Functional Testing has always been an activity done by Test Engineers using Functional Testing tools like QTP from HP/Mercury, SilkTest from Borland/Segue, Functional Tester from IBM/Rational, …
But time is changing – so is Functional Testing – and the things you can do with it. In this article I talk about: • The Past – Functional Testing done by Testers • The Present – More and More Functional Testing done by Developers with the help of Frameworks • The Future - Extend Functional Testing with Transactional Tracing to improve Root Cause Analysis and Automate Architecture Validation
The Past: Traditional Functional Testing
All those tools traditionally had their record/replay approach by recording the interactions with the User Interface that should be tested as well as recording the control structure of the windows/controls that were tested. With this separation it was easier to maintain scripts in case the layout of the application under test changed. You only had to update the description of the UI and not each test script that used that description.
The drawback of all these tools was that it required a special set of skills to do Functional Testing. Each tool came with its more or less proprietary testing language as well as IDE and runtime. These were some of the reasons developers usually didn’t get in-touch with functional testing. Due to the lack of exposure developers also frequently questioned the results of functional testing tools as they were presented to them by the Testing Engineers leading to built up tension between the testing and development teams.
The Present: The Functional Testing world is changing to …
Over the past couple of years – greatly driven by the Open Source Community as I believe – we could see a move towards bringing Functional Testing closer to the developers. The approach taken was to provide testing frameworks that allow writing functional tests in Java, .NET, JavaScript, … just as you would write your unit tests using frameworks like JUnit or NUnit. The frameworks are easy to use and provide support for the major browsers, RIA frameworks and desktop UI technologies.
The list of available frameworks is growing - a lot of them are free, e.g.: Selenium, WebAii, WindMill
Benefits of Functional Testing Frameworks
I see multiple benefits of these frameworks: • Developers can now easily write functional tests besides only writing unit tests • Functional tests can cover test areas where it is hard to write unit tests for • Functional tests can easily be integrated in your Continuous Integration process -> execute them as you execute your unit tests • Developers not only think about how components can be made testable for unit testing – but also how the UI can be made testable for Functional Testing • BETTER TEST COVERAGE • Reuse tests for load-testing and production monitoring
The Future: Go beyond Functional Testing with Transactional Tracing
Functional Testing in the hands of developers promises to bring us more tests that can easily be integrated in the existing automation processes like Continuous Integration. So – is there anything missing? YES THERE IS • Root Cause Analysis: you still have to sit down and figure out why certain tests failed. This often requires manual re-runs of the tests with an attached debugger to track down the problem. Too often the problems cannot be reproduced on the developers machine but only on the test machine that was setup with a special environment – which might just not be available right now • Architecture Validation: functional testing as well as unit testing only verifies the functional correctness of the tested components. It does not verify if the underlying code is efficient and scalable when executed under load or in production like environments
The next evolutionary step for Functional Testing is to combine Functional Testing with Transactional Tracing. Analyzing the executed transactions from end-to-end down to the invoked components, across tiers and runtime boundaries allows you to
Speed up Root Cause Analysis • you get the dynamic execution path of the tested code as part of the functional test result for each functional test step • no need to manually re-run tests as all code-level execution results have already been collected on the target machine where it happened • no need to debug through code as the transactional trace contains method level information including execution time, arguments, exceptions, …
Automate Architecture Validation • you can analyze the dynamic code behavior in terms of e.g.: number of sql-queries, number of remoting roundtrips, memory allocations, … • you can analyze which components really interact with each other and if the dynamic execution matches what is on the blueprint • Automating the analysis of these “Architectural Rules” allows you to let test runs fail in case certain rules have been violated even though the application might be functionally correct • identify problems early on that would later cause problems under load or in production
About the Author
www.dynaTrace.com is the leader in continuous APM for business-critical Java/.NET applications. We enable lifecycle stakeholders, development, QA and production, to quickly find problems & coordinate resolution, speeding MTTR by 10x.
Script Writing & Filmmaking : How to Make a Music Video
What is the best script writing software out there?
I like to use PrimalScript by Sapien. It handles VBScript and a number of other scripting languages, and file types (http://www.primaltools.com/index.asp).
Has a built in debugger.
Making a micro-budget film #6: Script writing software
Covered call writing using the writing strategy over
Writing covered calls is a great way to use the options in a low risk, to generate additional revenue to your existing portfolio. If you buy shares at the time writing the calls then the transaction is known as a buy-write. If you write calls on shares already owned, then it is called an over-write. Including appearance comes from the fact that you own the underlying stock or share. If the contract is exercised then the underlying property to fulfill the contract (for example, the car in the first instance). There is another type of writing called flame. NEVER, NEVER write naked calls - you're exposing the unlimited risk.
The first technique called over writing, so let's take a look to see how it works. Before you start there is a difference between stock options in the UK and U.S. equity options. In the UK an option contract relates to 1000, but in U.S. an option contract relates to 100 shares.
Imagine you have a portfolio of actions that have taken place for some time and these are mainly the UK blue chip 'companies. One of its shares in British Airways is to be done for some time, and have bought 1500 shares at 200 pence. Price market at the moment is 365p per share. It is June and decided to look in the current string option to the short maturity period, which is September. The option expires on 15 September. You look at all available strike prices and see what contracts 330p, 360P and 390p. You sign the contract premium 390p and see what the premium is currently 16p. You decide to sell a contract for which you receive a prize of 1000 x 16p = £ 160. (The premium is multiplied by the number of shares for a contract that is, 1000). Note - Still has 500 shares remaining in its portfolio because it does not have enough to write a second contract. It has already sold 1 contract obliges you to supply 1,000 shares of BA 390p on or before September 15 (Amercian style contract) for the contract holder if exercised in the period. In return for this he paid a premium of £ 160 which is yours to keep whatever the outcome of the contract. OK - lets look at the possible outcomes of this contract as follows:
Result A - the company becomes in a takeover target and shares jump to 520p
By accepting the 390p a share contract, which has lost out on takeover news and lost the opportunity to "do" 1300 (130 x 1000) in its portfolio. This is the downside of writing a call option over its shares, which could be excluded from a rise in prices during the contract period. This is undoubtedly true, however there is no guarantee it would sell its shares at this time, in other words, it is only a benefit of paper that had been maintained. The 1300 pounds lost "opportunity" the benefits are offset by the premium received to £ 1140.
