Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-06-2007, 09:23 AM

OK, kids. Let's steer this thread back to the BC&H-relevant topic so it doesn't have to be locked (though a split/lock may be on the horizon). Keep your personal history of prior altercations on other boards in PM exchanges where it belongs.

Thanks in advance,

Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

jgibson000 · 05-06-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

OK, kids. Let's steer this thread back to the BC&H-relevant topic so it doesn't have to be locked (though a split/lock may be on the horizon). Keep your personal history of prior altercations on other boards in PM exchanges where it belongs.

Thanks in advance,

Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

No problem, from my end. But I would like to see some evidence for the claim that there are around a dozen scholars, let alone "over qualified" ones, including Robinson, who are subscribed to the T-C Alternate List, especially since the basis for the invitation to join this list issued here is "Nazaroo's" claim that that List is a scholarly preserve.

Is this too much to ask for?

JG

Nazaroo · 05-06-2007, 01:25 PM

Why should I care if Davidson is a prick?

Ask him.

Toto · 05-06-2007, 02:20 PM

Repeating the moderator advisory -

Discussions of other boards and lists will be split of and shipped to the proper forum, which is ~Elsewhere.~

mountainman · 05-06-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

With all due respect, it appears that your position may be based partly upon some misunderstandings or simplifications of the evidence at hand. For example,

(1) The bulk of the manuscripts of the NT are not really dated according to paleographical methods.

They are really dated by strongly corroborated historical methodology, in which "paleographic (hand-writing) assessment" is only a minor supporting component.

For instance, we date the majority of early Uncial manuscripts as 4th, 5th and later centuries because we know that is when parchment production, 'uncial' (early majiscule hand-printing) style calligraphy, and most importantly, church service and preaching methods match the documents physical form. The techniques and preferences of churches, bishops and scholars like Jerome etc. are known, not through paleography as such but through credible historical documents written by the participants themselves.

The case of Jerome for instance, is an excellent example of how historical writings substantiate and provide details of contemporary practices. Jerome tells us important details about manuscripts dyed purple and written in silver. This would appear almost incredible or even a fabricated story if it were not for the fact that such manuscripts have actually been found, and they fit Jerome's description to a 't'. The manuscripts and Jerome corroborate each other. Again, Jerome mentions a certain textual variant (the shorter ending of Mark), and independantly, Codex W is later discovered confirming Jerome's testimony. And so it goes.

(2) The majority of the Early Uncials are dated AFTER Constantine's time.

Even the earliest Uncials, like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are dated "paleaographically" to during or AFTER Constantine's reign. So your assertion or implication that somehow the dating methods are wrong or unreliable is a complete 'red herring'. The bulk of experts AGREE with you that these documents are more recent than Constantine. So how can the paleographical methods be WRONG?

Your apparent claim that people have believed in the early existance of Christianity because of 'mistaken' datings of early documents is non-sequitous. These are simply NOT the reasons that most scholars (even atheists and skeptics!) assign an earlier date than Constantine for the essential cult of Christianity.

Thanks again for the in-depth response.

My arguments regarding the insufficient weight of paleographic
dating assessments are only related to prenicene citations. We
are all very much aware that christianity was embraced by the
emperor Constantine, and existed as the state religion since his
rise to power in Rome 312 CE. The question in my mind is
whether or not "the new and strange religious order" existed
in the prenicene epoch.

Quote:

(3) Earlier Papyri are dated by ARCHAEOLOGICAL methodology, not paleographic analysis.

The sad but basically true fact of the matter is that almost all early papyrii look virtually the same in terms of their primitive and simple 'hand-printed' style. There is no catalogue of special 'letter forms' that allow these papers and fragments to be sorted closer than plus or minus an entire century.

Here and there you find a small modification of a few letters, usually in size or trivial flourish. But there is no way of telling with any real certainty that in a given manuscript this is a small 'evolution' of scribal style, or simply the peculiarity of an individual scribe.

The single most important key to dating all the early papyri is the location in which they were found. The place, for which various times and groups can be determined to have occupied the area, and the physical strata of the document, as well as the other objects/documents found in close proximity or buried above and below it.

And the bulk of the early papyri are fairly accurately dated, not because of 'paleographical' analysis, but because we know where they were dug up, and what else was found there.

In fact, most of the early papyri come from two locations in Egypt. Thats it.

Most scholars accept that these papyri were made (and buried) in the 2nd century, because of the archaeological evidence of the digs.

There *is* no 'paleographic' method to really apply. In these cases, we are not spanning multiple centuries but rather narrow time frames, and small geographical distances.

