The History of Christian Scripture 0 to 150 CE
Some of the recent comments I have heard regarding biblical inerrancy and other Christian issues, point out the woeful lack of knowledge about the early years of the church and what happened to Christianity in those early years.
According to the bible, Jesus died in AD 33 on the 14th day of Abib, (April), at about 3:00 pm, on Wednesday afternoon. But that is clearly in error.
Paul mentions that Barnabas and Titus went with him to Jerusalem 14 years after his conversion (Gal.2:1). This could only be the trip that he took to Jerusalem with food supplies and money that is mentioned in Acts 11:30.
While Paul, Barnabas, and Titus were at Jerusalem, King Herod Agrippa died. His death is well documented to have occurred in 44 A.D. If we subtract 14 years from 44 A.D., it brings us to 30 A.D., which is the year of Paul's conversion and probably the year of Jesus death.
Agrippa who was a friend of Caligula, the Emperor of Rome, was made king of the Tetrarchy of his uncle Philip Techoritis and the Tetrarchy of Lysanias (Abla) a few days after Caligula's ascension to power in March of 37 A.D.. Agrippa went to his lands in 39 A.D., but almost immediately returned to Rome to bring accusations against his uncle Antipas to Caligula in 39 A.D.
Upon the assassination of Caligula on January, 24, 41 A.D., Agrippa encouraged Claudius to accept the rulership of the Empire. Very early in his reign, in February or March, Claudius confirmed to Agrippa all the gifts of land Caligula had made to him and added to them the rest of the kingdom of Herod the Great.
Josephus says that, after having reigned for 3 years (41-44 A.D.), Agrippa died (Antiquities XIX 8.2). Agrippa's death is also described in Acts 12:21-23:
"On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, 'This is the voice of a god, not of a man.' Immediately because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten of worms and died" (NIV).
Notice that at this time Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem:
"When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark" (Acts 12:25 NIV).
30 A.D.
Paul's trip to Jerusalem, which is noted in Acts 12:21-25, is the same one mentioned in Galatians 1:22; 2:1:
"I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: the man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. And they praised God because of me. Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus also along" (NIV).
This trip to Jerusalem took place 14 years after Paul's conversion, which was the same year of Jesus' death (Acts 9:1-22). Paul's first trip to Jerusalem was three years after his conversion (Gal.1:18; Acts 9:23-30). This information clearly points out that Paul's second trip to Jerusalem after his conversion occurred in 44 A.D. Therefore the year of Paul's conversion and Jesus' death was 30 A.D.
It might be 31 or 29 depending on the time of year, but 30 is the accepted answer by most historians.
Since the work of Emil Schürer in 1896 most scholars have agreed that Herod died at the end of March or early April in 4 BCE.
Further evidence is provided by the fact that his sons, between whom his kingdom was divided, dated their rule from 4 BCE., and Archilaus apparently also exercised royal authority during Herod's lifetime. Josephus states that Philip the Tetrarch's death took place after a 37-year reign, in the 20th year of Tiberius (34 CE). Since we have all heard the stories of Jesus birth resulting in an edict by the living Herod to kill the firstborn make sons of Hebrews, causing the Holy Family to flee, the supposition is that Jesus would have been no older than two at the time thus dating his birth to 4 or 5 BCE.
Since Jesus was born around 4 or 5 BC he would have been about 34 years old at the time of his death.
The first "scriptures" are Paul's letters to the various churches written around 49 to 67 A.D. Paul lists himself as the author of each of his letters. From the earliest references we have (early second century) until relatively modern times (nineteenth century) all of these letters were accepted as written by Paul. That is not the case today however, in the interest of not putting the reader to sleep we will forgo any discussion of Pauline authorship of the letters, because it is the dates of 49-67 AD in which we are primarily interested.
The probable history of the letters follows:
1 Thessalonians A.D. 49-51
Dating based on traveling companions and cross references between 1 Thessalonians and Acts.
Galatians A.D. 49-54
Dating based on when Paul visited Galatia and his anger at them for having quickly forsaken his teachings (Gal 1:6-9). This is complicated because there are two possible definitions for Galatia. That is, did he mean the Roman province or the region where the ethnic Galations lived?