Final B - the share price falls to 295p with increasing competition in the industry
The price has fallen during the period and the contract expires. Although the price has been reduced by 65p, this is partly offset by the premium received, the reduction in "paper loss" to 49p for sharing. They still maintain their actions and future dividends.
Final C - the market is quiet and the stock price closed at 390p
You made a small paper profit "here, and a real benefit of £ 160.You have maintained their shares and dividends in the future. The reason is likely to keep their actions is that the costs of dealing with so they would not be worthwhile for someone to exercise, although you can never be sure. I have worked during the strike and closing market price at the same price, but I've also been without being exercised with prices just above the strike. It depends on how your broker is closed positions and is reconciled with his contract - sometimes is possible, sometimes not lucky.
Now, with B and C, still retain their shares so what can you do? - Write another call to generate some more income. You look to the next round (probably December) and write another option to earn more income. With B, where the share is now trading at 295, you can seek a strike by 320 by 340, and C, probably around 430 to 440. And so on, until a contract is exercised. Most of the options I have written in the same block of shares is 4! Finally in the contract price rose 5 and I was exercised. Please remember that it is possible to write a contract so that you have Built at a loss. Suppose you bought some shares for 250P, which later became cheaper, and wrote a contract in 225p with a premium of 10 pence. If it is exercised you would receive 235p (225 10) of the shares he had paid 250P. Now, I have sometimes done on purpose where I wanted to get rid of people for some reason. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS BY ACCIDENT. There are plenty of bags that will give you a graphical display of the equilibrium point - most these are free.
Finally, I mentioned dividends a couple of times before. Naturally, while the shares allocated to receive any dividend payments of the company. Be aware when the payment of dividends are two important reasons. First you may decide not to write an option as a dividend is payable in the coming weeks and you decide to wait. Secondly, if you write a call and a dividend is coming, the probability of exercise is very upper right before a dividend payment. The perfect result, of course, is where you keep your shares, your cousin, and a dividend will be paid the contract! - Sometimes it happens.
About the Author
Anna Coulling is a full time currency trader providing free advice and help to women traders and investors around the world via her web site. She has been trading for over 15 years, and has experience in a wide range of financial instruments including stocks,shares,options,spread betting and futures. For more information or to contact Anna please click on the link below : trading,investing,women,traders,shares,stocks,currency,forex,options,calls,puts,candlesticks.
Why You Should Support The Writers' Strike (with Weird Al)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - 16 Jan Betting Update
Stating Jodie Marsh was a definite final four contender was a massive faux pass as she was voted out of the house first. The odds have swung dramatically for some of the celebrities since the show first aired 12 days ago and here is the latest betting round-up for the 10 celebrities left in the house.
Chantelle Houghton 10/11
Despite being rumbled by three housemates about her non-celebrity status, Chantelle was deemed to have passed her task. How ironic that a non-celebrity can win Celebrity Big Brother, but, given the past line ups, it is arguable this has been going on since the series began. Chantelle has the characteristics a woman needs to do well on Big Brother: blonde, has no discernable talents and is blissfully thick.
Samuel "Preston" Preston 11/4
Preston is a self confessed Big Brother fan and knows what is required to stay the course: be a bit of a "jack the lad", keep your head down and make sure the attention is on you when a bit of pretend romance is involved. Gullible Chantelle is the object of his feigned love interest. Perhaps he sees them as the Celebrity version of Maxwell and Saskia, but without the obnoxious behaviour?
Maggot 9/1
Has been a disappointing character since entering the house and has been devoid of all Welsh, chavtastic behaviour synonymous with his band, rappers Goldie Looking Chain. All he does is sit around and nod like a dog when somebody slags off somebody else.
Michael Barrymore 14/1
Has seen his odds slump from 3/1 favourite to 14/1 following a week of abhorrent, self-pitying behaviour. Barrymore looks tired, old and must be wondering whether entering the house was a wise decision. An altogether unpleasant character, but unfortunately one who still has a large enough fan base to keep him in the game.
Traci Bingham 16/1
The classic Stepford wife but in this case, she is for real. Traci is immaculate at all times and is always cheerful and positive. There is clearly some sort of history with her and Dennis and this could be explored further - a far more interesting proposition than the Chantelle / Preston non event.
Pete Burns 20/1
Has wit as dry as the Sahara even if he does look like Lily Savage's less attractive younger sister. Like the two-bob diva he is, he has threatened to walk out of the house because of a lack of cigarettes. However, prima donna's like Burns only flounce around threatening to walk without actually doing so. It is his own fault as he failed to hold on to a plant and talk to it every 15 minutes. He missed a trick there, the plant could have been the best source of conversation he has had all week.
George Galloway 33/1
"Gorgeous" has been "milking" the attention for all its worth this week when acting like a cat in a bizarre task with Rula. The politician purred and licked imaginary milk from her withered hands. Is he bringing politics to an audience other MPs cannot reach or is he just humiliating himself in an attempt to boost his ego?
