Nuevo TestamentoDe Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre  El uso del término "testamento", proviene del hebreo berit ("alianza", "pacto", "convenio" o "disposiciones entre dos contratantes") a través del griego diathéké y del latín testamentum. Por tanto, en su significado original es el de Nueva Alianza, Nuevo Pacto o Nuevo Convenio. Las versiones más antiguas de textos del Nuevo Testamento que se conservan están escritas en el griego denominado koiné, la lingua franca en el Mediterráneo Oriental en época romana. La mayoría de los especialistas cree que éste fue el idioma en que originalmente se redactaron, aunque algunos libros puedan haberse escrito primero en idioma hebreo o arameo, la lengua semita hablada por Jesús y su entorno. Sin embargo, no existen manuscritos antiguos del Nuevo Testamento escritos en hebreo ni tampoco en arameo. Según los testigos de Jehová, el término "Nuevo Testamento" no es adecuado para referirse a esta sección de la Biblia. Prefieren llamarlo Escrituras Griegas Cristianas. Por otra parte, según La página del idioma español el nombre Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento para designar las partes en que se divide la Biblia proviene de un error de los traductores latinos de la versión griega de la Biblia, quienes tradujeron como testamentum la palabra griega diatheké, que podía significar, en realidad, dos cosas: ‘deseo’ o ‘voluntad’, y también ‘acuerdo’ o ‘convenio’. El nombre de la Biblia en griego se refiere al antiguo y al nuevo convenio de Dios con los hombres.
[editar] Composición del Nuevo TestamentoLa composición del Nuevo Testamento canónico se fijó poco a poco en los primeros siglos de la nueva religión. La lista más antigua se supone redactada hacia el año 170 La lista actual fue publicada originalmente por Atanasio de Alejandría en 370 y consagrada como canónica en el Tercer Concilio de Cartago de 397. Las disputas sobre la composición no cesaron por ello. Martín Lutero cuestionó la pertinencia de incluir la Epístola de Santiago, la Epístola de Judas, la Epístola a los Hebreos y el Apocalipsis de Juan o Libro de la Revelación; aunque finalmente, a diferencia de los deuterocanónicos del Antiguo Testamento, no fueron nunca rechazados.El Nuevo Testamento comprende los cuatro Evangelios canónicos, los Hechos de los apóstoles, las epístolas de Pablo de Tarso, siete epístolas de diversa atribución y el Apocalipsis, como se puede observar en el esquema que se encuentra a continuación. Comprende, en total, 27 libros: [editar] Los manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento[editar] PapirosExisten cerca de cien papiros con fragmentos del Nuevo Testamento.[editar] Papiro RylandsEl papiro Rylands (P52) es el más antiguo de los manuscritos que se han encontrado de los cuatro evangelios canónicos. Se descubrió en el desierto de Egipto. Se publicó en 1935. Contiene algunos versículos del capítulo 18 del evangelio de Juan (Jn 18,31-33.37-38). Según el estudio grafológico es anterior al año 150 (suele datarse hacia 125-130).[editar] Papiro Magdalena Gr 17Fue encontrado en una Tienda de Antigüedades en Luxor, Egipto a finales del siglo XIX. Fue adquirido por un sacerdote llamado Charles Bousfield Huleatt quien tras su muerte donó el Papiro al Colegio Magdalena de Oxford donde pasó a denominarse Gr 17.[editar] Papiros Bodmer IIDel conjunto de cinco papiros Bodmer (P66, P72, P73, P74 y P75) que se conservan en la Biblioteca de Cologny, en Ginebra, destaca el P66. Encontrado en Egipto y datado hacia el año 200, contine catorce capítulos del evangelio de Juan.Por su parte, el papiro P75, datado en el siglo III, contine los evangelios de Lucas y de Juan. [editar] Papiros Chester BeattySon tres papiros (P45, P46 y P47) escritos antes del año 250. Contienen fragmentos de las epístolas de Pablo, del Apocalipsis y de los evangelios.
