http://ichthys.com/ 
Church History IV
Question #1:   
I am reading A History of the Christian Church and I really feel that Walker or whoever wrote these parts I am reading either is not good at explaining these Christological controversies, or maybe no one really understood what was going on (or the writer didn't). I don't understand the majority of who believed what and what this definition means. I keep going to wiki, and I actually kind of trust wiki more, which makes me think not well of this book. Am I wrong? Even in one of the wiki articles the descendants of the those groups were like 'yeah us modern iterations of those churches see that there was never a real disagreement in one of the old conflicts of terminology [or whatever it was...I am using one example]' and I think 'well if you don't understand yourselves, even after thousands of years, I don't know how I am supposed to.'

Feel free to tell me I am wrong lol
Response #1:   
Walker is a "rite of passage" for seminary students. I had to read it. My dad (who went to a Presbyterian seminary in the 1930s had to read it). And pretty much all of my colleagues and I who read it back in the day had issues with it. But it is a very good secular treatment based on a pretty low view of inspiration and faith (IMHO). That is not all bad because it is dealing with the history of the church-visible, after all, NOT the actual Church of Jesus Christ, i.e., genuine believers. Only our Lord knows the true history of the Church. 

What is not covered in the New Testament, i.e., what we know from later writers, is not inspired, obviously . . . or maybe not so obviously, because most believers even many pastors-teachers seem to confuse the two "histories" from time to time. To put it another way, with a very few exceptions, the most important Christians in any of the Church eras from the close of the canon onward until today are not even known about by "history". We have no idea what was going on in, say, the Thessalonian church in the generation after the apostles, even though those believers had received great plaudits from the greatest apostle himself. And while we know that the next generation "abandoned their first love" (Rev.2:4), meaning they let down on spiritual growth, there must have been some who earned the three crowns and some who did exceptionally well, if not at Thessolonica, then elsewhere in the newly converted world (Rome?). 

These believers are lost to secular history . . . but NOT to the true history of the actual Church which will be revealed at the judgment seat of Christ. That should be of great encouragement to every Christian today. As I have often remarked, if there were an encyclopedic history of "Christianity" written today, even by putative believers, I dare say neither Curt Omo's Bible Academy nor Ichthys (nor any of our class of comrades nor our mentor nor his followers) would likely even rate a footnote. I don't care a fig about that, mind you – and I have a better hope for the judgment seat of Christ. The real Christian life and genuine Christian ministry is not about publicity or celebrity or numbers or "profile". It is about genuine spiritual growth, progress and production with which the Lord is pleased. Doing things this "right way", His way, is not the way to make it into the newspapers, however – or into a "church history" such as Walker's.

When it comes to "Christological controversies", that is a good case in point. The individuals who were involved in these were the high and mighty of the established church-visible of their day. A pastor-teacher doing his job somewhere in a small town in the outer reaches of the empire would not be consulted on such matters – even if he had a much better grasp on the truth through actually reading and paying attention to the Bible than the philosophers who made the headlines. It is very good for prospective pastor-teachers to know about these sorts of historical developments, not because they are particularly edifying, but because anyone taking care of the sheep needs to know something about the wolves, the hired hands who flee the wolves, and what the sheep have been exposed to in the past. 

In terms, therefore, of what was "really involved" in these controversies, we only know about them because writings by some involved and/or by "church historians" of the distant past (like Eusebius) wrote about them but after the fact. We/you are free to read those sources directly if Walker (or any other church-visible historian) is not to one's taste. But don't expect edification either way. Regardless of what these synods said and did, the truth has always been the truth, and the truth is clear enough for anyone reading the Bible and for any teaching studying and teaching the Bible in the Spirit. 

As I say, these things are "good to know" at least in general terms, but they certainly don't reflect what was really going on the hearts of positive Christians who were actually fighting the fight for Jesus Christ at that time – any more than a contemporary history of this sort would reflect what is really going on in your heart or in mine.

If you have a specific question about one of the points involved (you only voiced a very general dissatisfaction in your email), do feel free to ask me.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2: 
Thanks for the professional eye! (I mean it means more to me that YOU say that).

