Bede

Hello all (but especially penatis, nomad and singledad)

I hate to attach to the end of a thread this long as I'm bound to end up repeating something. Still, I thought I'd through in my ha'pennys worth on the manuscript thing.

On Christian destruction of manuscripts, yes they did. They destroyed magical texts where their policy was identical to that of pagan Romans (Augustus and other emperors ordered the same thing) and they destroyed heretical Christian texts after 330AD. Such events were always small scale and there is no good evidence at all that any large scale destruction of pagan philosophy or literature took place. Half a point to penatis.

All those first and second century manuscripts are papyrus fragments 99% of which are accounts, legal documents etc. There are just a very very few tiny fragments of actual literature of which nearly all are either Homer or Virgil. Half point to Nomad.

Textual critics do thing they are more sure about the original version of the NT than they are any other ancient work.


I think SingleDad falls into the usual post modern trap when he dismisses the Gospels as fictions. He would also have to accept that we know nothing about Alexander the Great, nothing about Roman history between 180AD and 300AD, nothing about the campaigns of Hannibal etc etc. He may very well think that but only the Journal of Higher Criticism would believe him. That he brings up the example of Gone with the Wind is disappointing. There are Roman novels (the Satyricon and the Golden Ass) recognised as such when they were rediscovered a thousand years later. The same will be true of GwtW. The Gospels are not fiction they are either attempts at history laced with theology or bare faced lies. Also, GJohn is independent by any objective standard. Isn't that enough for you?

On the ding dong about Matt 27. There are no pre 300AD papyrus fragments including it (point to penatis) but it is mentioned by third century fathers in their exhaustive commentaries (point to Nomad).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

I don't dismiss them as fictions, I say you have to rebut the presumption that they are. I offer GWtW as an example of a novel with historical versimilitude but that is nonetheless entirely fictional.

Not having a particular interest in history, it's actually true that I know very little about the subjects you mention, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they all turned out to be fictional. Do we indeed have a but single source and obvious derivations documenting Alexander's existence? Does the one source documenting Hannibal make extraordinary claims (raising people from the dead, curing leprosy, etc.)? Do we have no physical evidence whatsoever that Rome existed between 180-300 CE?

I do know, and I was commenting on, my knowledge of standards of proof, and my assertion that nothing that Nomad (or any other biblical archaeologist) has offered as "evidence" meets even minimal standards to qualify as a credible historical account of something that happened last Thursday, much less 2000 years ago.

Bede: On the ding dong about Matt 27. There are no pre 300AD papyrus fragments including it (point to penatis) but it is mentioned by third century fathers in their exhaustive commentaries (point to Nomad).

I am not sure what the "ding dong about Matt 27" refers to, but if Bede means Matt. 27:52-53, he needs to produce evidence demonstrating the fact that some extant MS dating before ca 350 CE contains those verses, or commentaries about those verses. Also, he needs to produce evidence demonstrating the fact that a Church Father from the third century specifically alluded to Matt. 27:52-53.

Bill Snedden

And now both of them get to read the credits in a style of my choosing...

Hmmm....Japanese monster movie!

(sorry, couldn't resist )

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bede: The Gospels are not fiction they are either attempts at history laced with theology or bare faced lies. Also, GJohn is independent by any objective standard. Isn't that enough for you?

The four narratives may contain historical places, people, and events, but the writers do not always agree with one another. This very fact indicates there are elements of legend and myth in the midst of the individual stories. For the ancients, mythology and legend were "true" enough. Many did not differeniate between objective history and myth and legend; therefore, it is incorrect to limit the possibilities to only these two: "attempts at history laced with theology or bare faced lies." (Unless, of course Bede is using the word "theology" to mean "myth and legend.") For example, is the story depicting George Washington chopping down the cherry tree a bare faced lie, history, a legendary story, or something else? I would suggest a legendary story.

The Fourth Gospel is an anonymous narrative. The statement that it "is independent by any objective standard" is simply Bede's opinion, and many people differ with him. (I challenge him to produce an "objective standard" that demonstrates the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection or ascension to Yahweh. For it is one thing to believe an independent eyewitness who says it is raining, and a totally different thing to believe one who says it is raining African elephants.)

John, thanks for your support and encouragement. And I appreciate your compliments as well. I am not sure I am worthy of such high praise, but I am damned sure glad to hear it.

I should add that I think you did a great job on the 7Q5 issue. I'll try to keep my eyes peeled for more of your excellent, well-argued commentary.

Ron

[Nomad:]
As I said in my reply to Bob, Matthew was writing for a Jewish community that knew the various prophecies (both written in the OT, and recorded in oral histories) that needed to be fulfilled by the Messiah.

[Me:]
So Nomad *admits* that this supposed prophecy fulfillment is nothing more than propaganda?

No. The stories related by Matthew had special meaning to the Jews, but would have had no meaning to the Gentile audiences that Mark and Luke wrote for. I thought I had been clear on this point. My apologies.