[editar] Pergaminos[editar] Códice VaticanoData de mediados del siglo IV.[editar] Códice SinaíticoDe mediados del siglo IV.[editar] Códice AlejandrinoDel siglo V[editar] Códice de EfrénDel siglo V.[editar] Códice BezaeDel siglo V. Sólo contiene los Evangelios y los Hechos de los Apóstoles. El texto de los Hechos difiere algo de otras versiones.[editar] Códice FreerDel siglo V. Sólo contiene los Evangelios.[editar] Siglos V a XV
[editar] Siglos XV-XIX
[editar] Desde el siglo XIXSe descubre el códice sinaítico (K. Tischendorf, 1859). Los códices Sinaiticus y Vaticanus dan lugar a los textos actuales.[editar] Tercer Concilio de CartagoEn el año 397 el papa Siricio convoca el tercer concilio de Cartago donde se impone la vulgata (traducción de la Biblia al latin vulgar realizada por San Jerónimo del 382-405) y finalmente se edita el nuevo testamento, eligiendo entre más de una centena de evangelios, epístolas y casi mil cartas las cuales van a formar el nuevo testamento.[editar] Véase también[editar] Enlaces externos
New TestamentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about part of the Christian Bible. For the theological concept, see New Covenant.
[edit] Books[edit] GospelsMain article: Canonical gospels Each of the four gospels in the New Testament narrates the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Since the 2nd century, they have been referred to as "The Gospel of ..." or "The Gospel according to ..." followed by the name of the author. Whatever these admittedly early ascriptions may imply about the sources behind or the perception of these gospels, they appear to have been originally anonymous compositions.[3]
[edit] Acts of the ApostlesThe Acts of the Apostles, also simply referred to as the "book of Acts" or "Acts", is a narrative of the apostles' ministry after Christ's death and resurrection, from which point it resumes and functions as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Examining style, phraseology, and other evidence, modern scholarship generally concludes that Acts and the Gospel of Luke share the same author. This is also suggested by the dedication to a certain "Theophilus" at the beginning of both works.[5]
[edit] Pauline epistlesMain article: Pauline epistles The Pauline epistles (forming the Corpus Paulinum) constitute those epistles written in the name of the Apostle Paul. The authorship of a number of these is disputed (see below under Authorship). These letters were written to Christian communities in specific cities or geographical regions, often to address issues faced by that particular community. Prominent themes include the relationship both to broader "pagan" society, to Judaism, and to other Christians.[6]
[edit] Pastoral EpistlesThe Pastoral Epistles are addressed to individuals with pastoral oversight of churches and discuss issues of Christian living, doctrine and leadership. They often address different concerns to those of the preceding epistles.[edit] HebrewsThough the Epistle to the Hebrews does not internally claim to have been written by the Apostle Paul, in antiquity, certain circles began to ascribe it to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an explicit apostolic pedigree.[7] In the 3rd century, Origen wrote of the letter, "Men of old have handed it down as Paul's, but who wrote the Epistle God only knows."[8]
[edit] Catholic epistlesThe Catholic Epistles consist of both letters and treatises in the form of letters written to the church at large. The term "catholic" (Greek: καθολική, katholikē), used to describe these letters already in the oldest manuscripts containing them, here simply means "universal". The letters are therefore also referred to as the "General Epistles". The authorship of a number of these is disputed (see below under Authorship).