Real quick: I know there are published works that have Ancient Greek famous works in the original language. But is there like any collections of letters in the Ancient Greek? I am just trying to find something that would be close to demonstrating how the common person would have talked and thought.
Response #2:  
When I write a formal letter to someone, it's not the same way I would talk to them face to face. Compare Paul's reporting of the some of the Corinthians reactions to his epistles:
“For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.”
2nd Corinthians 10:10 NKJV
And John to his congregation:
Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink;
2nd John 1:12a NKJV
As to non-fictional letters, we have the New Testament epistles, of course, and the apostolic fathers (like the letters of Polycarp, e.g.). But while there are a great many classical Latin letters which are genuine correspondence (Cicero's alone goes to many volumes and the letters of Pliny the Younger contains some of the earliest secular references to the Christians), most of what we have in Greek which is literary is also fictional (e.g., letters of Plato, Demosthenes, Euripides, etc.), by unknown authors. Writing fictional letters to and from famous people was a literary trope in that time. 

There are plenty of genuine, non-literary letters on papyrus from Egypt, but these are not that helpful if one wants to know "how people spoke Greek" in, e.g., the first century, because of their provenance, later date, and the people who wrote them (generally Egyptians who spoke Greek – so it would be a little like trying to figure out how people spoke English in the US during the Civil War by reading contemporary correspondence from people in present day Singapore).

Here are some links to collections of letters:
Greek Fictional Letters, by C.D.N. Costa
Greek and Latin Letters, by M.B. Trapp
Letters of Alciphron, Aelian, and Philostratus, by Benner, A. R., and F. H. Fobes
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:   
Thank you! I do see what you are saying. I only found one in print, but I think I may find the others online. And I bought it even though I have a lot in credit card debt. I do not trust that these books I buy now will be available later. I don't even trust the books I physically have now will be available later, but they are very dense and high level (in my opinion) and I can only take in so much at a time.

And I was thinking as I bought it, this is like other Americans who rack up debt buying new video games, except I am doing it for books to learn Greek to read the NT. Not to bash anyone or anything. Just I remembered that passage in Luke 16 about the shrewd manager and thought maybe I was being cunning in a good way like that.

One more thing, but I think it is encouraging! I read a story recently about newborn twin premature babies in 1995 (Brielle and Kyrie); one was dying and the doctors did not think she would make it. And a nurse placed them together in one incubator. And the sister put her arm around the other and the weaker instantly stabilized. Called The Hug That Saved Life. I just bring this up because the Bible talks about encouraging others, and I think a lot of people might think it doesn't really matter that we say hi or hug, but you never know just how much you impact someone's life just by saying hi or giving them a hug. Maybe this would help the ICHTHYS community? Or not. idk.

Please do take care of yourself!
Response #3:    
That is very encouraging! I will save the email.

If I'd known you were going to spend money on any of these books I would have looked for them cheaper ABE or 1/2 priced books for you (mostly, I get my books from the library or if ours doesn't have what I need, through inter-library loan). I bought a great many books when I was younger. Mostly it's the reference books I don't regret. Most of the commentaries are just taking up space.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:   
Hi Robert, hope things are well with you. I am praying for your situation. Keep me informed

I have been reading Ichthys and when I read something somewhere else I search Ichthys for any information on the subject. You have sparse mentions regarding the above subject [Church Fathers] but I have questions regarding why the immediate post apostolic church fathers (such as Apostle John's student Polycarp) believed there was no forgiveness or ONE possible forgiveness for serious post baptismal sins or those committed wilfully. See reference below [internet article omitted]

Yet today the teaching is that if we authenticity repent, confess and forsake those sins there is. ?? Wouldn't a disciple of an apostle know what was taught ad opposed to the prevailing opinion today? According to them, there is virtually no chance of forgiveness and restoration for anyone who commits anything other than a minor sin of ignorance but certainly no forgiveness for any that were serious or intentional after baptism. How could Polycarp believe this and be wrong if he was a student of John the apostle? Doesn't that seem like our belief of no unforgivable sin is seriously wrong today, 1900 years later?
Response #4:    　
Re: "You have sparse mentions regarding the above subject [Early church and immediate post apostolic fathers]" – for good reason. Nothing they say was inspired by the Holy Spirit, any more than a book of sermons you might pick up at a Christian book store today. What I do have about these individuals can be found at the following links:
Church History III
Church History II
Church History.
Faith, History, Archaeology
Key to understanding the period you're referring to is the section in CT 2A on the first of the seven churches of Revelation, Ephesus (at the link). This first, post-apostolic generation immediately lost it's "first love", that is, love for the truth, with the result that the understanding of the Bible which the apostles possessed – the men who actually wrote the NT – largely vanished almost immediately, and it has taken the better part of 2,000 years to recover it. If you don't believe that, all you need to do is read an epistle of, e.g., Paul, then read any work by any apostolic father or early church father – it's apples and oranges.

