First Century Christian Writings Missing from our Forum's Website

[rakovsky]

Regarding the "2nd c. or later " date listed on the EY site for Testament of Adam:

S. E. Robinson writes: "The three sections of the Testament of Adam were not written at the same time, but the final Christian redaction, in which the testament took on its present form, probably occurred in the middle or late third century A.D. This tentative date for the final redaction of the Testament of Adam is supported by several bits of evidence. First, the testament is familiar with the Christian traditions found in the New Testament and must therefore be dated after, say, A.D. 100. Second, part of the Prophecy section is quoted in the Syriac Transitus Mariae, which is dated in the late fourth century. Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century A.D. Ordinarily this might be due to copying at some later date, but here the Testament of Adam seems to preserve the passage (a description of the signs of the Messiah) in a more original form than does the Apocalypse of Elijah and should probably not be dated after that document." (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 990)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html
In other words, the claim that Testament of Adam is later than 100 AD rests on the claim that the NT was written in 100 AD. But this whole theory is weak, because maybe Testament Adam just uses NT parts that were themselves written before 100 AD.

ALSO, the Testament of Adam text link (the URL for fragment translations into English) on the EW site is sadly down. Here is one I found:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct10.htm

[MrMacSon]

In other words, the claim that Testament of Adam is later than 100 AD rests on the claim that the NT was written in 100 AD. ...

That's not what that passage says. It says (where you bolded) -

• "First, the testament [of Adam] is familiar with the Christian traditions found in the New Testament ..."

so

• "... must therefore be dated after, say, A.D. 100. "

viz. --

S. E. Robinson writes: "The three sections of the Testament of Adam were not written at the same time, but the final Christian redaction, in which the testament took on its present form, probably occurred in the middle or late third century A.D. This tentative date for the final redaction of the Testament of Adam is supported by several bits of evidence. First, the testament is familiar with the Christian traditions found in the New Testament and must therefore be dated after, say, A.D. 100. Second, part of the Prophecy section is quoted in the Syriac Transitus Mariae, which is dated in the late fourth century. Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century A.D. Ordinarily this might be due to copying at some later date, but here the Testament of Adam seems to preserve the passage (a description of the signs of the Messiah) in a more original form than does the Apocalypse of Elijah and should probably not be dated after that document." (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 990)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html

That passage then goes on to say

"Second, part of the Prophecy section is quoted in the Syriac Transitus Mariae, which is dated in the late fourth century." and

"Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century AD."

[rakovsky]

In other words, the claim that Testament of Adam is later than 100 AD rests on the claim that the NT was written in 100 AD. ...

That's not what that passage says. It says (where you bolded) -

• "First, the testament [of Adam] is familiar with the Christian traditions found in the New Testament ..."

so

• "... must therefore be dated after, say, A.D. 100. "

viz. --

S. E. Robinson writes: "The three sections of the Testament of Adam were not written at the same time, but the final Christian redaction, in which the testament took on its present form, probably occurred in the middle or late third century A.D. This tentative date for the final redaction of the Testament of Adam is supported by several bits of evidence. First, the testament is familiar with the Christian traditions found in the New Testament and must therefore be dated after, say, A.D. 100. Second, part of the Prophecy section is quoted in the Syriac Transitus Mariae, which is dated in the late fourth century. Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century A.D. Ordinarily this might be due to copying at some later date, but here the Testament of Adam seems to preserve the passage (a description of the signs of the Messiah) in a more original form than does the Apocalypse of Elijah and should probably not be dated after that document." (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 990)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html

That passage then goes on to say

"Second, part of the Prophecy section is quoted in the Syriac Transitus Mariae, which is dated in the late fourth century." and

"Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century AD."

OK, so what. The Prophecy section is quoted in the T.Mariae in the late 4th c. That only means Testament of Adam existed before the late 4th c.
There is a "literary relationship" to the c. 3rd c. Coptic A.Elijah. So maybe either Coptic A.Elijah used Testament of Adam or vice verse. Just because you are using a document doesn't mean you wrote it or that it was written at the time you use it.

This all begs the question of what was the earliest it could have been written. Robinson says 100 AD based on the hypothesis that the NT as a whole was completed in 100 AD, and the relationship of the T.Adam to parts of the NT. The EW webpage on Testament of Adam says 2nd c. based on Robinson.

I am putting in question the logic of Robinson's theorized 100 AD starting point, based on the underlined part above. Just because the T.Adam reflects parts of the NT doesn't mean it was written after the whole NT was completed.

[MrMacSon]

• Just because the T.Adam reflects parts of the NT doesn't mean it was written after the whole NT was completed.

• I agree.

---

There is a "literary relationship" to the c. 3rd c. Coptic A.Elijah. So maybe either Coptic A.Elijah used Testament of Adam or vice verse. Just because you are using a document doesn't mean you wrote it, or that it was written, at the time you use it.

