Vorkosigan

Somebody help this guy. First of all, Ignatius only wrote seven letters, but that’s a minor issue. This guy’s saying that Ignatius showed “no knowledge of the Gospels”, but mentioned “some of the Gospel events”. Hello? He is having is cake and trying to eat it, too. So we’re supposed to believe that the events in the gospels are mythical and they never happened. Somehow, Ignatius mentions some of the gospel events, but he has NO knowledge of the Gospels. If the events were mythical and the only source we have for the myths are the gospels, then how does this guy think Ignatius knew some of the gospel events? Gimme a break. This guy’s talkin’ out of both sides of his mouth. It’s hilarious.

Ooops! See my post above. If the events are mythical, they could have many sources. Or Ignatius himself could be the source. He is the first record we know of outside the Big 4.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Mistake #3: The key other papyri are a few pages dated c.200 with only 2 whole
chapters known before the manuscripts of c.300 and later.

Depending on which textual critic you ask, there are between 40-80 New Testament manuscripts (including books other than the gospels) dating from circa 300 C.E. or earlier, some of the manuscripts include copies of multiple New Testament books. For example, manuscript P45 has sections of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts. It is dated to the third century. P66 dates to around 200 C.E. (or earlier) and contains almost the complete gospel of John. P75 dates to around 200 C.E. and includes major portions of Luke and John. I could go on with further examples, but it is a blatant error to claim that there are only 2 whole chapters from the gospel papyri that date to pre-300 C.E. If you'll provide me with a name of a reputable textual critic that will support the claim made by the creator of the website under discussion, then I'm afraid I'll have to tell you that you're mistaken. You won't find one. Please prove me wrong.

Let's see….

P66, from about AD 200, contains these portions of John's Gospel

• John 1:1-6:11
  John 6:35 - 14:6 and 14:26 and 14:29-30
  John 15:2-26
  John 16:2-4 and 16:6-7 and 16:10-20
  John 20:22-23 and 20:25 - 21:9

You are right. This manuscript appears to contain several chapters of John.

p75, usually dated at 175 AD - 225 AD contains from Luke's Gospel

• Luke 3:18-22
  Luke 3:33-4:2
  Luke 4:34 - 5:10
  Luke 5:37 - 6:4
  Luke 6:10 - 7:32 and 7:35-39 and 7:41-43
  Luke 7:46 - 9:2
  Luke 9:4 - 17:15
  Luke 17:19 - 18:18 and Luke 22:4 - 24:53

and from John's Gospel

• John 1:1 - 11:45 and 11:48-57
  John 12:3 - 13:1 and 13:8-9
  John 14:8-30 and 15:7-8

Those look like a lot of complete chapters to me! I wonder if that is a typo.

p45, about 30 leaves, contains no complete chapter AFAIK, just parts, and the part of Matthew is so tiny that it cannot be said for certain which textual tradition it belongs to.

Good work. I'll email the author.
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/home.html
is home to the Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts Web, BTW, a good resource on these manscripts.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Either the writer of this statement is unfamiliar with the laws of logic, or else they must form their historical beliefs without regard to "historical evidence". Read their statement closely… No evidence exists for Gospel events, BUT yet "some of the background events and persons in the NT are
historical." Huh?

Either the reader of this statement is unfamiliar with the laws of logic, or they must form their beliefs without reference to the world. There exists a whole genre of writing, called historical fiction, in which background events are real, yet major characters and events can be fiction or fictionalized. See the works of James Michener, MM Kaye, George MacDonald Frasier…..

So now background events are not "events"? Somebody needs to help the author of this statement with their logic or grammar. Or maybe they're one of those people who doesn't need evidence to believe things. They just decree which events are historical and which are not.

Or perhaps a desperate need to find anything, anything at all to say. If you have reliable historical evidence outside the NT that there existed a person named Jesus, who was crucified, etc, just bring it on and shut the guy up. But..there isn't any, is there?

So far, you're apparently you've found one error. Can you find us some more actual errors, please, instead of your opinions and misunderstandings?

Michael

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: So far, you're apparently you've found one error. Can you find us some more actual errors, please, instead of your opinions and misunderstandings? Michael

Come on, Michael. Background events are events. Why try to deny the obvious? The author needs to clarify what he means because by the way he’s phrased his comments it sure seems to indicate a contradiction.

You’ve already acknowledged two errors: the manuscript issue and the erroneous number of Ignatius’ letters. Our varying perspectives have shaped our opinions on the other alleged mistakes (i.e. Papias doesn’t name ALL of the evangelists, but he does name some).

I’m not going to waste any more of your time. You are certainly free to continue to believe that the website under discussion is reliable. I respectfully disagree. When a person can’t get basic facts straight that are not subject to interpretation (i.e. manuscripts & the number of Ignatius’ letters), then I tend to be highly suspicious of whatever else they have to say. I thought this was a trait of free-thinkers. Why should this case be an exception?

Peace,

Polycarp

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Polycarp:
Come on, Michael. Background events are events. Why try to deny the obvious? The author needs to clarify what he means because by the way he’s phrased his comments it sure seems to indicate a contradiction.

Why try to deny the obvious? The author clearly distinguishes the events in the Jesus legend from its historical background. I can't believe you find that either difficult or controversial.

You’ve already acknowledged two errors: the manuscript issue and the erroneous number of Ignatius’ letters. Our varying perspectives have shaped our opinions on the other alleged mistakes (i.e. Papias doesn’t name ALL of the evangelists, but he does name some).

