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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    <SNIP! nothing of consequence>
    Nothing can be dated close to the life of Jesus to indicate eyewitness testimony.

    Originally posted by Tassman
    What we have from Kurt and Barbara Aland, and generally accepted by biblical scholars, is that the concept of 'original text' is non-existent. The New Testament text that we have today is the work of scholarly committees which decided on the readings it thought were most likely closest to the earliest versions of the New Testament.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-25-2019, 08:07 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      What we have from Kurt and Barbara Aland, and generally accepted by biblical scholars, is that the concept of 'original text' is non-existent.
      Well, I think not! We have about 17 variants per text (see my post above), which is not much, considering many documents are multiplied pages of text.

      The New Testament text that we have today is the work of scholarly committees which decided on the readings it thought were most likely closest to the earliest versions of the New Testament.
      I have been reading the NT text and seen variants, and again, most of them are not significant. Could you point me to some variants the Alands refer to?

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #63
        This might be a good time to note that the various copies of the Gettysburg Address, which is a very short document written in recent times, contain some rather interesting differences among them but nobody argues that this somehow makes the Address inaccurate, invalid or unreliable.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          This might be a good time to note that the various copies of the Gettysburg Address, which is a very short document written in recent times, contain some rather interesting differences among them but nobody argues that this somehow makes the Address inaccurate, invalid or unreliable.
          I vaguely remember hearing that the only reason we have a copy is because someone asked Lincoln for a copy shortly after the address.

          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I think not! We have about 17 variants per text (see my post above), which is not much, considering many documents are multiplied pages of text.
            “17 variants” from what? According to the Aland’s there is no original autograph from which to vary. Texts can only be reconstructed from imperfect, sometimes widely divergent, later copies.

            I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek text is what biblical scholars refer to as the "critical text" and forms the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism.

            I have been reading the NT text and seen variants, and again, most of them are not significant. Could you point me to some variants the Alands refer to?
            It’s a meaningless question because “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”. “This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status”.

            Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, 'The Text of The New Testament', 1995.
            Last edited by Tassman; 08-27-2019, 12:43 AM.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              I vaguely remember hearing that the only reason we have a copy is because someone asked Lincoln for a copy shortly after the address.
              IIRC there are 4 copies and each is different.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                “17 variants” from what? According to the Aland’s there is no original autograph from which to vary. Texts can only be reconstructed from imperfect, sometimes widely divergent, later copies.
                "Widely divergent" copies are the extreme exception.
                I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek text is what biblical scholars refer to as the "critical text" and forms the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism.
                I'm sure I don't need to remind YOU that Aland & Aland is not holy writ. Speaking of which:

                It’s a meaningless question because “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”. “This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status”.

                Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, 'The Text of The New Testament', 1995.
                This appears to be both an inaccurate citation and misleading; the text you quote appears on page 69 of the 1987 edition. In contrast, this is what the Alands had to say in 1995:
                Source: The Text of the New Testament: The Science and Art of Textual Criticism by Edward Andrews and Don Wilkins, quoting Aland and Aland 1995 p. 93-95


                Our research on the early papyri has yielded unexpected results that require a change in the traditional views of the early text. We have inherited from the past generation the view that the early text was a "free" text, and the discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri seemed to confirm this view. When P45 and P46 were joined by P66 sharing the same characteristics, this position seemed to be definitely established. P75 appeared in contrast to be a loner with its "strict" text anticipating the Codex Vaticanus. Meanwhile the other witnesses of the early period had been ignored. It is their collations which have changed the picture so completely.

                © Copyright Original Source


                Try not uncritically copying from sloppy atheist sites, k?
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  The irony of all this is shunya is ostensibly Baha'i, and those writings have been massively edited over the less than two centuries since the Bab. He seems to have no problem with that.
                  Do you think he should he have a problem with it?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Do you think he should he have a problem with it?
                    If he isn't a hypocrite, yes.

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      This might be a good time to note that the various copies of the Gettysburg Address, which is a very short document written in recent times, contain some rather interesting differences among them but nobody argues that this somehow makes the Address inaccurate, invalid or unreliable.
                      We have the original Gettysburg as written and spoken by Abraham Lincoln, We have nothing within a hundred years of the life of Jesus Christ,
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        We have the original Gettysburg as written and spoken by Abraham Lincoln, ...
                        No, we DON'T.

                        Source: Wikipedia

                        Despite the prominent place of the speech in the history and popular culture of the United States, its exact wording is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand differ in a number of details, and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech.
                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        ... We have nothing within a hundred years of the life of Jesus Christ,
                        Yes, we DO.

                        Earliest Fragments of Matthew

                        Earliest Fragments of Luke

                        Earliest Fragments of Mark

                        Earliest Fragments of John


                        There's no rational question that the Gospels were in circulation in the First Century AD and that they have been reliably transmitted to the present day.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          No, we DON'T.

                          Source: Wikipedia

                          Despite the prominent place of the speech in the history and popular culture of the United States, its exact wording is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand differ in a number of details, and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech.
                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source




                          Yes, we DO.

                          Earliest Fragments of Matthew

                          Earliest Fragments of Luke

                          Earliest Fragments of Mark

                          Earliest Fragments of John


                          There's no rational question that the Gospels were in circulation in the First Century AD and that they have been reliably transmitted to the present day.
                          Sorry to inform you, but no the latest news is that the earliest dated fragment of Mark (P137) first believed to from the first century, is now dated to between 150 to 250 AD. All other fragments are are most definitely not from the first century.

                          Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/may-web-only/mark-manuscript-earliest-not-first-century-fcm.html



                          Despite Disappointing Some, New Mark Manuscript Is Earliest Yet
                          Bible scholars have been waiting for the Gospel fragment’s publication for years.
                          ELIJAH HIXSON| MAY 30, 2018

                          The Egypt Exploration Society has recently published a Greek papyrus that is likely the earliest fragment of the Gospel of Mark, dating it from between A.D. 150–250. One might expect happiness at such a publication, but this important fragment actually disappointed many observers. The reason stems from the unusual way that this manuscript became famous before it became available.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          The article goes into considerable detail concerning the earliest known fragment of the NT from Mark (P137), and the now published dating of the fragment.

                          Again, there are absolutely no known earlier fragments of the NT.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Sorry to inform you, but no the latest news is that the earliest dated fragment of Mark (P137) first believed to from the first century, is now dated to between 150 to 250 AD. All other fragments are are most definitely not from the first century.

                            Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/may-web-only/mark-manuscript-earliest-not-first-century-fcm.html



                            Despite Disappointing Some, New Mark Manuscript Is Earliest Yet
                            Bible scholars have been waiting for the Gospel fragment’s publication for years.
                            ELIJAH HIXSON| MAY 30, 2018

                            The Egypt Exploration Society has recently published a Greek papyrus that is likely the earliest fragment of the Gospel of Mark, dating it from between A.D. 150–250. One might expect happiness at such a publication, but this important fragment actually disappointed many observers. The reason stems from the unusual way that this manuscript became famous before it became available.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            The article goes into considerable detail concerning the earliest known fragment of the NT from Mark (P137), and the now published dating of the fragment.

                            Again, there are absolutely no known earlier fragments of the NT.
                            Er, no - one source doesn't over rule four.

                            And there is more than adequate evidence for rational people that the earliest fragments date no later than the Second Century (with fragments actually dating to the First but I'm just using the 'older' known documentation) - which utterly and completely destroys the

                            We have nothing within a hundred years of the life of Jesus Christ,
                            myth.


                            You, as usual, are wrong.

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Er, no - one source doesn't over rule four.

                              And there is more than adequate evidence for rational people that the earliest fragments date no later than the Second Century (with fragments actually dating to the First but I'm just using the 'older' known documentation) - which utterly and completely destroys the


                              myth.


                              You, as usual, are wrong.
                              Your making blind assertions without references. My references are the result of published research.

                              Still waiting . . .
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Your making blind assertions without references.
                                References were provided - and you are still wrong.

                                And don't use the possessive.

                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X