Note Robinson's point here -

S. E. Robinson writes:

" ..Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century A.D.
Ordinarily this might be due to copying at some later date, but here the Testament of Adam seems to preserve the passage (a description of the signs of the Messiah) in a more original form than does the Apocalypse of Elijah, [so] should probably not be dated after that document."
(The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 990)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html

---

This all begs the question of what was the earliest it could have been written. Robinson says 100 AD based on the hypothesis that the NT as a whole was completed in 100 AD, and the relationship of the T.Adam to parts of the NT. The EW webpage on Testament of Adam says 2nd c. based on Robinson.

• Robinson proposes 100 AD based on the hypothesis that the NT as a whole was completed in 100 AD
  
  ie. he proposes after the NT was mostly 'completed'. Which could well be well after 100 AD.

---

[rakovsky]

• Just because the T.Adam reflects parts of the NT doesn't mean it was written after the whole NT was completed.

• I agree.

---

There is a "literary relationship" to the c. 3rd c. Coptic A.Elijah. So maybe either Coptic A.Elijah used Testament of Adam or vice verse. Just because you are using a document doesn't mean you wrote it, or that it was written, at the time you use it.

Note Robinson's point here -

S. E. Robinson writes:

" ..Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century A.D.
Ordinarily this might be due to copying at some later date, but here the Testament of Adam seems to preserve the passage (a description of the signs of the Messiah) in a more original form than does the Apocalypse of Elijah, [so] should probably not be dated after that document."
(The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 990)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html

---

This all begs the question of what was the earliest it could have been written. Robinson says 100 AD based on the hypothesis that the NT as a whole was completed in 100 AD, and the relationship of the T.Adam to parts of the NT. The EW webpage on Testament of Adam says 2nd c. based on Robinson.

• Robinson proposes 100 AD based on the hypothesis that the NT as a whole was completed in 100 AD
  
  ie. he proposes after the NT was mostly 'completed'. Which could well be well after 100 AD.

---

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with me over, macson. In this thread I am looking for the earliest and latest dates. Robinson's logic is that the testament has info from the nt, THEREFORE he concludes it was written after the NT's completion, AND he dates that to 100 ad.
Ok. I get it. This is what I am putting in question in looking for the earliest possible date. Just because passages look like they are taken from some part (s) of the NT doesn't mean that it was definitely written after the NT's completion, which "could" have been in 100 ad.
I am setting the earliest date, and I am putting in question that the earliest date must be 100 ad based on his logic.. Ok.... I don't understand your objection to what I am saying.

[andrewcriddle]

Regarding the "2nd c. or later " date listed on the EY site for Testament of Adam:

S. E. Robinson writes: "The three sections of the Testament of Adam were not written at the same time, but the final Christian redaction, in which the testament took on its present form, probably occurred in the middle or late third century A.D. This tentative date for the final redaction of the Testament of Adam is supported by several bits of evidence. First, the testament is familiar with the Christian traditions found in the New Testament and must therefore be dated after, say, A.D. 100. Second, part of the Prophecy section is quoted in the Syriac Transitus Mariae, which is dated in the late fourth century. Third, the Testament of Adam demonstrates a literary relationship at one point with the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which is dated in the third century A.D. Ordinarily this might be due to copying at some later date, but here the Testament of Adam seems to preserve the passage (a description of the signs of the Messiah) in a more original form than does the Apocalypse of Elijah and should probably not be dated after that document." (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 990)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html
In other words, the claim that Testament of Adam is later than 100 AD rests on the claim that the NT was written in 100 AD. But this whole theory is weak, because maybe Testament Adam just uses NT parts that were themselves written before 100 AD.

ALSO, the Testament of Adam text link (the URL for fragment translations into English) on the EW site is sadly down. Here is one I found:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct10.htm

The Testament of Adam contains a reference to Christ being born of a virgin. (In the form of a prophecy made by Adam to Seth.) IMO this makes a date much before 100 CE unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

[rakovsky]

[.htmte]
The Testament of Adam contains a reference to Christ being born of a virgin. (In the form of a prophecy made by Adam to Seth.) IMO this makes a date much before 100 CE unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,
The critics are saying that there could be a few later christian interpolations made after it was written. You could be referring to one.

[DCHindley]

[.htmte]
The Testament of Adam contains a reference to Christ being born of a virgin. (In the form of a prophecy made by Adam to Seth.) IMO this makes a date much before 100 CE unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,
The critics are saying that there could be a few later christian interpolations made after it was written. You could be referring to one.

Like with the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, it can be exceedingly difficult to tell what is "Jewish" and what is "Christian". Even Christians can add passages to Judaic works that may themselves seem Judaic because due to subject matter make no explicit mention of, or allusion to, Christ. This is also a problem with interpreting the "Jewish" sections of the Sibylline Oracles but not quite as hard to sort out. I think Andrew C believes that the theology of "original sin", which is definitely a Christian development, makes this a Christian book, although it may have used some Jewish sources to flesh other things out.