We find a book buried under a business receipt dated by an Emperor's year of reign, or some important political or military event. Thats all there is.

My argument in this case is that the correspondence between greater
age and greater depth at the archeological site is not always the rule,
and is certainly not expected to be the rule in a rubbish dump, where
all this archeological activity was centered.

The European Alps are folded over themselves several times, and such
a phenomenom is expected to occur in the deposits at a typical rubbish
dump, and even more so if the location has been used for some time.

For this reason, coupled with the arbitrary nature of paleographic
assessment in regard to actual chronological dating, I will not regard
such archeological citations as "the gospel truth", until they are at
least corroborated with a carbon-dating citation.

Quote:

So for instance, while P66 is optimistically dated to about 150-180 A.D. by some, it is more conservatively dated as late 2nd or early 3rd century by skeptics. But nobody tries to move the date much further ahead than this, because it wouldn't make sense archaeologically or historically.

To give an example of why paleaographical evidences are not really either useful or credible, consider that one scholar dates Codex W (an unusual uncial) as 1st or 2nd century (!) on 'paleographics', while most others assign it to the 5th century and parts of it to the 7th century!...

There has been no massive 'self-delusion' as to the value of paleography or the dates of most manuscripts. Most historians take hand-writing analysis with a grain of salt.

Thanks again for the expanded response. My objection here
is to the level of certainty in regard to the dating of fragments.
There is IMO sufficient cause to be skeptical of any firm dating
before the fourth century.

C14 dating is sure, and scientific. This method I respect.
Especially when there appears to be a great deal riding on
the outcome. (ie: the existence of christians before bullneck).

Quote:

(4) Scholars believe in a pre-Constantine history for Christianity and Christian evangelists, apologists, and martyrs, because a multitude of independant records and criteria seem to indicate this.

...and the premise makes good sense of the subsequent popularity of this sect in Constantine's time and beyond. The idea that Constantine or any other Emperor would have the sweeping powers your theory seems to claim, is an incredible strain on everyone's credibility.

How credible were the actions 100 years before Nicaea of the
King of Kings Ardashir, who created the theocracy of Iran by
means of military supremacy, and the creation of a new mono-
theist religion (Zorastrianism) ---- and the total destruction of
the records of the pre-existent Parthian civilisation.

We are quite entitled to view Constantine as a malevolent despot,
and if this in any way puts any incredible strain on anyone's credibility
then those people should do some research in ancient history, not
biblical history.

Quote:

Its simply not about mis-dating manuscripts. Its about making a coherent and plausible history out of the wide variety of evidence.

Agreed. The widest possible variety of evidence.

Quote:

(5) Nobody is relying upon Eusebius, or his history.

As far as I know, most historians of every flavour rely upon a wide variety of evidences, many secular, and many completely independant of Christianity.

Even most scholars like myself with a religious bias think Eusebius was a liar, exaggerator, and self-confessed fabricator or cover-up man.

So again, the premise that Christianity is older than Constantine and Eusebius is simply not based upon Eusebius. In the 25 years of my own study of Christian historical roots, I have never once to my recollection relied upon Eusebius, except to point out his bias and unreliability.

Most other scholars probably feel the same.

That is all well and good, however you must also understand that
the hypothesis being researched here, is that Eusebius tendered to
Constantine the entire new testament, the non-canonical texts,
and the entire prenicene "fathers texts".

Simply stated, everything "christian" was created no earlier than
the period 312 to 317 CE, by order and sponsorship of Constantine.
Eusebius was sponsored as editor-in-chief for the fabrication, and
sat at Constantine's right hand at the Council of Nicaea.

Quote:

I would invite you to join TC-Alternate List, where there are many scholars who have a wider view of textual criticism than simply Christian apologists or (the other extreme) atheist debunkers.

You should start a thread there and subject your theory to the critical analysis and review it deserves, by a group of real scholars. You will find more of them there than here.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/

Thanks for the offer.
And thanks again for the civil dialogue, and extended response.

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

05-06-2007, 09:23 AM	#11
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	OK, kids. Let's steer this thread back to the BC&H-relevant topic so it doesn't have to be locked (though a split/lock may be on the horizon). Keep your personal history of prior altercations on other boards in PM exchanges where it belongs. Thanks in advance, Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

05-06-2007, 01:25 PM	#13
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	Why should I care if Davidson is a prick? Ask him.

05-06-2007, 02:20 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Repeating the moderator advisory - Discussions of other boards and lists will be split of and shipped to the proper forum, which is ~Elsewhere.~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.