Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 11-17-2011, 08:44 AM

Thank you, Roger.
I had quickly decided upon reading spin's #296 that there was no point in answering it, as he has dropped back to his tactic against Joe Atwill, just to refuse to answer. Until he is willing to dialogue, we will be at another aa vs. J-D impasse, just wasting FRDB bandwidth. spin, you have made wild assertions, so it is up to you to back them up and not to me to refute you.
Meantime in googling "Maurice Casey, W. C. Allen" I was able to get into almost all of the start of Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (2004). It appears to be a most impressive advance beyond Torrey and Burney and even on Matthew Black. Granted, the publication of DSS Aramaic documents gives him a big advantage, but who is using DSS documents to refute him? (In the 1960's I had wanted to become an Aramaic scholar, but did not have the money to go 2000 miles for graduate studies.)

Adam · 11-17-2011, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

....It is unfortunate that, whenever I see people arguing that the NT documents were written much later than the ancient evidence says they were, I can also see a motive in fairly plain view....

The evidence tend to show they were written later that is why there is a consensus that NT documents were written After the Fall of the Temple.

You're doing exactly what Roger Pearse charged, citing consensus scholarship that you do not believe in.
At most, the consensus can hold that the final redactions were after 70 CE.
Mythicists want to believe that the original compositions were a century later.

Roger Pearse · 11-17-2011, 08:59 AM

This post appears to change subject, but since the subject is one of interest to me, perhaps I can comment a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

... it could hardly be supposed that P52 was the original, or anything but the result of some generations of copying.
...
In short, it would be better, surely, to argue from evidence whatever it is that we wish to say.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second point. I disagree most fervently, with your first point.

We don't know, or, perhaps, more honestly, I don't know, looking at P52, whether it is the original, or a copy of a copy of a copy...for n generations.

Let me quote the argument made by Bell in 1937 verbatim, as he puts it quite well (H.I.Bell, Recent discoveries of biblical papyri, Oxford, 1937, p.21).

Quote:

Originally Posted by H.I.Bell

It is no doubt possible that even if the Gospel was issued at Ephesus as late as 135, an enthusiastic disciple, departing at once to Alexandria, may have taken with him a manuscript of it which he caused to be copied there; that the author of the British Museum Gospel, writing at Alexandria just afterwards, made use of one of these copies; and that early manuscripts of both his work and St. John found their way, then or later, up country. All this is conceivable; but it must be conceded that it is the reverse of likely.

It would be extraordinary if the copy that reached us was one of the very first copies ever made; and for the late-date hypothesis, that is what would have to be the case. Therefore -- since we do not know whether this is such a copy, we can't very well make that argument.

Quote:

Of importance to this post, in my view, is that P52 is our OLDEST extant reference to any of the gospels, and it dates, by palaeography, to the second half of the second century.

The publication of the papyrus dates it to 125 AD, plus or minus 25 years. I seem to remember Andrew Criddle arguing that a general redating of 2nd century papyri might move it later, but unfortunately I did not keep this post to hand.

Quote:

We have no evidence of any gospel, or comparable text, from the first century. We have several documents from the second and third centuries.

By "documents" you mean here "copies of portions of the New Testament", I think?

Quote:

An old document survives floods, rainfall, terrorism, fire, dust, wind, insects, for one thousand eight hundred years......In short, it survives by LUCK.

I certainly agree with this.

Quote:

Is it your opinion, Roger, and Adam, that we possess no documents aged one thousand nine hundred years, because that's just the luck of the draw?

NB: I think it would be clearer to readers if you phrased this as a demand as to why we have no first century New Testament papyri, rather than introducing this business of 1900 years. At least, I presume that is what you are saying?

If so, would you explain why precisely you think that we should have fragments of copies of the New Testament from that period; and why the non-existence of what does not usually exist for ancient literary text is important in some way?

You are aware, I presume, that under normal circumstances we often have no copies of any portion of literary texts for a thousand years after composition? I can think of at least one ancient text -- the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, from the 4th century -- for which the only copy now in existence is a 19th century printed edition made from a now lost handwritten copy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-17-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

....It is unfortunate that, whenever I see people arguing that the NT documents were written much later than the ancient evidence says they were, I can also see a motive in fairly plain view....

The evidence tend to show they were written later

By all means produce it.

The ancient testimony is 100% against this, I believe; whether we believe what is supposed to be "internal evidence" depends on how strongly we believe that such sifting can be impartial and objective, or whether the methodology is inherently subjective, even aside from the rather powerful political issues.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller · 11-17-2011, 09:14 AM

Roger

Arguing with aa is about as productive as asking someone an insane asylum to produce evidence they aren't Napoleon. Don't waste your time

Stephan

Roger Pearse · 11-17-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Thank you, Roger.

You're welcome, although I'm not sure how helpful my input is. I'm not all that interested in secondary scholarship on subjects where it is easy to access all the primary evidence oneself directly; so I'm not a useful participant in any debate about this scholar or that.

