FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-09-2001, 10:33 AM   #51
rodahi
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Weslaco, TX, USA
Posts: 137
Post

Apikorus: Michael's web page is erratic and unscholarly. That's not to say it is utterly worthless, but simply that it is of dubious quality.

With all due respect, Apikorus, would you recommend a website which is "scholarly"-- while at the same time gives a detailed NT timeline in a neutral (neither anti-Christian or pro-Christian) manner and contains virtually no errors or controversial information? I think all of us would appreciate it.

Thanks.

rodahi
rodahi is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 11:08 AM   #52
Apikorus
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,396
Post

rodahi, early Christianity is not really my thing. I'm more a Hebrew Bible guy. Generally I don't read much on the web, as I said. A few sites that I have been impressed by:

http://shell5.ba.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/index.shtml
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/index.html
http://religion.rutgers.edu/vri/ (outstanding resource)
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/papyri.html#NTP (NT papyri and codices)

Of course I can't vouch that these are all error-free. But gosh, rodahi, I think that by now it is quite apparent that the timeline which you hastily deemed worthy of committing to memory is in fact rather shoddy work.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]
Apikorus is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 06:28 PM   #53
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by James Still:
One last bit of advice, which happens to be a pet peeve of mine. There is something called "academic charity" in which you try to see your opponent's argument in the best light possible. Suppose Polycarp says, "according to Luke the Capernaum centurion approaches Jesus in person (7:1)." I could jump on my high horse and say "aha Polycarp, you fool! In Luke, the centurion sends elders to speak on his behalf! I guess I can't trust anything else you say either..." The dictates of academic charity suggest that I recognize the mental slip and instead say, "By the way, Polycarp I think you meant 'Matthew' rather than 'Luke' in that statement (Matt. 8:5)." Then, assuming that he meant Matthew rather than Luke, I would go on to make my point or to analyze his argument. We're all human, we make mistakes, and this ain't an academic conference with polished thesis papers. A little bit of charity goes a long way. It also keeps the discussion on track.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Can you please copy the relevant portion of my post to which you are referring?

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 07:02 PM   #54
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp:
<STRONG>[b]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Can you please copy the relevant portion of my post to which you are referring?

Peace,

Polycarp</STRONG>

James was referring to me.

BTW, the author has communicated with me again and said that only p45 and p75 have a complete chapter, and p66 has no complete chapters.

Apparently I was wrong about p45, it does have some complete chapters.

The excellent site Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts

seems to indicate that p66 does indeed contain no complete chapters.

Yes, it's time to go buy Metzger.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 07:20 PM   #55
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
Polycarp, you found 1 minor error and 1 major one, out of several of your claims. &lt;shrug&gt;. Obviously you are unable to make your case of going on all day about errors, and now must retreat. I realize it is difficult for you to admit "I can't actually find all that many errors...."

The fact remains that it is a good detailed timeline. Which is all I ever said it was. I can't recall writing that it was perfect.
I’ll add a few more things which I see as mistakes. How many errors qualify as "all that many" for you ?

80-90
Ephesians - includes a formal little poem that seems to be a climactic prayer from the initiation ritual in the Mysteries of Christos (ch.5:14) :
"Therefore it is said:
Awake O sleeper,
and arise from the dead
and the Christos will shine on you"
This sounds exactly like an initiatory ritual (where had Paul heard it said?). Epiphany means to realise or manifest or have revelation of the divine light



The writer seemingly believes Paul wrote Ephesians (this is against the grain of most NT scholars, but not outside the realm of possibility). What would seem to be an obvious error is the date to which he assigns Ephesians (80-90 C.E.) If Paul wrote Ephesians, as this guy claims, then he didn’t write it between 80-90 C.E. because he was already dead by then.


P45 and P75 are the only two manuscripts before 300 CE with even one entire Gospel chapter.

Do I even need to bring this up again? There's more on this topic, but I'll wait to bring it up after you brush this "mistake" off as a typo or some other excuse.


