Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-05-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If we have 24,000 New Testament manuscripts and none DATED to the 1st century and before c 70 CE then then we have a BIGGER AND BLACKER hole than was previously known.

But we also have "Ecclesiastica Historia" to navigate the chronological framework of "Early Christianity". Would we consider these 24,000 manuscripts to be "Early" if we did not have "Eusebius" as our guide and chronological GPS on the lonley and untrodden path?

Quote:

Book I.
Chapter I. The Plan of the Work.

1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

:realitycheck:

2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called1 have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

:realitycheck:

3 It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation2 of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.3

:realitycheck:

4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise,4 for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

:realitycheck:

5 I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived. From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

:realitycheck:

manoj · 06-05-2012, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by manoj

The image says, "Years between original & earliest surviving copies".

The claim being made, as I understood was that the earliest manuscripts are 40-70 years from the originals (of the manuscripts), not 40-70 years from the events themselves.

It is not clear how the range 40-70 was arrived at. Given a tentative date of AD 125 for P52, is the claim that Gospel of John was written sometime between AD 55-85. That's earlier than even the mainstream consensus!

If one accounts for the difficulty in accurately dating P52, the range becomes much wider.

Cheers
Manoj

Who claimed gJohn was written between 55-85 CE??? Who knows of originals of gJohn that were written between 55-85 CE???

aa5874, I was not making the claim that "gJohn was written between 55-85 CE". To clarify, I don't think that.

Rather I was working back from what was claimed in the posted image and trying to arrive at what must have been the date assigned to gJohn to arrive at such a claim (by the folks who created the said image).

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Cheers
Manoj

JoeWallack · 06-06-2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This is the real problem; is the graph demonstrating the reliability of the content, or the reliability of the transmission?

It certainly demonstrates the latter;

JW:
Oh Jesus guys, how many times have we been over this. I've indicated before that a Newbie could immediately obtain a good reputation here by simply starting with the opposite conclusions of Roger and than building an argument.

Case in point, all of this extant Manuscript evidence proves the exact opposite of Roger's point. The Christian Bible is exponentially the worst preserved document in literary history. Now who can tell me why? Hint = Using "the Christian Bible" as the original is a Jewdie mind trick. What was [impossible for me to be subtle] originally [/impossible for me to be subtle] written?

Joseph

James The Least · 06-06-2012, 07:48 AM

Multiple copies do not equal reliability.

If the premise is true, then the Iliad is the second most "reliable" book from antiquity. Should we teach it as fact then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanutaxis

Need arguments against this:

[IMG]

[/IMG]

James The Least · 06-06-2012, 07:51 AM

It is an extremely depressing commentary on the human condition that the works of Plato almost didn't survive at all, while ridiculous fairy tales of Jesus and his Merry Men were endlessly copied and distributed by the thousands.

aa5874 · 06-06-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

aa5874, I was not making the claim that "gJohn was written between 55-85 CE". To clarify, I don't think that.

Rather I was working back from what was claimed in the posted image and trying to arrive at what must have been the date assigned to gJohn to arrive at such a claim (by the folks who created the said image).

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Cheers
Manoj

But, you seem to take the claims very seriously. But, what originals and when are we supposed to find originals of the Jesus stories??

Surely if NOTHING was written in the 1st century about Jesus then we would NOT find any originals.

Thuis is the problem. Imaginary originals are being DATED by some FOLKS and these IMAGINARY originals are the basis for the historicity of Jesus.

No-one can find imaginary originals.

Those FOLKS claim there are 24,000 Copies but NONE have been dated to the 1st century.

aa5874 · 06-06-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

......Case in point, all of this extant Manuscript evidence proves the exact opposite of Roger's point. The Christian Bible is exponentially the worst preserved document in literary history. Now who can tell me why? Hint = Using "the Christian Bible" as the original is a Jewdie mind trick. What was [impossible for me to be subtle] originally [/impossible for me to be subtle] written?

Joseph

So, why are people usng the "worst preserved document in literary history" to claim that there are originals of the New Testament from the 1st century and that a character called Paul wrote letters to churches during that same time? ??

The very people who discredit the Christian Bible simultaneously claim the Pauline writings are historically accurate.

Sheshbazzar · 06-06-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

......Case in point, all of this extant Manuscript evidence proves the exact opposite of Roger's point. The Christian Bible is exponentially the worst preserved document in literary history. Now who can tell me why? Hint = Using "the Christian Bible" as the original is a Jewdie mind trick. What was [impossible for me to be subtle] originally [/impossible for me to be subtle] written?

Joseph

So, why are people usng the "worst preserved document in literary history" to claim that there are originals of the New Testament from the 1st century and that a character called Paul wrote letters to churches during that same time? ??

The very people who discredit the Christian Bible simultaneously claim the Pauline writings are historically accurate.

There are 'certain' HJ believers' that push the idea that the 'original' gospel was much shorter, like the equivalent of only a half-a-dozen chapters or so in length.
No, they have no evidence for that at all, and not one single 'short' surviving text. But cutting out over 95% of the actual texts works oh so well to get rid of all that silly stuff that they don't want to have to explain or support, and gives them a 'HJ' that they can work with, one with nothing more remaining of the 'person' than the shadow of a grin. An HJ Jebus that they can then pose or dress up in any way that they wish.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-06-2012, 08:07 PM

Well, the hypothesis is usually that the first narrative gospels were basically just passions. I believe Crossan (in minority view) posits the Gospel of Peter as being an exemplar of that and as the basis for the Gospel of Mark (who is it that says Mark is basically "a passion with a long introduction?" Sanders, maybe?)

Sheshbazzar · 06-06-2012, 08:24 PM

Sans all the rest of the forgoing texts, what would be the reason for, or the purpose of this thus unexplained, disconnected, and senseless 'Passion'?

The hypothesis never moves beyond being a hypothesis when the evidence remains non-existent.

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

06-06-2012, 07:51 AM	#45
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	It is an extremely depressing commentary on the human condition that the works of Plato almost didn't survive at all, while ridiculous fairy tales of Jesus and his Merry Men were endlessly copied and distributed by the thousands.

06-06-2012, 08:07 PM	#49
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Well, the hypothesis is usually that the first narrative gospels were basically just passions. I believe Crossan (in minority view) posits the Gospel of Peter as being an exemplar of that and as the basis for the Gospel of Mark (who is it that says Mark is basically "a passion with a long introduction?" Sanders, maybe?)

06-06-2012, 08:24 PM	#50
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Sans all the rest of the forgoing texts, what would be the reason for, or the purpose of this thus unexplained, disconnected, and senseless 'Passion'? The hypothesis never moves beyond being a hypothesis when the evidence remains non-existent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.