Duvduv

OK, Chili, I assume you believe that the contradictions between Galatians 1 and Acts complement each other regarding the biography and travels of "Paul".......

tanya

Thank you Roger, well written, as always!!!!



Forgive my skepticism here, Roger, for I know that you were sincere in offering that link, to the 1840's article at your website, (much appreciated, by the way!!), but holy cow, Roger, this is a bit unbelievable, even for the 1840's:

Roger, that would make Lee's manuscript older than Codex Sinaiticus.....

I smell a hoax.

andrewcriddle

1434 years ago at the time of the article corresponds to 411 CE.
Codex Sinaiticus was probably written c 350 CE over 50 years earlier.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

David Trobisch told me that he personally feels scholarship always pushes for the date that is the earliest without justification. He said a range of dates is possible for Sinaiticus. It could just as easily be the sixth or seventh century.

Roger Pearse

Correct.

But the 411 A.D. Syriac manuscript of Eusebius' Theophania and Martyrs of Palestine, Titus of Bostra Against the Manichaeans, etc, is indeed incredibly ancient. At the recent 4th British Patristics Conference in Exeter, Syriac scholar Sebastian Brock stated that it is the oldest dated extant book containing a literary text in any language.

Now you see one reason why people got rather excited about the Nitrian manuscripts. This sort of thing is why people get into Syriac studies; the existence of stuff that hasn't survived in Greek, often from "the other side" of Byzantine politics (for instance, Severus of Antioch's works are not preserved in the original Greek, IIRC), and sometimes in copies of fantastically early date.

The works of Eusebius went into Syriac at a very early date, and his Church History is extant in a Syriac translation of the same sort of age, and an Armenian translation made from a Syriac text which must be 4th century, within 20-30 years of his death.

There is no reason, surely, why books from the Nitrian desert should not be older than Sinaiticus. (Egypt specialises in preserving old books, because of the dry climate, and we have 2nd and 3rd century papyrus codices.) But I don't think any of them are.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chili

Sorry, I forget much to fast to be a believer and maybe that is why I am not familiar with those contradictions. I can sure look if I know where to look and at least give you my opinion on that.

Iskander

I love it, how could anyone believe in what is forgotten? Lovely

mountainman

The fabrication used Greek exclusively, starting with Origen's LXX. The claim is that all these attributes may be modelled by means of the output of a scriptorium staffed by professional scribes. The 4 gospels may have been originally drafted by 4 professional Greek scribes of different backgrounds, or many gospels may have been written on the theme of Bilbo Jesus Baggins and 4 were selected.


Not without a parallel and rigorous analysis of these same elements in the texts of the gnostic gospels and acts (non canonical NT texts). But immediately there is a massive problem because most scholars and commentators in the field agree that the gnostic acts and gospels are a textual critic's nightmare.

We are dealing with an exclusively Greek authorship phenomenom in both the canonical gospels and acts and the gnostic gospels and acts. The Greek Gnostic material which was authored at that time in antiquity was hunted down and destroyed by the imperial canon followers. Very few Greek fragments exist for the Gnostics as compared to the Greek codices of the canon (plus the Shepherd of Hermas etc).

The gnostic material is found largely preserved in Coptic and Syriac one step removed from the original Greek. The gnostics knew they had to preserve their stories about Bilbo Jesus Baggins in a writing other than Greek.

But to summarise a response to your questions about these patterns, differences and similarities in the canon, these patterns may be accounted for by means of the output of a scriptorium at the service of the Emperor and Rightful Pontifex Maximus.

In the beginning
On 28 October 312
the Christians
suddenly and unexpectedly
found themselves victorious.
The victory was
"a miracle"
though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign
vouchsafed to Constantine.
The winners became conscious
of their victory in a mood
of resentment and vengeance.

mountainman

In the mid 4th century it was the theocratic tool of a totalitarian regime focussed on the Roman Emperor and his army. He was the Bishop of Bishops, or the spy of spies depending on how one translates "episkopos".

The regime was not beneficent but despotic, and the attestation to auto de fe's (religious inquisitions) implies a despotism of great magnitude. Land tax had tripled in living memory and "the highways were covered with galloping bishops ".

The church councils concerned themselves with documenting and containing heresy and the auto de fe's ensured that offences against the majesty of the emperor in religious affairs should not go unpunished. A massive controversy had flown out from the Nicaean council, but the legendary authority of the 318 Nicaean fathers was backed by Theodosius in 381 CE. See Freemans AD 381.

sotto voce

The Christians were all gone by then.

But keep on dreamin'.