Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gawen · 03-06-2004, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Wether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant.

...It is to millions of Christians. It may not be relevant you. But this is why we debate it.

Quote:

The people the supernatural tales are based on may have existed though.

...Which is another reason we debate it. If thesists would just believe on their own time and quit trying to cram it down other peoples throats, most of us in these forums wouldn't be here, I reckon. That, my friend is what IS relevant...to me at least.

spin · 03-06-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

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

What I love about internet is its selectivity. There has been a relatively recent study of P52 by A. Schmidt, "Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl.III 457," APF 35 (1989) -- Papyrus Rylands III 457 is P52 --, which was based on more recent knowledge of palaeography and on later manuscripts than those available at the time of the original dating, and which gave a date of 170 CE +/- 25. Do you think I can find any mention of Schmidt's analysis on internet? Not on your life. It doesn't appeal to those xian conservatives who know about it, for there is not even a rebuttal. He is simply ignored.

We have to stop parroting this early date for P52.

spin

Doctor X · 03-06-2004, 09:51 PM

Spin:

I used the Ehrman reference for the date. The footnote to the date is:

Quote:

Though earlier dated 125-150, recent opinion moves it back into the 100-125 period, perhaps very early in that quarter century. See Colin H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935) 12-15; and Aland and Aland, Text, 85.

So . . . checking my Aland:

Quote:

. . . which preserves only a fragment of John 18, lies in the date of "about 125" assigned to it by the leading papyrologists. Although "about 125" allows for leeway of about twenty-five years on either side, the concensus has come in recent years to regard 125 as representing the later limit, so that P52 must have been copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the early 90s A.D.

Well that is helpful. . . . Incidentally, Aland, and the rest are conservative. "90 A.D." is an early date for Jn, to my recollection. They try to pretend the witnesses agree to a much greater degree than they actually do. They do not discuss theologically difficult textual issues like whether or not "son of god" belongs in Mk 1.1. So I think they are, indeed, trying to push the dates "early" just like it use to be tradition to date Mk prior to 70 CE. to keep open the possibility that these are historical documents.

Unless "the leading papyrologists" [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] have gobbs of evidence no one can counter, I have to wonder. Methinks the desire to have something close to an autograph drives the analysis.

--J.D.

spin · 03-06-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I used the Ehrman reference for the date.... Aland...

You can only quote your sources, but when beside Schmidt was there an actual palaeographical study of P52 in reference to other, known dated, texts since the 1930s? (RML*: never)

spin

* Read My Lips

Doctor X · 03-06-2004, 10:18 PM

Yeah, but "the leading papyrologists" say it is earlier!

You know . . . "the leading papyrologists," . .

"Them. . . ."

"Ours go to eleven!"

Anyways the problem with textual criticism is many mainstream scholars do not want to bother with it. They just consult their latest edition and assume the decisions are correct. Not only Mk 1.1, but other decisions reflect theological considerations more than textual evidence. So, to introduce "change" is considered a bad thing.

The irony of this all, despite the drive to have close to an autograph, the damn papyrus does not have anything significant to add! Aland and Aland imply that the fact the few words "agree" with other major witnesses we can all sit back in comfort that we have "the text" to the NT!

--J.D.

Mageth · 03-09-2004, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Mageth:

Let me know what you think . . . so many books . . . so little time. . . .

--J.D.

Indeed. I went out looking for Doherty's book this weekend (I prefer to buy at my local bookstore than purchasing online). Couldn't find it; I may have to purchase it online. But of course, like most trips to the bookstore, this one resulted in me coming home with @$140 in other books to read, including a couple by Crossan, a couple by Karen Armstrong (e.g., A History of God), and Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?, which I had previously ordered and finally came in, and which I started on this weekend.

In addition, since I was driving to Houston this weekend, I also picked up Armstrong's History in an abridged CD version (about 6 hours on 5 CDs), read by the author. It's very good, excellent actually (she has an excellent reading voice, though I have to concentrate because she uses a very British pronunciation of many words), and I'm looking forward to reading the book.

Mageth · 03-09-2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Since I haven't really taken much of an interest in the historical Jesus, I can't say for certain yes, but it seems most respected historians believe He did exist.

Indeed, but that in and of itself is not evidence for HJ.

I think it's impossible to prove beyond doubt that any "historical figure" existed, if we want to be truly skeptical.

It's impossible to prove beyond doubt even for someone who is not skeptical at all, actually.

Such books have a basic premise in mind, to disprove Jesus.

And there are many books out there with the basic premise of proving the HJ. Let's not conflate two separate but related arguments, BTW: one is the argument for or against the HJ, and one is the argument that the Gospels are historical accounts of a HJ.

ANd that generalization is not a fair assessment of scholarly research and books about the subject at all. Indeed, the books I've read generally make no positive claim one way or the other, neither claiming to prove the HJ or to disprove the HJ, but generally only to support one view over the other.

Most books I've read tend to support the HJ, but point out reasons why the accounts of Jesus' life as portrayed in the Gospels et al should not be accepted as literal historical accounts. This includes those by theists such as John Shelby Spong.

I cannot speak for Doherty's book, as I have yet to read it.

I don't think you've been entirely honest in your search for truth, instead it seems you need reinforcement from dodgy reading material and your fellow atheist chums.

