Fred

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock
[B] " Not those of us who know what we are talking about."



" All I know, is that I know nothing."
Socrates.

Sorry this just tickled my fancy. Not having a go at all.

I must agree with the above post with regards to Clement. The "laws" of the religion were common before the gospels were ever written. We must have proper evidence and not just opinion when trying to argue a case of this type. History tells us, from what we possess, that the gospels came later.

Very sorry, this post was a waste of everybodies time that I tried to delete and when unable added the tag.
A moment of madness.

Vinnie

I share Koester's view in Ancient Christian Gospels (p.15). 1 Clement did not use written Gospels but oral tradition. "This is borne out by their form and wording, which does not reveal any redactional features of a known gospel author, and by the quotation formula which appears i nthe past tense..."

If authentic, Ignatius is our earliest attestation (to GMatt) in 110 a.d. and consequenlty, Mark (given Marcan priority).

CX

That's a BIG if. It's possible that the "shorter versions" are authentic, but I strongly doubt the authenticity of the "longer versions". That being said the text critical issues associated with the Epistles of Ignatius are huge and again there's the question of physical MSS evidence. In the end NA27 editors refer to the church fathers as second or third order sources behind the Greek papyri, uncials, minuscules and lectionaries. Their value in determining the text of the NT is secondary at best, yet their worth is very often overstated significantly by laymen and apologists. Most of whom appear not to have even read them or cross-referenced them with the NT. So much Xian and Non-Xian apologetic is vacuous and devoid of real study, especially on the internet where absolutely anyone can widely disseminate any crackpot notion, that it becomes tedious. I wish I could say this only happens in the "believer" camp, but alas there are volumes of dreck and drivel on my side of the fence as well. That's why I don't read any of it anymore.

Peter Kirby

So much Xian and Non-Xian apologetic is vacuous and devoid of real study

An amen to that! But I don't think that Vinnie is trying to use Ignatius as a witness for the reconstruction of the text of Matthew. Indeed, we have to have the text of Matthew secured and a redactional characteristic (the baptism of Jesus to fulfill 'righteousness') identified in order to say that Ignatius was influenced by Matthew at all. And, yes, the question of Ignatian authenticity is not a trivial one.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

P52 is a hoax. It demonstrates very clearly that the whole NT field as we see it today is basically fraudulent. See my article about this subject that I posted here a while back,

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

And on the larger issue of gospels' dating, these are all 2c documents, that we now have in their 4c versions.

The four gospels in their present shape date to the time of Irenaeus (more or less). But since that time there's been still more expansion and editing. Our present-day Greek text, such as NA, is a 4c Egyptian text.

Regards,

Yuri.

Metacrock

and what are your credentials? Where did you get your Ph.D. in textual studies? Who did you study under? Where have published scholarly monograms? What professional or academic organizationd do you belong to? (AARS)?

why should I put your view over against the whole of modern scholarship?

btw have you ever known a scholar?


BTW have you ever seent he fragment in person? I have not, but I know someone who has.


OK now maybe you have credentials. Maybe you are that achaeologist on Pete's list? I don't know. I'm not an expert in this field. My actual field is 18th century British thought. But I just think you are being way too dogmatic about something that is strongly accepted in that field.

Besides, do you suspect Secret Mark was a fruad? If not why not? You use that term of P52 and you even imply that because we don't know the exact location then it's suspect. But do you suspect secret Mark? Not at all? Why not? Don't you find it just a bit coincidental that it just happened to confirm to Ph.D. thesis, which was floundering, and that he (Smith) found it hidden in the lining of a book cover?

Your page reminds me of a creationist, trying to invalidate every dating method. I just wonder if you apply that kind of sketpicism to texts that help your cause?

Metacrock

Look whose talking! I doubt that any of us have done "real study." I know you've read a lot Pete. I've seen your sight, it's good. I've read as much as you have, maybe not exactly the same things. But that statment is insulting,a nd you "amened" it. I will put my study up against anyone here.

but the thing is, I doubt that any of us on this board really study in Greek all the time. That's the real study. You can't substitute for real professional training. Anyone can put up a website, mine included. They all have their flaws. But there's no peer review and there's no system of publication that would screen out the foolish unsupportable claims, that are made often and that we all make from time to time.

I've been to real academic conferences and read papers at them (as I'm sure you have done too Pete) and one thing I do know is that at those conferences, people do not stand around going "O these Xians, they don't have any study." When a conservative walks in to the room, no one goes "O he's a fundie, he can't think and he doesnt' have any evidence, hey fundie, go away cause your an idiot like all fundamentalists." There are conservatives who are respected by liberals, and vice versa. To be a scholar is also to be a gentleman, and at conferences they act like gentlemen.

If one scholar said to another any of the insulting things that are said on this board by atheists to christians (and maaaabye sometimes the other way around ;-) he would be ostracized even by other atheists becasue real scholars just don' t say those kind of things.

CX

You'll note I did not point the finger solely at Xian apologists. Furthermore I did not identify any particular individual or philosophical position.

Iasion

Greetings all,

I must protest

If ANYONE here is a real scholar, its Peter Kirby - and many others here would be considered real scholars by most.

This poster Metacrock however, is the very epitome of the irrational, emotional Christian apologist who argues from insult and bluster and pages of mind-numbing apologetics, rather than facts and sources.

His posts are full of errors of fact - he claimed the "empty tomb" could be traced back through the texts to 50CE. When I pointed out he was wrong, he had to change tack and started a thread about WHY the Christians would NOT have mentioned the empty tomb.

In fact, almost every time Metacrock tries to cite a source, he gets it totally wrong - when I claimed Athenagoras wrote "On The Resurrection" without a single mention of "Jesus" or "Christ", he insulted me as having never read it!

When pressed several times by Peter et al to produce sources that support his claim of early tomb veneration, Metacrock ducked and weaved, producing no evidence, eventually admitting it was no more than some centuries-late comments by Eusebius the master-forger.

He admits he is dyslexic and that he gets "pissy", yet he clearly never bothers to check his work - no other poster here has come close to his level of illiteracy or inaccuracy.

And the swearing, and the insults!
Metacrock disagrees by shouting "bullshit" in the listeners face, he calls them liars, he blusters and curses - anything to hide the total emptiness of his arguments.

I call for the moderators of this board to step in - I am disappointed the tone of the board is dropping, even some other threads descending to cussing - I lay the blame for this squarely at Metacrock's door. Let the moderators gently remind this poster how to be civil, or ask him to leave.

I call for the member of this board to tell this JPHolding wanna-be that his swearing and insults and empty apologetics are not welcome here.

I have found this board to be interesting and enlightening and enjoyable - the level of debate, the quality of argument, the knowledge of the posters - are all of a high level. Here we find that rare class of debate where even those who disagree can be civil and discourse at a scholarly level.

It would be tragic to see this board descend to the disgusting level of JPHolding's boards.

I don't think there would be a single person on this board who thinks Metacrock holds a candle to Peter or a dozen other scholars here, MJers or HJers or others.

We have many posters here who are Christians and believers and HJers of many sorts, who are able to argue without insult and swearing - let Metacrock learn from them how to argue with civility.


Iasion

Vinnie

CX, PK is correct. I am not talking about textual criticism.

Assumption:
Matthew used Mark's baptismal account (Marcan priority)

Matthew adds in a phrase ("to fufill all righteousness" or something like that) twice in his Gospel concerning JBap. Given Marcan priority we are inclined to see this as a Matthean redaction. Ignatius uses this line. But there are no other clear indications Ignatius used Matthew so this is deemed an indirect reference. This means GMatthew was probably written by 110 (if Ignatius' letters were not forged).


Crossan argued the same on pp 233-234 of The Historical Jesus:

We were talkling dating and I was using what is commonly viewed as the earliest evidence of external attestation (outside of synoptic relations) for any Gospel.


But you said it in response to me


I think I've been pretty fair (and accurate) on the textual critical level anyways. But like ou, I am selective in what I read as well. There is too much junk on the internet (from all faiths--lack of faiths-- and positions on everything) to bother with a tenth of it.

Vinnie