In fact, what I would counsel you to do is NOT to read books ABOUT these people, but read what they actually say. I have read the letters of Polycarp and would not in any way sign off on what this "expert" is saying. Here's a link to where you can find them translated into English: Early Christian Documents.

We who belong to Jesus Christ, we who are believers in Him, believe His Word, the written Word of Him who is the Living Word of God. We believe what is in the Bible regardless even of what our ears hear or eyes see or feelings feel or anxious thoughts think. How much less then should we put any stock whatsoever in the opinions of an unbelieving (most likely) scholar who is giving us his private interpretation of the writings of someone thousands of years ago who was also not inspired by the Spirit to write whatever he wrote either?

It seems to me that you are searching for things that might be able to undermine your faith and disrupt your peace. Rather, it seems to me, you should be reading and studying and believing and applying things that will build up your faith and produce spiritual growth – that is the only way to having the peace Jesus promises us in this life.
"Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."
John 14:27 NKJV

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
John 20:27 NKJV
I do appreciate your prayers, my friend! Things are still hanging in the balance here – but I'm trusting the Lord to work it all out together for good.

In Him,

Bob L.
Question #5:  
Thanks for the links, I will read them.

I guess when I searched in Ichthys under names it just sent me to letters between you and others mentioning those names. I was actually reading about the early church 'fathers' in an article when I came across that issue. It didn't make sense to me how a direct student of John's taught something about post baptismal forgiveness that is radically different from what is taught today. I don't see how he could get that if he didn't get it from the apostle when he was taught directly by him. ? How would that happen?

I will read the links

Thanks Robert
Response #5:    
On Polycarp, I checked three English translation and there seems to be no mention of baptism or anything related thereto in his extent writings.  I also checked the TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae), and the morpheme bap- doesn't occur so this is not just a question of mis-translation). So, again, before we worry about "what he taught" and how/why that might be radically different from what, e.g., John taught, let's try to find out what he actually taught – not what some third party says he taught.

Give me a passage and we'll discuss it.

In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:   
This was the article I read [omitted]
Response #6:    
Here is the only mention of Polycarp in the article:
At Chapter III of his Epistle to the Philippians, Ignatius of Antioch shortly before AD 107 held that repentance from sins committed after baptism both is possible and reinstates the offender in the church. Chapter XI of the Epistle of Ignatius' friend Polycarp to the same congregation, written almost immediately afterwards, expresses the same beliefs.
The article says nothing at all about Polycarp's teachings. As far Ignatius is concerned, author merely suggests that forgiveness is possible according to him (maybe he read the Bible); as the others mentioned in the article, the value of many of these writings (like the Didache) is highly dubious. One of the problems with "church history", especially in (but not limited to) the early centuries of the Church Age, is that we have very little, and what we have is possibly not reflective of what was really going on in THE Church (that is, actual believers who did not "make history"). And I dare say, anyone who wanted to do a synopsis of Protestant trends in the church-visible over the last thirty years would probably scour magazines like Christianity Today or Charisma or Sojourners. This would give a picture of major groups and denominations, but you'd not find a single mention of Ichthys, e.g., or my friend Curt Omo's Bible Academy. So, IMHO, what survives to make it to the history books is not the same as what's in the God's books of heaven. Praise the Lord for that!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:  
Can you tell me if monophytism believed that the Lord's divinity and humanity were mixed in one nature, or if they believed he only had a divine nature? Because I have been to a number of different sites and everyone disagrees. Now I remember why I was frustrated before, because after thousands of years it still isn't clear (it seems like) what they were saying they believed. 