Rula Lenska 33/1
After slating Jodie for her "sexy" antics, the ageing former Mrs Dennis Waterman proceeded to give a tacky "mummy" striptease during Traci's Friday 13th themed birthday party. She would have been better off leaving the bandages on.
Dennis Rodman 40/1
Has been portrayed as a mumbling, sex mad perve since Day One but has done little to disprove it since he spends most of his time, well, mumbling and talking about sex. After hounding Chantelle and Jodie, he has now moved onto Faria.
Faria Alam 66/1
Faria is an almost endless source of cheap laughs if you can be bothered to write the jokes yourself. Hilariously, Chantelle chose Ms Alam to confide in about how she wouldn't do anything with Preston because he already has a girlfriend. Aren't we, as a nation, better off since she has been given prime time media coverage? Taking advice on ethics from Faria is like being told how to get a six-pack by Rik Waller.
About the Author
David Walker runs free bets
and UK Poker
websites. A free email course: "Seven Days to Better Betting" is available at both of these websites.
Many of us like to work as an independent professional to manage our time and better use of our talents and skills. Therefore freelance writing has also been popularized in this way. Freelancers are a person who works for a company or a client on each project or contract. The contract-based work need not be a formal contract. It depends on the given project, when the die and the project is completed, then self-employed workers will move to the next project automatically.
After entering the line of freelance writing automatically the individual strengths and weaknesses will come out, and he will be able to know more about his ability. The most crucial writer is to give more information in an article. This can be done only by a few writers, like some of the companies or clients ask the writer to write if you find the written wanting in any respect. This is especially the case for online freelance writers who are supposed to be beginners in this field.
At first it is better to go in small jobs that offer lower salaries. In this case, independent journalist can gain experience and build your portfolio, that will help their future. Through this, you will be able to earn money and gain experience. Some of the advantages of independent writing are as follows:
Flexibility in working hours. Choose a theme according to your schedule and your fitness Payments are based on industry standards. range of different tasks
In order to have a freelance writing job, a writer must be fluent in English, no spelling or grammatical errors. More than this must be some professionalism in the drafting and submission, compliance with the requirements of customers and the research team. While writing a standard format must be followed. Some suggestions for dealing with the editor are:
The declaration of principles should impress the editor to continue reading more. Best research has to be done before starting a topic. Take responsibility for completing and submitting the issue as soon as possible. Cross verification before shipping the item. This assures correct mistakes if any. Try to communicate properly in the article and it must be relevant.
There are many kinds of freelance writing. They are Business Writing, Blogging, Content Writing, Writing, Critical Writing, Essay / writing nonfiction, fiction writing, ghost writing, the grant proposal and Drafting Journalistic Writing, Writing poetry, writing, writing, speech writing, technical writing, writing and Web.
As a freelance writing is a good opportunity to work from home, the initial costs are very low and entry is easy. This business has become an explosion at the prevailing market conditions. At first the amount earned will be less, but when the person is placed in the right place and find their specialized area so he can earn better. After getting the training and experience in this business is an excellent opportunity to work from home.
There is an age old saying that everyone has a novel in them – well now’s your chance to write yours and get paid for it! If that sounds farfetched you need to read on, for many people are making good money by writing fiction, and you really could be among them!
Of course, much of what is written makes no money at all and does not get published, but there are some secrets you can learn that will help you to make money by writing for yourself. The first is that the internet is a vital resource – it’s the very lifeblood of the freelance fiction writer!
One area you may want to look at is that of ghost-writing; this is where you write for another person whose name goes on the work, yet you get a neat payment for doing so. Check out some of the freelance writing websites that are prevalent on the internet and you will find many requests for ghost-writers that may be of interest.
Further areas include writing film scripts, an area that many people who find they have not the inclination to write a novel or short story aim for. You may have an idea in your head that you believe lends itself to film treatment: one method of finding out more is to look for local creative writing clubs in your area, for the experience of others is absolute gold dust to those looking to write for the first time.
Writing comes from the heart to many, and from the head for others – whichever you are you need to remember that it is originality and interesting tales that keep the readers interested. There are many websites where you can publish fiction for the first time in order to gauge a reaction from readers – there is nothing like a critic to bring you down to earth – and a wealth of writing clubs and writer’s magazines that you can subscribe to. Being part of a network is essential, as it means others can give you a decent appraisal of your efforts.
Writing fiction for money is a genuine opportunity, yet the patience that comes with waiting for the first opportunity can be too much for some; keep at it, and don’t expect instant responses, and you will find you forge a path to writing fiction for money.
About the Author
What if the difference between this morning and this evening was $100 more in your bank account, from only writing 2-3 pages of text? Click here to read more at www.howtomakemoneywritingonline.com
A review of the film gives an indication of the existence of other film is worth Take a look. The purpose of the examinations of most of the film is to help the reader to determine if you want to view, rent or buy the film. The review must also give enough details about the film so that the reader can make a decision until the day on whether to see the movie or not. At the same time, review should not reveal much of the essential plot of the story.
In this article we will discuss the guidelines to follow when writing a review of the film. Before starting to write a review, the writer should remember the following:
- Selection of the film - Knowing the context of the film, as is the director, actors, history and more - The formulation of the opinion writers in a single sentence - Scene Selection Special film or other facts that support the opinion of the writer.
The first step in writing the review is to see the movie. Most movie reviewers take notes while watching the movie. Watching the movie a second time helps to absorb much more detail about the film. Most movie reviewers give personal opinion of the film in his review. In all good journalism, the reviewer must always give impartial details, and let the reader make your own opinion as well.
reviewer's opinion should be explained to the reader to determine whether readers agree or disagree. The reviewer also must consider the audience. Writing a review of the film for children requires a different approach than if writing for an audience of cinema in general. The review should always be written keeping of the target audience in mind. The main essence of the film should be kept in a sketch outlined - but must always be remembered not give any important details as a surprise or a sudden twist in the plot.