2 Thessalonians A.D. 52-54
Based on the themes of the letter, it was likely written after 1 Thessalonians and before Paul's next visit to Thessalonica (in Macedonia) in 54.
1 Corinthians A.D. 52-54
Written from Ephesus. (1 Cor 16:8), probably during the lengthy visit from A.D. 52-54.
Romans A.D. 54-55.
Dating based on person names and cross references with 1 Corinthians and Acts.
2 Corinthians A.D. 55
Written after 1 Corinthians, based on the internal references and logical consistency between 1 and 2 Corinthians. It is likely that 2 Corinthians is actually several letters, which were combined, which complicates the issue. Because he had not yet been in prison, these letters were completed before his Caesarean imprisonment, which began in A.D. 56.
Philippians A.D. 58-60
One of the four captivity epistles (Phil 1:7,13,16). Generally, the imprisonment in Rome is considered the most probable (A.D. 58-60) for all of the captivity epistles. This is the traditional answer, and there is also a lot of internal evidence that suggests that this is indeed the case. However, the case is not airtight, so it is possible that some or all of the captivity epistles were written during some other imprisonment at some other time.
Colossians A.D. 58-60
One of the four captivity epistles (Col 4:18)
Philemon A.D. 58-60
One of the four captivity epistles (Phlm 9)
Ephesians A.D. 58-60
One of the four captivity epistles (Eph 4:1)
1 Timothy A.D. 62-67.
1 Timothy indicates events that have occurred after Acts, including substantial traveling. Allowing time for this traveling puts a minimum date of 62. The upper limit is his death in 67.
Titus A.D. 62-67
Same as for 1 Timothy.
2 Timothy A.D. 67.
Paul indicates that he is about to be martyred, so it was likely written in 67. If his premonition is false, it would have been written earlier, but certainly after 62, for the same reasons as 1 Timothy and Titus.
John Mark
Mark was not one of the original twelve disciples. Nor was he an apostle. He is first introduced to us in Acts 12. Historically the time was A.D. 44. His home was in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:12,25). He came from a well-to-do family. His mother, Mary, owned a large house in Jerusalem and had a servant girl named Rhoda. The followers of Jesus gathered there. It has been suggested that this house may have been the site of “the upper room”, as well as the place where the disciples gathered after Jesus' ascension (cf. Mark 14:15; Acts 1:13). There is no concrete evidence, however, to verify this speculation. Peter did go to this house, where Jesus' followers gathered, immediately after the Lord's angel saved him from martyrdom at the hands of King Herod Agrippa I by releasing him from prison.
Mark's Hebrew name was John (cf. Acts 12:12). It appears that he may have come to know and believe the gospel of Jesus through Peter, for Peter called him “my son” (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). In A.D. 44 Barnabas, a cousin of Mark's (cf. Colossians 4:10), and Paul took Mark with them from Jerusalem to be their assistant in the church of Antioch, Syria (cf. Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; 13:1). This led to Mark's future work as a missionary. In A.D. 46 he accompanied Paul and Barnabas on Paul's first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:4,5). Shortly afterwards, however, he left them in Pamphylia to return to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 13:13). For whatever reason he left, Paul did not think it was appropriate and considered it a forsaking of the work before them. When Paul and Barnabas later prepared to make their second missionary journey around A.D. 50, Barnabas desired to take Mark along. Paul strongly protested. They then parted company over this disagreement. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. Paul took Silas and traveled over land through Syria and Cilicia enroute to Galatia (cf. Acts 15:36-16:11).
Nothing more is definitely known from Scripture about Mark's missionary work. It appears from Scripture that his work took him to the regions of what is now called Turkey, namely the Roman provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (Minor), and Bithynia. This would seem to be the case because, when Peter wrote his first letter to the Christians in these areas, he included a greeting to them from his son Mark (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). This would suggest the Christians in these areas knew Mark personally. His work in these regions is further suggested by Paul's including a greeting from Mark to the Christians in Colosse, with the added note that they had received instructions regarding Mark and that they should welcome him if he came to them (cf. Colossians 4:10). Paul also included a personal greeting from Mark to Philemon, who was a member of the church in Colosse (cf. Philemon 24).
