A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
This is great.
That was awesome
Spectacular and humbling.
Subtitles check: Paul der Sechste (at 2:45 mins) is not Paul XI :)
At the 1:25 mark, is that Barbara Aland front and center?
That is a good question. I think yes. Definitely.
Ten years later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Aland#/media/File:Barbara_and_Kurt_Aland_%281988%29.png
Peter,A Muslim friend of mine says that in his work "The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity inChristian Literature of the First Two Centuries," written in 1961, Dr. Aland denies the apostolic authorship of the Four Gospels, the Catholic Epistles, the Pastoral Epistles, and Hebrews. And in "The Problem of the New Testament Canon," written in 1962, Dr. Aland expresses his doubts as to the canonicity of several New Testament books. My friend then says that in a later work "A History ofChristianity," published in German in 1980 and in English in 1985, Aland discusses his theories concerning the origins and the evolution of the New Testament text, including the settling of the Canon and the apostolic authorship of the Gospels, the Catholic Epistles, and Hebrews. However, Aland says nothing in that work to renounce his former views. How would you answer this, in light of the video you just shared? Thanks so much, Nick
In that 1961 article Aland says 'Each New Testament scholar has to answer the question of authorship in New Testament literature for himself'. I think in general Aland for himself adopted pretty conventional historical-critical viewpoints on matters of authorship. He thinks of the gospels as "published anonymously" (also Hebrews, possibly; and 1 John). Among pseudonymous writings he includes: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 & 2 Peter, James, Jude, 2 & 3 John. If you want a discussion of such matters I would think that D. Guthrie's New Testament Introduction is still perhaps the fullest conservative introduction. Aland's viewpoint looks pretty close to W.G. Kummel. In the video when the interviewer asks (12:20) about whether a pious Bible reader might worry that the Bible text is wrong. He immediately clarifies and categorises this is a text-critical question: is the text of the Bible (text-critically) wrong? But this brackets out other topics on which he might think that the Bible is wrong (e.g. presumably on ascriptions of authorship in 1 Timothy etc.). He is not here addressing those questions at all. I don't think he is changing his views; he is just presumably quite used to addressing text-critical matters separately from other historical-critical matters.
Aland sure seemed pretty confident in the final minute of the video, didn't he.