Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CX: Hmmm. The first MSS listed is: 100 A.D. Paris Lukan fragment (p6) Luke 3:23; 5:36 Now according to the Appendix in NA 27, P6 is a fragment of GJn which dates to the 4th century. Secondly I cannot find any MSS in the appendix that dates to 100 nor the fragment of GLk cited. Does anyone know to what this person could be referring?

Yeah, the P6 reference is definitely inaccurate. It contains verses from GJohn and almost all of James. Most dates I've seen for it place it in the 4th century.

I think they might be trying to refer to P4, which includes other verses from the first few chapters of GLuke (in addition to 3:23 & 5:36) I've seen P4 dated anywhere from 150 to 250 C.E.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CX: Does anyone know why NA27 dropped P104 (P.Oxy 4404) from the list of MSS?

There's a bunch of the Oxy papyri that they don't use in NA27.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

King Arthur

Hey Rad, you're a little out in left field there buddy.

There is at least *some* historical evidence to support the Bible.

Ever hear of the Moabite Stele or the Tel Dan inscription, etc.? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Steven Carr

How exactly does the Moabite Stele support the Bible?

Archaeologists have found traces of towns called London and Paris. Does this mean that 'A Tale of Two Cities' is historically accurate?

Radcliffe Emerson

I was wrong about the Gospel of Thomas, it's thought to be roughly the same period as Q and the Pauline writings.
And I grant there is historical evidence for some of the places and events in the bible, but no evidence anywhere to support any divine intervention, miracles, or rising from the dead, other than writings years after the alleged events that have different versions of what happened, what was said, etc.

CX

According to the Appendix in NA27, P6 contains only verses from GJn (10:1-2;4-7;9-10, 11:1-8;45-52). I see no reference to James.

Hmmm...I doubt it. P4 contains substantially more than the verses from GLk which are cited. I cannot understand why those two verses would be arbitrarily cited in lieu of all the others contained in P4 when the supposed intent of the reference is to establish early attestation for NT texts. This reference is most likely a mistake.

CX

I knew that.

Well now, I'd be hard pressed to think how a written document could even in principle provide evidence of "divine intervention, miracles or rising from the dead."

CX

Surely your not saying there is no support for the historicity of certain portions of the bible. The invasion of Sennacherib depicted in 2 Kings is well attested as is the Babylonian destruction of Lachish 114 years later:

There's history in the bible to be sure. You just have to feather it out from the myth.

CX

I'm aware of that, of course. My curiousity is over the fact that P. Oxy 4404 (0104) was allegedly cited in the list of MSS witnesses in the NA26/UBS4 and is not listed in NA27/UBS5. I do not have a copy of NA26 to compare to.

Radcliffe Emerson

I agree, but that's the only evidence Christians have for their belief, (documents written decades after the alleged events) and they flatly state all other religious beliefs (and lack thereof) are wrong, even though some of those other beliefs claim they're the only right one too.
I would think if someone saw a person rise from the grave with their own eyes, and had proof they were divine, they'd shout it from the rooftops and write about it immediately. And if the reports of a physically-risen Jesus really happened, people other than just the select few would have seen or known something. Plus, all of the different events the different gospels record about what happened during the resurrection and afterward can't be all true. One says Jesus just cried out on the cross, one says he said I give up my spirit, one says the one thief had sympathy for him, another account says they both ridiculed him.
Did he appear to Mary, or to the beloved disciple and Peter? Or to the disciples walking on the road, to Cephas and the 12. How many days did he stay? One account says he left for heaven almost immediately, another says he stayed for 40 days.
I believe Jesus existed, and I believe some of his teachings are very wise and good to follow. I think the actual Jesus as a person has been lost though by all of the myths about him being divine and risen.
Christians to me seem to think being baptized and believing he was born to a virgin, died then rose, are all that's necessary for their elite group to be saved, and ignore his teachings, like judge not, turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as yourself.
I honestly do not know ANY Christian personally (co-workers, friends, family members) who practices anything Jesus taught. Why do they think he said that stuff if it wasn't important?
But I digress...

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>