Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 06-09-2010, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The oldest known manuscripts of the NT are :
fourth century : Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus.
fifth century : Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Syriacus (in Old Syriac).

Those are the oldest manuscripts that contain all the canonical books of the New Testament. There are lots of earlier incomplete manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, some of which are from the early third century or, barely possibly, late second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Huon · 06-09-2010, 06:12 AM

I have found an old thread titled :
Please help educate me: What are the evidences for 1st century dating of the gospels?
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=233300
It is fairly long, 11 pages and 108 posts.

yalla, you could look at the quotes of malachi151 (Dr. Robert Price)
and :
post #42 page 5 ! and its answer #46
post #52 page 6 very long quote of Dr. Robert Price
post #53 by Malachi151 = Dr. Robert Price
post #89 page 9 (without answer).

Huon · 06-09-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The old idea that the closer the Gospels were written to the "life of Jesus" the more reliable they are has to be completely thrown out the window. This argument assumes that dating of the writing is the only factor in judging reliability and secondly assumes a real live Jesus.

If Jesus never existed then this argument is moot.

What undermines the credibility of the Gospels is not when they were written, but their content.

Indeed, their content so gravely undermines them that the closer they were written to the supposed life of Jesus the less likely it is that Jesus really existed.

The content of the Gospels is completely not believable as history and is almost entirely based on the scriptures. Take the relationship between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion.

The use of Psalm 22 displays a story based on scriptures, not observation of real events. The farther away in time the writing of this account is from the supposed time of the events the more one can justify the use of scripture to fill in details, but if this account were written within a supposed time that people should be able to provide eyewitness accounts, then the reality of such an event comes more into question.

Not only this, but the repetition of this account calls it even more into question.

Every crucifixion account uses the Markan template. If the Markan template is made-up based on scripture, and these details are not real, then we should expect that if the event really happened, and the other accounts were written withing reasonable memory of the event, and the other accounts were based on some eyewitness account of the event, then they should differ greatly from the Markan account, but they don't.

Everything that the Christians have traditionally used to support their claims actually works against them.

The parallel between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion scene doesn't demonstrate prophecy fulfillment, it demonstrates a fabricated symbolic story and the use of allusion, not observation.

The similarities of all of the accounts doesn't improve the reliability of the accounts, it shows that there were no other observations to go on, thus they all use Marks fabricated account because it was the existing description of this supposed event.

The close that all of this was written to the supposed time of the event the more the reality of the of the event is called into question, not less.

He, he !

yalla · 06-09-2010, 06:55 AM

Huon
As far as I know the evidence for early dating of the synoptics was heavily flavoured by apologetics and a faith in the veracity of the writings of early church fathers.
Legends abound.
For example the author "Mark" is said [and what such a saying is based on is unprovenanced] to have spoken to Peter in Rome and based his gospel on that.
Others say [again unprovenanced] that "Mark" showed his work to Peter who was pleased with it, someone else adds that Peter was in heaven at the time and somehow became aware of "Mark's" gospel and said, via a vision/dream, and thought that it was good.
Legends.
Hearsay.
Written by believers who wanted there to be a direct and early connection between the alleged time of Jesus and the appearance of the gospels.

The rumour grew that "Luke" was the 'dear and glorious' physician colleague of the apostle Paul and apologists pointed to all the medical terms in gospel "Luke' to substantiate that.
But a study of such words by H Cadbury showed that there were as many such words in other contemporary writings that were not written by medicoes.
The joke became that Cadbury received his [academic] doctorate by depriving "Luke" of his.

All these legends that sought to put the synoptics in the 1st century were based on the presumption, unchallenged for centuries, that gospel 'Matthew", written by a disciple of Jesus, was the first gospel.
That was refuted by the discovery in the mid 19th century that "Mark" was the first gospel and that "Matthew" and "Luke' were based on that sometime later.
It also refuted the eyewitness status of "Matthew" because, according to "Markan" priority, "Matthew" would not have copied a non-witness as "Mark' was conventionally believed to be previously.

Joe Wallack has done a lot of work on dating the synoptics here at FRDB.. He has several threads here and they make interesting reading.
Check them out.

I posted the OP because I was struck by the obsolete nature of the material contained in my "old", and its actually younger than me, RSV.

We have moved on since 1952.

I can't help you too much on why the gospels used to be so confidently assumed to be first century because I date "Mark" as the first and put that work late, very late, in the first century possibly, maybe even probably, well into the second.
And the rest come after.

Toto · 06-09-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

I have found an old thread titled :
Please help educate me: What are the evidences for 1st century dating of the gospels?
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=233300
It is fairly long, 11 pages and 108 posts.

yalla, you could look at the quotes of malachi151 (Dr. Robert Price)
and :
post #42 page 5 ! and its answer #46
post #52 page 6 very long quote of Dr. Robert Price
post #53 by Malachi151 = Dr. Robert Price
post #89 page 9 (without answer).

No no - malachai151 is RG Price, NOT Dr. Robert M. Price!!!

mountainman · 06-09-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Those are the oldest manuscripts that contain all the canonical books of the New Testament. There are lots of earlier incomplete manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, some of which are from the early third century or, barely possibly, late second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

And all the early manuscripts, without one exception, have been dated prior to the 4th century by the dramatic art form known as "paleography", otherwise known as "the analysis of the handwriting style". This process of dating is no more than conjectural, and while one may hold a provisional opinion based upon it, one should be also prepared to contemplate the fact that none of these "early manuscripts" are "early".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

If Jesus never existed then this argument is moot.