Is it correct to say Eutychianism believes His divinity absorbed His humanity so that there was only one nature?
Response #7:    
On this question, to be honest, I'm not too concerned about the controversies in the church-visible, not today and not centuries ago. When you say, "after thousands of years it still isn't clear (it seems like) what they were saying they believed", probably that's because 1) these people weren't really clear in their own thinking and, 2) we have limited information surviving about them; and most importantly, 3) what they came up with was wrong. 

When it comes to "what it is correct to say . . .", therefore, about any of these positions, we also have to remember that the actual source material from this early church era is small, and really what we are mostly dealing with is scholars (who are mostly not believers) parsing small references and trying to explain them (in this case, records of the church councils which condemned Eutyches and later references in the church fathers based mainly on these). This sort of thing is important, if it is at all important, for prospective pastors who should have some knowledge of past heresies in order to better recognize modern close equivalents when they arise. 
That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 NKJV
It's pretty clear what the Bible actually says about this important subject (see BB 4A: Christology; and also BB 1: Theology). The classical definition to which I subscribe is that Jesus is God and man, having taken on true humanity so that now He is one person with two natures, human and divine.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:   
Hi Dr Luginbill,

It is just that a whole slew of chapters in The History of the Christian Church go on and on about things like that and I was trying to understand. But your explanation does help. Also it seems hinted at in that a number of times they would have a council to clarify wording so as to bring groups back together (successfully or not), but it seems like they were not even clear back then (in that they needed councils after the fact to clarify (or attempt to). 
[omitted]

Have a good week!
Response #8:    
My issue with church history is that it focuses on councils and the like, "important people and important organizations", which, if today's situation provides any guide, were the least likely to be genuine believers doing what the Lord wanted them to do. 

If someone were writing a history of the "church" a hundred years from now and had a chapter on the USA in the early 21st century, they would focus on political stances taken by denominations and give as evidence what happened at major denominational meetings. They would not have a clue about the true history of the Church (capital "c") of Jesus Christ. But we will get THAT report from our Lord directly at His judgment seat on that great day to come.

In Jesus

Bob L.
p.s., I wouldn't worry about songs, not even hymns: people who write lyrics don't have any special insight into anything – usually less than the average person.
Question #9:  
Your explanation of what is really going on (when they look at bits of evidence to put together history) and my own observation that it seems like even they at the time were not clear in each other's mind might point that way anyway. On another note I read that the best way to recognize counterfeit is to study the original/the true one, and not other counterfeits, so I will be careful of time-sinks like this.

Anyway, have a good one!
Response #9:    
Yes, it's easy to get sucked into these rabbit-holes on the internet!
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Ephesians 5:15-16 NKJV
Question #10:   
Good morning,

I was sick yesterday so it was a day of literally nothing. Which I hate, but it is what it is.

It is really irritating reading Walker in his history book because it really seems he does not like Christianity. Some of the stuff he says is just (to me), fantastical thinking. Like he says this must have been and that must of been but I get the sense he is guessing because he doesn't explain how he could know that. (Like how he claims the church doctrine came to be in some places). I see people who just believe whatever an academic authority tells them, but that is an anathema to me. Anyway I am nearing the end of the Text crit book, and Metzger also says something to make me think he isn't a believer. So, that is a bit something. I guess there is the silver lining that the bias isn't towards a certain Christian denomination. 
Response #10:    
Sorry to hear you are under the weather! Prayers for a quick recovery. 

Re: Walker and Metzger, I had the same reaction when I read them in seminary. There seems to be something about academicians which is fundamentally opposed to accepting the supernatural, a big handicap for those who are writing on biblical subjects! Of course there are also nowadays some institutions which are evangelical or charismatic based, etc., but those within seem to be allergic to serious academic pursuit. There may be a middle ground (there should be), but it is very hard to find out there. We have to invent that ourselves . . . by following the Holy Spirit and the scriptures while not failing to be professional instead of emotional.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:  
Hi Dr Luginbill,

Okay I was reading where you said most people don't know about Charles Hodge. I don't know who that is. But I don't recognize that name outside of ICHTHYS even though I do know some of the early preachers (like during the Awakenings in the US), and now have some idea of the ones through general Christian history. But still nothing on him outside ICHTHYS. So I went to Chat Ai to ask how I can find out who the significant theologians were. And it recommended an expensive four volume encyclopedia. There is also an online version, but it has nothing on Hodge either. Where would one learn about him and the other figures?