Details of the actors, crew members, advisers must be mentioned in the review. Also should be mentioned how well they have performed and how well the film has made it technically. The technical aspects are an important part of the review of the movie. Technical aspects include art direction, music, lighting, editing, cinematography and many more.
Movie reviews even include some critical, if necessary. The critics say that what could have been done to make the film better or what are the weaknesses of the film are. Although critical analysis is not always necessary, one or two words can serve the purpose of a movie review.
Conclusion
A critic must always remember to give a general idea of all time, but give no details have surprises or special essence of the film. It should be incalculable for the audience to watch the movie. The review of the film should be written keeping a note of the types of readers who would be reading the review. Language, presentation and technical details of writing also depends on the types of readers. The means that the review will be published is also important because if the journal is published on the net, the reviewer will mostly young readers. However, if you are published in a local language in a local newspaper, the approach should be different.
Deuteronomy 34 The death of Moses "It has never arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses - a whom the LORD knew face to face. "(Deuteronomy 34:10)
So read the final verses of Deuteronomy, ending the saga of one of the Bible greatest heroes.
I know you all want to be more like Jesus, but I can say that, as a younger man in particular to be more like Moses I have done very well.
Moses is an impressive figure. Obviously, my perception has been influenced by the immortal portrait in the classic Charlton Heston Hollywood "The Ten Commandments." Still, however you look at Moses, he was a giant of a man.
Moses parted the Red Sea. He brought the plagues upon Egypt. He challenged the kings and talked with God as a man speaketh to his friend. It is an impressive figure.
And, we are told here that not only was he was an imposing figure in his youth, but he was still an amazing model of humanity in his old age! In fact, the writer says that at the age of 120, the eyes of Moses was not attenuated (ie not need glasses) and that its "vigor had not diminished.
That's my translation. The original Hebrew word for vigor, "Lahor" actually means that, at 120, Moses was ... well ... being perfectly capable of fathering children!
Oh, to be like Moses - to have that kind of vitality and health! I'm only half his age and, as I hate to admit it, my eyes are deteriorating rapidly!
Moses is an impressive figure. It was also a very human figure. He gets angry - so angry, in fact, that defeats an Egyptian slave-driver to death. He is depressed too, and his confidence failed him to the point where you have to pray to God to Aaron speak on his behalf, because they simply do not feel able to talk directly with the pharaoh.
And he sins! In fact, we are told that commits a grave sin (recorded in Numbers 20) when it makes out as if he and Aaron, who are magic responsible for the production of water from a rock to quench the thirst of the people.
That sad event is undoubtedly the scene of this place of death here in Deuteronomy 34, Moses' death at this point in the biblical drama is a part of God's view of him as he is dying before you make your dream come to the Promised Land!
In Deuteronomy chapter 34, the people of Israel is on the verge of seeing all his dreams fulfilled. They are on the border of the Earth Promised, and are in line and ready to move in. But Moses has not been invited to join them. Why not? Apparently because of this serious event occurred years earlier!
It is a strange point to the story of Moses to the end. On the other hand is a strange place for the book of Deuteronomy to the end. For the end of the book of Deuteronomy is like the end of the first part of the great biblical trilogy, and ends with everything unresolved!
I would suggest you that the Bible as a whole is a kind of trilogy.
Part 3 of the trilogy is the one we are most familiar with - the story of Jesus and the Apostles, as presented in the New Testament.
Parts 1 and 2 of the trilogy can be found in our Old Testament, with a part for the first five books of the Bible - Genesis to Deuteronomy - and Part 2, the rest.
The technical name for these first five books of the Bible is the Pentateuch "(from the Greek word for" five ") while Jews refer to this collection as "the law" or "Torah."
Whatever you call them, has long been recognized that these five books form a kind of unified whole, and it is likely that these five books were originally published together as the first edition of the Bible!
In the second book Kings, chapter 22, not recorded a story of how Hilkiah the high priest found the book of the law in the temple, and, presumably, the book is This collection - what we now call "the Torah" or "Pentateuch." It is this collection of the first five books - the Bible in its first installment.
Now, once we understand this, however, does not it seem even more strange that the book of Deuteronomy must conclude here, one step away from the Promised Land?
The river has not been crossed. The promised land has not been introduced, and Moses is dead. What a strange place to end a biblical book, let alone the Bible as a whole, if only in its first edition! Why not include the writer happy ending to this saga?
Imagine a detective novel ending with "so inspector as you can see, the only man who could have done that just sits there. So with that, said Inspector Clueso finger ... THE FINAL "
You can not do that, right? Can not write a story that ends with everything left in the air!
Now I can not remember how Cecil B. De Mille finished "The Ten Commandments." I tried to do some research on the Web, but in reality does not go as far as the rental of the film to see it again just to see the end.
Still, I'm pretty sure that there is no way that Hollywood can make a movie on the movement of a people from slavery into the Promised Land and ended with people who are wandering in the desert and Moses died! And yet this is exactly what the writers of the biblical drama have.
Why did not the author of Deuteronomy add another chapter, highlighting the river crossing the Promised Land. Or why the compilers of the Pentateuch not make it a Hexateuch, adding a sixth book - the book of Joshua, who must have been circulating at the time - tells the story of the Israeli occupation of Canaan?
No. The first part of the biblical trilogy will end here, where everything is still unresolved. The Promised Land is just ahead, but nobody has come!
I guess this is not accidental. In fact, I guess it was deliberately written In this way, and I think that is crafted in this way because it is true that our experience.
