Freethought & Rationalism Archive

emur · 10-31-2002, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:

Good luck, I had this same argument. When I asked her to show me these NT documents she said; The church has them and is suppressing them because they contratict church dogma. Where did she get this idea? Christian web-site! Proof? none! BUT It is a FACT![/QB]

Hi Butters,

"The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh is a good read on the subject of the suppressing of the DSS. According to the authors, the international team in charge of the scrolls was predominately Christian, and they kept the controversal scrolls (potentially damaging to the Church's views on the founding of Christianity) from the public eye for nearly fifty years.

This is not about the suppression of just Church dogma, but about the suppression of writings potentially damaging to the foundations of Christianity itself.

Nothing in the book mentions the DSS containing any NT documents. However, there are some stark parallels between some of the scrolls and characters, theology, and doctrine found in the NT.

The bottom line? The suppression of the scrolls argues against Christianity, not in favor of it.

Hope this helps.

Mel

Vorkosigan · 10-31-2002, 05:40 AM

Bagient and Leigh are....um...highly unreliable. Have you read their..er...fantastical book Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

In any case, BH, in Scepter and Star, J. J. Collins' widely praised work on messianism in pre-Christian Judaism, the 7Q5 fragment is also decisively rejected.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-31-2002, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:

There are 2 or 3 MSS fragments dating solidly in the second century (P52, P90 and possibly P98) accounting for approximately .003% of the text in the entire NT. ...

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to return to a question I raised a little over two months ago. But, first, let me again site a reference that speaks to another form of dating - that using C14:

Quote:

Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science.

In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built.

By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.

- emphasis added; see <a href="http://www.c14dating.com/int.html" target="_blank">"Curve of Knowns"</a>

So, is there anything comparable to a "Curve of Knowns" for paleography (and, for that matter, epigraphy)? Bede, back on August 15th, wrote: "Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so." Three days later, he noted that I "need to look for a paleaographical text book like Thompsons ...", but he stopped short of providing references to any of these tests and/or confirming that such references could be found in the Thompson text.

So, again, when we here talk about somthing being "solidly dated" my question is, with respect to both paleography and epigraphy: How firmly, how accurately, and how do we know? I understand (and respect) that there exists a good deal of consensus about some of these dates, but the same could be said about Syro-Palestinian chronology before being challenged by folks such as Finkelstein/Silberman.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

emur · 10-31-2002, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Bagient and Leigh are....um...highly unreliable. Have you read their..er...fantastical book Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

Hi Vorkosigan,

I haven't read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Is it from that work that the authors are considered unreliable? While I don't accept everything they say, in what way are they so unreliable that their work on the DSS can simply be discounted? Anyone?

Thanks,

Mel

CX · 10-31-2002, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BH:
CX,

What amount of that 5600 partial or mostly complete mss can be dated before say 300 A.D.?

Somewhere near 40 or so. By my estimation they are (with NA27 dates):

MSS saec.
P52 ~125 C.E.
P90 II
P98 (II)

P32 ~200 C.E.
P46
P64
P66

P77 II/III
0189

P1 III
P4
P5
P9
P12
P15
P20
P22
P23
P27
P28
P29
P30
P39
P40
P45
P47
P48
P49
P53
P65
P69
P70
P75
P80
P87
P91
P95
0212
0220

I have in my notes several more possibly dating to the 3rd century giving me a total of around 46, but I don't have them individually listed and can't look it up at the moment. In any case I say most likely fewer then 50 known MSS date prior to the 4th century.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

CX · 10-31-2002, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
So, again, when we here talk about somthing being "solidly dated" my question is, with respect to both paleography and epigraphy: How firmly, how accurately, and how do we know?

I know very little about paleography, epigraphy etc. When I say "solidly dated" I mean that there isn't much controversy amongst scholars. As a dilletante I have to rely on the work of others. Not only that, but given that those earliest fragments we do have are so tiny I don't think it makes much difference. I mean for all three 2nd century MSS we're talking about 384 words. Even if they could be shown to come from the autographs they wouldn't be much help in establishing text attestation. They are mostly of curiousity value.

Now an intact scroll of an entire gospel dating to the 1st century, THAT would be worth scrutinizing. Or better yet have the authors live for 1000s of years like the OT patriarchs so they could go on Larry King Live. Rather odd that a supernatural and all-powerful being didn't do some hocus pocus to ensure that we had the original documents. Of course using an unknown itinerant peasant preacher in a relatively obscure part of the world in a mostly illiterate society at a time before mass communication to save all of mankind seems a little perverse to begin with.

B. H. Manners · 10-31-2002, 08:00 AM

CX,

Thank you for your kind reply and patience with me. If you don't mind, the manuscripts before 300 AD amounted to about 40, maybe 50ish in number. However, they are for the most part only a few sentences up to about 2oo words. That's not even half a page probably.

So, is there plenty of room to argue that there were plenty of variant texts back then and that the ones we know of today cannot be proven to not have existed back then?

Jayhawker Soule · 10-31-2002, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
... Of course using an unknown itinerant peasant preacher in a relatively obscure part of the world in a mostly illiterate society at a time before mass communication to save all of mankind seems a little perverse to begin with.

Radcliffe Emerson · 10-31-2002, 10:03 AM

The dual messiah concept is still the primary Jewish messianic belief. They further believe both messiahs will be ordinary humans, not divine in any way.

Kosh · 10-31-2002, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff Hudson:


There are important parallels between the two.

1QH is an anomalous document that shows belief in the Spirit and that its writer was rejected by the majority of the Qumran community. For my money, this document is closely related to what the original NT documents were about before the later editors introduced Jesus. The NT as we have it is a development of earlier Jewish documents which had no reference to Jesus.

Geoff

Would you classify your self as a mythicist then Geoff? Do you have a link with more information about this theory? Also, how does this theory accout for the Pauline letters?

Thanks.

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

10-31-2002, 05:40 AM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bagient and Leigh are....um...highly unreliable. Have you read their..er...fantastical book Holy Blood, Holy Grail? In any case, BH, in Scepter and Star, J. J. Collins' widely praised work on messianism in pre-Christian Judaism, the 7Q5 fragment is also decisively rejected.

10-31-2002, 08:00 AM	#17
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	CX, Thank you for your kind reply and patience with me. If you don't mind, the manuscripts before 300 AD amounted to about 40, maybe 50ish in number. However, they are for the most part only a few sentences up to about 2oo words. That's not even half a page probably. So, is there plenty of room to argue that there were plenty of variant texts back then and that the ones we know of today cannot be proven to not have existed back then?

10-31-2002, 10:03 AM	#19
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	The dual messiah concept is still the primary Jewish messianic belief. They further believe both messiahs will be ordinary humans, not divine in any way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.