The situation with scholarship on the Qur'an is unfortunately well behind that on the NT. The texts we have are based on a standardized recension from Uthmān ibn Affan (born 12 years after the Prophet's death), which may have significantly reworked/harmonized the previous versions (we can't tell, because he destroyed all variant texts in promulgating the standard text); in addition, there is concerted opposition from orthodox Muslims to anything resembling the "Higher Criticism" of the Bible -- to such a degree that one major recent study arguing for the influence of Syriac on some parts was published under a pseudonym (Christoph Luxenberg) and even general reports of it have been banned in some Muslim countries. So the reliability of the transmission from the Prophet's mouth to the standard text has not been studied in the same way the NT has.
That being said, it is pretty well universally accepted that the Gospels were written a generation or so after the death of Jesus. Some more conservative critics would still argue that (the main recension of) the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, John bar Zebedee, though not contemporary to the events -- it's normally considered the latest of the gospels -- but this is a minority view, albeit an arguable one. Just about everyone agrees that the other three gospels are not written by eyewitnesses but assemble prior sources, some of which are written and some oral. There is a close relationship between the three synoptic gospels, with the usual view being that Matthew and Luke are based on and extend Mark.
The epistles may date from the 40s to about the end of the first century. Some are certainly by Saul/Paul, who was not an eyewitness to Jesus ministry. Some others may be by eyewitnesses, but may also be pseudonymous, and in general in any case are not "about" the words of Jesus but about issues confronting the churches to which they were writing.
There was certainly an oral transmission of some of the contents of the NT -- many of the pericopes of the gospels would first have had an oral form, and Form Criticism is dedicated to the study of that oral transmission. Many of the other components would have had a written form from the beginning.
We no longer have "originals" of anything from the first century (except maybe fragments of account books and letters in papyrus form). That's not how a manuscript culture works, and parchment generally doesn't last that long (papyrus can, but survival is random and requires very dry (desert) conditions). The oldest MSS of NT books are papyrus fragments from the early second century; the major early witnesses to the MS tradition from the third to the fifth century, and many independent witnesses to other traditions are later still.
That being said, it is pretty well universally accepted that the Gospels were written a generation or so after the death of Jesus. Some more conservative critics would still argue that (the main recension of) the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, John bar Zebedee, though not contemporary to the events -- it's normally considered the latest of the gospels -- but this is a minority view, albeit an arguable one. Just about everyone agrees that the other three gospels are not written by eyewitnesses but assemble prior sources, some of which are written and some oral. There is a close relationship between the three synoptic gospels, with the usual view being that Matthew and Luke are based on and extend Mark.
The epistles may date from the 40s to about the end of the first century. Some are certainly by Saul/Paul, who was not an eyewitness to Jesus ministry. Some others may be by eyewitnesses, but may also be pseudonymous, and in general in any case are not "about" the words of Jesus but about issues confronting the churches to which they were writing.
There was certainly an oral transmission of some of the contents of the NT -- many of the pericopes of the gospels would first have had an oral form, and Form Criticism is dedicated to the study of that oral transmission. Many of the other components would have had a written form from the beginning.
We no longer have "originals" of anything from the first century (except maybe fragments of account books and letters in papyrus form). That's not how a manuscript culture works, and parchment generally doesn't last that long (papyrus can, but survival is random and requires very dry (desert) conditions). The oldest MSS of NT books are papyrus fragments from the early second century; the major early witnesses to the MS tradition from the third to the fifth century, and many independent witnesses to other traditions are later still.
Reply
Leave a comment