It is true that our ancestors in faith he went to that promised land, and made feasible to establish a community there, but it is equally clear, I think, than ever his life in Canaan very height of the view that Moses had for them.
Life in the Promised Land never quite live up to its promise.
If you are familiar with the original vision, not only that given to Moses, but, given to Abraham, where the borders of the Promised Land are assigned very specific place of many generations, you may already know that the people of Israel never made enough borders. No, at any time in its history did they reach the size of the Promised Land that was originally promised to them!
And not just a question of quantity, of course, but quality. The idea that people would really just founding a community, where they would live in harmony with their creator real and each other, never seemed quite to be realized.
And so the writer of Deuteronomy, and the compilers of the first edition of the Bible, at the end no history with the reality of daily life in Canaan, but with the vision of Moses, looking from the top of the mountain, which provides for the Promised Land must and still could be, rather than what it was!
That's where readers of this first edition of the Bible were found - in the promised land, but still far from the promises. And so rather than give up the conclusion of this first edition of the Bible encourages them to continue to look forward to what still can and should being and will be!
He said that the Pentateuch is like part 1 of the biblical trilogy. I guess if you look at it this way, you can not imagine all that is solved in Part 1, but the curious thing is that the biblical trilogy part 2, to the very same account unresolved part 1, even at the end of Part 3, things still have not really joined!
If Part 1 ends with Moses on the mountaintop, looking ahead, part 2 ends with the prophets in search of a representative appointed by God, to put it all together. In Part 3, he comes, and kills, and rises, and the ends of the New Testament book of Revelation, where there is still wars and pain everywhere, and where we are still waiting for the new world that is just around the corner!
In a sense, you could end each one of the great chapters of the Bible with this big question that you get your children every time you pass into a long trip:
"Are we there yet?" "No"
"Are we there yet?" "No"
"Are we there yet?" "No"
"Are we there yet?" No, not yet, but we can see the destination ahead!
What does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says? "No, do not yet see all creation in subjection to God properly, but we see Jesus "(Hebrews 2:10).
We're not there yet, but we have been at the top of the mountain and we've seen.
We are not there yet, but we know what will be. We have a sure sense of where we go. We know enough about to know that our destiny will be worth the wait. We have been in the top of the mountain. We have seen the promised land! But not there yet.
We glimpse the Promised Land every time we go in that sense of harmony with God and each other that we find in prayer, singing, in the Eucharist.
We have a taste of it here in our fellowship - an idea of what it feels like to be part of a community where no matter if you're black or white, educated or ignorant, straight and homosexuals, men or women. As we build the Christian community, we see with increasing clarity the new world to come.
In every miracle that takes place in each act of love and sacrifice shown to the needy ... I see it in our Youth Center. I hear it in our choir. I can even try to share coffee together after worship. It's a look, a note, an advance that true community - the new world to come. No, we're not there yet, but we have been at the top of the mountain. We've seen the promised land.
Moses was a great guy - a leader of a nation, a miracle worker, a friend of kings and God. It could not be like him in many ways, but we can join him at the top of the mountain, and we inherited his vision - to a community of people truly at peace with God with their world and with others.
I have heard that the opening of Disneyland, many years ago, a Disney executive, expressed disappointment that the man behind it - Walt Disney - had not lived to see the opening. One of Disney's old friends turned to him and said, "Oh, he saw it good! That's why we are here! "
Help us to understand, Lord!
When politicians and drug lords and barons media seem to rule this world, we lift to the top of the mountain, so we can see the new world to come.
When our friends and family let us down when we have disappointed and when our dreams are broken, got us there next to Moses, with a vision of a new day dawning.
When we are no jobs, no health and no luck, when we feel betrayed, beaten, empty, raises us, Lord! Lift us to the mountaintop so we can see the promised land!
No, we're not there yet, but with Moses and the prophets and all those who have preceded us in faith, we been at the top of the mountain. We have seen the promised land! And so we pray with assurance, "Thy Kingdom Come!"
About the Author
Rev. David B. Smith
(the 'Fighting Father')
Parish priest, community worker,
martial arts master, pro boxer, author, father of three www.fatherdave.org
Get a free preview copy of Dave's book,Sex, the Ring & the Eucharist when you sign up
for his free newsletterat www.fatherdave.org
Disney screenwriting fellowship winner talks about screenwriting
Jesus was a historical figure. Modern historians and scholars agree. That tells us something, but not a whole lot. Davy Crockett was a real man too. But books, movies, and television shows turned the real man into a legend. How about the story of Jesus? Did the Gospel writers take the real man, Jesus of Nazareth, and embellish him with such things as a virgin birth, miracles, sinless life, voluntary martyr's death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven?
Many will tell you today that is exactly what happened. Doesn't that appear to be the most reasonable explanation? Those "added features" seem unnatural; they seem out of place. They certainly aren't the rock-hard reality you and I encounter everyday.
At least on the surface, it sounds like these four writers created a myth, a legend, The other side says, "No." Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not myths; they are not legends; they are factual accounts of what actually took place. As you can see, the issue here revolves around one very important question, namely: How reliable are the Gospel reports on this historical figure?
For the past three hundred years, the best and brightest scholars have mulled over that very question. As they see it, Jesus is an enigma. On one hand, they admire the depth and sanity of Jesus' moral teachings. The Jewish carpenter taught moral truths in their simplest and purest form. No one before or since has expressed them so well or with so much authority.
His teachings do not come across as sloppy idealism. Just the opposite. His words have the unmistakable ring of wisdom and shrewdness. Such insights into life and human nature must have come from an exceptionally sound and intelligent mind.