[edit] Apocalypse of JohnFurther information: Apocalyptic literature The final book of the New Testament is the Apocalypse of John, also known as the Book of Revelation. Its authorship has been attributed either to the Apostle John (in which case it is often thought that the Apostle John is John the Evangelist, i.e. author of the Gospel of John) or to another John designated "John of Patmos" after the island where the text says the revelation was received (1:9). For a discussion of authorship see Authorship of the Johannine works. The work opens with letters to seven churches and thereafter takes the form of an apocalypse, a literary genre popular in ancient Judaism and Christianity.[10]
[edit] Order of the books in the New TestamentSee also: Books of the Bible#New Testament and New Testament#Canonization The order in which the books of the New Testament appear differs between some collections and ecclesiastical traditions. In the Latin West, prior to the Vulgate (an early 5th-century Latin version of the Bible), the Four Gospels were arranged in the following order: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.[11] The Syriac Peshitta places the Major Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) immediately after Acts and before the Pauline Epistles. The order of an early edition of the letters of Paul is based on the size of the letters: longest to shortest, though keeping 1 and 2 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians together. The Pastoral Epistles were apparently not part of the Corpus Paulinum in which this order originated and were later inserted after 2 Thessalonians and before Philemon. Hebrews was variously incorporated into the Corpus Paulinum either after 2 Thessalonians, after Philemon (i.e. at the very end), or after Romans.
The New Testament of the 16th-century Luther Bible continues, to this day, to place Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse last. This reflects the thoughts of the Reformer Martin Luther on the canonicity of these books.[12]
[edit] ApocryphaMain article: New Testament apocrypha The books that eventually found a permanent place in the New Testament were not the only works of Christian literature produced in the earliest Christian centuries. The long process of canonization began early, sometimes with tacit reception of traditional texts, sometimes with explicit selection or rejection of particular texts as either acceptable or unacceptable for use in a given context (e.g., not all texts that were acceptable for private use were considered appropriate for use in the liturgy). These decisions were not necessarily based upon an assessment of the religious ideas or theology of the work in question (for other factors, see below under Canonization). Over the course of history, those works of early Christian literature that survived but that did not become part of the New Testament have been variously grouped by theologians and scholars. Drawing upon, though redefining, an older term used in early Christianity and among Protestants when referring to those books found in the Christian Old Testament though not in the Jewish Bible, modern scholars began to refer to these works of early Christian literature not included in the New Testament as "apocryphal", by which was meant "non-canonical". Collected editions of these works were then referred to as the "New Testament Apocrypha". Typically excluded from such published collections are the following groups of works: The Apostolic Fathers, the 2nd-century Christian apologists, the Alexandrians, Tertullian, Methodius of Olympus, Novatian, Cyprian, martyrdoms, and the Desert Fathers. Almost all other Christian literature from the period, and sometimes including works composed well into Late Antiquity, are relegated to the so-called "New Testament Apocrypha". These "apocryphal" works are nevertheless important for the study of the New Testament in that they were produced in the same ancient context and often using the same language as those books that would eventually form the New Testament. Some of these later works are dependent upon (either directly or indirectly) books that would later come to be in the New Testament or upon the ideas expressed in them. There is even an example of a pseudepigraphical letter composed under the guise of a presumably lost letter of the Apostle Paul, the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
[edit] LanguageThe common languages spoken by both Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus were Aramaic, Koine Greek, and to a limited extent a colloquial dialect of Mishnaic Hebrew. All of the books that would eventually form the New Testament were written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in the Roman provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time. These books were later translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. However, some of the Church Fathers[13] imply or claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, the Gospel of Matthew known today was composed in Greek and is neither directly dependent upon nor a translation of a text in a Semitic language, though the citation of texts from the Old Testament demonstrates that the author of the Gospel of Matthew did know Hebrew.[14][edit] AuthorshipMain article: Authorship of the Bible [edit] Gospels and ActsMost scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels.[15][16][17][18][19] These three gospels are called thee Synoptic gospels since they are all very similar. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, by using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Scholars hold that these books constituted two halves of a single work, Luke-Acts. [edit] Pauline epistles [edit] Other epistlesThe author of the Epistle of James identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the third century, patristic authors cited the Epistle as written by James the Just.