No historical evidence for Jesus exists (in the first century) (parenthesis added)

NO historical evidence? Surely we haven’t gone so far as to actually believe this. If someone were to claim that there was no historical evidence that John Doe lived and died in 1975, but yet we had someone alive today who says he knows John Doe’s friends (who are still alive), he’d had arguments with Doe’s friends, he’d quoted sayings of John Doe, and explained pieces of John Doe’s life, then we would certainly conclude that there was SOME historical evidence for the existence of John Doe. We might not find the evidence persuasive enough to believe in the existence of John Doe, but we would be dishonest to say that there was “no historical evidence” for the existence of John Doe. You can figure out the analogy on your own.


No historical evidence for the Evangelists or Jesus' followers exists. (in the first century) (parenthesis added)

We have “historical evidence” for the existence of Jesus’ followers found in the writings of Paul: 1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 1 & 2, etc.

No historical evidence for the events in the Gospel (sic) exists. (in the first century) (parenthesis added)

This is getting old. Paul provides some evidence (1 Corinthians 11 & 15, etc) for a few events in the gospels.

In this period Jesus Christos is seen as a spiritual being or Principle. (in the first century) (parenthesis added).

Yeah… A spiritual being that talked to people that Paul knew, ate with them, was crucified and buried, was an ancestor of King David and a teacher.

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 07:39 PM   #56
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kosh:
And now it seems your unwilling to go further. But why do you consider it a
waste of time? If you are a Christian and
are here on the SecWeb, then it must be
for one of two reasons a) you're doubting
your faith and are looking for confirmation
of your suspicions b) you're here to defend
the faith and evangelize the rest of us here.
If b, then it is certainly not a waste of your time to back up your assertions. In
fact, you'd be scoring big points with the
big guy upstairs. And you'd be doing us all
a favor by saving us from the terrible torments of a burning hell.
So, since you've only found one legit
error, are you willing to point out the
plethora of others, or can we consider the
rest of the site to be accurate?
Remember, the site, unlike the Bible, is
not reputed to be "the inerrant word of
God". So there's no reason why we should
dismiss it becuase of one error, if the
other assertions can be backed up by research.
You’ll be pleased to know I have gone further. See my reply to Michael. As to why you’re concerned with my reasons for participating at the SecWeb, I appreciate your caring concern. I mainly post here out of boredom. If the weather sucks or my wife is out of town and I have nothing better to do with my time, then I’ll peek in here to see what’s going on. Other than that, my interest is nil.

I’m not doubting my faith, nor am I attempting to “evangelize” the rest of you. Likewise, I seriously doubt that god has been impressed with anything I’ve ever said here. Let me be the one to unfortunately inform you that your assumptions in this area are false. Likewise, they are false in presuming that I believe the Bible to be “the inerrant word of God”. It sounds as if you’ve been spending too much of your time hanging around fundies. I used to be in the same boat, and you’ll be saddened to discover there are Christians that don’t fit your preconceived notions.

Are you willing to actually provide some arguments against the alleged errors or did you merely make an appearance as the “pseudo-innocent bystander” to scold me for my bad behavior? You play the role well, and there may be a future for you in that particular line of work, but form over substance grows tiring after awhile.

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 07:40 PM   #57
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

The writer seemingly believes Paul wrote Ephesians (this is against the grain of most NT scholars, but not outside the realm of possibility). What would seem to be an obvious error is the date to which he assigns Ephesians (80-90 C.E.) If Paul wrote Ephesians, as this guy claims, then he didn’t write it between 80-90 C.E. because he was already dead by then.

Does he claim Paul wrote Ephesians?

P45 and P75 are the only two manuscripts before 300 CE with even one entire Gospel chapter.

Do I even need to bring this up again? There's more on this topic, but I'll wait to bring it up after you brush this "mistake" off as a typo or some other excuse.


The author says he wrote it badly....no kidding.

NO historical evidence? Surely we haven’t gone so far as to actually believe this.

It all depends on how you interpret Paul...

No historical evidence for the Evangelists or Jesus' followers exists. (in the first century)

We have “historical evidence” for the existence of Jesus’ followers found in the writings of Paul: 1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 1 & 2, etc.


True enough.

No historical evidence for the events in the Gospel (sic) exists. (in the first century)

This is getting old. Paul provides some evidence (1 Corinthians 11 & 15, etc) for a few events in the gospels.


