avi

No sir, I emphatically disagree.
"an original" is NOT the same as our oldest extant copy of something.
"all the later copies"....
Are you kidding?

Who in their right mind, as a scholar, would accept an infinitely large quantity of forgeries, as somehow validating a false idea, merely by virtue of the large quantity of false attestations?

avi

stephan huller

Let me give you an example of all my wacky opinions.

I don't think that Ignatius was a historical individual. I think that his name means 'fiery one' and derives from an attempt by Irenaeus to obscure the fact that Polycarp failed at his first attempt to get himself killed (cf the Passing of Peregrinus). I think the Syriac version of Ignatius's letter are closest to the lost originals ...

But ... if I am going to make such an argument I have to:

(a) acknowledge that there is a thing called the Ignatian corpus
(b) reference the material in writing as 'the letters of Ignatius'
(c) say that the Syriac letter to the Ephesians is 'the original' letter to the Ephesians and that the long Greek letter to the Ephesians is 'more original' or closer to the original than the longer version of the letter (Irenaeus always cites the longest version of the Ignatian letters).

I am just saying that it is a matter of practicality when we are speaking inter pares to call things 'original' within a limited context like 'the writings of the Church Fathers' because there are some of us who want to engage the material.

I don't think that there was a historical Ignatius the bishop of Antioch but can you image how cumbersome it would get if I had to used all these hyphenated terms to introduce a letter - 'the non-existent letter of the Ephesians by the imaginary Ignatius regarding the mythical Jesus.'

That work would never get received into any reputable journal.

I do think I share many of the same sentiments as people in this forum I just want us as a group to stop looking like a bunch of lunatics. I have noted this before. I don't think the general public has any special love for the pious and their interpretation of the Bible or the Church Fathers. But when someone comes along developing all these crazy theories about how all the texts were forged etc it makes them - the orthodox - look the more reasonable in the eyes of everyone else outside of this forum.

Can't we at least agree on some basic principles that if you want to understand a tradition you have to intimately familiar with the sources on which it rest? Why then is it so wrong to say that people who use the 'mythical Jesus' argument as a means to justify NOT being intimately familiar with those texts or who develop theories without any real expertise are actually making the whole community look foolish?

Loomis

No. That’s absurd. Why would aa5874 do that?

It looks to me like aa5874 has quoted extensively from Christian writings as evidence that Christian writings are unreliable and fraudulent.

Whoever wrote the writings obviously existed. But the issues are:

1. If the writings were written when Christians claim they were written.
   
2. If the writings were actually written by the authors who Christians claim authored them.
   
3. If the secondary writings mentioned in the primary writings actually existed, or if they are fabrications.

C’mon. It’s not that difficult to understand.

Is it?

Iskander

You are in good company when say that.
This is what Robin Lane Fox says in his book, Alexander the Great
ISBN 9780141020761.

Loomis

IMHO aa5874's claims, opinions, observations, and supporting arguments tend to be light-years ahead of anyone else who posts regularly on this forum.

He’s the only one worth disagreeing with. But I’m making an exception for you.

Iskander

I do understand that we are talking about events that happened 2000 years ago or more and that the writings we have are unreliable for that reason alone.

I am quite happy to discuss the origins of any ancient philosophy or religion and extract whatever information can be salvaged from material available to us. I include Christianity as one of those ancient philosophies or religions.

Iskander

I have made no comment regarding the quality of any opinion.

stephan huller

I am sure that this is based on an intimate familiarity with the Patristic material you reject as spurious. Working on your doctorate I presume ...

darstec

Your definition of original is not a good operating one among scholars. Can you tell us the difference between a letter dictated by one calling himself Paul to his own personal secretary and a 1000 year old copy of a copy of a copy supposedly written by Paul?

Are you saying they both have the impact as evidence? If Paul existed, and there is no evidence he did, then he did not necessarily write his own letters. Yet we could say the scribes dictated letter could be original.

Let's approach this in another way. Can you name even one book of the New Testament that has zero variations passed down through history? Just name a single book. If you cannot say yes, then we know we have not reached an original.

You seem to forget that the vast majority of texts from the NT, whether fragments or manuscripts are dated purely on handwriting analysis. Nothing of the NT has been radiocarbon dated to the first or second century CE. In other words there is nothing that has real evidence that it is earlier than the third century.

Another small problem that might be corrected in the future, but it is damning now is that among all the recovered documents at Pompeii or Herculaneum there is zero mention of Jesus or Christian. However as a disclaimer I must add that very few carbonized manuscripts have been recovered. The process is barely two years old and very expensive.

Interesting enough we have learned that Greek was the language of the judicial courts, military and royal court. And surprise, surprise, surprise, women could file for divorce or file lawsuits and act as witnesses counter to common belief.

Other interesting tidbits (did you know they had menus in restaurants) were that they had what might be considered pizza, hot dogs, hamburgers and marshmallow treats. A single piece of marshmallow cost about one third of a soldier's monthly paycheck.

But so far, zero Christian literature. Now if we find some carbonized document that turns out to be a Christian document it would be close enough to be considered "original" although it too might have alterations.

aa5874

That is your opinion. You appear not to understand what is evidence.

Again, you appear not to even understand what evidence is.

It is STANDARD practise to use WRITTEN STATEMENTS as EVIDENCE.

There ARE HUNDREDS of written sources of antiquity which can be used as EVIDENCE.

You appear not to understand what evidence is.

But is not that your opinion? But you have NO EVIDENCE to support your opinion.

I do.

I have already made references to the WRITTEN sources of EVIDENCE that support my opinion.

I have NO artifacts to use as EVIDENCE for Paul.


You appear not to understand what EVIDENCE is.

I must use the WRITTEN sources provided by the Church and their writers in order to make a determination on their veracity and credibilty.

By EXAMINING the WRITTEN sources of EVIDENCE there may be INCONSISTENCIES, KNOWN FICTION, IMPLAUSIBILITIES, CHRONOLOGICAL ERRORS and BLATANT LIES which can cause me to be of the OPINION that Paul was VERY VERY LATE.

Now, you MUST know that in a case where counterfeit is the issue that the counterfeit itself is the primary EVIDENCE in the case. The suspected counterfeit must be presented and examined to make a determination.

The WRITTEN SOURCES of antiquity from the Church and authors of the NT are EVIDENCE regardless of your OPINION or MINE.

Again, the ABUNDANCE of WRITTEN sources of EVIDENCE from antiquity tend to show that the Pauline writings are very very LATE.