[Me:]
Very ingenious. It's the "all things to all people" defense (which is what Paul had claimed he had tried to be). However, this does not apply to the story of King Herod and the killing of those baby boys; if it was intended to evoke a similar story about Moses, then it could also have been told to evoke the story of Romulus and Remus.

[Me: Oral tradition super-good -> the Olympian Gods existing]

[Nomad:]
This is a silly argument. I am not arguing for the theology of the Gospel accounts here, only their historicity....

[Me:]
To me, that's an empty quibble.

[Nomad:]
Experts that examine the historicity of the NT Gospels without theological blinders (like the atheist Robin Lane Fox) for example, admit that the empty tomb was historical.

[Me:]
There are skeptics of the empty-tomb story also. Consider Richard Carrier. Who has a lot to say about cults and kooks and quacks in the Roman Empire.

[Nomad:]
My purpose here was to demonstrate the argument from the silence of Mark is not an argument at all, ...

[Me:]
However, if the non-mentioned event is something that would likely have been mentioned, one has to be suspicious.

[Nomad:]
Also, I note that you did not reply to my point that the Gospels were created when witnesses were still alive, ...

[Me:]
There are serious questions about that.

[Nomad:]
while the Gospels were written within the lifetime of living witnesses and apostles who could easily refute their claims.

[Me:]
Like well after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

[Nomad:]
In the case of John, yes. His Gospel is generally dated as late as 90AD, but the author is a witness himself, so it is not a great concern. In the case of Mark, Luke/Acts and Matthew's Gospels, the case is very good that they were written before this event. So what is the point of your question?

[Me:]
However, Paul's writings are generally thought to be older than the Gospels -- it's interesting that so little of the Gospels have found their way into Paul's letters. And yes, I'm sure that he would have mentioned them if he had known about them; he does mention other parts of the Bible.

[Nomad:]
That the historicity of the Gospels are at least as reliable as any other documents we have about history, moreso I would argue since we do not have anything approaching so many differing accounts of the same events from ancient history (meaning anything that happened more than about 500 years ago).

[Me:]
Still a non-sequitur. As Richard Carrier notes, the evidence for Julius Caesar's activities is *MUCH* better than that of Jesus Christ's.

[Nomad:]
No. But archeology has helped to prove many of his claims, just as archeology, papyrology, paleology and other sciences help to prove the historicity of much of the Gospels.

[Me:]
So that proves that the Olympian Gods not only existed, but ought to be worshipped, right? I wonder when Nomad will sacrifice an ox to Zeus.

[Nomad:]
Are you reading my posts or remaining deliberately dense? Let me help you again. Archelogy has helped to prove many of the things that Homer reported were based on history. Archeology has helped to prove that many of the things in the Gospels also happened.

[Me:]
Like all those miracles? And the interventions of the Gods in the war over Troy?

[Nomad:]
Umm... do you mean the aggressive Christian cult of 30AD-300AD that stamped out all religious competition in the Roman Empire by submitting to persecution? Please study your history before trying to draw comparisons.

[Me:]
What happened *after* it had been made the official state religion.

[Nomad:]
Once again you are making the same mistake that penatis made numerous times in his posts. I asked you a direct question. Your question is not an answer to my own. Please answer my question.

[Me:]
"Stamped out competition by submitting to persecution" is sort of like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?", and for that reason, is not worthy of answer. Christianity did not have much of a chance to stomp out competition until it was made the official state religion of the Empire.

[Me:]
...In fact, if Christianity had been as persecuted as some have claimed, it might not have survived except as an extremely marginal cult, and possibly not even then.

[Nomad:]
Yes, the Romans were notoriously ineffective persecutors weren't they?

[Me:]
That's essentially right. They were rather half-hearted about it; if they had been really serious about it, they would have stamped out this weird cult that denied all gods but theirs, and the only surviving Christians would be those that had fled the Empire.

[Nomad:]
Good thing the Christians taught them how to finally get it right, eh?

[Me:]
Judging from the historical record, yes. Before Christianity was made the official religion, the authorities tolerated lots of weird cults; after that, Christianity was the only religion that was allowed, with the partial exception of Judaism.

[Nomad:]
Please try to remain serious in your posts lpetrich. Propaganda may play to the crowds, but it doesn't help your case much with the thinking classes. Try this, prove your points, and stop with the mindless assertions.

[Me:]
After you.

Yes, sadly I have this tendancy to keep trying to get answers to my own questions before offering answers to the new ones put to me. Annoying habit, but one I can hardly change now.

Of course, we all do this, but when all that is offered in reply is assertions as fact, we end up at quite an impasse eh? Not satisfying of course, but it does appear to be a recurring pattern.

Yeah, this is a temper thing. Most often it crops up from frustration in having to read the same dribble repeated over and over again. I am working on tolerating it better, but not with much success I'm afraid. But with more practice, there is always hope.