I just realized this focuses only on Christianity up to 600 CE, and wow four volumes for only the first 6 centuries!!

But anyway, do you have a recommendation of a source that would have theologians like Charles Hodge?

Respectfully,
Response #11:   
On Hodge, he was dean (?) of Princeton school of Theology / Seminary (I believe), back when there were believers there. He wrote a systematic theology which I have (and have occasionally used). It's very much apologetic and aimed at 19th century attacks on faith (for spiritual growth purposes, you'd be better off reading the Basics Series at Ichthys). Link to free access.

On the encyclopedia, Brill is an obscenely expensive press. I wouldn't want to have them be billing my credit card monthly for the right to use the encyclopedia. I also doubt that there are any believers who contributed to it. So I can't believe it'd be worth it. Now I haven't actually used this one. I do have the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" which is a good reference work for secular information about the historical church-visible, but only God knows the really important things that have happened over the years with His people. Almost none of that will ever make it into a book this side of heaven – but it is all in HIS books. 

Don't know if I've given you this link before or not, but here is the best multi-volume "Church History" ever written – and it has it's "issues" too. Free online at the link: Schaff's History of the Christian Church.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12: 
Hi Dr Luginbill,

Thanks for all of your help!

PS: And thanks for the wonderful resource that is ICHTHYS!
Response #12:  
My pleasure, my friend!

Thanks for your loyalty . . . and for your faith.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:   
I am still reading the Bible, Bible study, and working on Greek. I also am slowly working on history. So in that history book by Walker, I got to Thomas Aquinas. And I was trying to parse it. One thing that stuck out to me is this idea (assuming I understand right) that salvation is via love that is created by doing the sacraments (as the Catholic Church defines them in the manner it defined them). But that isn't in the NT. That manner of salvation is different from the thief on the cross, or the theology/soteriology/and processes as defined in the NT. It really does come down to if you will believe the Pope as the final authority to start from.

It is also possible I don't understand enough yet. But from where stand in my reading so far, it looks like the doctrine of how things like salvation worked were worked out over time by men who were not the pope, and the pope later accepted it as the truth. But, I would think that if the pope really does determine the mechanics of salvation, or at least if it changes (per the last paragraph before this), it would be the first and foremost concern for the pope to make all that clear. But in this way it is the opposite. The doctors of the church over time let us know this vital information and the pope eventually made a pronouncement later.
Response #13:    
I'm no expert on the Roman Catholic church. From what I do know, it's not really as if they have their "theology" completely homogenized. They do have a "catechism", but given all the opinions upon which it is based it is a little like a bucket of whitewash on a huge, tottering wall: whatever someone / some text (not the Bible, they care little for that) has had to say, some other person in authority / authoritative text in their religion has said something different at one time or another. So I'm not sure you'd ever "understand enough" even if you devoted your life to it.

It's a privilege to live now and be privy to so much wonderful truth coming from the Bible itself, easily available to all who want it . . . which turns out to be very few.

Have a lovely Christmas, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:   
Hi Dr L,

I hope you are well and not overburdened. 

1) When Herodotus does things like repeat the speeches between Xerxes and his Uncle, is he making up what they said, or does he somehow know? I read somewhere that ancient historians would make up the words someone said (but follow the 'spirit' of it).

2) If this is in the Bible study, then just let me know that, because I am still going through it. Is it the case that in the first few hundred years, most individuals did not own Biblical manuscripts, but group churches did, and they would read aloud (and that there were a lot of manuscripts circulating)? When did the lay person stop knowing the Bible verses (in general)-I mean when did the Catholic Church bottleneck the Bible? Because I think I remember it was a big deal when Martin Luther translated the Bible and then the masses got it again.

3) Were most people literate in the first few hundred years after His resurrection, and it just went away (until literacy rose again for the general person in the 20th century?

I am hoping these are simple easy questions, but if not, I was really just hoping for an answer to the second. You can direct me to a book too. 