[42] Ancient and modern scholars have always been divided on the issue of authorship. Many consider the epistle to be written in the late first or early second centuries.[43] The author of the First Epistle of Peter identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of Church Fathers: Irenaeus (140-203), Tertullian (150-222), Clement of Alexandria (155-215) and Origen of Alexandria (185-253). Unlike The Second Epistle of Peter, the authorship of which was debated in antiquity, there was little debate about Peter’s authorship of this first epistle until the 18th century. Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, many biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author.[44] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[45] Zahn,[46] Spitta,[47] Bigg,[48] and Green.[49] The First Epistle of John is traditionally held to have been composed by John the Apostle (the author of the Gospel of John) when the writer was in advanced age. The epistle's content, language and conceptual style indicate that it may have had the same author as the Gospel of John, 2 John, and 3 John.[50] Eusebius claimed that the author of 2nd and 3rd John were not John the Apostle an "elder John" which refers either to the apostle at an advanced age or a hypothetical second individual ("John the Elder").[51] Scholars today are divided on the issue. The Epistle of Jude title is written as follows: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James" (NRSV). The debate has continued over the author's identity as the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither.[52][edit] RevelationThe author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself several times as "John".[53] The author also states that he was on Patmos when he received his first vision.[54] As a result, the author of Revelation is sometimes referred to as John of Patmos. The author, named John, has traditionally been identified with John the Apostle, to whom the Gospel of John is also attributed. The traditional view holds that John the Apostle—considered to have written the Gospel and the epistles of John—was exiled to the island of Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, and there wrote Revelation. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) who was acquainted with Polycarp, who had been mentored by John, makes a possible allusion to this book, and credits John as the source.[55] Irenaeus (c. 115-202) assumes it as a conceded point. According to the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, modern scholars are divided between the apostolic view and several alternative hypotheses which have been put forth in the last hundred years or so.[56][edit] Dates of compositionThe earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. Most scholars generally agree on the dating of many books in the New Testament, except for those some believe to be pseudepigraphical[citation needed] (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). The Gospel of Mark is dated from as early as the 50s, although most scholars date between the range of 65 and 72.[57] Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written after the composition of Mark as they make use of Mark's content. Therefore they are generally dated later than Mark although the extent is debated. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. However a select few scholars disagree with this as Luke indicates in the book of Acts that he has already written the Gospel of Luke prior to writing the introduction to Acts. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in A.D. 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.[citation needed] In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the second and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as A.D. 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are, however, many discrepancies between manuscripts, though the majority of the errors are clearly errors of transcription or minor in scope. On the other extreme is the dating proposed by John A. T. Robinson. He claimed that, since he believed none of the writings in the New Testament showed clear evidence of a knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (in A.D. 70), which Robinson thought should certainly have appeared considering the importance of that event for Jews and Christians of that time, that every book which would come to form the New Testament was therefore written before A.D. 70.[58] Given Robinson's appeal to the absence of evidence, his view is widely rejected by New Testament scholars.[edit] Etymology of the term "New Testament"Use of the term New Testament to describe a collection of writings can be traced back to the Latin Novum Testamentum first coined by Tertullian. Some believe this in turn is a translation of the earlier Greek καινὴ διαθήκη. This Greek phrase is found in the text of the New Testament itself, where it carries the meaning "new covenant" and is so translated (see Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthains 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, and Hebrews 9:15; cf. 2 Cor 3:14). The phrase also appears earlier, in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). In Jeremiah 31:31, the Septuagint used this Greek phrase to translate the original Hebrew ברית חדשה (berit chadashah). The Hebrew term is also usually translated new covenant. As a result, some claim the term was first used by Early Christians to refer to the new covenant that was the basis for their relationship with God. About two centuries later at the time of Tertullian and Lactantius, the phrase was being used to designate a particular collection of books that some believed embodied this new covenant.[citation needed] Tertullian, writing in the early-3rd century, offers the first known use the terms novum testamentum/new testament and vetus testamentum/old testament. In Against Marcion book 3 (written in the early 3rd century, c. A.D. 208), chapter 14, he writes ofthe Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel[59]And in book 4, chapter 6, he writes that it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.[60]By the 4th century, the existence—even if not the exact contents—of both an Old and New Testament had been established. Lactantius, a Christian author of the 3rd and 4th century who wrote in Latin, in his early-4th-century Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 20, wrote: But all scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, the law and the prophets—is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: [Jer 31:31–32] "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord." ... For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.[61] [edit] Canonization
