in this outline each author has inserted material that is not reported there by the other two.

If one limits comparison of sequence to a pair of gospels at a time an even more significant pattern appears. The agreement in the outlines of Matthew & Mark, on the one hand, and Mark & Luke, on the other, is about twice as extensive as the sequence common to all three. But there is no agreement in the order of Matthew & Luke apart from the sequence each shares with Mark. The non-Markan sayings common to Matthew & Luke are presented at different points in their narratives, except for two passages:

In both cases Mark presents a briefer version of the same scene.

Thus, any synoptic source theory must account for three characteristics of the gospel outlines:

[For detailed comparison of these patterns see Gospel Outlines.]

§       Style: The third factor that needs to be accounted for by any source theory is the literary style of each gospel. The vocabulary and grammar of an original narrative represent a particular author's personal style of story-telling. A text copied by another scribe, on the other hand, will contain only minimal traces of the second writer's personal style. While the synoptic writers are authors in their own right, two factors place their compositions between these extremes of free creation and mechanical reproduction:

·       the synoptic gospels record stories & sayings formed by earlier oral tradition; and

·       at least two of these texts are revisions of one or more written sources.

Compilers weave originally separate strands of material from different sources into larger literary complexes. Thus, the transitions between passages in each gospel reflect the logic & style typical of that particular writer. Compilations of oral sources often retain the informal style of orality in the seams of a written text.

Editors of literary works, on the other hand, tend to polish their sources to make the text read more smoothly. Editing generally improves grammar, reduces redundant wording, bridges narrative gaps & resolves logical problems.

The gospel of Mark is the least polished & most oral of the synoptics. Matthew invariably has better grammar & smoother literary transitions between passages. Luke writes the most literate Greek in the NT. Yet, in reporting the same passage, Luke's wording is almost always closer to Mark than to Matthew. While Luke's transitions between scenes & sayings rely on more sophisticated rhetoric than Mark's they are never the same as the transitions in Matthew.

To remain viable any hypothesis of the relationship of the synoptic gospels must account for these patterns of parallels & divergences.

Note for the readers: The entire text above is the Christian point of view and is the work of a Christian scholar named above. I have posted it all without any editing and/or changes.

 

Home Page