mountainman

This evidence is derived from the attestation of paleographers who have managed to convince themselves and their secular peers, since the beginning of the 20th century, that some of the papyri fragments found on the tips of Oxyrynchus and shipped back to Oxford in biscuit tins are written in 2nd century greek script.


Eusebius has been called the most thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity. These attestations come from Eusebius.

ApostateAbe

What do you mean by "tenured investment"? Someone with "tenure" has professional freedom to advocate whatever theory they like, and many of them do so.

Kapyong

Gday,

In fact it's dated to 125 +/- 25 years by some scholars.
And 170 +/- 25 by others.
Could be late 2nd C.

When exactly did Papias write ?
According to what evidence ?
Who exactly did he claim to have met ?


Kap

aa5874

It must be noted that it is almost certain that many scholars are JESUS worshipers and expect rewards and gifts from their LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ and his FATHER their ONLY true God.

Many scholars have succumbed to the threats in the Bible and believe they will LOSE their life and be tormented eternally.

It is almost impossible for a JESUS believer who is at the same time a scholar to believe his Lord and Saviour did not exist.

Once most scholars are JESUS WORSHIPERS then most scholars would tend to claim Jesus was a real God or Man.

Doug Shaver

That depends on what you're calling Christianity. There is no good evidence that anybody during the first century believed what Christians in general have believed for most of the past 2,000 years.

I don't believe Christianity was created. I believe it evolved.

Yeah, probably. And that's a good indication that nothing like it actually happened. It hardly follows that nobody could have believed that it happened.

I suppose they would. But so what? Are you suggesting that people who believe obvious falsehoods always change their minds when other people make fun of them for it?

mountainman

But the authorship and the subsequent popularity of the 4th century "Acts of Pilate" suggests that an anachronistic version of the events so described was in fact international news. Have you read the Acts of Pilate? Two of the dead people in Jerusalem (Leucius and Charinus) crawled out of the ground and were wandering about when authorities rounded them up and gave them writing implements, and they commenced to tell a great narrative about the crucifixion, the role of Pilate, the descent into Hell, discussions with Adam and all sorts of stuff.

The Greek work was banned and prohibited and was eventually preserved in other languages --- a fact which contributes to the notion that this story became international news.

The Acts of Pilate is such an account.
And it too was authored retrospectively.
And it is known to have been authored in the 4th century.


But it evolved retrospective to its purported origins.
It was certainly greatly retrospectively evolved by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
The question is what was it before Constantine became involved.
Or rather, at what stage of evolution was Christianity in the year 312 CE?

Doug Shaver

Pete, you and I have already gone a few rounds on those issues. I see nothing to be gained by a rematch.

show_no_mercy

I think this was addressed already.

Mark doesn't seem to have a problem with Jesus being baptized. If this baptism was embarrassing, then why wait until Mark was written to address this baptism, if they could have just left it out like John?

If the historical Jesus was baptized by John sometime in the 30s, why wait two generations before Christians started becoming defensive about it? If it was embarrassing, then this embarrassment should have been present in Mark. The actual evidence looks like Mark invented the baptism story and later Christians - far removed from the events they portray - were stuck with Mark's account to edit.

Of course, this criterion of embarrassment assumes that Christianity was one homogeneous entity, and completely ignores any sort of "heretical" Christians who had no problem with the baptism - like the Ebionites or Cerinthians, or other Separatists.

1. Jesus being "from Nazareth" is not in the earliest gospel Mark. Granted, in our current copies of Mark, it says that Jesus came from "Nazareth of Galilee" at 1:9, but our earliest witness to Mark 1:9 is Matt 3:13, and Matt doesn't have from "Nazareth". Assuming that Matt is working from Mark, this might imply that Matt's copy of Mark 1:9 also didn't have from "Nazareth". Barring the from "Nazareth" ([απο] Ναζαρετ) at 1:9, Mark consistently says that Jesus is a Nazarene. Which, I might add, has a very convoluted grammatical relationship to the word "Nazareth".

2. The prophecied Messiah of the Samaritans was a "son of Joseph".

3. Jesus was betrayed by one of his disciples, yet this betrayal is not in any of the earliest Christian writings. Not only that, but his betrayal is by a dude named "Jew". This fits with the overall anti-Semitic theme of the gospels, not with a historical betrayal.

Keep in mind that the gospel narratives were read out loud in house-churches, not read in one sitting by a lone Christian in his bedroom like we would do today. This tells you who "Jesus" is speaking to when he makes these predictions. It's not actually a saying of Jesus. It's Mark talking to the audience through the mouth of Jesus (Mark 13:14 gives it away).

Paul got in an argument with a person named Cephas, not Peter. This Cephas, as Paul describes in Galatians, seems to be second to James. Because lowly "men from James" are the people who made Cephas go "astray".

You seem to be injecting gospel material into Paul's letters. Namely that "Peter" is Cephas, and that Cephas was the highest ranking Christian or something.

Our current writings of Josephus have something about a James who was the brother of THE PROPHECIED KING OF THE JEWS PREDICTED IN SCRIPTURE. We've gone over this again and again. Why does Josephus make an offhand comment about THE PROPHECIED KING OF THE JEWS PREDICTED IN SCRIPTURE before introducing his brother? Josephus nowhere else uses the word "christ" except when talking about the Jesus of Christianity. The entire sentence is tortured - it would make more sense if Josephus actually never wrote it and simply wrote about a James and "some others" who were executed fro breaking the Torah.

Roger Pearse

By C.H.Roberts and all the leading paleographers of the time when it was published in 1936.

According to who?

Google is your friend.

The ten extant second century writers may be accessed readily via CCEL.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Naughty, naughty. You just made that up.

A noted scholar in the field at the time, Ernest Cadman Colwell (review of Roberts in Journal of Religion vol16.3, 1936), urged his readers to be cautious due to the "scarcity of dated material", saying "The wise reader will ... hesitate to close the door on the possibility that it may be later than A.D. 150."

Andreas Schmidt, who compares it with two papyri from the 3rd century in the Chester Beatty collection. ["Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457," Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 35 (1989)] and Brent Nongbri, who in the vain of Colwell argues for caution of the limits of palaeography, but allows a much later date [HTR 98 (2005)].

You should know better than that. And you should understand what those questions are about: trite datings are merely tendentious.




spin