Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

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

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Well, no, I didn't "trawl across tWeb". If you read the thread from the beginning, you will see that it was one I initially participated in, and since it happened to appear at the top of the forum again, I decided to pop in and see how the debate had progressed. "Not very far", as it happens, but I was amused by the irony of you accusing someone else of "dodging questions and making unsubstantiated speculative remarks".
    I am fully aware of this thread given that I started it some two and half years ago.

    And I am amused by your claims that you like to prioritise logic and reason over emotion. So it would appear that we have both been entertained.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    That you trawled Tweb to come to this thread and make that post indicates that either you were bored, or that you were being petty.
    Well, no, I didn't "trawl across tWeb". If you read the thread from the beginning, you will see that it was one I initially participated in, and since it happened to appear at the top of the forum again, I decided to pop in and see how the debate had progressed. "Not very far", as it happens, but I was amused by the irony of you accusing someone else of "dodging questions and making unsubstantiated speculative remarks".

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    I notice you didn't contest my observation.
    That you trawled Tweb to come to this thread and make that post indicates that either you were bored, or that you were being petty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    You came on to this thread solely to write that?
    I notice you didn't contest my observation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Talk about the proverbial pot accusing the kettle of being black.
    You came on to this thread solely to write that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    You are very good at dodging questions and making unsubstantiated speculative remarks.
    Talk about the proverbial pot accusing the kettle of being black.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    The point is you have no logical argument otherwise. Translators certainly would have been around.




    Again, you have no logical basis to counter what is in Matthew.
    The fact of the lack of provenance of source and authorship dating to the life of Jesus is a problem.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-22-2024, 07:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Whether I cite references or not is hardly going to make a difference to your opinions. However,
    https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/2...y-really-from/
    Bart D. Ehrman, however, made a groundbreaking contribution several years ago (“Jesus and the Adulteress,” New Testament Studies 34 [1988]: 24–44) by demonstrating the likelihood that PA as we have it in John’s Gospel is in fact a conflation of two earlier stories, one found in Papias and the Didascalia, and the other found in Didymus and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Erhman noted that all of the Lukan features of PA John are found in the former of these ...
    And from Ehrman's paper https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...207AD78A1DBFE7

    The story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7. 53–8. 11) is fraught with historical and literary problems, many of which have seemed insoluble. On only two points is there a scholarly consensus: the passage did not originally form part of the Fourth Gospel, and it bears a close resemblance to Synoptic, particularly Lukan, traditions about Jesus. The arguments for these judgments are overwhelming and do not need to be repeated here. In some respects these unanimous conclusions have themselves brought into sharp focus the thorny problems of the story's textual and pre-literary history: (1) Textual. Since the oldest and best textual witnesses of the Gospel of John do not contain the passage, how should the allusive references to it from the second and third centuries be evaluated? Did Papias know this story? If so, did he find it in the Gospel according to the Hebrews? Or was it Eusebius, who informs us of Papias's knowledge of this or a similar story, who found it there? What form of the story was known to the author of the Didascalia and his subsequent editor, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions? Did Origen know the story? If not, when was it first accepted into the Alexandrian canon? (2) Preliterary. How should this story be classified form-critically? And in what Sitz im Leben of the early church would it have thrived? Does the story preserve authentic tradition from the life of Jesus? Scholarship has reached an impasse on these questions because the early evidence is so sparse. Martin Dibelius's famous pronouncement from a different context applies here as well: ‘Enlightenment is to be expected not from new hypotheses but only from new discoveries.’


    Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    You are very good at dodging questions and making unsubstantiated speculative remarks.

    You wrote this:

    but other early second century references to the story exist.


    I asked "Such as?". You reply with:

    As noted, there is nothing like enough information to draw a firm conclusion.


    What "other early second century references" are you citing? You made the comment, substantiate it with some textual evidence.

    And how do you know all the disciples were out and about doing other things when specific incidents in those narratives are related?
    Whether I cite references or not is hardly going to make a difference to your opinions. However,
    https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/2...y-really-from/
    Bart D. Ehrman, however, made a groundbreaking contribution several years ago (“Jesus and the Adulteress,” New Testament Studies 34 [1988]: 24–44) by demonstrating the likelihood that PA as we have it in John’s Gospel is in fact a conflation of two earlier stories, one found in Papias and the Didascalia, and the other found in Didymus and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Erhman noted that all of the Lukan features of PA John are found in the former of these ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    They are free to disagree - and free to attach whatever labels they choose to my comments.



    As noted, there is nothing like enough information to draw a firm conclusion.



    That all the disciples would have been present for all events is hardly be a probable scenario. They were often sent away to perform one task or another, and sometimes were absent for a lengthy period.



    Hardly - unless you want to claim that subsequent and revised editions of history texts of today are only reliable if they don't add to, subtract from, or alter the content of the first edition. Well - subsequent editions anyway - revised editions are inherently altered versions.
    You are very good at dodging questions and making unsubstantiated speculative remarks.

    You wrote this:

    but other early second century references to the story exist.


    I asked "Such as?". You reply with:

    As noted, there is nothing like enough information to draw a firm conclusion.


    What "other early second century references" are you citing? You made the comment, substantiate it with some textual evidence.

    And how do you know all the disciples were out and about doing other things when specific incidents in those narratives are related?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Others would not agree with that rather simplistic notion.
    They are free to disagree - and free to attach whatever labels they choose to my comments.

    Dated to around 140-170 CE so it is late.

    Such as? And again you are giving a second century dating.
    As noted, there is nothing like enough information to draw a firm conclusion.

    Why does this author of John not originally record it, particularly given the belief among many that he was present at all these events?.
    That all the disciples would have been present for all events is hardly be a probable scenario. They were often sent away to perform one task or another, and sometimes were absent for a lengthy period.

    Why would what is later acknowledged to be Scripture have "deficiencies"? You are in danger of acknowledging these gospel accounts are not reliable "historical" texts!
    Hardly - unless you want to claim that subsequent and revised editions of history texts of today are only reliable if they don't add to, subtract from, or alter the content of the first edition. Well - subsequent editions anyway - revised editions are inherently altered versions.
    Last edited by tabibito; 02-20-2024, 07:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Some critical texts are at variance with changing theological viewpoints. That indicates that the texts were not adjusted to meet the new theologies.
    Others would not agree with that rather simplistic notion.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    It is in the protoevangelicum of James, apparently a second century infancy gospel
    Dated to around 140-170 CE so it is late.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    but other early second century references to the story exist.
    Such as? And again you are giving a second century dating.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The story may have been handed down orally before being recorded, and have been entirely authentic, or it may not.
    Why does this author of John not originally record it, particularly given the belief among many that he was present at all these events?.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Or perhaps the authors produced updated editions when deficiencies that needed addressing were identified and addressed.
    Why would what is later acknowledged to be Scripture have "deficiencies"? You are in danger of acknowledging these gospel accounts are not reliable "historical" texts!
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 02-20-2024, 07:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Or to adapt texts to changing theological viewpoints.
    Some critical texts are at variance with changing theological viewpoints. That indicates that the texts were not adjusted to meet the new theologies.

    How can the pericope of the adulterous woman be "authentic" if it does no appear in early MSS? What evidence are you supplying to indicate its authenticity?
    It is in the protoevangelicum of James, apparently a second century infancy gospel, but other early second century references to the story exist. The story may have been handed down orally before being recorded, and have been entirely authentic, or it may not.

    My questions were partly rhetorical. Short answer is we do not know exactly when, or by whom, those later verses were added but that various MSS exist without them demonstrates that these texts were altered over time.

    Perhaps people just liked a good story and wanted to know what happened next! The Now Read On...approach!
    Or perhaps the authors produced updated editions when deficiencies that needed addressing were identified and addressed. The one scenario is as likely as the other.
    Last edited by tabibito; 02-20-2024, 07:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    We do.[INDENT]Some phrases here and there added or subtracted, many of which appear to be the result of attempts to disambiguate.
    Or to adapt texts to changing theological viewpoints.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    [INDENT]

    The pericope about the adulterous woman appears to be authentic, but not originally included in John's gospel. One of the many things that were not recorded.
    How can the pericope of the adulterous woman be "authentic" if it does no appear in early MSS? What evidence are you supplying to indicate its authenticity?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Again - you want ... speculation?
    My questions were partly rhetorical. Short answer is we do not know exactly when, or by whom, those later verses were added but that various MSS exist without them demonstrates that these texts were altered over time.

    Perhaps people just liked a good story and wanted to know what happened next! The Now Read On...approach!

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    We do find variants in different MSS.
    We do.
    Some phrases here and there added or subtracted, many of which appear to be the result of attempts to disambiguate.
    Some phrases appear in a different order in the same sentences, with no alteration to meaning. Some variant spellings. Some synonyms. The variations mostly point to tailoring for differences of dialect. (and of course, a number of copyists' mistakes).
    A scant few variations do produce conflicts.
    The Gadara/Gerasa mismatch on the location of the event with the pigs is duplicated in all Synoptic gospels.


    Furthermore, when was the longer Mark written?
    You want ... speculation?


    Likewise the pericope of the adulterous woman in John
    The pericope about the adulterous woman appears to be authentic, but not originally included in John's gospel. One of the many things that were not recorded.


    and the additional chapter in that text after chapter twenty has clearly stated - my emphasis:

    Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue[e] to believe that Jesus is the Messiah,[f] the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name
    Again - you want ... speculation?
    Last edited by tabibito; 02-20-2024, 06:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
38 responses
133 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
422 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X