DCH

[rakovsky]

[.htmte]
The Testament of Adam contains a reference to Christ being born of a virgin. (In the form of a prophecy made by Adam to Seth.) IMO this makes a date much before 100 CE unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,
The critics are saying that there could be a few later christian interpolations made after it was written. You could be referring to one.

Like with the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, it can be exceedingly difficult to tell what is "Jewish" and what is "Christian". Even Christians can add passages to Judaic works that may themselves seem Judaic because due to subject matter make no explicit mention of, or allusion to, Christ. This is also a problem with interpreting the "Jewish" sections of the Sibylline Oracles but not quite as hard to sort out. I think Andrew C believes that the theology of "original sin", which is definitely a Christian development, makes this a Christian book, although it may have used some Jewish sources to flesh other things out.

DCH

DCH,
Two things to consider are:
1. Is it a Christian interpolation or is the whole book Christian? A discussion on original sin need not be Christian, depending on the substance. AFAIK, Jews and Eastern Christians, who continue the theology of the early centuries, agree that Adam committed an act that led to his rejection from Eden. So this statement does not appear in conflict with that: "Do you not know that all who have come from Adam and Eve have died, and that none of the prophets has escaped death?"

Personally I don't have an opinion on whether it was Jewish or Christian authorship. Here is an article strongly defending Jewish authorship from a Jewish POV:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... stament-of

2. If the whole book is Christian, then from what period of Christianity was it written? It's not enough to say as the scholar I cited did that since the book has references to the NT, therefore it must have been written after the NT was basically completed, and that this date of NT completion must have been 100 AD.
Since the NT has lots of passages and concepts, in fact the text of Testament of Adam only needs to have been written after those NT passages or concepts existed. So if a colloquy about original sin was created in 40 AD, and was written down in a NT Epistle in 45-70 AD, then this fixes the earliest date for its inclusion in Testament of Adam as 40-45 AD.

[DCHindley]

DCH,

Two things to consider are:

1. Is it a Christian interpolation or is the whole book Christian? A discussion on original sin need not be Christian, depending on the substance. AFAIK, Jews and Eastern Christians, who continue the theology of the early centuries, agree that Adam committed an act that led to his rejection from Eden. So this statement does not appear in conflict with that: "Do you not know that all who have come from Adam and Eve have died, and that none of the prophets has escaped death?"

Personally I don't have an opinion on whether it was Jewish or Christian authorship. Here is an article strongly defending Jewish authorship from a Jewish POV:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... stament-of

2. If the whole book is Christian, then from what period of Christianity was it written? It's not enough to say as the scholar I cited did that since the book has references to the NT, therefore it must have been written after the NT was basically completed, and that this date of NT completion must have been 100 AD.

Since the NT has lots of passages and concepts, in fact the text of Testament of Adam only needs to have been written after those NT passages or concepts existed. So if a colloquy about original sin was created in 40 AD, and was written down in a NT Epistle in 45-70 AD, then this fixes the earliest date for its inclusion in Testament of Adam as 40-45 AD.

There are authors of original material and there are editors of sources. Something like parts of the T12P are found among the DSS, but not anything like what Christians were preserving. The T12P may utilize Jewish materials, but has certainly given them Christian perspective. I do not think that anything like the Testament of Adam was found among the DSS, so it is almost certainly a Christian composition.

When would that writing or editing have happened? I think that the 40s CE is just way too early. It is wishful thinking along the line of "Well, it should be so, so it must have been so." I think that critics have identified specifically Christian statements in them, and these need to be traced to likely sources (NT gospels, primarily, maybe Pauline epistles) and then related one to another. As you probably know, most critics, even believers, think that the NT did not take its current form until at very earliest 100 CE. Maybe even 200 CE for Acts and some or all of the General epistles. Thus I would date the current forms of the T12P or the TAdam earlier than 100 CE, when Christian doctrine as we see it in the NT finally solidified.

Are you familiar with David Trobisch? He looks at the NT books as groups based on genre. These books tended to be grouped together in most all existing Mss. containing multiple books. These groups are
1) The Four Gospels, then
2) The 13 Pauline Epistles plus Hebrews, then
3) Acts and General Epistles; and finally
4) The Revelation of Jesus Christ to his Slave John.

He found that in their present "canonical" form these groups contain phrases, probably added by the final editor, that link them together. Jn. 1:42 is a good example.

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

This phrase links the four gospel collection to the Pauline collection: 1 Co. 1:12; 1 Co. 3:22; 1 Co. 9:5; 1 Co. 15:5; Gal. 1:18, & 2:9, 11, 14 (in the Nestle Aland text at least). The Stephanus critical text had "Petros" instead of "Kefas" at Gal 1:18, and 2:11,14. Trobisch does not mention this link in his The First Edition of the New Testament (2000), but it seem to be an example of this linking phenomenon

He also published Pauls Letter Collection-Tracing the Origins (1994), which treaded the Pauline collection as a purposely created letter collection, based on real letters and possibly even edited by Paul himself to remove irrelevant materials and order the books used.

These indications of editorial activity do not argue in favor of a really early date for their origins as we have them.

DCH