Talk:Dating the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also Talk:Dating the Bible/archive.
I have just reverted a long, unformatted, unwikified and signed contribution by a newbie, see User talk:Franck Ver Stut and his contributions.
Possibly there is material in it that should be incorporated into the article. Hopefully, we might even interest the author in doing this work, after some study of our policies, standards and in particular the ideal of a neutral point of view.
But this is only one of several similar essays he has contributed, and in his revert war edit summaries of some of the others he is currently pleading the constitutional right of free speech, so we have a way to go. Andrewa 18:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Contents |
[edit] EarlyChristianwritings.com NT dating?
How reliable do people feel these dates are? They differ somewhat from the ones posted here.
See for example:
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-160 2 Peter
Non-canonical but quoted by some church fathers as inspired/scripture (before the NT canon was finally set by the 370's) or popularly read in churches/included in pages of somebody's bible:
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews (or possibly confused with 50-95 Book of Hebrews)
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-200 Odes of Solomon
130-160 2 Clement
150-200 Acts of Paul
170-175 Diatessaron
Sources: (Dave Armstrong) (Peter Kirby)
The entire list of approximate dates for the New Testament is currently unsourced. 75.15.112.158 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Not mentioned outside Israel?
The article begins:
- With the exception of a couple of fragments (found among the Dead Sea scrolls, discussed below), no Bible texts that we currently have predate about 200 BCE. Nor are they mentioned by historians outside Israel. Therefore differences that exist between different schools are more ideologically driven than based on historical documentation.
I don't want to edit this because it is possible the author means something sensible, but at present it seems to be saying that Bible texts are not mentioned by historians outside of Israel, which is obviously untrue. Perhaps the author should edit it to clarify meaning. Ordinary Person 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] timelines
according to the 'maximalist' hypothesis, which would be the oldest part of the torah (i.e. which book was found by Josiah?) J, E, or already JE? would the timeline
- J, E 10th-9th century
- Deuteronomy 7th century
- Torah redaction 6th century
be approximately right? Or is there a possibility that Genesis is younger than Deuteronomy? dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
There is an error in the opening lines of this article I hope someone will correct. There are in fact biblical texts that predate the 2nd century BCE. For example, the blessing of the kohens have been found on inscriptions that are significantly older. I don't have the sources at my disposable to do a meaningful revision. The article should probably say something like no texts of substantial length exist that are older than the second century BCE.
To quote the article: "With the exception of a couple of fragments (found among the Dead Sea scrolls), discussed below, no Bible texts that we currently have predate about 200 BCE." This seems to imply that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be dated earlier than 200 BCE. But this conflicts the statement from Dead Sea Scrolls page that "the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD". Explanation, anyone? --Itinerant1 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nevi'im Errata
The last sentence in this section is quoted below. The clause following "form," does not make grammatic sense. Sorry, I cannot fix it, because I cannot guess at the author's intended meaning.
"In the time of Jesus the book existed in its present form, with many prophecies in the disputed portions are quoted in the New Testament as the words of Isaiah."
Zenna
[edit] Schools of thought
How accurate is to say that there are two schools of thought on this topic (as the introductory text of the article states)? It seems that there authors were trying to divide people into those who generally believe in the Bible from those who do not, but this seems like a gross oversimplification of the issue. Threepounds 06:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup?
The first two sentences seem to have poor grammar/style. Is there any chance someone could work on rewriting them? --Improv 16:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Why should anyone feel compelled to date the bible?
[edit] Section on Torah
Some critical scholars (the biblical "minimalists") would insist that the whole of the Torah which came after the bible is a construction (after 538 BC), perhaps with material from an earlier oral tradition.
I'm sorry, the Torah came after the Bible all of the sudden? VolatileChemical 09:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- the Torah is obviously part of the Bible. This statement should read, the "minimalist" position is that the Torah is later than the Nevi'im. dab (𒁳) 08:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No Catholic sources used?
