FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-31-2012, 02:50 PM   #11
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya View Post
...We have ONLY fragments of papyrus dated to the second and third centuries. Our oldest extant, relatively complete Bible, is Codex Sinaiticus, dating from the middle of the 4th century....
There is P46 [the Pauline writings] dated by paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

This dating of P 46 which is earlier than the Codex Sinaiticus may be the cause of the confusion [Chinese Whispers] where it is claimed the Pauline writings are the earliest sources when no part of the Canon or Pauline writings have been found and dated by paleography BEFORE C 70 CE.

The dating of P46 [the Pauline writings] from mid 2nd-3rd century is compatible with my theory that the Entire Canon was derived from sources that were composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

My theory EXPECTS that NO books of the Canon will ever be found and dated by paleography or carbon dated BEFORE c 70 CE.

So far my theory is SOLID. I cannot be contradicted unless actual evidence is found and dated.

The Entire Canon is derived from sources that were composed AFTER the Short-Ending gMark was written after c 70 CE.

[color=red] The Fall of the Temple was the event that caused the Jesus story to be written[/cor] so there can be NO mention of Jesus, the disciples and Paul before the Jewish Temple fell c 70 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:17 PM   #12
la70119
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics.
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methinx View Post
Would you guys just glance over this article and post your opinion?

I apologize for picking your brains and thanks in advance for your response.

http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news...-new-testament
because we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries
Really? Everything I've read was that only two MSS were carbon-dated, the gospel of Judas and one of the Nag Hammadi codices; but the canonical gospels and other NT documents were only dated paleographically.

Quote:
(see Wikipedia).
Yes, I saw that. The way the dating paragraph is written, is very confusing. It talks about carbon-dating and paleography, but no mention of which canonical MSS were dated by Carbon-14, if any.
To me, it looks like someone edited it to sow confusion. Abe, was it you?
la70119 is offline  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:26 PM   #13
la70119
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics.
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post


articles like this do more damge then good. its best unread.



when one deals with articles written on uneducation opinions, it taints the mind.
It's not uneducated. People should read it and critique it. It is sourced - some of the sources are more reliable than others. There are some assertions that appear questionable - as there are in most writings.

This assertion is widely made on the internet, but I have my doubts:
Quote:
: From the Greek Soter, savior literally means “one who sows the seed”
Savior derives from the Latin salvare, to save, and is a translation of the Greek soter, but I do not see a connection to "sowing the seed."
Well, it deserves to be trashed. A lot of the citations likely don't exist. The ones I tried looking for weren't there, or were in a different place with completely different meanings. This sort of dishonesty should be left to the NTJers and the HJers.

The Greek σωτήρ does mean saviour. It's the Latin soter that means sower. Again, the author of this piece was being dishonest. Now I wonder if the bust of the penis-nosed, rooster-headed "Saviour of the World" and the other bronze researched by Acharaya S were ancient digs at Christianity, conflating the Greek and Latin meanings of homonymic words in two different languages?
la70119 is offline  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:42 PM   #14
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Actually, it is sator that means sower in Latin (as in the Sator square - still close enough for linguistic confusion.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:46 PM   #15
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

The wikipedia section on the dating of NT manuscripts appears to have been added recently by a user called TheTruthWSYF (history)
Toto is offline  
Old 03-31-2012, 04:37 PM   #16
aeebee50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,810
Default

Just because the writer of the article says he is a Dr. does not make his statements any better than anyone else. For some people, it is easy to attack than to just state the facts. Riccardo is too subjective.
aeebee50 is offline  
Old 04-01-2012, 06:28 AM   #17
Invisible 1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The wikipedia section on the dating of NT manuscripts appears to have been added recently by a user called TheTruthWSYF (history)
Wow, it looks like user thetruthwsyf has been putting his own little truth into wiki.

He added this under Biblical manuscript:

Quote:
In fact, the late American biblical archaeologist [[William F. Albright]] stated "every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)."<ref>"Christianity Today", 1963 interview with W.F. Albright</ref>
Although he does say he did to add support to the previous sentence.

But come on, every book? By AD 75?
Invisible 1 is offline  
Old 04-01-2012, 11:50 AM   #18
DCHindley
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

Well, actually, in the right circumstances, the margin of error for paleography can be as small as a decade (these would be 11th century monastic hands). In the 1st to 2nd centuries CE it is about 50 years, and that is only for finds from Egypt, where lots of dated documents have been found whose hands can be compared to. The margin of error for C-14 testing in this period is apparantly between 150-300+ years, if our experience with the DSS means anything.

As for the early dating frenzy (it is as true of some of the Gospel of Thomas and Q scholars as it is for evangelical/fundamentalist Christians), The Magdaline papyrus (p64 specifically, buy from the same mss as p4 & p67) was dated by Carsten Peter Thiede to the middle of the 1st century based on the style of inscriptions from Italy and Greece, not manuscripts (earlier, Y.K. Kim dated p67 to the late first Century).

Scribal hands in manuscripts found in Egypt are closest in the mid 2nd through the early 3rdd century. The early dating is forced in the mss by supposing it originated in Italy in mid 1st century, and was somehow transmitted to Egypt by ship (either as a trade book to be sold in an Alexandrine bookshop, or carried by an individual Christian). Evangelical Christians are anxious to imply that this copy was so early it could have come from the author of Matthew himself and shows definitively that the words of Jesus must have been put to writing immediately after he uttered them! How different is this from Q/GoT critics who want to believe that the sayings of Jesus they contain were written down in the mid to late 1st century, because it confirms their belief that Jesus was a harmless libertine itinerant wisdom treacher around whose legend evil apocalyptic Jews wove the picture we find in the Gospels?

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
... we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries ...
I wish this were true, because it would shut mountainman up. But the datings described at that link are based on paleography. And that article appears to have been written by a Christian apologist who pushes the limit on dating manuscripts as early as possible, while describing radiocarbon dating as less accurate than paleography. :constern02:
DCHindley is offline  
Old 04-01-2012, 12:25 PM   #19
sotto voce
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
evangelical/fundamentalist Christians


They can't both be Christians.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 04-01-2012, 01:59 PM   #20
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by la70119 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
because we have a large set of physical New Testament manuscripts that are carbon dated to the second and third centuries
Really? Everything I've read was that only two MSS were carbon-dated, the gospel of Judas and one of the Nag Hammadi codices; but the canonical gospels and other NT documents were only dated paleographically.

Quote:
(see Wikipedia).
Yes, I saw that. The way the dating paragraph is written, is very confusing. It talks about carbon-dating and paleography, but no mention of which canonical MSS were dated by Carbon-14, if any.
To me, it looks like someone edited it to sow confusion. Abe, was it you?
No, it wasn't me editing the Wikipedia page, but I was mistaken about the carbon dating. I had assumed wrongly. Sorry about that.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:03 PM.

Top

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