There is wide spread agreement on that score. But then again, what do we do with those grandiose claims of Jesus? He said he is the Son of God! Could a man with a sound mind say that about himself? And we keep running into miracles, including raising the dead; and he himself was reported as resurrected from the grave. And of course there is also the virgin birth. Does not the inclusion of supernatural elements make the entire story questionable?
Those who sought a rational explanation thought over the possibilities and concluded Jesus the Moral teacher was the real thing. His words rang true, so that much of the gospel story they accepted. However, no written account of the life of Jesus existed for a hundred years or so after his death. Word was passed down orally from one generation to the next during those formative years, and exaggerations seeped in.
You know how it is when stories are passed around. A little enhancement here, a little tinkering with the details there, and before long you've got a story all out of proportion to that of the original. By the time Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were put on paper, tall tales were well established parts of the story.
Consequently, what we call the New Testament is nothing more than a mixture of truth and error - a bit of first century reality intermingled with generous portions of second or even third century nonsense.
However, we now realize the Late-date-for-the-Gospel theory was flawed from the beginning. The case for it was not based on evidence. It was mere speculation, speculation to allow sufficient time for the legend surrounding Christ to develop. The facts involved tell us a different story. What evidence we can muster tends to confirm early dates for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Papias and Irenaeus Discredit Late Gospel Theory
In A.D. 130, Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, quoted The Elder (the apostle John) as saying that Mark accurately recorded Peter's statements regarding Jesus' actions and words. Since Mark had not personally witnessed the events, however, they were not written in chronological order. On the other hand, Mark was scrupulously faithful to Peter's teachings. Nothing added, nothing omitted.
As you can see, Papias strongly endorses the book of Mark. The sequence may be wrong, but, he assures us, these are the very words of Peter.
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lugdunum (what is now Lyons) in A.D. 177. He was a student of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who was burned at the stake in A.D. 156. Polycarp in turn was a disciple of the apostle John.
Irenaeus informs us that, "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their deaths (Paul somewhere between A.D. 62 and 68 and Peter about A.D. 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke, follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord himself, produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."
Papias agreed saying, "Matthew recorded the 'oracles' in the Hebrew tongue." All the early church leaders say the same thing, namely, Matthew was the first written Gospel. When was it written? Irenaeus indicates it was probably produced in the early A.D. 60s. Mark's Gospel followed Matthew, Luke wrote third, and John composed his narrative some time later.
Notice the real significance of Irenaeus' comments. None of the Gospels ever went through a series of oral hand-me-downs. He assures us the apostle Matthew wrote his own account of what he had seen and heard. Likewise, the apostle John produced a manuscript of what he himself had witnessed. The apostle Peter preached. Mark wrote down his words, and wrote them down accurately too, according to Papias. By the same token, Luke recorded what he heard directly from Paul.
Irenaeus was only the second generation from the apostle John. In time and in acquaintances, he was very close to the facts. He said the only oral tradition in Mark is what Peter told Mark; the only oral tradition in Luke is what Paul told Luke. In Matthew and John, the oral tradition was not a factor at all.
Oral Tradition
But what about the oral tradition anyway? The first century was an oral society. Yes, they did have writing, but it was primarily a spoken word tradition instead of a paper based society like our own. We do not depend on our memories as much as they did in the first century. We write it down and refer to it later, or we look it up on the computer. It's easier that way.
But before the age of the printing press, books or scrolls were too expensive for the average man to own. Whatever one needed or wanted to know, he had to carry around in his head. That required a good memory.
A Jewish rabbi of the period remarked, "A good disciple is like a well-built cistern: he does not let a drop of water fall from his master's teachings." Jesus' disciples were no doubt equally diligent in preserving the words and deeds of their master -- all the more so because they had good reason to believe he was the Messiah, the Holy One from God.
Gospel Authorship and Dating
Gospel of Matthew
The Gospels themselves contain a number of clues giving us a rough idea of when they were written. Matthew is a good example. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing this work to Matthew, the tax collector who left his job to follow Jesus. His occupation required him to keep records, so it doesn't surprise us that he had the ability to write.
We find his Gospel had a distinctive Jewish style and character. According to both Papias and Irenaeus, the first edition was written in the "Hebrew tongue." It is a Jewish book written by a Jew for a Jewish audience.
The author starts by tracing Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, the patriarch. Throughout his narrative, Matthew is constantly pointing out how Jesus is fulfilling this or that Messianic prophecy. His goal is to convince Jews, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God based on documents they consider beyond reproach.
Matthew feels no need to explain Jewish customs, which is reasonable if he is addressing Jewish readers. Also he uses such Jewish euphemisms as "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Father in Heaven." Jews were reluctant to even mention the name of God. Consequently, these terms were common substitutes in their vocabulary. And what could be more Jewish than to speak of Jesus as the "Son of David?"
The exclusive Jewish character of Matthew suggests the book was composed shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, a time when the Christian movement was almost entirely Jewish.
In his 1996 book Eyewitnesses to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels, Carsten Peter Thiede, A German papyrologist, analyzes three small scraps of Matthew chapter 26 from Magdalen College at Oxford University.
He found several ancient documents which were comparable in both style and technique: the Qumran leather scroll of Leviticus, dated to the middle of the first century; an Aristophanes papyrus copy of Equites (The Knights), dated late first century B.C. to early first century A.D.; and incredibly enough, an Egyptian document actually signed and dated by three civil servants July 24, 66.
Based on these close comparisons, Thiede concludes that the three tiny fragments of Matthew chapter 26, known collectively as the Magdalen papyrus, date no later than A.D. 70. As we have already noted, both Irenaeus and Papias claim the original Matthew manuscript was in Hebrew. Obviously, the Hebrew original must have predated this papyrus Greek translation.
Gospel of Luke
Perhaps the least controversial author of the Gospel writers is Luke. Most agree that the physician and sometimes traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, that is, the Gospel of Luke.