Depends on how you interpret Paul....and on which direction you think the dependence goes. If the gospels are early-mid second century constructions based on a century (or more) of mythologizing, than we have no historical evidence for their events, since they are, in fact, fictions.

In this period Jesus Christos is seen as a spiritual being or Principle. (in the first century) (parenthesis added).

Yeah… A spiritual being that talked to people that Paul knew, ate with them, was crucified and buried, was an ancestor of King David and a teacher.


I assume you mean "descendant." Obviously we can disagree on about whether Paul really thought Jesus was a spirit being, or a real person. I don't want to get into another argument over how Paul et al saw Jesus.

Like I said, it is a good, detailed timeline. You have found a plethora of errors. I salute you.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 07:57 PM   #58
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:

James was referring to me.

BTW, the author has communicated with me again and said that only p45 and p75 have a complete chapter, and p66 has no complete chapters.

Apparently I was wrong about p45, it does have some complete chapters.

The excellent site Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts

seems to indicate that p66 does indeed contain no complete chapters.

Yes, it's time to go buy Metzger.

Michael
Thanks for clarifying James' comments.

I'm afraid this "author" has thoroughly confused you, of no fault of your own. The manuscript site your referenced is a good one, but the column that lists the passages included on each papyrus is terribly confusing to read.

P66 does contain 15 complete chapters of John (1-5, 7-13, and 17-19). I'll type it out in an easier to read format than the Brown University site. P66 contains:

John 1:1-6:11, 6:35-14:26, 14:29-30, 15:2-26, 16:2-4, 16:6-7, 16:10-20:20, 20:22-20:23, 20:25-21:9, 21:12, 21:17.

The manuscript is 156 pages (78 leaves) and the pages are actually numbered. The handwriting appears to be that of a professional scribe. Dates for this papyrus have ranged anywhere from 100-250 C.E., but the majority of critics place it at 175-200 C.E.


Peace,

Polycarp

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]
Polycarp is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 08:07 PM   #59
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
Does he claim Paul wrote Ephesians?

Polycarp wrote: The writer seemingly believes Paul wrote Ephesians (this is against the grain of most NT scholars, but not outside the realm of possibility). What would seem to be an obvious error is the date to which he assigns Ephesians (80-90 C.E.) If Paul wrote Ephesians, as this guy claims, then he didn’t write it between 80-90 C.E. because he was already dead by then.


Turton replied: Does he claim Paul wrote Ephesians?

Yes, he does. Read closely what I quoted. In reference to Ephesians 5:14 he asks, “Where had Paul heard it said?” He obviously is assuming that Paul wrote Ephesians, otherwise he wouldn’t have asked where Paul had heard it.

Let me know how many more errors you'd like me to point out.

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 08-09-2001, 10:17 PM   #60
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Apikorus:
<STRONG>I have read a few of Doherty's essays online. (I had read the Josephus essay before and didn't think much of it.) I was not criticizing him at all, rodahi. What I said was that as a NT scholar he is rather inconsequential. I.e. he is hardly cited by any major scholars, has no credible publication record in scholarly journals, etc. Again, that doesn't mean that he necessarily is a crackpot; on the contrary from what I have read I conclude he is quite well read by the standards of most enthusiasts. But in adducing different historical Jesus reconstructions (or deconstructions, as the case may be), I think one should keep in mind the general "lay of the land". Doherty is an extremist because he claims that Jesus may never have existed.

. . .</STRONG>
Doherty has a classical education but is not part of the educational establishment. He has started to contribute to the
Journal of Higher Criticism.

I don't think that you can compare New Testament scholarship with physics or even a soft social science like economics. An extremist in the field of Biblical studies is not the same as a person with a new perpetual motion machine or a plan to balance the budget by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending.

If you compare Doherty's work with Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament, Doherty does not look like he is that far out of the mainstream. Mack postulates a person behind the Jesus myth who was probably not crucified, and about whom nothing is known. The distance between Mack and Doherty is shorter than the distance between Mack and a conservative fundamentalist who thinks that the Gospels record actual events.

You should also note that Peter Kirby was impressed enough with Doherty's essay on Josephus to revise his own analysis of Josephus.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.