According to some scholars, including Baden, the third major block of source material in the Torah can be divided into two different, equally coherent schools, named for the word that each uses for God: Yahweh and Elohim. Other scholars don't agree on two complete sources for the non-priestly material. Instead, says Baden, they see a much more gradual process, in which material from numerous smaller sources was layered together over a longer period of time.
Beginning around 70 A. But for more than a century, scholars have generally agreed that the Gospels, like many of the books of the New Testament, were not actually written by the people to whom they are attributed. In fact, it seems clear that the stories that form the basis of Christianity were first communicated orally, and passed down from generation to generation, before they were collected and written down.
Traditionally, 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament were attributed to Paul the Apostle , who famously converted to Christianity after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus and wrote a series of letters that helped spread the faith throughout the Mediterranean world. Three were eyewitnesses of his life and ministry Matthew, Peter and John.
Two were the physical brothers of Jesus James and Jude. One of the New Testament writers, the apostle Paul , was specially called to serve the Gentiles and for three years was personally taught by Christ in Arabia.
The last two of eight authors were Mark who penned his Gospel under Peter's supervision , and Luke who authored his Gospel and the book of Acts under the Apostle Paul's supervision. John the apostle had the distinguished role of collecting all the books extant and completing the canonization of the Bible somewhere between 96 to 99 A. The New Testament was written by, or its writing was supervised by, the chosen disciples of Jesus Christ. John, who near the end of the first century A.
A clue may lie in a limestone boulder discovered embedded in a stone wall in the town of Tel Zayit, 35 miles southwest of Jerusalem, in The boulder, now known as the Zayit Stone, contains what many historians believe to be the earliest full Hebrew alphabet ever discovered, dating to around BC.
The Zayit Stone does not in itself tell us when the Bible was written and collated, but it gives us our first glimpse of the language that produced it. And, by tracking the stylistic development of that language down the centuries, and cross-referencing it with biblical text, historians have been able to rule out the single-author hypotheses, concluding instead that it was written by waves of scribes during the first millennium BC.
From about the eighth century BC onwards, the Old Testament contains some real historiography, even though it may not all be accurate. Are we guilty of placing too much emphasis on this question? Much of the Old Testament is about seeing God at work in human history rather than in accurately recording the detail, and sometimes we exaggerate the importance of historical accuracy.
The Old Testament is not a work of fiction, but nor is it a modern piece of history-writing. After the exile of the Jewish people in Bablylon in the sixth century BC, scribes gradually turned into religious teachers, as we find them in the New Testament. But the collection is a work of early Judaism. It should be remembered that for a long time it was a collection of individual scrolls, not a single book between two covers. But messianic hopes were not widespread or massively important in first-century Judaism and are even less central to the Old Testament itself.
Christians discovered texts they saw as messianic prophecies — for example, in Isaiah 7 — though other Jews did not read them that way. The message, which was that all humankind was accepted through Jesus by the God worshipped by the Jews, proved a winner.
David is also a hugely important figure in the quest to establish links between the Bible and historical fact, for he appears to be the earliest biblical figure to be confirmed by archaeology. But it at least indicates that David was a historical figure. The Tel Dan Stele also suggests that,no matter how capable their rulers, the people of Israel continued to be menaced by powerful, belligerent neighbours. And, in BC, one of those neighbours, the Babylonians, would inflict on the Jews one of the most devastating defeats in their history: ransacking the sacred city of Jerusalem, butchering its residents, and dragging many more back to Babylonia.
For the people of Israel, the fall of Jerusalem was a searing experience. And, according to many scholars, that crisis may have had a transformative impact on the writing of the Bible. But when Peter came to the Gentile church in Antioch in 53 AD, he played the hypocrite in reverting back to practicing the traditional laws of Judaism that the apostles in 49 AD had rejected.
Such behavior violated and perverted the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Paul had not contested these practices and instead had allowed them to continue and take root, his entire ministry to the Gentiles—as well as the preaching of the Gospel to the world in the future—might have been jeopardized.
Thus, the events leading up to the writing of Galatians indicate that the letter must have been written in the late spring of 53 AD. Robinson suggests 56 AD, which is far too late. Paul was not typically so slow to act—and would have been derelict in his duty if he had allowed such false teachings to flourish three more years before confronting the problem.
Therefore, when all these facts are considered, there can be little doubt that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians immediately after his confrontation with Peter. Also, as the book of Acts records, Paul quickly followed up his Epistle to the Galatians with a third evangelistic tour beginning in the summer of 53 AD. He went first to the churches in Galatia to strengthen the brethren there—and then went on to Phrygia Acts After that he sojourned in Ephesus for more than three years.
Hebrews: There is no question that Paul wrote all the Epistles that bear his name. On the other hand, there has been a great deal of debate about the authorship of Hebrews. The internal evidence and chronology, however, reveal that the book of Hebrews originated with the apostle Paul—who undoubtedly used Luke as his scribe.
Paul had already given a powerful witness to those in Jerusalem Acts and to the Jewish leaders of the Sanhedrin Acts When Paul arrived in Rome, he was again placed under house arrest. Only three days after his arrival, he witnessed to the chief Jewish religious leaders Acts Paul must have written the book of Hebrews at this time—as an additional written witness and warning to underscore his spoken testimony. However, instead of writing this book in the usual epistolary form, Paul chose to style it as a homily or sermon.
Paul had undoubtedly preached this sermon many times over—and had already written out much of the material that went into the composition of Hebrews perhaps as something akin to sermon notes. Paul might well have refined his writing through frequent preaching. Another very important reason why Paul must have written the book of Hebrews in early spring 61 AD is that he does not mention the martyrdom of James, the half-brother of Jesus, which took place in the spring of 62 AD.
If Paul had written Hebrews in 67 AD, as Robinson suggests, James would have been dead five years, and only a small vestige of the church would have remained in Jerusalem and in Judea because most of the believers would have fled to Pella and Asia Minor before the Jewish rebellion in 66 AD. The comment in Heb. Based on these facts, it can be concluded that Paul wrote to the Hebrews from Rome in the spring of 61 AD.
He sent this vital book to the churches in Rome and in Jerusalem as a final written witness and warning before the martyrdom of James in 62 AD and the Jewish revolt against Rome, which began in 66 AD.
Ephesians and Colossians must have been written in the early spring of The city of Laodicea, which was nearly destroyed by an earthquake in 60 AD, is not mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians.
Furthermore, the notation at the end of each Epistle shows that they were written from Rome rather than Caesarea, and there is no internal evidence in these Epistles to indicate that the closing notations might be incorrect.
Paul made specific references in these epistles to being in prison, and indicated that his being in prison actually furthered the preaching of the Gospel Eph. Philemon likewise shows that Paul freely received fellow saints during his imprisonment Philemon 1, Clearly, these four Epistles were written while Paul was in prison—and each letter indicates that Paul experienced a relatively high level of freedom.
There would have been no need for Paul to write to Timothy in 55 AD. After his release, Paul probably went to Crete and visited Titus. When Paul left Crete, he instructed Titus to set things in order and ordain elders as he had appointed. Next, Paul probably went to Ephesus to visit Timothy. From Ephesus he journeyed to Nicopolis in Macedonia.
When I Timothy is examined, it is obvious that Paul wrote to Timothy because he was going to be traveling, perhaps to Spain and Britain. In this Epistle he gives Timothy instructions on how to administer a local congregation in his absence with regard to: 1 dealing with false teachers; 2 selecting elders; 3 discerning the doctrines of demons; 4 having personal godliness and being an exemplary overseer; 5 preaching; 6 handling assistance to widows; and 7 correcting elders who sin.
However, there is no record of Paul having traveled to the island of Crete before he was imprisoned in Caesarea. Rather, Paul probably went to Crete after his release from his first imprisonment in Rome, in AD.
He left Titus there to set things in order and ordain elders as he had appointed. From the tone of this Epistle, it is obvious that Paul was in prison.
However, at no time during his imprisonment in Caesarea or his first imprisonment in Rome was Paul facing sure death. In contrast, when he was imprisoned the second time in Rome in 67 AD, his situation was very different. At that time, Paul believed that his execution was imminent, and he feared that he might never see Timothy again. When Paul wrote II Timothy, he sensed that his time was short.
0コメント