Main article: Development of the New Testament canon The process of the canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that the apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.[62]
Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries. On this, New Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:[63]
Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.Some synods of the 4th century published lists of canonical books (e.g. Hippo and Carthage). The existing 27-book canon of the New Testament was reconfirmed (for Roman Catholicism) in the 16th century with the Council of Trent (also called the Tridentine Council) of 1546 ,[64] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Eastern Orthodoxy. Although these councils did include statements about the canon, when it came to the New Testament they were only reaffirming the existing canon. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." In the initial centuries of the Christian church, Early Christianity, there was no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized.[65] One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. A.D. 140, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His canon was increasingly rejected by other groups of Christians, as was his theology, Marcionism. Adolf Harnack in Origin of the New Testament (1914)[3] observed that the church at this time was largely an Old Testament Church (one that "follows the Testament of the Creator-God") without a New Testament canon and that it gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion. The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 (based on an internal reference to Pope Pius I and arguments put forth by Bruce Metzger) and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), provides the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream (that is, not Marcionite) Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon. The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh." At least, then, the books considered to be authoritative included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul, though, based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.[66]. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century) held the letters of Paul to be on par with the Hebrew scriptures as being divinely inspired, yet others rejected him. Other books were held in high esteem but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament Apocrypha. Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:
The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 and 419[67]. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, the Reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. To this day, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than in their traditional order as in other editions of the Bible. In light of this questioning of the canon of Scripture by Protestants in the 16th century, the (Roman Catholic) Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional western canon (i.e., the canon accepted at the 4th-century Council of Rome), thus making the canon of Scripture dogma in the Catholic Church. [edit] Early manuscripts  Main article: New Testament manuscripts Like other literature from antiquity, the text of the New Testament was (prior to the advent of the printing press) preserved and transmitted in manuscripts. Manuscripts containing at least a part of the New Testament number in the thousands. The earliest of these (like manuscripts containing other literature) are often very fragmentarily preserved. Some of these fragments have even been thought to date as early as the 2nd century (i.e., Papyrus 90, Papyrus 98, Papyrus 104, and famously Rylands Library Papyrus P52, though the early date of the latter has recently been called into question).[68] For each subsequent century, more and more manuscripts survive that contain a portion or all of the books that were held to be part of the New Testament at that time (for example, the New Testament of the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, once a complete Bible, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas), though occasionally these manuscripts contain other works as well (e.g., Papyrus 72 and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex). The date at which a manuscript was written, however, does not necessarily reflect the date of the form of text it contains. That is, later manuscripts can, and occasionally do, contain older forms of text or older readings.Some of the more important manuscripts containing an early text of books of the New Testament are:
