Deus Ex

Which is why I am agnostic.

All we can do is examine the evidence and evaluate whether the stories told are plausible or not. I see the Christian faith as having been kickstarted by Paul. As people began to convert to the many Christianities in the early centuries CE they hungered for more knowledge about this Jesus character who was supposed to be the perfect atonement for sin. From this I think that the gospel stories were born as a type of pious fiction: giving Paul's vague Christ figure a backstory. We definitely see this with the non-canonical Infancy gospel of Thomas that show Jesus as a divine brat. The canonical gospels ignored Jesus' childhood so someone stepped up and wrote some stories. I believe that our canonical gospels came about for much the same reason.

rhutchin

And by your definition of agnostic, you really don't know. In that atmosphere, the logical thing to do is just go with what you have and don't try to make it something it does not purport to be. Let it be what it is and then just read it and understand what it is saying.

spamandham

Faith is really not a very good tool for discerning history.

bacht

No. The problem is that there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion by normal historical analysis.

These endless debates would evaporate if hard proof were discovered either way. At this point the only material we have to work with for the first few generations of Christianity are the Christian texts, and we don't even know when the autographs were written.

avi

No disagreement here.

Unfortunately P52 (Rylands) only contains a very limited verse or two from John, not including 14:28.

P66, frustratingly, is missing 14:28

P75 has both John 10:30,

ε̣γω [και] [ο] [πατ]η̣ρ εν εσμεν

and 14:28,

... [οτι] [ο] π̣α̣τ[ηρ] [με]ι̣ζω[ν] μ̣ο[υ] εστ̣ι̣[ν]

compare this to Hort & Westcott:

... oti o pathr meizwn mou estin

and Byzantine:

...oti o pathr mou meizwn mou estin

To my way of thinking, P75 corroborates Hort & Westcott, and refutes Byzantine.

So, yes, spamandham, you are correct. Invocation of faith was inappropriate.....

Research.
Research.
more research.....

avi

rhutchin

Yep.

rhutchin

So, when you say, "To my way of thinking,..." are you saying, inappropriately, "By faith, I believe..." Did you mean to, and could you, state that "P75 corroborates Hort & Westcott, and refutes Byzantine."

avi

More precisely then, allow me to explain:

P75, in harmony with Hort & Westcott, fails to include "mou", in John 14:28, and thus, serves as an even older version than Codex Vaticanus, attesting to the likelihood that the Byzantine version represents a forgery. Since P75 appears likely to be of third century origin, it still remains possible that a second century version will appear, and in such a case, were it to possess "mou", for this passage in John 14:28, I would then conclude that P75, and the two codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, represented forgeries.

Absent such evidence, I am persuaded that the ink dried from John's quill, without "mou" appearing in the aforementioned text from John 14:28.

avi