That book is a companion volume to the book of Acts. The language and structure of the two manuscripts indicate they were written by the same person. And they were addressed to the same individual -- Theophilus. Luke's authorship is supported by early Christian writings such as the Muratorian Canon A.D 170 and the works of Irenaeus in A.D. 180.
Luke appears to be a well-educated gentile. His writings show he is fluent in Greek. At times his style even approaches that of classic Greek. Both of his books are rich in historical and geographical detail. As others have observed, this physician writes like an historian.
Luke tells us that a number of people had already written about Jesus' life. However, he would like to set the record straight and correct the errors he found in those early reports. To separate fact from fiction, Luke conducts a personal investigation interviewing eyewitnesses and verifying oral accounts with the apostles. In his own words, he investigated everything from the beginning to write an orderly report for Theophilus so that he could be certain of the things he had been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)
Indirect evidence suggests Luke wrote Acts in the early A.D. 60's. Acts is a history of early Christianity which was centered in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem's destruction which occurred in A.D. 70.
Likewise, nothing is mentioned of Nero's persecution of Christians in A.D. 64, nor does it tell of the martyrdom of the three major characters in the book: James, brother of Jesus, A.D. 62; Peter A.D. 64; and Paul some time between A.D. 62 and 68.
On the other hand, Acts does inform us of the deaths of two less prominent figures: Stephen, the first known martyr, in A.D. 36, and the apostle James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, in A.D. 44. Based on this indirect evidence, there is reason to believe Acts was composed in A.D. 62 or earlier. Acts is an obvious continuation of the Gospel Luke. So if Acts were written by Luke no later than A.D. 62, the Gospel of Luke was most likely recorded before that time, presumably in the late 50's.
Carsten Thiede speaks of a codex papyrus of Luke's Gospel located at the Bibliotheque in Paris. After evaluating the original document, the papyrologist decided it was from the first century A.D., only slightly older than the Magdalen Papyrus.
Later Embellishment Theory
Before we leave Luke, there is another item which needs to be mentioned. Skeptics, you will recall, believe that all of those miraculous events were just fictitious inventions tacked on to the original writings hundreds of years later. Luke discredits their "later embellishment" theory.
In Acts 2:22, he quotes Peter's sermon to the Jews at Pentecost: "Men of Israel, hear me. Jesus of Nazareth was singled out by God and made known to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did among you through him." Peter followed that up with: ". . . you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead . . . . God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact . . . . God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:23-24, 32, and 36)
Peter said in effect: You yourselves saw Jesus perform miracles. That wasn't just a man you crucified. That was your Lord and Christ. What's more, that Man did not stay dead. God brought him back to life. We know that for a fact. We have seen him with our own eyes; heard him with our own ears; why, we even ran our fingers over his crucifixion wounds. He's alive. And he's back!
The interesting point here is how the crowd reacts. If modern skeptics were right, that is, those incredible supernatural events never really happened, we would expect the crowd to say something to the effect: Who are you kidding? That man never performed any miracles! And he's dead. We saw him die. Forget him, Peter. Go get a life of your own.
But they didn't say that. Instead: "They were cut to the heart and said: 'Brothers, what should we do?'" (Acts 2:37) They had seen Jesus' "miracles, wonders, and signs" and Peter used that knowledge to convert those Jews to Christianity.
Something else. Notice that Peter doesn't shy away from Jesus' resurrection. In fact, it is the focal point of his speech. Remarkable isn't it? Three thousand of those listening to Peter's words accepted the apostle's eye witnessed account. We read, "Those who accepted (Peter's) message were baptized and about three thousand were added to their number that day." (Acts 2:41)
Peter, John, and Paul all made good use of firsthand evidence in their writings. Peter said: We didn't make up stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
John reads: We tell you what we have seen and heard so you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3) John is talking about himself when he referred to the witness of Christ's death: "We know this is true, because it was told by someone who saw it happen. Now you can have faith too." (John 19:35 CEV)
Also Paul, in speaking to Festus and King Agrippa, tells them that Christ did exactly what Moses and the prophets said he would do, that is, he suffered, died, and was raised from the dead. Festus immediately questioned Paul's sanity. But Paul responds: "What I am saying is reasonable and true. The king is familiar with these things and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:25-26)
Again, notice the reaction. The interesting thing here is what King Agrippa did not say. He didn't say: That's the craziest thing I've ever heard of Paul. It has been my experience that dead people tend to stay dead!
That's exactly what we would expect Agrippa to say, unless, unless he knew something out of the ordinary had taken place. Paul made three startling claims here: First, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy. Second, Jesus was resurrected from the grave. And perhaps ever more extraordinary, Paul himself claims to have seen and heard the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Amazingly enough, King Agrippa doesn't laugh at, ridicule, or get angry at Paul's "outrageous" claims. Apparently, Agrippa didn't find the remarks outrageous. He merely replies, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" (Acts 26:28)
Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark was very likely composed in A.D. 50's or the early 60's. According to early church tradition, Mark was written in Rome where Peter spent the last days of his life. Romans crucified Peter upside down in A.D. 64.
Mark seems to have been written for a gentile audience, possibly a Roman audience. Unlike Matthew, he explains Jewish customs and translates Aramaic words for his readers. Also Mark shows a special interest in persecution and martyrdom - subjects of crucial importance to Roman believers of his day.
Mark's work was readily accepted, and it spread rapidly throughout Christianity. Some believe the reason it was distributed so quickly is because it originated in Rome.
A papyrus scroll fragment of Mark 6:52-53 called 7Q5 was excavated from Qumran Cave 7. "It must be dated before A.D. 68 and could easily be as early as A.D. 50," claims Carsten Thiede.