[edit] Textual variationMain article: Textual variants in the New Testament Textual criticism deals with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations (such as including non-authentic additions).[69] The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Even if the original Greek versions were lost, the entire New Testament could still be assembled from the translations.[70] In addition, there are so many quotes from the New Testament in early church documents and commentaries that the entire New Testament could also be assembled from these alone.[71] Not all biblical manuscripts come from orthodox Christian writers. For example, the Gnostic writings of Valentinus come from the 2nd century AD, and these Christians were regarded as heretics by the mainstream church. [72] The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, but it also gives scholars a better idea of how close modern bibles are to the original versions.[73] On noting the large number of surviving ancient manuscripts, Bruce Metzger sums up the view on the issue by saying "The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts.[74]A similar type of textual criticism is applied to other ancient texts.[75] There are far fewer witnesses to classical texts than to the Bible, and unlike the New Testament where the earliest witnesses are often within a couple decades of the original, the earliest existing manuscripts of most classical texts were written about a millennium after their composition. For example, the earliest surviving copies of parts of the Roman historian Tacitus' main work, the Annals of Imperial Rome (written in 116 AD), come from a single manuscript written in 850 AD, although for other parts of his work, the earliest copies come from the 11th century, while other parts of his work have been lost.[76] The earliest copies of The Jewish War by Josephus (originally composed in the 1st century AD), in contrast, come from nine manuscripts written in the the 10th, 11th and 12 centuries.[77] After the bible, the next best preserved ancient work is Homer's Iliad, with 650 copies originating about 1,000 years after the original copy.[78] Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War (written in the 50s BC) survives in nine copies written in the 8th century.[79] Thucydides' history of the Peloponesian War and Herodotus' history of the Persian War (both written in the 5th century BC) survives in about eight early copies, the oldest ones dating from the 10th century AD.[80] Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce has said "the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning...It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians."[81] In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original. According to Bart D. Ehrman, "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries."[82] Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate passages that have disputed source documents. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, almost all have no importance, as they are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Also, many of these variants are so particular to the Greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages. For example, order of words (i.e. "man bites dog" versus "dog bites man") often does not matter in Greek, so textual variants that flip the order of words often have no consequences.[83] Outside of these unimportant variants, there are a couple variants of some importance, although even these are minor and can be left out of modern bibles without affecting any matter of theology or interpretation. The two most commonly cited examples are the last versus of the Gospel of Mark[84][85][86] and the story of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John.[87][88][89] Some critics also believe the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John to have been a later addition.[90][91] According to Normal Geisler and William Nix, "The New Testmaent, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5% pure"[92]  [edit] Establishing a critical textMain article: New Testament manuscripts The textual variation among manuscript copies of books in the New Testament prompted attempts to discern the earliest form of text already in antiquity (e.g., by the 3rd century Christian author Origen). The efforts began in earnest again during the Renaissance, which saw a revival of the study of ancient Greek texts. During this period, modern textual criticism was born. In this context, Christian humanists such as Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus promoted a return to the original Greek of the New Testament. This was the beginning of modern New Testament textual criticism, which over subsequent centuries would increasingly incorporate more and more manuscripts, in more languages (i.e., versions of the New Testament), as well as citations of the New Testament by ancient authors and the New Testament text in lectionaries in order to reconstruct the earliest recoverable form of the New Testament text and the history of changes to it.[94][edit] Relationship to earlier and contemporaneous literatureFurther information: Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible The books which later came to form the New Testament, like other Christian literature of the period, originated in a literary context that reveals relationships not only to other Christian writings, but also to Graeco-Roman and Jewish works. Of singular importance is the extensive use of and interaction with the Jewish Bible and what would become the Christian Old Testament. Both implicit and explicit citations, as well as countless allusions, appear throughout the books of the New Testament, from the Gospels and Acts, to the Epistles, to the Apocalypse.[95] Other early Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature, though far less utilized, is also cited in books that would come to form the New Testament.[edit] Early versionsThe first translations (usually called "versions") of the New Testament were made beginning already at the end of 2nd century. The earliest versions of the New Testament are the translations into the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic languages..[96] These three versions were made directly from the Greek, and are frequently cited in the apparatuses of modern critical editions.[edit] SyriacMain article: Syriac versions of the Bible Syriac was spoken in Syria, and Mesopotamia, and with dialect in Palestine, where it was known as Aramaic. Several Syriac translations were made and have come to us. Most of the Old Syriac, however, as well as the Philoxonian version have been lost.Tatian, the Syrian, created the Diatessaron, a gospel harmony written in Syriac around A.D. 170 and the earliest form of the gospel not only in Syriac but probably also in Armenian. In the nineteenth century, manuscript evidence was discovered for an "Old Syriac" version of the four distinct (i.e., not harmonized) gospels. These "separated" (Syriac: da-Mepharreshe) gospels, though old, have been shown to be later than the Diatessaron. The Old Syriac gospels are fragmentarily preserved in two manuscripts: the fifth-century Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac from fourth or fifth century. No Old Syriac manuscripts of other portions of the New Testament survive, though Old Syriac readings, e.g. from the Pauline Epistles, can be discerned in citations made by Eastern fathers and in later Syriac versions. The Old Syriac version is a representative of the Western text-type. The Peshitta version was prepared in the beginning of the 5th century. It contains only 22 books (neither the Minor Catholic Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, nor the Apocalypse of John were part of this translation). The Philoxenian probably was produced in 508 for Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabung.[97] [edit] LatinMain articles: Vetus Latina and Vulgate The Gospels were likely translated into Latin as early as the last quarter of the 2nd century in North Africa (Afra). Not much later, there were also European Latin translations (Itala). There are about 80 Old Latin mansucripts. The Old Latin versions often contain readings with a Western type of text.The bewildering diversity of the Old Latin versions prompted Jerome to prepare another translation into Latin - the Vulgate. In many respects it was merely a revision of the Old Latin. There are currently around 8,000 manuscripts of the Vulgate. [edit] CopticMain article: Coptic versions of the Bible There are several dialects of the Coptic language: Bohairic (northern dialect), Fayyumic, Sahidic (southern dialect), Akhmimic, and others. The first translation was made by at least the 3rd century into the Sahidic dialect (copsa). This translation represents a mixed text, mostly Alexandrian, though also with Western readings.[98]A Bohairic translation was made later, but existed already in the 4th century. Though the translation makes less use of Greek words than the Sahidic, it does employ some Greek grammar (e.g., in word-order and the use of particles such as the syntactic construction μεν — δε). For this reason, the Bohairic translation can be helpful in the reconstruction of the early Greek text of the New Testament.[99] [edit] Other ancient translations [edit] Modern translationsMain article: Bible translations Historically, throughout the Christian world and in the context of Christian missionary activity, the New Testament (or portions thereof) has been that part of the Christian Bible first translated into the vernacular. The production of such translations grew out of the insertion of vernacular glosses in biblical texts, as well as out of the production of biblical paraphrases and poetic renditions of stories from the life of Christ (e.g., the Heliand).The 16th century saw the rise of Protestantism and an explosion of translations of the New (and Old) Testament into the vernacular. Notable are those of Martin Luther (1522), Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (1523), the Froschau Bible (1525–1529, revised in 1574), William Tyndale (1526, revised in 1534, 1535 and 1536), the Brest Bible (1563), and the Authorized Version (also called the "King James Version") (1611). Most of these translations relied (though not always exclusively) upon one of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus, a form of this Greek text emerged as the standard and is known as the Textus Receptus. This text, based on a handful of manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, was the basis for other translations from the Greek until the latter part of the 19th century. Translations of the New Testament made since the appearance of better critical editions of the Greek text (notably those of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and von Soden) have largely used them as their base text. Unlike the Textus Receptus, these have a pronounced Alexandrian character. Standard critical editions are those of Souter, Vogels, Bover, Merk, and Nestle-Aland (the text, though not the full critical apparatus of which is reproduced in the United Bible Societies' "Greek New Testament"). Notable translations of the New Testament based on these most recent critical editions include the Revised Standard Version (1946, revised in 1971), La Bible de Jérusalem (1961, revised in 1973 and 2000), the Einheitsübersetzung (1970, final edition 1979), the New American Bible (1970, revised in 1986), the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible (1988, revised in 2004), and the New Revised Standard Version (1989). [edit] Authority
