yummyfur

Interesting Roger, I read some more on your very usefull site. I was wondering though, since it seems the 411 CE date is based on a date contained on the ms. and that since there is another date, isn't it possible the actual manuscript we have, was a copy done at this second latter date? Also since the end was lost at the time this person wrote this, how could they know what it actually said and therefore the first date given? This text below seems somewhat suspect to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/ma...theophania.htm

"See, my brethren, if the latter part of this ancient book has been cut off, and has perished together with that (with) which its writer closed and completed it ; it was thus written at its end, viz. that "This book was written in the city of Edessa of Mesopotamia, by the hands of a man named Jacob, in the year seven hundred and twenty and three, (and) was completed in the month of the latter Teshrin." (February). And, just as that which was written there, I have also written here without addition. And the things which are here, I wrote in the year 1398, in the (aera) of the Greeks (i. e. the Seleucidae)."

youngalexander

I do not think that mm is joking. He seems quite serious, perhaps even obsessive. Trouble is that the positve evidence is readily open to alternative interpretation, the negatve evidence can only be denied by 'plausible' invention re archeology and a plethora of forgery re literature. Moreover, the hypothesis seems unnecessary to explain the evidence. Frankly I think that the 'apostolic way' is more likely, and I do not believe that.

Rather improbable!

rlogan

Well, I voted "what day is it" and feel sort of bad about "piling on".

I'm pretty warm to Eusebius as the sort of "secretary" for the consolidation of power in the central church heirarchy and the canon which stood as the instrument by which that was put into effect.

Certainly the fabrications that are placed in early pieces like the TF in Josephus and Tacitus' passages on the alleged persecution under Nero are easily spotted.

But by the time you get to Pliny's letter to Trajan and all of the subsequent skirmishes over dogma - it's just too much. Too elaborate a scenario, regardless of the amount of external substantiation.

I really don't get it. In order to have a council at Nicea, there have to be bishops to call in the first place. So a council presupposes differences over dogma.

Roger Pearse

Yes, the last few leaves of the manuscript are lost. This means that the original colophon is missing. The above is a copy of it, thoughtfully written in the margin of an earlier leaf by a later reader, saying that the original colophon gave a date of 411 AD, and he himself wrote that note in 1086 AD. I don't see a problem with any of this. While I don't know any Syriac paleography, I expect that the book hand of the original text can be quickly cross-checked for general accuracy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jjramsey

No, no, no. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created Christianity, and all appearances to the contrary are the workings of his noodly appendage to test the faith of Pastafarians.

RAmen!

Roger Pearse

What I want to know -- and am I alone in this? -- is who are the 6 people who agreed with this idea?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Newton's Cat

No - Eusebius did not invent Christianity.

Whoever did this invented Jesus Christ & Christianity.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Original text.

Paul, called to be an apostle separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. First, I thank my God for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers ... etc.

All references to Jesus Christ & Christianity throughout Romans are later interpolations and additions.

Note the first line:

Paul, called to be an apostle separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) ... the author is claiming to have been chosen by God and given a special insight into the God's purpose viz the scriptures. He is claiming to be some sort of "Messiah".

In 71 ad agents of the Emperor Vespasian investigated a man who was "travelling through the Greek islands preaching about God". It was concluded he was "harmless".

Roger Pearse

There is no manuscript evidence for this statement, and no patristic evidence for it, so I wonder a little whose statement you are repeating here?

Which ancient text records this? (I find nothing in Suetonius or Cassius Dio)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Newton's Cat

It was obvious to me the first time I read the New Testament (in my late 20s) that Romans is the product of a cunning and sophisticated fraud. It SHOULD be obvious to everybody else ... but people's beliefs, whether they be religious or non-religious, seems to prevent them from perceiving what to me is crystal clear - Romans, as we have it today, came about as a consequence of deliberate interpolation and addition - probably by the founder of the cult that became Christianity. The person who did it may have been called Josephus Smithus, a well-known con-man and petty criminal who dreamed of becoming the supreme political leader of his time.

spin

When making statements like these which apparently depend on ancient sources, it would be helpful to cite the source. That is the usual standard for such things here, I think. Thanks.


spin