Please take care of yourself,
p.s., They did a movie a while back called "300" of a part of the Persian invasion, and there is this famous scene that launched a thousand jokes/memes. The Persian envoy has come to Sparta to get them to obey Xerxes (if I remember right) and tells them resisting is madness.
Response #14:    　
1) Most historians would say that these speeches are made up – in the tradition of doing so that goes back to Homer. But there are times when we know Xenophon for example gave the speech himself or Thucydides heard the actual speech himself (and sometimes maybe Herodotus too). So I don't think there's a hard and fast fits-all answer on this one. Thucydides tells us that he doesn't produce them word for word but gives us "the gist" of what "needed to be said" (lots of speculation about what that means).  Here's a link to an article by a guy named Luginbill on that:  "The Letter of Nicias: Document or Fiction?", in Athenaeum 103/2 (2015) 26-52.

2) Lots of ins and outs involved here, and unfortunately we can only answer in generalities. Mss. were expensive, even if only written on papyrus rather than vellum. And "books" as we know them (scrolls before the invention of the codex) only come in somewhere in the late 2nd and 3rd century at the earliest. Before that it would be a case of having a copy of, e.g., Romans. Since we have such a wealth of evidence (Metzger's book is good on all this: The Text of the New Testament), you can bet that having as much of the Bible as possible was a priority early on for individuals and especially for churches. For trends in the church visible, see CT 2A; the era of "Sardis" (12th cent.) is when things go completely corrupt. "Church history" is written about the newsmakers, not about the believers who were trying to do what was right, so we are only guessing about many of these things.

3) Literacy in the ancient world is an issue that has been in hot debate for many years; the evidence suggests that it was widespread but not as nearly universal as is the case today; precise time and place has much to do with answering that question with anything like a percentage (here's one of many current titles: "Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece" by R. Thomas; haven't read that or this next one, but I like the main author: "Literacy in the Roman World" by Mary Beard et al.).

On the 300, when the movie came out some students asked me if it was historically accurate; my response, "Well, there were 300 Spartans."

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:  
Metzger says the codex came in at the end of the first century or early 2nd century, but this isn't that far off from the 3rd century considering we are discussing things from so long ago, right? (Maybe there is a bit of unknowability to the exact century?)

On the new leaf for Hebrews, I am a little confused on the argument about the old law via angels vs the new being superior due to the Lord delivering. Because you seem to say those angels were the Lord. Is it like this: you are saying the Lord in human form delivering it directly to the apostles and affirming via miracles (and I suppose giving directly via the Holy Spirit (special giftings and writing it on our hearts) is superior to the Lord giving it to Moses to give to Israel (because it was a messenger to mediator to them)?

If I could ask you one more question: Why is it γαρ and ουν are translated sometimes but untranslated other times? 
Response #15:    
It was somewhere in that time frame. For our purposes, it was after the first generations of the Church Age had died off.

On Hebrews, the reality is that it was Jesus Christ as the Angel of the Lord who spoke with Moses, not "angels" in general as the religious community of Paul's day wrongly assumed. He uses that wrong assumption to refute their position generally. If you are referring to the statement later on " the One so far superior to the angels of the Law", since I say also "Gnostic contrivance" I was hoping this would be sufficient to make clear that the former phrase meant "as Paul's misguided contemporaries saw things", but since you noticed this, I'll add that in.

Greek almost always connects one sentence to another with a conjunction to make the relationship clear between the two. In English we are loath to do this too much, so that always translating, e.g., the particles men / de as "on the one hand, on the other hand" over and over again would make a translation unreadable for English speakers.

Wishing you a good week ahead, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:   
Hi Dr L,

1) When in Metzger it says that a text dates to a certain time, is it saying literally that physical text (which may be a copy..etc), or that the original text (not that literal physical document itself, but its predecessor) dates to that time?

2) How do they know?

3) Is there a history book on how the early believers were treated in the first few centuries after the Lord's resurrection? I am almost done with the Ancient History book by Starr, and it seems to talk only a little (and not clearly about it)? I do have A History of the Christian Church by Walker, et al, in the wings, so if that covers it, then nevermind.

Thank you for helping me understand.

Respectfully,
Response #16:    
1/2) Correct. These dates mentioned by M. are the dates when the document/copy in question were produced, not the dates of composition of the original texts upon which the codices/mss. or papyri were based. The dates of the physical manuscripts are determined by a variety of methods, including the material upon which they were written, the provenance of their production, the place of their discovery, the handwriting, etc. It's not a perfect science but with so much material to work with – not just biblical but of course everything Classical too when it comes to this particular issue – experts have become pretty good at this.