Papias gives two names, Polycarp. For all we know, when names were assigned to the narratives we have, those names were borrowed from Papias. We have no evidence to link the names Papias gives us to the documents we have. Nada.

In any case, as I pointed out, that gives us gospels with names at c. 130. That's much too late for your case. As a matter of fact, I think they were all written c. 115-140, although I think there's lots of wiggle room with Mark.

I’m not going to waste any more of your time.

You're not wasting my time. If I thought my time was wasted, I wouldn't converse.

You are certainly free to continue to believe that the website under discussion is reliable. I respectfully disagree.

You may disagree, but you haven't given me any cogent reason to agree with your position. Saying Ignatius wrote 8 letters is a minor problem at best. The claim about papyri is clearly a serious error and you look competely right. Everything else you stated was clearly a misunderstanding on your part. When a person can't even get basic facts right -- like the proper application of deductive logic -- then I tend to be highly suspicious of whatever else they have to say....

When a person can’t get basic facts straight that are not subject to interpretation (i.e. manuscripts & the number of Ignatius’ letters), then I tend to be highly suspicious of whatever else they have to say. I thought this was a trait of free-thinkers. Why should this case be an exception?
Polycarp[/QUOTE]

I assume this is your roundabout way of backing away from your absurd claim that the website is replete with errors.

The thing that pissed me off about both yours and Tercel's comments is that you could have simply and clearly stated "Here's why I don't think this is reliable" and we could be having a discussion that might have illuminated the questions.

Instead, you jumped out with a fantastic and silly claim, that you are now withdrawing, with the usual snide attacks on "freethinkers" to cover your retreat.

It's sad.

Michael

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

TollHouse

Perhaps we should put it in terms that Polycarp better understands...

Ever see that movie Titanic starring teenage sensation Leonardo DiCarpio? Although the story given has a historic background (the Titanic) there really is no truth to the love story between pretty-boy street kid (Jack) and the seemingly wealthy debutaunt (Rose).

Now that you understand this you can better concentrate on the vast array of gross misrepresentations and outright misinformation.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: TollHouse ]

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: The thing that pissed me off about both yours and Tercel's comments is that you could have simply and clearly stated "Here's why I don't think this is reliable" and we could be having a discussion that might have illuminated the questions. Instead, you jumped out with a fantastic and silly claim, that you are now withdrawing, with the usual snide attacks on "freethinkers" to cover your retreat.

I’m sorry to have made you sad. As stated previously, I have no desire to go through the site with a fine toothed comb and pick out every single discrepancy. If I found two errors in the first couple minutes at the site, then how many do you think I’d find in a few hours?

You and Tollhouse are funny. You start out by saying, “Show us the errors”. I show you at least two errors (already acknowledged by all parties) that I found in the first two minutes I spent reading the website yet the two of you cling to your previously held belief that the website is some bastion of scholarly information. It’s not. When I refuse to devote hours to such a silly endeavor as compiling a list of errors I find at a non-scholary website you accuse me of backing down, condeding, or whatever other ridiculous notion you may have. I don't have the time to waste on such pettiness.

You can rest contently and rely on getting information from your favorite internet sites compiled by people who are fans of Earl Doherty and Acharya S and believe the gospels were written 150 years after the events. How is the cutting edge of scholarship these days?

Peace,

Polycarp

Apikorus

The early Christianity chronology web page that Michael cited seems rather tendentiously anti-Christian. For example, it claims that there are no extrabiblical references to Jesus in the first century CE, but this must be wrong because Jesus is mentioned by Josephus.

The web page did briefly mention Josephus, also providing a link to another web page by the same author. But its approach to Josephus seems terribly unscholarly if not outright dishonest. First of all, scholars do not generally reject the so-called Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety. The prevailing scholarly opinion is that this passage (Ant. 18.3.3) contains a genuine Flavian reference to Jesus and his execution, but that it later was interpolated by a Christian writer, who inserted the sentence "He was the Christ" and other details.

Secondly, as is well-known, there are two - not one - references to Jesus in Josephus. The other is in Ant. 20.9.1, a passage describing the aborted stoning of James, "the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ."

Kosh

PolyCarp, here's my view on the thread
having just read it for the first time
(since I haven't joined in, I think I'm
correctly emotionally detached from the
pissing match)....

But, you're plainly backpeddling here,
and this is why....

First you came out guns blazing:

And then lobbed a handgrenade:

Now your stance is:

Basically, you found only one error. The
other, which you insist on counting, was probably a typo. (Hey, look how easy it is
to hit the "8" key instead of the "8" key!)

The rest were obvious reading misinterpretations on your part, as pointed
by others in this thread. However, your
inability to read them clearly, and one
mistake, is a far cry from a
vast array of
gross misrepresentations and outright misinformation.

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.

Vorkosigan

Secondly, as is well-known, there are two - not one - references to Jesus in Josephus. The other is in Ant. 20.9.1, a passage describing the aborted stoning of James, "the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ."

I have no desire to get into yet another debate about the authenticity of Josephus. My view is that the first has some possibility of being an actual reference, but the second is a marginal gloss incorporated into the text, a common accident in ancient times. You're right Apikorus, it would count as a first-century reference -- barely, if we chose to count it. Of course, that is controversial.

Of course, I don't mind if the website is "tenditiously anti-Christian," whatever that means.

Polycarp, you found 1 minor error and 1 major one, out of several of your claims. <shrug>. 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.

BTW, I am still waiting on the author's reply.

Michael