In addition to having been a co-worker of Barnabas, and working in the regions mentioned above, Mark became a close associate of Paul's and Peter's in Rome as well. Mark was with Paul in Rome around A.D. 60 to 61, the time of Paul's first Roman imprisonment, at which time Paul wrote his prison epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (cf. Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24). This is made obvious by the greeting Paul included from Mark to the Colossians and to Philemon. During Paul's second Roman imprisonment, and not long before his martyrdom in A.D. 67 to 68, Paul requested that Timothy, who was in Ephesus, bring Mark with him to Rome. Paul wanted Mark in Rome with him, because Mark was of useful service to him (cf. 2 Timothy 4:11). It is possible, but not certain, therefore, that Mark was in Rome with Paul at the time of Paul's martyrdom. The greetings from Mark in Paul's letters and Paul's request for Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome clarify that whatever grievance Paul had had with Mark was by A.D. 60 cleared up and forgiven.
Mark was also with Peter in Rome around A.D. 62 and the spring of A.D. 64, which included a greeting from Mark (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). Many theologians now agree that he became inspired by Peter's oratory and this is when and where he wrote the Gospel of Mark.
So we have the following dates and scriptures fairly well agreed upon.
From Jesus death in 30 AD until 49 AD Oral Tradition Only or Chiefly (No original records exist)
From 49 to 62 AD The letters of Paul and Oral tradition.
(No original Letters)
50 AD First use of the term "Christian"
After 62 or 64 AD Mark's Gospel, Letters of Paul and Oral tradition.
(No originals)
150 AD First surviving fragment of Mark's Gospel
(@ 150AD-Not an original)
This first period, from Jesus death until at least 49 AD and probably quite beyond that, contained stories and oral memories many of which, like all memory, were mistaken or edited, embellished or tarnished by human failing. Although that time, due to poor literacy rates (est. 3-5%), featured a well developed and reliable oral tradition, human nature, being what it is, prevented exactness. But what is clear is that the movement was a JEWISH movement until 50 AD when the term "Christian" began to be used.
The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, which states "...in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replies to Paul the Apostle, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers, "...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name". Mattison suggests that "[The New Testament's use of this term indicates that it was a term of derision, a term placed upon Christ's followers by their critics."
The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him." So the period from Christ's death until 49 AD was a movement WITHIN and without THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUES but always in a Jewish tradition with all of the attendant reliance on the Old Testament AS THERE WAS NO NEWER TESTAMENT. Therefore, the early oral tradition was heavily colored by Jewish traditions, forces and biases.
Political forces were at work as well.
Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century, in the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians"[9] and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.
According to Tacitus, Nero ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified or burned to serve as lights.[14]
He describes the event as follows:
"As a consequence, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but, even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. In accordance, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not as much of the crime of firing the city as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. "
If you are practicing a religion outlawed by the government, you are likely practicing it in secret, in basements and caves and hidden places where copying of any letter or message or gospel is likely furtive, with poorly literate people copying in a hurry in the dark. Can we clearly say no errors were made and nothing was edited?
Adding up what we have thus far from a historical and sociological perspective points us in the following probable directions:
1. Until 49 AD people knew Jesus by oral story or direct contact (up to 19 years before) only. These were primarily Jews steeped in oral and synagogue tradition since they were following a Jewish teacher. Mostly Jews and some early gentiles followed Jesus until 40-50 AD or so.
2. After 49 AD until approximately 64 AD the religion flourished orally and through Paul's letter to the mostly Jewish churches. How many outside churchers or gentiles heard those letters we don't know, nor do we have the originals. There is no record of any "Gentile Christian Churches much before 60-70 AD except as indicated in Paul's letters to one church which may have had a non-Jewish bias. The movement clearly grew however. And after 50 AD became more and more identified as "Christian". Many more gentiles joined the ranks at this time. And the first "Christian" only gatherings were made, although most followers were still from the Jewish tradition, steeped in that lore.
3. After 64 AD Christianity was an outlawed religion requiring followers to worship covertly until approximately 312 AD. This covertness took various forms depending on proximity to Rome, the vagaries of the local authorities and which Emperor or powerbase was in power. It ranged from outright murder/ jail to authorities ignoring the worship totally. Many Christians, particularly in Rome left the movement for protection.