Very true. Since my opinions will carry no weight here, I don't see why anyone else's should. Let's stick with what we can prove, and thus far you haven't offered us much. I am still hoping that you will however. Call it the optimist in me.

Actually, no. I directed this at one specific individual. It is hard to tell if he has at this point, but I do think he has.

Try for proofs please, but since I am human, I wouldn't be surprised. I do tend to say a lot, and at times probably overstate my own case (still working on that though, and who knows, I may even become as infallible as you eh? ).

More proofs here. I do not believe that I do this. I would say that at times I do try to help an individual understand why their argument is fallacious, but the results do appear to be mixed. Unfortunately, one can only lead the proverbial horse to the water and all that rot.

Hardly. I like science, but try not to be so completely beholden to its charms.

Yes. Guilty. I think it comes from being right most of the time.

Hmm... I actually don't know if anyone takes my posts seriously or not. I do see that a good number of people do spend a lot of time arguing with me, and some even name threads after me. In a strange sort of way, I guess this is a form of flattery, but I try not to let it go to my head.

Thanks again penatis. It has been a pleasure.

Nomad

P.S. Are you actually going to answer my questions eventually? (And I do hope you won't answer this question with yet another question).

No. Matthew (as a Jew) certainly wasn't interested in Roman legends. He was, however, very interested in Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, so here he was making a reference to the prophet Jeremiah and the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem.

Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."

I see no reason to imagine why Jews would care about the heathen beliefs of the Romans, do you? On the other hand, it does seem quite reasonable to see them being interested in their own prophecies.

Please note my qualifier that the person must be a scholar in the subject, not a well spoken amateur. I would suggest you place your faith in more reputable and true scholars than the very nice, but quite mistaken Mr. Carrier.

And your arguments are? See why I don't put much stake in your beliefs or anyone else's? I think we need a separate thread on this question though. I will start one up soon. Perhaps you can offer your evidence there.

Your reliance on arguments from silence and poor translations of Paul's work is quite stunning. It is no longer surprising (since I encounter it often enough here to know it is common), but it is quite credulous of you.

No it isn't, but that is quite beyond the scope of this thread. On the other hand, perhaps you can offer as many independent biographies on Julius, or any other figure in antiquity? How about in the manner in which he (or any other figure in antiquity) died?

Nope.

Christianity went through tremendous persecutions in the period from 30-363AD, and this included expulsion of all Jewish Christians from the synagogue at least from the early 70's (no small matter to a Jew, since the family then considered the Jewish convert to be dead). Go to JewsforJudaism.com and ask them what they think of Jews who become Christians to this very day, and tell us it is not traumatic to these people.

Here is a sample of a prayer created in first Century Palestine after the fall of Jerusalem. It was a prayer offered by the Jewish leaders against their Christian fellows:

(From the Eighteen Blessings):

Heal us, O God, of the pain of our heart; remove from us sorrow and grief and raise up healing for our wounds.
You are blessed, O God, you who heal the sick of your people Israel.
Proclaim your liberation with the great trumpet and raise a banner to gather together our dispersed.
You are blessed, O God, you who gather the banished of your people Israel.
And for apostates let there be no hope; and may the insolent kingdom be quickly uprooted in our days. And may the Nazoreans and the heretics perish quickly; and may they be erased from the book of life; and may they not be inscribed with the just.
You are blessed, O God, you who humble the insolent."
("The Four Witnesses", Robin Griffith-Jones, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2000, pg. 160)

Attitudes have not changed much since then amonst some Jews, but happily not all of them think like this any longer. Perhaps you would like to take a look at The Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies for a more enlightened attitude on both sides. It is an excellent site.

So in your view the persecution of the Christians wasn't really all that bad. How sad. I cannot compel you to take a more evenhanded view of history of course, but I can wish that you would.

And perhaps you will outgrow your anti-Christian bigotry one day as well. Can you offer any good proofs of your shallow beliefs and reasons for your prejudice?

Obviously you are unfamiliar with Roman practices in persecuting not just Christians, but also the cults of Isis, Mithras, and others as well. And they were very good at it. The latter two, for example, were gone before Constantine converted and gave the Christians the power to do much of anything against them.

I am very serious in many of my posts. I do, however differentiate between those against whom I respond. As of right now, your prospects are not good, but with a more balanced research and opinions, I think you could be a very serious poster here.

Nomad

Bede

Penatis,

First class evidence that John is independent of the synoptics.

What do you think? Care to offer any evidence to back up that opinion?

I decline. I do not and never have claimed that the resurrection is subject to historical proof. The empty tomb, however, as atheist historians Fox and Michael Grant acknowledge, is a historical fact. It definitely falls into the raining category rather than the elephants one.

I was attacking SingleDad's unjustified presumption of fictionality for the entire Gospel. He appears to not believe Jesus even existed which is a really far out idea and not very interesting except as a weird social phenomena that seems to affect atheists.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason