Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Confirmations of the New Testament

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    And yet Aland and Aland also say on p 69 of their ‘Text of The New Testament’ that “Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was the ‘living text’ in the Greek literary tradition”. “And the New Testament text continued to be a ‘living text’ as long as it remained a manuscript tradition”. “Even for later scribes, for example, the parallel passages of the Gospels were so familiar that they would adapt the text of one Gospel to that of another. They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standard of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status”.
    OPB already took you to task in post #67 for propagating this "living text" idea that the Alands themselves had already abandoned by the time the 1995 edition of their book was coming out, so why are you still going on about it like nothing happened? You think if you just act like his post never happened we'll all forget about it or something?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

    It does make them solid, as I referenced in Aland and Aland saying that editions of the NT substantially agree.
    And yet Aland and Aland also say on p 69 of their ‘Text of The New Testament’ that “Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was the ‘living text’ in the Greek literary tradition”. “And the New Testament text continued to be a ‘living text’ as long as it remained a manuscript tradition”. “Even for later scribes, for example, the parallel passages of the Gospels were so familiar that they would adapt the text of one Gospel to that of another. They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standard of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status”.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I see you decided to omit the meat of my argument.

    Again, I note you decided to omit the part where I vehemently disagreed with you in favor of again asserting the portion with which I agreed. 2) "committee vote" just happens to be how the current set of (Protestant) scholars have opined; the result is not significantly different that Erasmus' hurried collation 500 years ago. 3) I made no such argument. Try not to burn straw men, hey?

    Well, yes. That's entirely beside the point of the argument I was making, however.

    I'll take your collective inability to address the main thrusts of the points I was making as tacit admission that you have no answer for them, but can't bring yourself to concede the overall conversation.
    Nevertheless, no autographs are extant for the NT. Its earliest form must be reconstructed via educated guess-work by scholars from later copies. Furthermore, other books no longer in the canon were included in some sets of scripture and there were some in the current canon that were excluded. You are arguing for the inerrancy of the hypothetical 'original' when no such letter-perfect manuscript is known to have ever existed or what books comprised it.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    The Muratorian Canon is evidence that as early as 170 CE there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels. But there were other books included in it as well. And the other canons or codices also included or omitted various other revered texts during the first 300+ years, i.e. until the Athanasian canon finally gave us the New Testament as we now know it.
    I see you decided to omit the meat of my argument.
    Nevertheless, no autographs are extant for the NT. Its most likely earliest form must be reconstructed from later copies as decided by committee vote. You are arguing for the inerrancy of the hypothetical 'original' but there is no such letter-perfect manuscript that is known to have ever existed. Certainly, none is available today.
    Again, I note you decided to omit the part where I vehemently disagreed with you in favor of again asserting the portion with which I agreed. 2) "committee vote" just happens to be how the current set of (Protestant) scholars have opined; the result is not significantly different that Erasmus' hurried collation 500 years ago. 3) I made no such argument. Try not to burn straw men, hey?
    But Paul himself is believed to be referring to the Hebrew scriptures e.g. in 1 Cor 15:4

    https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...o-in-1-cor-154
    Well, yes. That's entirely beside the point of the argument I was making, however.

    I'll take your collective inability to address the main thrusts of the points I was making as tacit admission that you have no answer for them, but can't bring yourself to concede the overall conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    … Julius Caesar's commentaries, … are NOT considered authoritative in any way, and contain conflicts with archaeological evidence.
    But the question is whether we think this is reasonably what Julius Caesar wrote. If so, we consider them authentic (not necessarily authoritative), even though we don't have copies that are fresh after Caesar wrote.

    Within a hundred years even whether it is so or not does not make the documentation solid in anyway, as referenced by Tassman and I referenced by academic historians.
    It does make them solid, as I referenced in Aland and Aland saying that editions of the NT substantially agree.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The historians nor I are not biased on any one ancient historical document. All ancient documents are open to skepticism as I referenced when rogue brought up Julius Caesar's commentaries, which are NOT considered authoritative in any way, and contain conflicts with archaeological evidence. There is no standard of selectivity. Can you name one ancient document that historians selectively endorse over another? Within a hundred years even whether it is so or not does not make the documentation solid in anyway, as referenced by Tassman and I referenced by academic historians.
    Within a hundred years meets YOUR EXPRESS CRITERIA. Further, YOUR CRITERIA throws out almost all ancient documentation. No cherry picking allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    The weakness of your argument is that it literally tosses 99.9999% of all ancient documentation. You don't get to apply a standard selectively - if it applies to Scripture, it applies to other ancient works, virtually none of which can bear that kind of irrational scrutiny.

    Also, 'within a hundred years' is established - and even if it weren't, the documentation is SO solid that it cannot be rationally discarded.
    The historians nor I are not biased on any one ancient historical document. All ancient documents are open to skepticism as I referenced when rogue brought up Julius Caesar's commentaries, which are NOT considered authoritative in any way, and contain conflicts with archaeological evidence. There is no standard of selectivity. Can you name one ancient document that historians selectively endorse over another? Within a hundred years even whether it is so or not does not make the documentation solid in anyway, as referenced by Tassman and I referenced by academic historians.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Just because you're making a moronic argument doesn't mean I'm calling you a moron...

    If you don't wanna play dodge ball, stop throwing the ball at people.
    FTR, I absolutely DO endorse name-calling rhetoric, ad homs, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Than it will be understood that you endorse the name calling rhetoric of Teallaura, which reflects his lack of patience and understanding of those who believe differently.
    Just because you're making a moronic argument doesn't mean I'm calling you a moron...

    If you don't wanna play dodge ball, stop throwing the ball at people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    You have far more patience than I. I would have long since metaphorically shaken the dust from my feet and left the infidel to his way.


    Yeah, no - trust me, I don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The weakness in any argument lee merrill and you offer is that there there are no first autographs known, nor any evidence what they actually composed of. There is evidence of an early simpler gospel Q, but it is inconclusive. Lee's citations only reflect the authors personal experiences, and reflections just as believers do today, and ah . . the fact that others wrote about it before Luke, which is already accepted that Mark first, than Matthew, than Luke were compiled in that order..
    The weakness of your argument is that it literally tosses 99.9999% of all ancient documentation. You don't get to apply a standard selectively - if it applies to Scripture, it applies to other ancient works, virtually none of which can bear that kind of irrational scrutiny.

    Also, 'within a hundred years' is established - and even if it weren't, the documentation is SO solid that it cannot be rationally discarded.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    These are not canons,
    The Muratorian Canon is evidence that as early as 170 CE there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels. But there were other books included in it as well. And the other canons or codices also included or omitted various other revered texts during the first 300+ years, i.e. until the Athanasian canon finally gave us the New Testament as we now know it.

    Repeating this assertion does not make it any more factual. Yes, there are no exant autographs;
    Nevertheless, no autographs are extant for the NT. Its most likely earliest form must be reconstructed from later copies as decided by committee vote. You are arguing for the inerrancy of the hypothetical 'original' but there is no such letter-perfect manuscript that is known to have ever existed. Certainly, none is available today.

    Despite your protestations, even critical scholars date 2 Peter to c. AD 125, making it a very early reference to Paul's letters as 'scripture' regardless of its provenance.
    But Paul himself is believed to be referring to the Hebrew scriptures e.g. in 1 Cor 15:4

    https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...o-in-1-cor-154

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Oh yeah, like that's a shocker
    Well, yeah, that's the Tassman we all know and love.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post


    Amazing how you can praise the Alands to the heavens when they make a statement you like, then turn around and throw them under the bus when they make one you don't.
    Oh yeah, like that's a shocker

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    You have far more patience than I. I would have long since metaphorically shaken the dust from my feet and left the infidel to his way.
    Than it will be understood that you endorse the name calling rhetoric of Teallaura, which reflects his lack of patience and understanding of those who believe differently.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-02-2019, 12:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
0 responses
9 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
30 responses
134 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X