Freethought & Rationalism Archive

reprise · 03-05-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gawen
jesusisalie...Mageth...Doc X:

If either of you are interedted in the mythocity of Jesus, then Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle is a great way to start. It's easy to read as well. I've been reading alot of it online. But I plan to purchase the book. And, to give Capnkirk credit, I will study Maccoby's book as well, which lends to a historical (but not divine) Jesus. After reading both, I should be able to make up my mind one way or the other. But so far, I still lean toward Doherty. But please don't ask me to elaborate...not just yet...

Have you got a link to a site where I can check it out?

nermal · 03-05-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jesusisalie
oops. time to shut up and read.

Lurking. It's a good thing.

Martha

Amaleq13 · 03-05-2004, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reprise
Have you got a link to a site where I can check it out?

For Doherty:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

capnkirk might know a Maccoby site.

Doctor X · 03-06-2004, 01:39 AM

jesusisaile:

Do you have more information such as its age?

Quote:

The manuscript is written in ARAMAIC, not greek, and thus is thought to be the most accurate version of the NT.

The texts themselves were written in Greek. Now this may be a very accurate translation of the Greek.

--J.D.

jesusisalie · 03-06-2004, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
jesusisaile:

Do you have more information such as its age?

The texts themselves were written in Greek. Now this may be a very accurate translation of the Greek.

--J.D.

I'll get back to you with specifics. My understanding is that this is the OLDEST version of the NT in existence.

jesusisalie · 03-06-2004, 08:32 AM

here's a quote from the imaging center at the College of Science of the Rochester Institute of Technology where the manuscript is being evaluated.

"Khaboris Codex

The Khaboris Codex is the oldest known copy of the New Testament written in the original Aramaic, dating from the 10th century. We are cooperating with Michael Ryce to image the manuscript and develop a public website where the images would be available for scholarly study."

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/facult.../research.html

The Evil One · 03-06-2004, 08:51 AM

But see, that site merely asserts that the original language of the NT was Aramaic; it doesn't provide any reasons to think so. There are, on the other hand, a certain number of reasons to think the original language was Greek (e.g. comparisons to the LXX); not 100% proof, so far as I can tell, but enough that the case for original-lang Aramaic has a burden of proof.

That scroll being the oldest copy of the NT in aramaic doesn't imply that Aramaic is the original language. It is quite possible for a surviving translation to be older than all the surviving copies in the original language.

Edit to add: actually, I've now noticed that this Khaboris scroll dates from the 10th century. Aren't there Greek NTs that are older than that by centuries?

Doctor X · 03-06-2004, 11:26 AM

AH!!!!!

Indeed, the primary Greek witnesses are far earlier. This is why I wondered about it. If a witness earlier than the Greek had been found, the biblical scholars would have gone all orgasmic about it--like that bone box found on the toilet.

10th century is rather late. I doubt that it will affect textual criticism much.

To respond to TEO's question, yes. One of the oldest papyrii--damn close the time of composition, is a fragment of Jn [P52--Ed.] which is . . . ready? . . . in Greek! We do not have old Aramaic witnesses.

A caution:

Quote:

. . . the date of a manuscript is no more a clue to its significance than is its length. . . . In terms of age, only uncial manuscripts which derive from the third/fourth century or earlier have an inherent significance, i.e., those of the period before the development of the great text types.

As a review of the "big witnesses"

Papyri

Quote:

Today, NT papyri total ninety-six, representing ninety-four different MSS (since P33=P58 and P64=P67), and all are from codices (except four written on scrolls . . . but these are exceptional in that they were either written on both sides or on reused papyrus). their dates run from shortly after 100 to eighth century, and together the papyri contain portions of all NT books except 1-2 Timothy, though, as a whole, they consitute less than 2% of all Greek NT MSS. .All of the papyri are continuous-text MSS, . . . . . . and all of the papyri are writtn in large unconnected letters (uncials).

P52: oldest MS of the NT which contains portions of five verses of Jn 18. It dates about 125 CE.

Chester Beatty Papyri--P45, P46, P47:

P46: around 2nd century, preserves parts of Pauline letters
P45: around 3rd century, preserves portions of all four gospels and Acts.
P47: around 3rd century, preserves about eight chapters of Revelation.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri--highly fragmentary papyri of early date

Majuscule Manuscripts--Uncials

Traditionally called "uncials." The proper term is majuscule: "a formal bookhand of a fair size in which almost all of the letters are written between two imagined lines."

Codex Sinaiticus: 4th century. Almost complete Bible "The text with numerous singular readings (and careless errors) was highly overrated by Tischendorf, and is distinctly inferiro to B [Codex Vaticanus.--Ed.]

Codex Vaticanus: 4th century. Complete Bible with lacunae. "B is by far the most significant of the uncials."

There are of course many others.

--J.D.

References:

Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Rhodes EF., trans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Ehrman BD, Holmes MW. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

MetalStoner · 03-06-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jesusisalie
I'm interested in the thoughts of all you infidels out there regarding the existence of "jesus of nazareth". There is a lot of bantering on this forum about what jesus may have said or done, but is this whole discussion pointless? Are you convinced that this "historical figure" even existed?

I never bought into the "only son of god" story, but did believe he was at least a human who lived in said times. DID believe, but no longer do. After reading several books on the subject, it appears that the entire story of the new testament is simply a retelling of ancient astrological myths (mithras, horus, etc). It also seems that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this "person" ever existed. No roman, greek, or jewish CONTEMPORARY historian mentions him. For someone who supposedly caused such a furor, I'd expect SOMETHING to be written, carved, recorded somehow. Do you know of any convincing evidence? Is this truly the greatest story ever sold?

I'm especially interested in atheist's point of view. If any theists reply, please do not use scripture as your source of evidence as it is simply NOT a historical document (a fact accepted by most biblical scholars) and therefore useless.

Wether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant. People have had myths attriubuted to them before and after Jesus's time. I never take magical stories in ancient text as truth. The people the supernatural tales are based on may have existed though.

Also, magical stories from contained in ancient text could be many things.

1. Purely made up.
2. Tall tales that evolved over time.
3. Natural phenonemon given supernatural explainations.

So many possibilities without having to restort to magical explainations.

03-06-2004, 02:17 PM

You might try reading Frank Morison's Who Moved The Stone?

P.S. Whoever reported that that other Paul did not write of a bodily resurrected Yeshua has apparently not read that other Paul. To use his phrase: If, in human terms, I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what the profit to me? If the dead are not raised then let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.

You might otherwise wish to read my favorite new testament story, that one about a certain trip that other Paul made to Athens. And think about Plato, and his belief in the existence of life after death without a body. Such an idea was simply abhorrent to that other Paul, so he wrote....for in this [body] we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our tent that is from heaven, if so being clothed we shall not be found naked [a spirit without a body]. For we that are in this tent groan, being burdened, not that we would be unclothed, but clothed, that our mortality might be swallowed up by life.

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

03-06-2004, 08:32 AM	#26
jesusisalie Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: usa Posts: 47	here's a quote from the imaging center at the College of Science of the Rochester Institute of Technology where the manuscript is being evaluated. "Khaboris Codex The Khaboris Codex is the oldest known copy of the New Testament written in the original Aramaic, dating from the 10th century. We are cooperating with Michael Ryce to image the manuscript and develop a public website where the images would be available for scholarly study." http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/facult.../research.html

03-06-2004, 08:51 AM	#27
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	But see, that site merely asserts that the original language of the NT was Aramaic; it doesn't provide any reasons to think so. There are, on the other hand, a certain number of reasons to think the original language was Greek (e.g. comparisons to the LXX); not 100% proof, so far as I can tell, but enough that the case for original-lang Aramaic has a burden of proof. That scroll being the oldest copy of the NT in aramaic doesn't imply that Aramaic is the original language. It is quite possible for a surviving translation to be older than all the surviving copies in the original language. Edit to add: actually, I've now noticed that this Khaboris scroll dates from the 10th century. Aren't there Greek NTs that are older than that by centuries?

03-06-2004, 02:17 PM	#30
Paul5204 Guest Posts: n/a	You might try reading Frank Morison's Who Moved The Stone? P.S. Whoever reported that that other Paul did not write of a bodily resurrected Yeshua has apparently not read that other Paul. To use his phrase: If, in human terms, I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what the profit to me? If the dead are not raised then let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. You might otherwise wish to read my favorite new testament story, that one about a certain trip that other Paul made to Athens. And think about Plato, and his belief in the existence of life after death without a body. Such an idea was simply abhorrent to that other Paul, so he wrote....for in this [body] we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our tent that is from heaven, if so being clothed we shall not be found naked [a spirit without a body]. For we that are in this tent groan, being burdened, not that we would be unclothed, but clothed, that our mortality might be swallowed up by life.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.