Why are there no Catholic sources used or suggested? Since we have the writings of the Early Church Fathers (what a tremendous reference!), we could see where non Catholics, Catholics and Jews disagree.CatholicDavid 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because there are no Catholic sources, nor Jewish ones nor Protestant ones - textual criticism is non-denominational. The Church Fathers believed that Moses wrote the Torah, David wrote the Psalms and Luke wrote Acts. All of this was based on tradition - the rabbis said Moses wrote the Torah, and the Church Fathers had no reason to doubt them. Eusebius and others had the traditions for the NT. But it really wasn't an issue - what counted was what the scripture said, not who wrote it or when, and so there was no disagreement between the rabbis, the Church Fathers, or, later, the Protestants. Or more accurately, there was no discussion. When textual criticism emerged as a scholarly discipline in the 19th century, it was dominated at first by German Lutherans, but the Vatican gave its approval to the new scholarship in the mid-20th century and modern Catholic scholars work within the same framework as their Protestant, Jewish, and, I fear, agnostic and possibly even atheistic colleaugues. Documentary hypothesis gives a brief history.PiCo 10:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redating of Luke
I have changed the dates given to Luke and Acts for two reasons. Firstly that Luke is generally considered to have been composed after Matthew. Secondly because Mack in "Who Wrote the New Testament" shows that there elements in Luke/Acts that show a provenance early in the 2nd century. John D. Croft (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Issues: "Conservative" dating
The NT section suffers from some serious POV issues, and I have tagged it. For example, for Luke it says "+85–105 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)". Surely that must equate to "60-105 AD". As it stands, it seems to marginalise a conservative dating, and hence interferes with neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think we should aim to put the mainstream range of dates first, with any minority viewpoints noted separately. I have no idea what the actual position is, and leave that to others.PiCo (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:DUE: if you try to account for even the most fringy minority views, the date range given will be reduced to uselessness. It is good practice to give a mainstream range of estimates, and quote extreme minority views subsequently if at all. That said, I don't know just how fringy a 60s date is for Q. Still, an edit such as this represent a loss of information and consequently a deterioration of article quality. Both a pre-70 (7Q5) and a post-135 date of Mark does seem to be a rather stretching things. I don't see how "+70 AD" could become "50-70 AD", turning the formerly early estimate into a late estimate. It should be "60-115" if we're being reasonable, or "50-150" if we're including fringe views. Clearly, the mainstream range is more useful to the reader just interested in a quick idea of reasoable estimates. dab (𒁳) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but I would reject the idea that 60AD is "fringy". See John A. T. Robinson#Redating the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- When I read the Wiki article on Robinson, I get the impression that his ideas haven't won majority acceptance. "Fringe" carries a pejorative overtone wch is clearly not appropriate here, but nevertheless, if my impression is right and Robinson's view is not mainstream, then we shouldn't be putting it in our table without alerting readers. PiCo (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but I would reject the idea that 60AD is "fringy". See John A. T. Robinson#Redating the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:DUE: if you try to account for even the most fringy minority views, the date range given will be reduced to uselessness. It is good practice to give a mainstream range of estimates, and quote extreme minority views subsequently if at all. That said, I don't know just how fringy a 60s date is for Q. Still, an edit such as this represent a loss of information and consequently a deterioration of article quality. Both a pre-70 (7Q5) and a post-135 date of Mark does seem to be a rather stretching things. I don't see how "+70 AD" could become "50-70 AD", turning the formerly early estimate into a late estimate. It should be "60-115" if we're being reasonable, or "50-150" if we're including fringe views. Clearly, the mainstream range is more useful to the reader just interested in a quick idea of reasoable estimates. dab (𒁳) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] split
discussion of the age of the various books of the Hebrew Bible is a question completely distinct to the questions surrounding the compilation of the New Testament. Even regarding the Tanakh, there is little point in treating the date of the Torah together with questions surrounding the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim. But since the Tanakh has a history of editing (Development of the Jewish Bible canon), a single article History of the Tanakh may make sense. Similarly, an article on the history of the New Testament will need to be divided into a discussion of the synoptic gospels Q document separate from Authorship of the Pauline epistles and Authorship of the Johannine works. As it stands, this article has no identifiable overarching scope. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