3) There is virtually no direct evidence on this subject outside of the Bible. Here is where I treat the Church eras (in CT 2B); most everything else is later speculation, e.g., Eusebius (there are a few primary sources, some of which are covered in the prior link; here's a link to a site that contains some of the more prominent ones). In addition to Walker, Schaff's is much more extensive; volume 2 is what you want; some also in v.3 at the link for an online version.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:  
Hi Dr L,

1) I am still on Metzger's Text of the New Testament. I am at the part detailing the messed-up-ness of the Textus Receptus. And I googled if the NKJV was based on the Textus Receptus, even after all that history still in the present, and it is. And I just feel kind of frustrated. I have been trying to find a 1984 NIV, but is there another version you recommend?

2) Also, as I see all these different publications of editions based on the ancient manuscripts, why was Martin Luther publishing the scriptures such a big deal. I mean you almost want to say to the Catholic Authorities, "if that is upsetting, you have much bigger fish in all these other publications and editions, don't you?" Was it just that he was labeled 'public enemy' so to speak?

3) A while back you mentioned The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations by Metzger. If you know off the top of your head, is this version much different from this one I am on (The Text of the New Testament)? I might be interested in more details on the early Ancient Greek manuscripts, does it go into that? The blurb doesn't really say anything different from the one I have. But please don't feel like you need to do extra work and find out.

Respectfully,
Response #17:    
1) NKJV is not a bad version. When it comes to problems of a serious nature in the text of the NT (every version uses the same OT), this is generally speaking a question of false interpolations – and you're probably already familiar with the main ones (here's a link). I'm a believer in multiple versions. I did find this used copy of what looks to be an OK copy of the 1984 NIV at ABE (at the link). When it comes to reading, I read NIV and also occasionally used to listen to KJV. I read individual passages of NKJV and other versions on-line (favorite site for that: Blue Letter Bible at the link). Somewhere I have my Sunday school copy of the RSV.

2) You'd have to know the RCs. The Bible contradicts absolutely everything they teach and all of their underlying principles of organization and practice. No doubt the powers that be at that time thought, "boy, if the laity ever actually got hold of a Bible they could read, we'd be in big trouble!" As it is, of course, most people in that organization don't care about the truth a bit – otherwise they wouldn't stay there. So they are even less concerned with what the Bible says than Laodicean Protestants.

3) The 'Versions' book is just that: it's not about the mss. in Greek. It's about, e.g., the various translations of the Bible in antiquity, as in the Syriac, Coptic, Latin Vulgate, etc., etc. So it wouldn't be of much help for the purposes you seem to be interested in. Some people feel that these early witnesses are good for textual criticism, but in my view and experience they are not very much use at all since 1) they have their own textual problems, and 2) we have so many original language witnesses which predate all of them.

Hope you're having a good week!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:   
On #2, what I was meaning to say is that when I read Metzger, he goes through that there were so many Latin manuscripts before the Vulgate, and then so many editions of the Vulgate, and also there continued to be publishings of the Bible (such as via the Polyglot Bible) before Martin Luther did his Thesis. So was it that all of these originals and publishings and editions were only in the hands of scholars?

Ok I made a mistake, the Polyglot was 3 years after the 95 Thesis. But still, my original point stands that there was all this material all the way up to and after him. So the only reason I can think of that the Catholic Church was upset was that he was challenging their authority directly.
Response #18:    
Laymen didn't read Latin. That was restricted mostly to the clergy and other educated intellectuals (in England in the middle ages a man could avoid the death penalty by proving "right of clergy" if he could prove it by reading something in Latin). What the RC church dreaded was a translation of the Bible in the language of the people – whatever language that might be. 
It wasn't just a question of authority, in my view, but a fear on their part of the truth coming out. The truth does and did "set free" many believers, but the majority of the RC communicants then and certainly now were never interested in the truth in the first place. What the Reformation and the new availability of the truth of scripture, available to be read and also importantly finally being taught, finally did was end the RC church's virtual monopoly. It reminds me of this verse:
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
Matthew 23:13 NKJV
I've said a prayer for your health.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:  
Hi Professor Luginbill,

In the Text of the New Testament, the author mentions that who translated the rest of the NT for the Vulgate is hotly debated (the four Gospels are Jerome's). It doesn't seem clear to me what he is saying right after. He says (right after that the rest is debated) 1) some say that the work of some other translator came to be circulated as Jerome's work and 2) the commonly accepted view rests upon the natural interpretation of what Jerome says about his work. (Both of these are near verbatim). And then he moves on from the translation/making of the Vulgate to the transmission of the Vulgate.