Although the early church said Matthew was the first Gospel, many today think Mark wrote his account first. They base their judgment on the fact that Mark's book is shorter and much of what he said can be found in the Gospel of Matthew.
Scholars are inclined to say it was more likely that Matthew would expand on Mark's text rather that Mark would condense and leave out parts of what Matthew wrote. Besides, all of what Mark wrote supposably came directly from Peter.
The assumption is that one copied from the other, but independent origins are a distinct possibility. The question remains, why would an original apostle of Christ need to depend on anyone else to tell him what Jesus said and did?
Both writers probably used the same oral tradition for memorized accounts of Christ's sayings and actions. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that these bits and pieces of information had already found their way into writing before Matthew and Mark composed their Gospels. The Gospel writers arranged and shaped those commonly known stories and sayings of Jesus into the more comprehensive narratives which bear their names.
Whichever Gospel was first, there is general consensus that both Matthew and Mark appeared before Luke unveiled his Gospel. That puts the probable dates of both early compositions somewhere in the A.D. 50's. The significant point here is that the period from Jesus' death to the first three Gospels is too short for the introduction of myths and legends.
The virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection were all there from the beginning. Those "incredible" supernatural events were an intricate part of the original story.
Many saw and remembered Jesus' miracles, and over five hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus on one occasion. Early Christianity relied on this common knowledge for recruiting new members. The apostles pointed out that this resurrected miracle worker was both Lord and Christ. As Peter demonstrated at Pentecost, it was a very persuasive argument.
We have taken a brief look at each of the first three Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These books agree in language, much of the material they cover, and in a rough sort of way, the order of what Jesus said and did too. Because of this widespread general agreement, these narratives are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.
Gospel of John
Someone with a lot more patience than I claims that 91 percent of the Gospel of Mark is found in Matthew, while 53 percent of Mark is seen in Luke. But what of the fourth Gospel - the Gospel According to John? What do we know about it?
The apostle John "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is the author. He refers to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" six times without naming the name. He was prominent in the early church, but his name is never mentioned in this Gospel. That is one of the little oddities of his book. "The disciple whom Jesus loved" would be a "natural" if somewhat coy way of referring to himself if John were the author. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain.
The Gospel of John has a number of personal eyewitness touches such as recalling the fragrance of Mary's pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus' feet in the house at Bethany. And then there is the episode of Jesus writing in the dust with his finger when they brought him the woman caught in adultery.
C.S. Lewis points out that the significance of this "dust writing" is the fact it has no significance. If it were a tale, it would be the mark of a realistic prose fiction which never actually existed prior to the eighteenth century. To quote Lewis: "Surely, the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it."
Two early Christian writers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, both claim that John the apostle composed this Gospel and the internal evidence concurs. Traditionally, it has been dated around A.D. 85. More recently, some scholars have suggested an earlier date, even down to the 50's and no later than the 70's. One bit of internal evidence is John 5:2, where John uses the present tense "is" rather than "was" for a pool near the Sheep Gate. That implies a time before A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.
In 1935 a small fragment of the Gospel of John was found and dated at A.D. 125. It is called the John Ryland Manuscript. One side quotes John 18:31-33, and the other sides shows verses 37-38. The importance of this find is hard to overstate, because it helps to confirm the traditional date of this Gospel in the first century. Before this discovery, there was a movement among scholars to place the original composition date around A.D. 170.
Textual Criticism
There is an academic discipline called "Textual Criticism." When the original document is lost, textual critics compare all available copies to try to piece together what the original document probably said. In general the more manuscripts available and the closer they date to the original, the better. The New Testament scores well on both points.
New Testament books provide a wealth of material for the text critic scholars to evaluate: 5,147 ancient manuscripts, over 10,000 translated scripts into Latin Vulgate, and numerous other translations, plus a large assortment of early scripture quotations by the church fathers. Most of the differences in the copies are minor variations such as word order, spelling, grammar, or stylistic details. However, some variations make a difference. The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament lists 2,040 sets of word variations they think Bible translators should consider.
Does that sound like a lot of disagreement? Actually, it represents a very small portion of the New Testament scriptures. But the important point is this: The unanimous opinion among text scholars remains intact; none of the disputed words affect any doctrine of the Christian faith.
Realistically that is the best Christians could hope for. The same textual criticism which analyzes all ancient text confirms the substance of the New Testament text. The ancient text experts tell us the New Testament account we have today is essentially the same message that the authors recorded over nineteen centuries ago.
About the Author
Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.
RSS
US $7.40
![Instant Javascripts With CD ROM] NEW by Martin Webb](http://www.writeelement.com/images/e/130395533589_0.jpg)
![Final Draft 7 Professional Scriptwriting OLD VERSION]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/e/110566555237_0.jpg)
![Final Draft 7 Professional Scriptwriting [OLD VERSION]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/i/41wz2nondIL._SL75_.jpg)
![Final Draft 6 [OLD VERSION]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/i/615J47W6GZL._SL75_.jpg)
![The Screenwriter's Bible: A Complete Guide to Writing, Formatting, and Selling Your Script [SCREENWRITERS BIBLE 4/E]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/i/41RIBuxGftL._SL75_.jpg)
![New DVD A Bugs Life 2 Discs] Includes Digital Copy]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/e/300451253928_0.jpg)
![The Standard Deviants: English Composition [VHS]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/i/51TMKW1D5DL._SL75_.jpg)
![Learning Treehouse: Phonics (4pc) [VHS]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/i/413nRn7en9L._SL75_.jpg)
![English Punctuation 1 [VHS]](http://www.writeelement.com/images/i/51YSNS9EF7L._SL75_.jpg)
