How do we know when the Gospels were written?

Anyone coming to Philo of Alexandria for the first time can prepare for a sense of deja vu. His Logos philosophy profoundly influenced the author of the Gospel of John. The thesis of John's Gospel, really, is that Philo was right about the divine Logos and that Jesus should regarded as a personification of it.John contains many stretches of mystical philosophy. He often sets a scene and then has a figure such as Jesus or John the Baptist go into an extended monologue that really could exist anywhere. Translators can't always feel sure where to place quotation marks in this Gospel because the voices of Jesus and John the Baptist are indistinguishable from that of the narrator. All are given to monologues.John's Gospel owes at least as much to Philo's ideas as to the events of Jesus' life described in the Synoptics.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

What makes you say the corruption is in the new translations?Since the King James Bible was completed in 1611 many new manuscripts have come to light. Today's scholars have access to manuscripts much older (closer to the source) than anything the King James translators dreamed of.If you read the translator's introductions and other supporting material included in the NRSV, RSV, NJB, REB, JPS and other versions, you will find plenty of information about why the committees make the choices they do. They explain the matter of textual support. In cases where they were forced to choose from more than one ancient reading, they tell you which sources they followed in the main text and provide the alternative in a footnote. All the verses you describe as 'omitted' are in fact shared with the reader in these translations. If the material does not appear in the earliest manuscripts it is not placed in the main text. But it does appear in footnotes, along with a brief explanation of why it was put there. You get all the information.This is not corruption. This is scholarly integrity.The manuscripts used for earlier translations were more 'corrupt' than anyone knew. And the reader of a King James Bible will not be told, as will the reader of a reputable modern translation, which verses have the best manuscript support and which only show up in later copies. All sources are treated the same regardless of merit. The reader is much better served by translations like the NRSV and NJB.The King James translators did well-intentioned work. In the process of doing it they created a landmark of English literature. But their work is and remains seventeenth-century work. You wouldn't allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon using only the tools, methods, and knowlege available to medicine in 1611. There is no reason to approach literature that way.The body of knowledge has grown. Scholarship has moved on. Avail yourself of it. There's no reason to shortchange yourself.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : more typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : never-ending typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Whoa. That is very late for any text to be jumping on the old Gospel chariot.I'd be interested in hearing more from you about this. Care to share?Until then, I'll just check the notes in my NRSV...___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

That strikes me as a good idea.I'd want to save 1 Corinthians 13, though, if I could.If someone gave me a job as a redactor of Christian texts, the Samaritan Canon is where I'd start. I'd revise John to keep the sublimity while excising the ax-grinding bits. In most cases this could done without disturbing the narratives. You simply bring in the wording that appears in the other Gospels. So instead of 'the Jews' opposing Jesus (who was a Jew, too, after all) you use Mark's 'scribes and teachers of the law.' Less toxic, more accurate, and few people would even notice.1 Corinthians 13 could stand on its own but I'd be tempted to graft it into John's Last Supper scene. The conversation there is about love anyway. It could serve as a peroration for the whole scene. The seams on the graft would still show (don't they always?) but it would make sense.Leaving out the epistles gives you room to put more books into the Christian canon when the Council of Nicea II is held. We're overdue for one. I have some suggestions for material to add... but that's probably material for a new thread.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Let's not forget the Orthodox Christians. They number in the millions and can trace their history right back to the first century.Texts recognized as canonical by the Orthodox that Catholics and Protestants omit:

3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees (in appendix)
Psalm 151
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Esdras
3 Esdras (appears in Slavonic Bibles of Russian Orthodox)

Texts recognized as canonical by the Orthodox that Catholics accept but Protestants omit:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Daniel
-- Prayer of Azariah
-- Song of the Three Jews
-- Susanna
-- Bel and the Dragon

Look at how much Scripture modern apostates have arrogantly torn from the Bible. It's an outrage!___Edited by Archer Opterix, : revised manuscript.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You're right, Coragyps. Judith would be a great chick slasher flick.Another groundbreaking film Schrafinator wouldn't want to miss is Deborah the Prophetess. The title character is a leader of Israel in its pre-monarchy days. Barak commands the Israelite army. The villain d'jour is Sisera, commander of the Canaanite army.The story relates how Sisera escapes Barak's soldiers at one point, only to encounter a particularly fatale femme:

quote:

---

Now Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between King Jabin of Hazor and the clan of Heber the Kenite. Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, ”Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; have no fear.’ So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. Then he said to her, ”Please give me a little water to drink; for I am thirsty.’ So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. He said to her, ”Stand at the entrance of the tent, and if anybody comes and asks you, “Is anyone here?” say, “No.” ’

​

But Jael wife of Heber took a tent-peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, until it went down into the ground”he was lying fast asleep from weariness”and he died. Then, as Barak came in pursuit of Sisera, Jael went out to meet him, and said to him, ”Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.’ So he went into her tent; and there was Sisera lying dead, with the tent-peg in his temple.

​

Judges 4.17-22
NRSV

---

Don't miss the ecstatic Song of Deborah in chapter 5 in which the prophetess praises Jael above 'all tent-dwelling women.'In the film, of course, the song would be scored for choir and full orchestra by John Williams using themes derived from 'If I Had a Hammer.'Cast (in order of appearance)

Deborah: Judi Dench
Barak: Viggo Mortensen
Advisor: Ian Holm (you have to have Ian Holm)
Sisera: Hugo Weaving
Jael: Christina Ricci

__Edited by Archer Opterix, : usual cutting room stuff.Edited by Archer Opterix, : CGI.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.