So it is that the four Gospels are definitely Jerome's, and the traditional idea is that the rest is also Jerome's, but scholars now debate if the rest is actually someone else's translation? Or something else? This isn't a big deal as I said, I was just wondering if you were ok to tell me a little.

Please don't feel like you need to look it up or pressured to look it up, but in case you were going to ask anyway, it is pg 105/106 in edition 4.

Respectfully,
Response #19:    
I don't have the same edition (and can't find it in my older one where this is referenced), but from what you have said here, I think you have understood correctly what Metzger is trying to say.

If interested in this subject, his "The Early Versions of the Greek New Testament" has a very long chapter on the Vulgate. Here's one short snippet:
". . . at the start of his work he was more exacting than during the latter part of his work. Thus in Matthew he introduces changes which are of no importance which he later neglects." p.353
The Vulgate also has a very convoluted textual history, much more complicated than the Greek NT. So there is also the question of "did Jerome write this part" whenever the above comes up.

I'm very happy to hear that you have been able to cope with ____ my friend

Keeping you in my daily prayers – and here's hoping for less overtime and some time off.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:   
Dear Brother Bob, hope you are well.

Thanks for sharing your insight on the gift of tongues. Yes, I remember that in Acts 2, tongues was when the disciples were declaring the Gospel in various languages but what is happening in a lot of Pentecostal churches is worship leaders speaking in strange utterances, violating 1 Corinthians 14. There is a lot of deception going on in the church especially in the Charismatic church. One thing I like about Macarthur’s sermons is his exposition of the text, bringing the linguistic, cultural, and historical context. I understand that both Hebrew and Greek are languages that use graphics, (it is not like English). I was wondering, as you have studied the original languages, which one of your studies dives more into the Biblical languages? I just finished reading #15 of 1st Peter, and I like the study, but it seems the emphasis is on the theme of spiritual growth, (which is very important), but I was wondering, if you have some studies that explain the meaning of Bible words?

Thanks Brother Bob,
Response #20:    
My pleasure.

In all of my studies, wherever it is important for readers to know how I got what I got, I explain the Greek or the Hebrew as appropriate. But I don't go into depth on grammatical points that will mean little to those who don't know either language. So you'll find some of this in everything I write, but there's no concentration of it, so to speak.

If you want to know the meanings of specific biblical words and phrases, there is an index for translations where I list everything I've translated myself and its location at the link. 

There are numerous email postings that talk about the issue of translation; here's one at the link which will lead to more: Biblical Languages, Texts and Translations XII. By the way, the most recent email posting has a good deal about the issue as well (link: Old Testament Interpretation XX).

The subject index lists some important words and give references to places at Ichthys these are discussed, such as "faith, hope and love". 

If you have a question about a specific word, I'm happy to answer – as well as to point you to wherever this may have been dealt with previously.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #21:   
Dear Brother Bob, hope you are well.

I opened one of your links and something stood out as you mentioned tetragrammaton.

I was suddenly wondering if you have done a study of the different names of God as revealed in Scripture? I've found a lot of confusing information out there, some people in Hebrew Roots say that the words God and Lord have pagan origins and that the correct name of God is Yahuah. They say something about Paleo Hebrew.

When Jesus taught us to pray in Matthew 6, we are to start with "Our Father", but I was wondering if there is a correct name for God?

Thanks Brother Bob,
Response #21:    
Here's one link on names (this info is scattered around the site in numerous places): Divine names.

As to "correct names", our Lord Jesus told us to call our heavenly Father "Father" (Matt.6:9; Lk.11:2) – that seems fine to me! Compare:
And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba [Hebrew], Father [Greek]!”
Galatians 4:6 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L. 

http://ichthys.com/