He, he !

The Historical Jesus postulate assists the additional postulate that we should expect to find evidence for these manuscripts between the Christian Theological Big Bang Event and the fourth century, when what was a previously small, backwater and inconspicuous cult became elevated to the purple and thrust upon the Roman empire in a manner that can only in retrospect be described as utterly fascist.

Without the Historical Jesus Postulate, analysts have no need for any additional postulates about "early dating of manuscripts", since the logical default provides a Christian Theological Big Bang Event in 325 CE.

Biblical Appendices

One cannot go past the Eusebian canon tables, packaged thoughtfully in some of the earliest Greek codices. People needed to understand how the tetrarchy of gospel authors were politically distributed on various issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yalla

I can't help you too much on why the gospels used to be so confidently assumed to be first century ........

You're joking right? There is one fundamental reason and it is called Eusebius whom certain people used to trust implicitly in matters pertaining to the real and very rightfully true history about the authorship of the gospels, and the order in which they were published, and in the subsequent apostolic succession and the Olympic Relay race with the torch of good news featuring the bishops through the epoch ante pacem, and into the waiting arms of the Nicaean Grand Final.

Eusebius tells us clearly that Matthew wrote first.

Quote:

HE, Book 3, Chapter XXIV. --- The Order of the Gospels.

3 Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech.

I wonder which of them invented their standardised nomina sacra?

Quote:

6 For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue,199 and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels,200 they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.201

8 And this indeed is true.

You see !!!
Every word of Eusebius oozes the historical truth.

QUESTION: How can we possibly stand on our own two feet without our Eusebius?
ANSWER: We reject him lock, stock and barrel as the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity, and walk on.

Huon · 06-09-2010, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No no - malachai151 is RG Price, NOT Dr. Robert M. Price!!!

Apologies.

Huon · 06-09-2010, 10:36 AM

The story of Mark being the author of gMark is told by Eusebius :

Quote:

Eusebius Church History Book 2 Chapter 15.
1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon [Magus] was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son."

Now, even the Catholic Encyclopedia is rather dubious : aka = according to...

And when "Peter has a revelation of the Spirit", what does that mean ?
Probably that Peter was no more alive.
The witnesses to this story are Clement of Alexandria (died about 215) and Papias, according to Eusebius. Alexandria and Hierapolis are far from Rome.

Oh, and I forgot this :

Mk 14:66-72 Peter's Denial Mt 26:69-75 Lk 22:56-62

Quote:

14:66And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; 14:67and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. 14:68But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. 14:69And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. 14:70But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean. 14:71But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. 14:72And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

Peter was very happy, indeed...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2010, 06:12 AM	#12
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	I have found an old thread titled : Please help educate me: What are the evidences for 1st century dating of the gospels? http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=233300 It is fairly long, 11 pages and 108 posts. yalla, you could look at the quotes of malachi151 (Dr. Robert Price) and : post #42 page 5 ! and its answer #46 post #52 page 6 very long quote of Dr. Robert Price post #53 by Malachi151 = Dr. Robert Price post #89 page 9 (without answer).

06-09-2010, 06:55 AM	#14
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Huon As far as I know the evidence for early dating of the synoptics was heavily flavoured by apologetics and a faith in the veracity of the writings of early church fathers. Legends abound. For example the author "Mark" is said [and what such a saying is based on is unprovenanced] to have spoken to Peter in Rome and based his gospel on that. Others say [again unprovenanced] that "Mark" showed his work to Peter who was pleased with it, someone else adds that Peter was in heaven at the time and somehow became aware of "Mark's" gospel and said, via a vision/dream, and thought that it was good. Legends. Hearsay. Written by believers who wanted there to be a direct and early connection between the alleged time of Jesus and the appearance of the gospels. The rumour grew that "Luke" was the 'dear and glorious' physician colleague of the apostle Paul and apologists pointed to all the medical terms in gospel "Luke' to substantiate that. But a study of such words by H Cadbury showed that there were as many such words in other contemporary writings that were not written by medicoes. The joke became that Cadbury received his [academic] doctorate by depriving "Luke" of his. All these legends that sought to put the synoptics in the 1st century were based on the presumption, unchallenged for centuries, that gospel 'Matthew", written by a disciple of Jesus, was the first gospel. That was refuted by the discovery in the mid 19th century that "Mark" was the first gospel and that "Matthew" and "Luke' were based on that sometime later. It also refuted the eyewitness status of "Matthew" because, according to "Markan" priority, "Matthew" would not have copied a non-witness as "Mark' was conventionally believed to be previously. Joe Wallack has done a lot of work on dating the synoptics here at FRDB.. He has several threads here and they make interesting reading. Check them out. I posted the OP because I was struck by the obsolete nature of the material contained in my "old", and its actually younger than me, RSV. We have moved on since 1952. I can't help you too much on why the gospels used to be so confidently assumed to be first century because I date "Mark" as the first and put that work late, very late, in the first century possibly, maybe even probably, well into the second. And the rest come after.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.