Speaking for myself (and your accusation seems to be aimed at more than just the poster you were replying to), if you are proposing that the works of Pagels, Spong, Crossan, Doherty, etc. are "dodgy", then you have some serious work to do to support this assertion. Also note that another "dodgy" book I've read is the Bible. Indeed, that is the first book about Jesus I read. I was raised in the Christian faith, and a literal Christian faith. My search started from there, as I began researching the religion I was raised in and the documents it was based on. And I'm not afraid to read books supporting any particular view. And note that I attend Church regularly and discuss the topic with believers and non-believers alike.

If you don't see that as an "honest search for truth", then again you have some work cut out for you in supporting your assertion.

There is evidence of Jesus existence (i.e. Josephus), but usually the atheist dismisses such evidence because it was written by a Christian, hence unreliable, or the author made an historical error.

Josephus was a Jew. And many Christian scholars seriously question the veracity of Josephus as well.

Why don't you start again but this time try and keep it objective.

Again speaking for myself, you need to establish why my "search" has not been objective. I read the Bible (and other theological texts, e.g. the Buddhist texts), I go to Church, I read and consider the works on both sides of the camp (theists and non-theists), in support of an HJ, in support of the Gospels as historical accounts, in support of the Gospels as non-historical accounts (legends or myths), in support of the Gospels as metaphorical accounts (e.g. Spong), I research the history of the God concept and mythology in general (reading the likes of Joseph Campbell and James Frazer), and I also discuss the topic with both theists and non-theists. I'm expanding my "search" into those that argue against an HJ (e.g., Doherty).

What did I leave out, what am I not doing, that would make my search more objective, exactly?

03-09-2004, 09:46 AM	#37
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Re: Re: is jesus jibberish? Originally posted by SignOfTheCross Since I haven't really taken much of an interest in the historical Jesus, I can't say for certain yes, but it seems most respected historians believe He did exist. Indeed, but that in and of itself is not evidence for HJ. I think it's impossible to prove beyond doubt that any "historical figure" existed, if we want to be truly skeptical. It's impossible to prove beyond doubt even for someone who is not skeptical at all, actually. Such books have a basic premise in mind, to disprove Jesus. And there are many books out there with the basic premise of proving the HJ. Let's not conflate two separate but related arguments, BTW: one is the argument for or against the HJ, and one is the argument that the Gospels are historical accounts of a HJ. ANd that generalization is not a fair assessment of scholarly research and books about the subject at all. Indeed, the books I've read generally make no positive claim one way or the other, neither claiming to prove the HJ or to disprove the HJ, but generally only to support one view over the other. Most books I've read tend to support the HJ, but point out reasons why the accounts of Jesus' life as portrayed in the Gospels et al should not be accepted as literal historical accounts. This includes those by theists such as John Shelby Spong. I cannot speak for Doherty's book, as I have yet to read it. I don't think you've been entirely honest in your search for truth, instead it seems you need reinforcement from dodgy reading material and your fellow atheist chums. Speaking for myself (and your accusation seems to be aimed at more than just the poster you were replying to), if you are proposing that the works of Pagels, Spong, Crossan, Doherty, etc. are "dodgy", then you have some serious work to do to support this assertion. Also note that another "dodgy" book I've read is the Bible. Indeed, that is the first book about Jesus I read. I was raised in the Christian faith, and a literal Christian faith. My search started from there, as I began researching the religion I was raised in and the documents it was based on. And I'm not afraid to read books supporting any particular view. And note that I attend Church regularly and discuss the topic with believers and non-believers alike. If you don't see that as an "honest search for truth", then again you have some work cut out for you in supporting your assertion. There is evidence of Jesus existence (i.e. Josephus), but usually the atheist dismisses such evidence because it was written by a Christian, hence unreliable, or the author made an historical error. Josephus was a Jew. And many Christian scholars seriously question the veracity of Josephus as well. Why don't you start again but this time try and keep it objective. Again speaking for myself, you need to establish why my "search" has not been objective. I read the Bible (and other theological texts, e.g. the Buddhist texts), I go to Church, I read and consider the works on both sides of the camp (theists and non-theists), in support of an HJ, in support of the Gospels as historical accounts, in support of the Gospels as non-historical accounts (legends or myths), in support of the Gospels as metaphorical accounts (e.g. Spong), I research the history of the God concept and mythology in general (reading the likes of Joseph Campbell and James Frazer), and I also discuss the topic with both theists and non-theists. I'm expanding my "search" into those that argue against an HJ (e.g., Doherty). What did I leave out, what am I not doing, that would make my search more objective, exactly?

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

03-06-2004, 10:18 PM	#35
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Yeah, but "the leading papyrologists" say it is earlier! You know . . . "the leading papyrologists," . . "Them. . . ." "Ours go to eleven!" Anyways the problem with textual criticism is many mainstream scholars do not want to bother with it. They just consult their latest edition and assume the decisions are correct. Not only Mk 1.1, but other decisions reflect theological considerations more than textual evidence. So, to introduce "change" is considered a bad thing. The irony of this all, despite the drive to have close to an autograph, the damn papyrus does not have anything significant to add! Aland and Aland imply that the fact the few words "agree" with other major witnesses we can all sit back in comfort that we have "the text" to the NT! --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.