4. The first Jewish-Roman War (66–70 CE), sometimes called The Great Revolt (Hebrew ha-Mered Ha-Gadol), was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of the Iudaea Province (Judea Province), against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117 CE; the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt of 132–135 CE).
By 70 AD, now conquered, the Jews were heavily persecuted by the Romans and the temple had been destroyed.
What does this tell us about our early history?
Some deductions regarding biblical inerrancy stands out.
Any claim that the scripture was written by or dictated by God ignores all the years of oral history or must maintain that in all that oral tradition no errors or editing or political or religious bias occurred. And it must maintain that the period from 30 AD to 49 AD held no oral tradition CONTRIBUTING TO LATER SCRIPTURES. it must all be ignored.
Additionally, there are the issues of those scriptures written between 30 AD and 150 AD which did not make it into the canons such as the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Mary and others. All must be ignored due to a human vote to keep them out of the canon.
And we must ignore any scriptures written by the Gnostic movement which gathered strength during the period 30-64 AD and was in full flower by 150 AD.
The final issue is one of translation. The gospels are written in Greek. The spoken languages of the Hebrew area were Hebrew, Aramaic, Low (and High) Greek, common Latin, Latin, and many others such as Assyrian and Egyptian, for example. The chief language was probably Aramaic. The last three references in ACTS show that Paul understood Aramaic and that was the language Jesus spoke to him in his Damascus Road experience.
We also have references from Josephus and five or six others that indicates that the Jews of that area in the first century spoke Aramaic as their primary language. Whether Aramaic, Hebrew or some version of Latin, translation to Greek must be done and was done! Then through all the historic middle ages versions of Latin and Greek, then English and German until finally in 1609 culminating in The King James Bible with 80 books!
The first shocking fact to some KJV supporters is that the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version contains the (Catholic) Apocrypha. (80 Books) That is, there are more than the 66 books found in modern KJV editions. It was not until 1644 (because of the objections of the Puritans) that an edition omitting the Apocrypha was issued and not until the late 19th century that the British Bible Society stopped publishing editions containing the Apocrypha. Note: copies of the 1611 edition are widely available from sources such as Christian Book Distributors, lest anyone doubt the truthfulness of these statements. Nevertheless, the King James Only supporters criticize certain modern translations because they publish editions with the Apocrypha.
The other surprise is that the text of today's KJV is really not that of the 1611 edition. Here is a selection from a real 1611 edition (Isaiah 27:3-4)
(3) I the Lord doe keepe it; I will water it euery moment: lest any hurt it, I will keepe it night and day. (4) Furie is not in mee : who would set the briars and thornes against me in battell? I would goe through them, I would burne them together.
Perhaps that citation gives a better look at how distant the KJV translation really is from modern English. Today's KJV editions smooth over the difficulties by modernizing the spelling. It leaves the reader unwary to the changes in word meaning between 1611 and now.
And these changes are profound even though we are talking only 400 years within the same language. In separate papers I have indicated how the King James authors changed Paul's letter to the Romans in Chapter1 from the word "justice" to "righteousness" largely due to Luther's Tower Experience in 1519. "Justice" and "righteousness", however close, are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination.
So translation errors, copying errors, editing and all of the aforementioned oral tradition and persecution issues must be considered when we declare the bible inerrant!
It is a monumental task to hold on to Biblical inerrancy in the face of History and Sociology.
For someone alleging that he accepts inerrancy as a matter of FAITH, the ball is then put into an entirely different court. As a matter of Faith we can accept anything, that the moon is made of green cheese (until recently). that the sun revolves around the earth (until the middle ages) or that the world is flat (until modern times). No one accepts these statements as true any longer since science has proven them erroneous. But to accept biblical inerrancy we must disavow all science as erroneous. We must also allege God is at war with His creation and Natural Law since those are the purview of science.
Students of History and Science are not fools nor are they at war with God. They simply try to worship a God who is not at war with His/Her creation, His/Her Natural Law or the History and Sociology or Sciences of mankind. It can be done, but to do so requires a metaphorical and sacramental reading of scripture, not a literal one.
John P. Middleton
Sept 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment