WHAT THE EXPERTS/SCHOLARS SAY:
Peake's Commentary of the Bible
(A Christian scholarly work)
1. Under the heading: " The Textual Criticism of the New Testament " (p.663)
Article authored by K. W. Clark , A.B., B.D., PH.D., Professor of
Biblical Literature, Duke University, Durham, NorthCarolina. He
writes:
"It is well known that theprimitive Christian gospelwas initially
transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in
variant reporting of the original word and deed. It is equally true
that when the Christian record was later committed to writing it
continued to be subject to verbal variation (involuntary and
intentional) at the hands of scribes and editors. The earliest
written Gospel, by Mark in Rome, was promptly copied for wider
circulation and was soon known as far as Ephesus and Antioch. The
correspondence of Paul was collected and copied and early circulated
between Italy and Syria. Each hand-produced copy, however, contained
its own deviations in the form of error or of editorial revision by
the theologian-scribe. From the very beginning manuscript copies of
New Testament books showed an increasing amount of variation in the
text, and within a single century the original compositions were
greatly altered."
He admits a few paragraphs later:
"For many centuries of Christian history believersseemed unmindful of
textual alterations and therefore felt no need and made no serious
effort to recover a text truer than the one they possessed. In the
absence of ancient manuscript witnesses, the numerous Byzantine copies
of later date were generally accepted as thetraditional text. This
late form of the text was familiar to all and remained firmly
established in use until the 18th century. The first serious doubt
arose in the 17th century whenChristian scholarship in the West was
confronted with a 5th century witness of a different textual
character. This was an Alexandrian MS, which was carried to London in
1627 (and still remains there in the British Library, designated as
Codex Alexandrinus). This was followed by the discoveryof other
manuscript witnesses of even earlier date, which clearly pointed to
the fact that the prevailing Greek text was substantially different
from the original. The desire to reconstruct the lost original, along
with the reappearance of ancient copies long lost from view, caused
the development of the modern scientific discipline known as textual
criticism. Its achievement to date has been to provide Christians
with a Greek text of the NT Scriptures more trustworthy than any in
use since the 6th century. However, it is not to be thought that the
"original" text has now been fully recovered, for
significantdiscoveries and important refinements ofthe text and method
continue to cast more light upon the problem."
On the many manuscript copies from which scholars try to put together
a faithful reading, the learned author writes:
"…this circumstance has created the most intricate textual problem in
seeking to recover the lost original text of the Greek NT."
Admitting the interpolation of scribes, Dr. Clark reveals:
"…it may be recognized that the scribe (present or previous) exhibits
a theological interest which might cause him to change the text of his
exemplar (cf. John 1:18, referring to Jesus as 'onlyGod' or as 'only
Son')."
Further on the subject of the inaccuracies of the NTtext, Professor
Clark writes:
"To recover the NT writings in original form is the ultimate goal and
will always be the main objective of textual criticism, as it unites
withother disciplines to penetrate to Christian origins. But textual
criticism has other tasks that belong to lower criticism, concerned
with tracing the course of transmission……….This sort of inquiry
performs at least three services: it contributes to historical
theology, it illumines church history, and it enables the textual
critic to retrace the process of change which the text has undergone
and thus to exscind accumulated error."
2. Under the heading: " The Early Versions of the New Testament " (p. 671)
Authored by Bruce Metzger , M.A., PH.D., D.D., Professor of New
Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, New
Jersey.
Writing on the corruptions of the Latin Vulgate by Jerome:
"It was inevitable that in the course of transmission by recopying,
scribal carelessness corrupted Jerome's original work."
3. Under the heading: " The Literature and Canon of the New Testament " (p.676)
Authored by Rev. Joseph Sanders , M.A., Dean, Domestic Bursar and
Fellow of Peterhouse College, University Lecturer in Divinity,
Cambridge.
The Reverend admits the windows in which the corruptions of the
teachings occurred (as had Prof. Clark) as being during the time from
the oral traditions to the written stage:
"So, however it is explained, we must recognize a certain reluctance
on the part of Christians to begin a written literature…What happened
in the oral period, was of immense importance, and has left clear
traces in the writtenliterature".
The Reverend continues:
"In principle, there was no absolute necessity for any written
material, at least, while the apostles were still alive, and written
records may only have begun when the original 'eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word' were no longer available. It is highly
unlikely that any of the four Gospels antedates the deaths of the
chief apostles. The church mayhave been driven to putting its
tradition into writing when it was in danger of being lost, as the
Rabbi's were. Nero's persecution and the Jewish War would provide the
impetus".
Continuing on the progressive authorship of writings by the church,he says:
"But of all the needs of the early church which the NT was written to
satisfy, that for the control, guidance and edification of the newly
founded congregations was the first to lead to the composition of
worksstill extant."
On the false authorship of certain letters of Paul and in the Bible in general:
"The authenticity of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus is also questioned,
even more generally than that of Ephesians. As they stand they seem
to reflecta stage of development in church organizations impossible in
Paul's own lifetime. They thus raise the whole problem of
pseudonymity in Holy Scripture."
Referring to the Canonization process, theReverend elucidates:
"…the Church of the 2nd century had no other means of distinguishing
genuine from pseudonymous apostolic works, orthodoxy tendedto become
synonymous with apostolicity."
Acknowledging the 'combat writings' nature of the Gospels. The Reverend says:
"It is quite possible that the fourfold Gospel was aCatholic
counterblast to Marcion's single Gospel."
4. Under the heading: " Pagan Religion at the Coming of Christianity " (p. 712)
Authored by Robert Wilson , M.A., B.D., PH.D., Lecturer in New
Testament Language and Literature, St. Andrew's University.
Writing about the 'Mystery Cults' of the Greeks, Dr. Wilson says:
"In its origins Christianity must have appeared to the men of the age
as just another of these oriental cults. Like them, it came out of
the East; like them, it promised salvation. Like them also,it centred
upon a Saviourwho died and rose again,and like them it gave special
place to certain rites: baptism and a sacred meal. It is therefore
only natural that questions should be raised as to the possible
influence of these cults on the thought of the early Church…"
Further on a related topic, the learned scholarwrites:
"At a later stage indeed much was taken over and'baptized' into the
service of the Christian faith: in Mithraism, 25 December had a
special place as the birthday of the god; the image-type representing
the Madonna and Child has been traced back to statue of Isis and the
infant Horus. It must be admitted that the Church in later ages
absorbed into its beliefs and practice those elements which it could
take over without doing violence to its own essential faith…."
5. Under the heading: " The Life and Teaching of Jesus " (p. 733)
Authored by Rev. John Bowman , Professor of New Testament
Interpretation, San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo,
California.
Concerning the early years of Jesus' life and how each NT author is
expounding their own personal interpretation, the Professor states:
"It seems quite clear that at no time in its history has the Christian
Church thought of its founder's life as beginning with the manger in
Bethlehem. Each of the four evangelists gives expression to this fact
in his own way. The Fourth Evangelist, whose background appears to
have been that of Hellenistic Judaism, employs the current "logos"
doctrine to indicate the eternal character of him who became flesh as
Jesus of Nazareth (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:34f).
In addition to the accounts in the Gospels other NT writers in one way
and another give expression to the Church's conviction on this point.
In the Revelation to John, not only does the eternal Christ say for
himself, 'I am the first and the last, and the living one' (1:17),but
he is also acclaimed 'Word of God' (19:13) and'Lord of Lords and King
ofKings' (17:14). For the author of Hebrews, he is the eternal Son of
God through whom the latter created the universe (1:1-14). For Paul,
he was'in the form of God' before he became a man (Phil. 2:5-11)."
On how the 'Coming One',prophesied by John the Baptist was not the
Messiah of Salvation, the Reverend writes:
"John never applied the term 'Messiah' to the Coming One whom he
announced. This Coming One was to act as judge of men, sorting out
the chaff from the wheat on the threshing-floor of judgement in his
time, and the figure who most nearly fits this description is that,
not of the Messiah as popularly conceived, but rather the'Son of Man'
of 1 Enoch 37-71, who comes for judgement rather than for the
salvation of the people of God."
Showing how Jesus responded to the Lordship of God (as opposed to the
common claim of his own Divinity – my emphasis) through the call of
John the Baptist, the Professor substantiates the notion that Jesus
came to do works of the Lord:
"Jesus heard of this new prophetic movement inaugurated by John the
Baptist and so, coming down from his native hills to the Jordan
valley, Jesus purposed to ally himself with it. By way of
explanation, Matthew says that this was to 'fulfill all
righteousness', that is to identify himself wholly with mankind in the
endeavour to fulfill all of God's righteous demand upon man…..Like all
prophetic messages, accordingly, John's represented a call to decision
to submit oneself to the Lordship ofGod. Jesus could no moreresist
the claims of such acall than could any of his contemporaries. In
obedience, therefore, to the prophetic voice represented by John he
came to seek baptism at the latter's hand."
Further in his article, the learned Professor comments of the doublets
concerning the disciples and the mission of the seventy. He writes:
"Luke alone among the evangelists suggests that our Lord also sent out
seventy-two others as well (10:1-22). We inclineto the belief that
this is a doublet of the sending out of the twelve disciples, as the
Greek characters for twelve andseventy two exhibit little difference
and may easilybe confused by a slip of the pen."
6. Under the heading: " Matthew " (p. 769)
Authored by: Krister Stendahl , PH.D., THEOL.D., Associate Professor
of New Testament Studies, Harvard University.
In the opening commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the Professor writes:
"…the image of the Gospel writers as 'authors' – with or without
specific channelsof inspiration - has fadedaway under the impact of
comparative synoptic studies and under the impact of Form Criticism…"
He continues that Matthew was not a "mereredactor" but had his own way
of putting the pieces together. In this regard, Professor Stendahl
admits:
"In carrying out his work by such an interpretative use of earlier
material, written as well as oral, Matthew does not work in a vacuum,
but within the life of a church for those whose needs he is catering;
his Gospel morethan the others is a product of a community and for a
community."
Dr. Stendahl admits the unsolved problem of the authorship of this
Gospel in these words:
"It remains an unsolved problem how and why the Gospel came to
circulate under the name of Matthew, who only in this Gospel is
identified with a tax-collector calledby Jesus (see 9:9, 10:3). But
it is highly unlikely that the man responsible for this Gospel had
lived on the despised outskirts of Jewish religious life, nor does the
Gospel itself (the title was certainly added later) intimate that
Matthew was its author."
7. Under the heading: " Mark " (p.799)
Authored by Robert McL. Wilson , M.A., PH.D., Lecturer in New
Testament Language and Literature, St. Andrews University.
Speaking on the position of Mark in relation to the other gospels, Dr.
Wilson writes:
"…Mk is now commonly recognized not only as the earliest canonical
Gospel but also as one of the sources used by Mt. And Lk."
The learned Doctor notes that the earliest reference to Mark is made
by Papias (c. AD 140) however, he has thisto say in its regard:
"There are several problems connected withthis tradition, and it is
probably not to be taken entirely at face value. In particular the
associationof Mk with Peter should not be understood to mean that the
Gospel records the testimony of an eye-witness throughout."
Concerning the type of mindset that authored this Gospel, the Doctor writes:
"Moreover, as Branscombnotes, a Roman origin would go far to explain
the ready acceptance andrapid dissemination of the Gospel. It would
also explain the inclusion and preservation of Mk. among the Gospels
finallyadmitted to the Canon."
Concerning the language source behind this Gospel, Dr. Wilson says:
"There are grounds for suspecting Aramaic sources behind the Gospel,
though whether written or oral it is impossible to say."
Finally, Dr. Wilson observes:
"It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mk.
They are not found in theoldest manuscripts, and indeed were
apparently not in the copies used by Mt. And Lk."
8. Under the heading: " Luke " (p. 82)
Authored by: Rev. Geoffrey W. H. Lampe , M.C., D.D., Ely Professor
of Divinity, Cambridge University.
Commenting on the authorship of this Gospel by Luke, Professor Lampenotes:
"…this gospel and Acts have been attributed to Luke, the companion of
Paul (Col. 4:11; 2 Tim 4:10). He is said by the above-mentioned
prologue to have been a native of Antioch in Syria,a tradition found
also, possibly independently, in Eusebias (HE III, iv, 6), and, by
many early writers (following Col. 4:11) a doctor. How far these
traditions are inferred from the 'we passages' of Acts including the
short 'we passage' in Acts 11:27 in the 'Western' text, the setting of
which is in Antioch, taken in conjunction with the Pauline references
mentioned above, and how far they rest on genuinely independent
records or reminiscences is quite uncertain."
Writing on the source usage of the Gospel of Luke, the Professor writes:
"On the whole it seems probable that Lk. handlesMk freely, modifying
and supplementing as it suits his purpose."
9. Under the heading: " John " (p. 844)
Authored by: Rev. C. Kingsley Barrett , M.A., B.D., F.B.A., Professor
of Theology, Durham University.
Simply put:
"The origin of this Gospelis veiled in obscurity. Towards the end of
the 2nd century a tradition became strongly established that it had
been written by John the son of Zebedee (who wasunderstood to be
referred to in the Gospel itself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved')
not far from AD 100 (John was believed to have survived till the
principate of Trajan). This tradition cannot however be traced early
in the 2nd century. It finds confirmation in some features of the
Gospel itself, but is contradicted by others, and the position is
complicated by both the similarities and the differences bewteen John
and the Synoptic Gospels."
An oft-cited personage recounting the authenticity of this Gospel by
the disciple John is Polycarp. However, the evidence shows otherwise.
The Professor notes the history of the tradition by quoting the work
of Irenaeus. However, he says:
"The earlier evidence is however much less satisfactory. Polycarp
himself in his extant epistle makes no claim to personal contact with
theapostle, and does not refer to the Gospel (though he does quote 1
John). Iraneus's statement about Papias, which is similar to that
about Polycarp, is almost certainly incorrect. Ignatius of Antioch,
writing c. AD 112 to the Church at Ephesus, makesno allusion to John,
though emphasizes Paul'scontacts with Ephesus. Infact there is no
early evidence to connect Johnwith Ephesus or with the writing of a
Gospel."
Speaking on the relationship of this Gospel with that of the
Synoptics, the Professor writes:
"On account of these parallels it is today very generally agreed that
John was familiar with the synoptic tradition – that is, the
traditional material out of which theSynoptic Gospels were composed.
Whether he knew any of the Gospels themselves is disputed. Astrong
case can be made for his having known Mk,a fairly strong case for
hisknowledge of Luke. On any view of this question,however, one is
bound toask whether an apostle, equipped with such unrivalled
first-hand knowledge as John the son of Zebedee must have possessed,
would have a) found it necessary to consult and use other authorities,
and b) come into conflict with the good and the early tradition of Mk
on such an issue as the date of the crucifixion. No simple answer to
the question of authorship is possible."
'' Our Lord ! grant us good in this world and good in the hereafter and save us from the torment of the Fire '' [Ameen]
-
{in Arab} :->
Rabbanaa aatinaa fid-dunyaa hasanatan wafil aakhirati hasanatan waqinaa 'athaaban-naar/-
(Surah Al-Baqarah ,verse 201)
Share 