Quote:

I had quickly decided upon reading spin's #296 that there was no point in answering it

Just a general point: if you haven't discovered the "ignore list" feature in this forum, you should do so and use it liberally.

In every forum there are posters who are willing to say with utter certainty, from behind anonymity, what they know is not true, or do not know to be true, merely in order to manipulate the emotions of their victim, or simply to wear him down. Once we discover we are dealing with someone beneath rational discussion, it is usually wisest to add them to the ignore list. What point in words, when a poster has lost any interest in whether they are true, and is merely interested in convenience? It is possible to fall beneath argument, and many online do this.

Such people are essentially no different to a barking dog; and would any of us waste words, time and effort on talking to a barking dog? I think not.

Whether "spin" is worth your time to read is not for me to say, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-17-2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Arguing with aa is about as productive as asking someone an insane asylum to produce evidence they aren't Napoleon. Don't waste your time

Sorry to hear that. If so, that is a pity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 11-17-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

....It is unfortunate that, whenever I see people arguing that the NT documents were written much later than the ancient evidence says they were, I can also see a motive in fairly plain view....

The evidence tend to show they were written later that is why there is a consensus that NT documents were written After the Fall of the Temple.

You're doing exactly what Roger Pearse charged, citing consensus scholarship that you do not believe in.
At most, the consensus can hold that the final redactions were after 70 CE.
Mythicists want to believe that the original compositions were a century later.

And what have you done?

You too have REFUSED to accept the fact that Experts, whether MJ or HJ, based on the evidence, accept that the four Gospels and most of the Epistles with Hebrews and Revelation are AFTER the Fall of the Temple,

Christians WANT to BELIEVE CONTRARY to the evidence that most the NT was written Before the Fall of the Temple.

stephan huller · 11-17-2011, 10:18 AM

I'd just be happy if you learned not to insert words in block capitals in the middle of every sentence.

Stephan

tanya · 11-17-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

NB: I think it would be clearer to readers if you phrased this as a demand as to why we have no first century New Testament papyri, rather than introducing this business of 1900 years. At least, I presume that is what you are saying?

Hi Roger, many thanks for your comments and clarifications, sorry for my unclear text.

Yes, to answer your query above, I was posing the question, why, given the improbability of ANY document surviving 1800 years, we have several (albeit, incomplete) books of the new testament originating with the second century, as determined by palaeography, but none from the first century. I had earlier, in post 287, explained this point in another way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya post 287

How about Menander, for example. Do we possess papyrus manuscripts of his poetry and drama? When were they written? Do we have at least SOME of those in the second century CE, having been written, with certainty, in the first century? Yes. Bodmer collection. Anywhere else? I think so: Yes: Dead Sea Scrolls in Jordan. So, Menander's philosophy/poetry/political thinking/drama had been quoted by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:33), so we can be reasonably confident that Menander's work was available and read, in the first century CE. Can we say the same about either Mark's gospel, or Paul's epistles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The publication of the papyrus dates it to 125 AD, plus or minus 25 years.

nit picking on my part, apologies, Roger, but it is not a publication date that we possess, but rather, a presumed date of authorship, based upon palaeography. "Publication date" implies, in my opinion, a presumed date for the harvest of the papyrus, i.e. a date procured by carbon dating, rather than handwriting analysis. Both dates could be off by several decades, if the papyrus lay around for several years, in a chest, or jar, before being collected into a codex, i.e. "published". So far as I am aware, most of these codices were bound and collected sheets of papyrus, completely empty, before the text was then added to the blank pages, but who knows what actually transpired, back then....?

Roger, thanks again for your comments, questions, and notes of clarification, well done.

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

11-17-2011, 08:44 AM	#301
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Thank you, Roger. I had quickly decided upon reading spin's #296 that there was no point in answering it, as he has dropped back to his tactic against Joe Atwill, just to refuse to answer. Until he is willing to dialogue, we will be at another aa vs. J-D impasse, just wasting FRDB bandwidth. spin, you have made wild assertions, so it is up to you to back them up and not to me to refute you. Meantime in googling "Maurice Casey, W. C. Allen" I was able to get into almost all of the start of Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (2004). It appears to be a most impressive advance beyond Torrey and Burney and even on Matthew Black. Granted, the publication of DSS Aramaic documents gives him a big advantage, but who is using DSS documents to refute him? (In the 1960's I had wanted to become an Aramaic scholar, but did not have the money to go 2000 miles for graduate studies.)

11-17-2011, 09:14 AM	#305
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Roger Arguing with aa is about as productive as asking someone an insane asylum to produce evidence they aren't Napoleon. Don't waste your time Stephan

11-17-2011, 10:18 AM	#309
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I'd just be happy if you learned not to insert words in block capitals in the middle of every sentence. Stephan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.