[edit] Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and classical AnglicanismFor the Roman Catholic Church, there are two sources of revelation: Scripture and Tradition. Both of them are interpreted by the teachings of the church. The Roman Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):§ 83: As a result the church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.In Catholic terminology the teaching office is called the Magisterium. The Eastern Orthodox churches do not accept this two-source theory; rather, they hold that there is only sone source of revelation, Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the most important part [101]. Traditional Anglicans believe that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation," (Article VI), but also that the Catholic Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received and believed" (Article VIII), and that the Church "hath authority in Controversies of Faith" and is "a witness and keeper of Holy Writ" (Article XX) [102]. Classical Anglicanism, therefore, like Orthodoxy, holds that Holy Tradition is the only safe guardian against perversion and innovation in the interpretation of Scripture; in the famous words of Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells: "As for my religion, I dye in the holy catholic and apostolic faith professed by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West, more particularly in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross." [edit] ProtestantismFollowing the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to reëvaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in Liberal Protestant traditions even to the reevaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. However, the adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of scripture vary widely.[edit] American evangelical and fundamentalist ProtestantismCertain American conservatives, fundamentalists and evangelicals believe that the scriptures are both human and divine in origin: human in their manner of composition, but divine in that their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers of scripture in such a way that they recorded nothing at all contrary to the truth.[citation needed] Fundamentalists accept the enduring authority and impugnity of a prescientific interpretation of the Bible.[citation needed] In the United States this particularly applies to issues such as the ordination of women, abortion, evolution, and homosexuality. However, although American evangelicals are overwhelmingly opposed to such things, other evangelicals are increasingly willing to consider that the views of the biblical authors may have been culturally conditioned, and they may even argue that there is room for change along with cultural norms and scientific advancements.[citation needed] Both fundamentalists and evangelicals profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to avoid interpretations of the Bible that would directly contradict generally accepted scientific assertions of fact. They do not impute error to biblical authors, but rather entertain various theories of literary intent which might give credibility to human progress in knowledge of the world, while still accepting the divine inspiration of the scriptures.[citation needed] Within the US, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is a statement, articulating evangelical views on this issue. Paragraph four of its summary states: "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."[103] [edit] American mainline and liberal ProtestantismMainline American Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have more ancient doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but may interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching—from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly. For example, ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches, abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal sin or a crime against an unborn person, and homosexuality is recognized as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. In North America, the most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted.Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report: "We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or prescientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail."[104] Those who hold a more liberal view of the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy. These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for social justice. The message of personal salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's Golden Rule admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative. There are some movements that believe the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus but who reject the churches that were formed following its publication. These people believe all individuals can communicate directly with God and therefore do not need guidance or doctrines from a church. These people are known as Christian anarchists. [edit] Latter-day SaintsMembers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Mormons) accept the Bible New Testament and Bible as a whole as the inspired word of God. They do however admit that translation errors could have occurred and therefore take it as supplementary to the Book of Mormon. [105][edit] Messianic JudaismMessianic Judaism generally holds the same view of New Testament authority as evangelical Protestants.[edit] In the liturgy Central to the Christian liturgy is the celebration of the Eucharist or "Holy Communion". The Words of Institution that begin this rite are drawn directly from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. In addition, the communal recitation of the Lord's Prayer (in the form found in the Gospel of Matthew 6:9-13) is also a standard feature of Christian worship. [edit] In the artsFurther information: Nativity of Jesus in art 
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links
[edit] General references
[edit] Development and authorship
[edit] Greek
Disculpen las Molestias
Sri Garga-Samhita | Oraciones Selectas al Señor Supremo | Devotees Vaishnavas | Dandavat pranams - All glories to Srila Prabhupada | Hari Katha | Santos Católicos | JUDAISMO | Buddhism | El Mundo del ANTIGUO EGIPTO II | El Antiguo Egipto I | Archivo Cervantes | Sivananda Yoga | Neale Donald Walsch | SWAMIS jueves 11 de marzo de 2010ENCICLOPEDIA - INDICE | DEVOTOS FACEBOOK | EGIPTO - USUARIOS de FLICKR y PICASAWEBOtros Apartados
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lunes, 25 de octubre de 2010
Nuevo Testamento - New Testament
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario