Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 121 of 306 (494698)
01-17-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact?
Oh by the way, most of those manuscripts you list below are not "other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge" which I take to meaning sources external to the NT itself. Rather, these are manuscript copies of copies (we have zero original manuscrupts of OT or NT writings) or they are in no way related to the NT writings AT ALL. Thus we can never be sure exactly what the original writers wrote (and only a few, [Matthew, John, and Peter] of them were eye-witnesses anyways) Therefore your point is unsubstantiated and without merit.
However, I will continue my analysis to further prove my point (it will have to continue tomorrow, I have to go to bed now). And I see that NightTrain is doing a good job at this as well.
I see you are on-line now, so I assume you are putting together some type of rebuttal to this .
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 306 (494714)
01-17-2009 11:43 PM


Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
Buzsaw writes:
What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact?
DA writes:
This is not an "other ancient historical knowledge related manuscript",
Perhaps there was some confusion about my question.
1. I cited some examples of acclaimed relatively early existing
manuscripts pertaining to the events applicable to the life and times of Jesus.
2. Not being apprised enough to assess the citations, assuming that a significant percentage of them would serve the purpose for which I cited them.
3. I then asked what other ancient literature (meaning copy manuscripts} exist relative to historical knowledge (meaning any historical knowledge on any topic) which are as close to the earliest copy manuscripts of Matthew which exist.
In other words, DA, what I was after, i.e. other ancient historical knowledge was manuscripts on any topic not related to Matthew but acclaimed as acceptable manuscripts. By literature, I meant scrolls or what we would refer to as books and not just brief architectural plaques on buildings and tombs, etc.
I'm more so questioning than acclaiming.
Regardless of whether you, Nightrain and Brian understood my question, I appreciate the responses of all. I'm a slow thinker, having no college degree so articulating things like this in order to make sense is often difficult and time consuming. I've been over a half hour on just this one, rephrasing etc, and still not sure I'm making good sense to the reader.
OTOH, thankfully, there are other messages I can type off quickly and move on.
BTW, on the side, for what it's worth, I requested prayer for The Devils Advocate, whoever he is, in our Sabbath day class today at the Sabbath day Baptist church were I attend. I referred to you as an angel/messenger from Heaven to EvC, even tough I'm becoming of the opinion that you're a bonafide agnostic.
At any rate your obvious intelligence, wisdom, and articulate manner of posting reminds me of somewhat of my friend Nemmessiss Jaugernaut who is also out to sea with the Coast Guard. You and he would make interesting and formidible counterparts in a one on one Great Debate. We miss his participation here. Perhaps we can win you back on the same good team he advocated for some day. Check him out in the archives via his profile sometime if you haven't yet.
NOTE TO ADMINS: I'll not make a habit of asides such as this. If it is unacceptable, I understand if you hide it and will take that as an admonition.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-18-2009 10:01 AM Buzsaw has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 123 of 306 (494752)
01-18-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Buzsaw
01-17-2009 11:43 PM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
Buzzsaw writes:
Myself writes:
This is not an "other ancient historical knowledge related manuscript"
Buzzsaw writes:
What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact?
Perhaps there was some confusion about my question.
1. I cited some examples of acclaimed relatively early existing
manuscripts pertaining to the events applicable to the life and times of Jesus.
Acclaimed by who? I already disputed that they are not sources of extrabiblical information (though I have not gone through every single one yet, that will take some time as I am performing pretting deep analysis on each one) but two (so far) are not even considered a source of NT material (i.e. the Qumranic 7Q4 and 7Q5 parchment fragments) by leading experts in the field of Biblical textual research and the Magdalen Papyrus is considered a manuscript from a codex of the Book of Matthew and thus is just another copy of a copy (though it is one of the earliest manuscript copies we have, dating close to 200 AD) and thus is not an extrabiblical source.
There is no way we can confirm if inscriptional/scribal errors (introducing error through copying from one manuscript to another either intentional or unintentional) were made i.e. of omission, addition, transposition or alteration during its transmission. We also don't know if deliberate manipulation, adding to these stories of Jesus or outright fabrication after these "events" occurred did not happen by even the original authors and "eyewitnesses" much less the churches and individuals that handled these manuscripts for the next 100-200 years after Jesus death? Which is about how far back the earliest manuscripts date back to.
If Mohammed or Joseph Smith (I can go on, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc) can create an entire religion by word of mouth and by fabricating an entire religious book or books, why are we so shocked that this could not have occurred with the Christian religion as well?
2. Not being apprised enough to assess the citations, assuming that a significant percentage of them would serve the purpose for which I cited them.
You seem to be proposing that these are extra-biblical sources supporting the gospel stories (at least this is what it seems you are implying), which they are not (I will continue going down the list today and tomorrow when I get time to confirm this).
3. I then asked what other ancient literature (meaning copy manuscripts} exist relative to historical knowledge (meaning any historical knowledge on any topic) which are as close to the earliest copy manuscripts of Matthew which exist.
Why are you asking us (non-believers)? It is up to you to provide the evidence for your faith, not us. It seems like I am doing more of the leg work here than you are to prove my point. That is ok but it is up to you to provide your own evidence supporting your position.
In other words, DA, what I was after, i.e. other ancient historical knowledge was manuscripts on any topic not related to Matthew but acclaimed as acceptable manuscripts. By literature, I meant scrolls or what we would refer to as books and not just brief architectural plaques on buildings and tombs, etc.
I doubt the "acclaimed" part and the "acceptable" part of what you have shown me in your list. So far, it seems like only one or two "scholars" out of hundreds of scholars specializing in that field of study have errantly (either deliberately or otherwise) jumped to conclusions about the identity or date of certain manuscripts. Thse were neither acclaimed nor accepted by their peers as I have shown.
And no, I (or any of the real experts in the fields) do not consider people like Josh McDowell and other untrained and seemingly biased Christian apologists, experts in these fields of linguistics, biblical archaeology, or ancient literary textual analysis.
I'm more so questioning than acclaiming.
That is a great attitude to have. I am in no way an expert in these fields either. I am just showing the full picture (not just a Christian-biased view) of the analysis behind these texts and what the real experts analyzing these manuscripts are saying.
Regardless of whether you, Nightrain and Brian understood my question, I appreciate the responses of all. I'm a slow thinker, having no college degree so articulating things like this in order to make sense is often difficult and time consuming. I've been over a half hour on just this one, rephrasing etc, and still not sure I'm making good sense to the reader.
No problem, I only have an Associates Degree in Computer Studies (though I have been going to college off and on for over 17 years). I like to use my critical thinking skills to filter the bullshit from what is real, that is why I like doing this. I hope I am not coming off as condescending, that is not my purpose. I love to read, study everything and try to not jump to conclusions. I too have been called on the carpet and had to eat a slice of humble pie i.e. by Cavediver when discussing quantum mechanics and cosmology in another thread. In no way do I hold myself better than you or anyone else. I just like to thoroughly discuss things from a rational and logical point of view and try to encourage everyone to do likewise and not accept what some biased person tells you what is "true". We all sometimes let our emotions get the most of us especially if we are discussing things near and dear to our hearts i.e. religion.
BTW, on the side, for what it's worth, I requested prayer for The Devils Advocate, whoever he is, in our Sabbath day class today at the Sabbath day Baptist church were I attend. I referred to you as an angel/messenger from Heaven to EvC, even tough I'm becoming of the opinion that you're a bonafide agnostic.
Thanks. I am somewhat of an atheist agnostic (no they are not mutually exclusive terms) and a moral universalist. BTW, my wife grew up in an Independent Baptist Church and I in the Independent Christian Churches. We have attended a Southern Baptist Church and my wife and I now attend a Methodist Church (I still believe in supporting my family no matter what my personal beliefs or lack thereof are).
At any rate your obvious intelligence, wisdom, and articulate manner of posting reminds me of somewhat of my friend Nemmessiss Jaugernaut who is also out to sea with the Coast Guard. You and he would make interesting and formidible counterparts in a one on one Great Debate. We miss his participation here. Perhaps we can win you back on the same good team he advocated for some day..
I was a Christian for well over 25 years so my decision to "turn my back on my faith" so to speak was not taken lightly but only after much, much research, study and critical analysis. I will in turn be going back out to sea shortly (my last sea tour before I retire from the Navy, hurah!), so my involvement here will start to wane here in the next couple of months but I will still try to lurk and stay involved when I am able.
Check him out in the archives via his profile sometime if you haven't yet.
Thanks. I will check out his profile. Thanks again for your comments. Sometimes these forums are so impersonal and we say things that we normally wouldn't say face-to-face (I am guilty of this as well). That is rather unfortunate as many friends can be made here whether religious or not (BTW I have many friend and family that are devote Christians). Again I enjoy this discussion with you Buzz and look forward to future dialog with you on EvC .
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 11:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 11:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 306 (494763)
01-18-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by DevilsAdvocate
01-18-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
DA writes:
You seem to be proposing that these are extra-biblical sources supporting the gospel stories (at least this is what it seems you are implying), which they are not (I will continue going down the list today and tomorrow when I get time to confirm this).
I don't know how you arrived at that but my proposal was to cite the earliest known manuscripts of scripture. Admittedly, I took them at face value as valid examples of early acclaimed scripture manuscripts.
DA writes:
Buzsaw writes:
3. I then asked what other ancient literature (meaning copy manuscripts} exist relative to historical knowledge (meaning any historical knowledge on any topic) which are as close to the earliest copy manuscripts of Matthew which exist.
Why are you asking us (non-believers)? It is up to you to provide the evidence for your faith, not us. It seems like I am doing more of the leg work here than you are to prove my point. That is ok but it is up to you to provide your own evidence supporting your position. .
I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of.
I understand that the gap for Caesar is around a millennium. What verification do we have relative to acclaimed history for the times of Aristotle, Caesar and other ancients?
As well, the volume of ancient and early manuscripts of the New Testament is huge compared to any other major ancient writers according to some of the cites which I have searched.
One should consider also that given the animosity and persecution of the Roman pagan government against Christianity up until about 300AD, given the number of manuscripts that survived, likely there were originally thousands of manuscripts in the early centuries, given the amount of scrolls which were purposely destroyed by Roman emperors up until Constantine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-18-2009 10:01 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-18-2009 11:46 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 126 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-18-2009 1:52 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 130 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2009 4:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4446 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 125 of 306 (494765)
01-18-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
01-18-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
Buzz wrote: "I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of."
Aristotle did not hold himself up as the Son of God with records that were supposed to be the inerrant word of God. There are not enormous numbers of people (billions) that worship Aristotle. And who really cares what Aristotle thought/said compared to Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 11:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 7:06 PM 8upwidit2 has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 126 of 306 (494777)
01-18-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
01-18-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
I don't know how you arrived at that but my proposal was to cite the earliest known manuscripts of scripture. Admittedly, I took them at face value as valid examples of early acclaimed scripture manuscripts.
Ok, but as I pointed out earlier, two of those you list are not regarded by Biblical scholars as being works of the NT.
I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of.
Yes, yes. I have "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (both volumes) in my library as well. Joshua McDowell is not a scholar or an expert (as I expressed in my previous post) in the fields of Biblical research, archaeology, linguistics, etc. He does not do field work or any type of peer-review research in these areas much less examine and test these manuscripts. He is an evangelist with an obvious bias towards trying to prove the Bible to be true and the inerrant word of God.
The writings of Aristotle in no way have the smallest chronological distance, between original composition and the earliest known manuscripts we have in custody, so this is a Christan apologetics strawman argument. Why not compare a similar type of religious writing that is comparable to the Bible. Say the Qur'an?
Mohammed's death was estimated to be Monday, June 8, 632 in Medina as shown here:
Dr. Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton writes:
Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.
The oldest manuscripts of the Qu'ran date to as shown here: The Qur'anic Manuscripts
There exist at least four Qur'anic manuscripts that are primarily dated to first half of the first century of hijra (i.e., before 50 AH / 670 CE).
which is within 40 years of Mohammed's death. Manuscrupts of the complete Qur'an date about 100 years older to the mid 8th century CE. Other items such as coins and inscriptions have also been dated to withing a few decades after his death as shown here:
Dr. Patricia Crone writes:
True, on Arabic coins and inscriptions, and in papyri and other documentary evidence in the language, Mohammed only appears in the 680s, some fifty years after his death (whatever its exact date).
Therefore the Qur'an would defeat your (or I should say Josh McDowell's) strawman argument hands down and would not only rival but would put manuscripts closer to their original composition dates (if not right on top of them) than Biblical manuscripts.
I understand that the gap for Caesar is around a millennium. What verification do we have relative to acclaimed history for the times of Aristotle, Caesar and other ancients?
LOL, we have tons of evidence created at the time of Julius Caesar supporting the existence of Caesar including sculptures, portraits, coins, engravings and historical writings which undeniably substantiate his existence.
For Julias Caesar, we have complete biographies of his life written at and soon after his death, words by both friends and enemies and even works written by his own hand, thus confirming his existence.
Here are a few of Caesar's contemporaries or near contemporaries (people who lived at the same time) who wrote about Julias Caesar:
1. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar. Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar i.e. " "... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops..." Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC
2. Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae"
3. Cornelius Nepos (c100-24 BC): "Life of Atticus"
4. Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina"
5. Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch
6. Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid"
7. Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): "Metamorphoses"
8. Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae"
9. Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder - a young contemporary of Caesar - who in later life wrote a history of Rome.
Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.
10. Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).
11. Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars
12. The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138).
Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.
As far as Aristotle, we have a lot of his own writings and the writings by other contemporaries who confirm his existence (he was the student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great and Theophrastus).
What writings by Jesus himself do we have? Absolutely none!
As well, the volume of ancient and early manuscripts of the New Testament is huge compared to any other major ancient writers according to some of the cites which I have searched.
Bullshit. It matters not the quantity of manuscripts we have after the fact (as these are all copies of copies of copies ad infinitim). What matters is if any contemporary sources confirm the existence of Jesus Christ. In this aspect you are at a dead stop. There are absolutely no pieces of evidence confirming the existence of Jesus at the time he was still alive. Not one shred of literature was written about Jesus or by Jesus himself until well after his supposed death. No artifacts point to his existence during his life. There is nothing until after the fact. After the fact writings are notorious for manipulation or outright fabrications.
After the first century C.E. there's a ton of literature mentioning Jesus. However, it should be pointed out that this is evidence only that lots of people believed in Jesus - not that Jesus existed. Furthermore, the stories about Jesus have as much validity as the writtings about Gautama Buddha (of which writings are written within 100-200 after his death), whose existence is also much speculated.
Christianity has as much validity as any other major religion out there: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. There is nothing that sets it apart in its authenticity.
One should consider also that given the animosity and persecution of the Roman pagan government against Christianity up until about 300AD, given the number of manuscripts that survived, likely there were originally thousands of manuscripts in the early centuries, given the amount of scrolls which were purposely destroyed by Roman emperors up until Constantine.
This is an argument from ignorance in stating that we should just trust that somehow these original writings were destroyed but have faith that what we have are exact duplicates of the originals (if they were not mere fabrications and correct in the first place by their original writers).
Can you provide any more compelling evidence or dispute what I have written here?
BTW, Buzz, this is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about accepting everything at face value (i.e. McDowell's claims) and testing the validity of his claims.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct misspelling and closing out argument
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Fix URL.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 11:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 8:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 306 (494800)
01-18-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by 8upwidit2
01-18-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
8upwidth2 writes:
Aristotle did not hold himself up as the Son of God with records that were supposed to be the inerrant word of God. There are not enormous numbers of people (billions) that worship Aristotle. And who really cares what Aristotle thought/said compared to Jesus?
For the purpose of this discussion, the content of the manuscripts is not as important as the accuracy of them to the originals. My argument is that the closer you get to the originals, the more likely the copies are compatible with the originals.
I am of the opinion that though the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write, the HS did not dictate word for word, letter by letter how the writer was to state the message. However, once the inspired writer wrote, it was important to keep the message pure that the writer wrote.
What Aristotle and others wrote and what the Biblical authors wrote all have information which has been considered significant to mankind. What Aristotle wrote about was of great interest to the world at large. That's what made him famous. I haven't read him other than excerpts but I believe he wrote about history, science, etc and philosophized on a lot of interesting and important topics.
Whether or not Jesus was/is the son of God should not excuse critics of the Bible from the way they try to discredit it's accuracy.
Even if your point is significant, the Bible manuscript's close proximity to the event gives Aristotle's far removed ones plenty of leeway since they are generally accepted as accurate. In other words, if the world accepts Aristotle's as accurate, surely the Biblical ones should be allowed at least as much respect given the vast number of early manuscripts and the close proximity of the early ones to the event compared to Aristotle's and a number of other ancient literature which the world regards as significant and important.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-18-2009 11:46 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-18-2009 7:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 128 of 306 (494806)
01-18-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Buzsaw
01-18-2009 7:06 PM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
Buzzsaw writes:
For the purpose of this discussion, the content of the manuscripts is not as important as the accuracy of them to the originals. My argument is that the closer you get to the originals, the more likely the copies are compatible with the originals.
The problem is that we have none of the original manuscripts so there is no way to tell how accurate these manuscript copies are to the originals. This is a moot point.
I am of the opinion that though the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write, the HS did not dictate word for word, letter by letter how the writer was to state the message. However, once the inspired writer wrote, it was important to keep the message pure that the writer wrote.
This is a matter of religious faith not emperical evidence.
What Aristotle and others wrote and what the Biblical authors wrote all have information which has been considered significant to mankind. What Aristotle wrote about was of great interest to the world at large. That's what made him famous. I haven't read him other than excerpts but I believe he wrote about history, science, etc and philosophized on a lot of interesting and important topics.
We are not discussing the actual content of these manuscripts so much as the validity of their authenticity. So again this is a moot point in our discussion unless we are going to switch focus to internal contradictions and errors (which is a whole other ball of wax altogether).
Whether or not Jesus was/is the son of God should not excuse critics of the Bible from the way they try to discredit it's accuracy.
Critics are not always negative. A critic is just someone that appraises the work of another. In this case it would be the validity of the authenticity of Biblical manuscripts. You seem to think these scholars are all out to attack the Bible, that is far from the truth. Many of these scholars are religious (both Christian and Jews) people themselves, though I am sure sure some are nonreligious as well. The difference between a good scholar and a biased opinionator is that a real scholar does not let his religious faith get in the way of an objective assessment of the evidence. This is true in science as well. The bullshit excuse that all scientists who agree that evolution actually occurs (99% of all life scientists) are atheists is ignorant and bigoted. The same is true for the literary scholars I have been talking about.
Even if your point is significant, the Bible manuscript's close proximity to the event gives Aristotle's far removed ones plenty of leeway since they are generally accepted as accurate. In other words, if the world accepts Aristotle's as accurate, surely the Biblical ones should be allowed at least as much respect given the vast number of early manuscripts and the close proximity of the early ones to the event compared to Aristotle's and a number of other ancient literature which the world regards as significant and important.
Read my previous post Buzz, it answers this obvious strawman argument by Josh McDowell: Message 127.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 7:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 306 (494807)
01-18-2009 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by DevilsAdvocate
01-18-2009 1:52 PM


Re: Clarifying Buzsaw's Question
DA writes:
Ok, but as I pointed out earlier, two of those you list are not regarded by Biblical scholars as being works of the NT.
You still have the rest to reckon with.
DA writes:
Buzsaw writes:
I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of.
Yes, yes. I have "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (both volumes) in my library as well. Joshua McDowell is not a scholar or an expert (as I expressed in my previous post) in the fields of Biblical research, archeology, linguistics, etc. He does not do field work or any type of peer-review research in these areas much less examine and test these manuscripts. He is an evangelist with an obvious bias towards trying to prove the Bible to be true and the inerrant word of God.
Regardless of Josh's lack of elite credentials, you still have what he stated and cited that is factual to reckon with. Much if not most of what he claims relative to the manuscripts is factual. No?
DA writes:
The writings of Aristotle in no way have the smallest chronological distance, between original composition and the earliest known manuscripts we have in custody, so this is a Christan apologetics strawman argument. Why not compare a similar type of religious writing that is comparable to the Bible. Say the Qur'an?
LOL. Mohammed's writings are not nearly as ancient and subject to as much loss, destruction, both deliberate, time related, disasters such as the destruction of Jerusalem, and weather elements, etc.
The Jewish leaders who hated and had Jesus killed had a vested interest in destroying anything that would advance his religion which they considered cultish and false.
The Pagan Roman emperors persecuted the Christians and burned their scrolls.
It's a wonder that as much as we have still exists; perhaps and likely providential since writers of scripture themselves prophesied that they would never be and Jesus prophesied one or more times in the Olivet discourse gospels that before the end of the age his gospel would be published world wide. Thus the Bible became the world's all time best seller, last I heard.
DA writes:
LOL, we have tons of evidence created at the time of Julius Caesar supporting the existence of Caesar including sculptures, portraits, coins, engravings and historical writings which undeniably substantiate his existence.
If you want to get into early corroborating stuff, there's an impressive amount of it for the NT as well. No?
DA writes:
What writings by Jesus himself do we have? Absolutely none!
That was not his job description. That's why he had 12 disciples. Jesus busily went about doing miracles and lecturing while others observed what would be proclaimed and written about him.
After all, certainly the mighty and amazing works that Jesus did would not go unpublished and unrecorded.
DA writes:
Bullshit. It matters not the quantity of manuscripts we have after the fact (as these are all copies of copies of copies ad infinitim). What matters is if any contemporary sources confirm the existence of Jesus Christ. In this aspect you are at a dead stop. There are absolutely no pieces of evidence confirming the existence of Jesus at the time he was still alive. Not one shred of literature was written about Jesus or by Jesus himself until well after his supposed death. No artifacts point to his existence during his life. There is nothing until after the fact. After the fact writings are notorious for manipulation or outright fabrications.
LOL. We could cite multitudes of notable ancients (Aristotle?) who's existence is not validated by original manuscripts contemporaneous to the time which he lived.
As well, if the quantity of corroborating literature is important relative Caesar, so be it with Jesus.
DA writes:
After the first century C.E. there's a ton of literature mentioning Jesus. However, it should be pointed out that this is evidence only that lots of people believed in Jesus - not that Jesus existed. Furthermore, the stories about Jesus have as much validity as the writings about Gautama Buddha (of which writings are written within 100-200 after his death), whose existence is also much speculated.
Christianity has as much validity as any other major religion out there: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. There is nothing that sets it apart in its authenticity.
LOL. Gautama Buddha had no corroborating evidence for himself or his Buddhism such as the Biblical record which has many prophecies in the OT relative to Jesus, verified as prophetic via the Dead Sea Scrolls. As well the Biblical record has all of the prophetic and archaeological etc corroborating evidence for it's credibility. Buddhism has nada.
My friend, you're and intelligent man. Man, it's time you get apprised on the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Without looking now, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think you said much, if anything on my Middle East prophecy thread. If not, how about that?
Man, it's no wonder you slid into agnosticism! Without the prophecies and all of the good corroborating Biblical record stuff, likely I'd be agnostic as well.
DA writes:
Can you provide any more compelling evidence or dispute what I have written here?
The ball's in the air, heading your way, my friend. Grab it when it gets to you and see if you can make a little more yardage than you made here.
DA writes:
BTW, Buzz, this is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about accepting everything at face value (i.e. McDowell's claims) and testing the validity of his claims.
I've listened occasionally to good brother Josh. I'm not with him on some pre-trib rapture, and other stuff, so I don't take him at face value. Nevertheless at least I give him the due respect when he's right.
Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-18-2009 1:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-19-2009 11:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 130 of 306 (494837)
01-19-2009 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
01-18-2009 11:18 AM


Who burned what
One should consider also that given the animosity and persecution of the Roman pagan government against Christianity up until about 300AD, given the number of manuscripts that survived, likely there were originally thousands of manuscripts in the early centuries, given the amount of scrolls which were purposely destroyed by Roman emperors up until Constantine.
Speaking of surviving manuscripts, Buz, like to look at this site and tell me what was so different once Christians came to power? Apart from a active manufacturing industry that couldn`t even produce texts that agreed, a witch-hunt against pagan, Gnostic or alternative Christianities literature meant that we are lucky to have any contrasting material today. Who knows what numbers of contra-orthodox manuscrips were burned? Maybe they even outnumbered official literature.
CHRISTIAN PERSECUTIONS AGAINST THE HELLENES

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 11:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2009 10:30 AM Nighttrain has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 306 (494854)
01-19-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Nighttrain
01-19-2009 4:27 AM


Re: Who burned what
Nighttrain writes:
Speaking of surviving manuscripts, Buz, like to look at this site and tell me what was so different once Christians came to power? Apart from a active manufacturing industry that couldn`t even produce texts that agreed, a witch-hunt against pagan, Gnostic or alternative Christianities literature meant that we are lucky to have any contrasting material today. Who knows what numbers of contra-orthodox manuscrips were burned? Maybe they even outnumbered official literature.
Hi Nighttrain. This does not pertain to the topic in that the persecution and manuscript burning applicable to the times of Jesus was cited only to explain why the earliest NT manuscripts were not abundant relative to the times of Jesus and shortly after his death.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2009 4:27 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2009 8:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 132 of 306 (494859)
01-19-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
01-18-2009 8:21 PM


Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Buzzsaw writes:
Myself writes:
Ok, but as I pointed out earlier, two of those you list are not regarded by Biblical scholars as being works of the NT.
You still have the rest to reckon with.
That is kind of difficult when you keep changing the topic! First we are talking about the early manuscripts which support Biblical authenticity now we are talking about Aristotle! Talk about moving the goalposts. How do you expect me to counter your arguments when you keep switching topics. Or should I just chalk this up to common Christian apologetic techniques to keep skeptics from challenging your arguments? Now I know why people on this forum get so frustrated debating you. Not because they can't rebut your arguments but because you can't stick to one topic.
Buzzsaw writes:
I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of.
So I take it you agree, there is no doubt that Julius Caesar existed from my previous post describing the evidence for his existence? Correct?
Lets move on. Why so stuck on Aristotle? Again this is a Christian apologetics strawman argument but I will play along with your little game.
To answer your question of why can we place so much assurance in the validity of Aristotle's writings. Here are several:
1. Writings by contemporaries (people living at the same time as) of Aristotle referring to Aristotle as a real person
2. Writings by Aristotle himself which when analyzed by literary experts reflect no internal or external inconsistencies
3. Other evidence i.e. inscriptions, engravings, statues, created referencing Aristotle during his lifetime.
4. No external contradictory evidence which discounts Aristotle's existence.
Regardless of Josh's lack of elite credentials, you still have what he stated and cited that is factual to reckon with. Much if not most of what he claims relative to the manuscripts is factual. No?
No. His claims are not factual. He hasn't done his research.
Dr. Richard Carrier, published historian and philosopher with a PhD in Ancient History and a Master in Philosophy from Columbia University, states the following about Aristotle:
Dr. Carrier writes:
There is one fragmentary inscription dedicated to Aristotle still extant at Delphi that I believe was erected in his lifetime. We have substantial portions of the Elements of Harmonics by Aristoxenus, a contemporary of Aristotle, which mentions him briefly. Anaximenes of Lampsacus (not the presocratic of the same name), also a contemporary, wrote an Art of Rhetoric that survives, and it addresses Aristotle. Theophrastus was his pupil and contemporary and we have some few of his writings, but I don't know off hand if they mention Aristotle by name. Isocrates was his contemporary and sometimes opponent and he may have mentioned him, too, but again I can't say for sure if he ever actually names him in extant works. There was certainly a great deal of contemporary writing about Aristotle, but as far as I know little to none was preserved, except in later sources. TLG shows a few hundred contemporary, named references to Aristotle, which are cited or quoted by later authors.
also
Aristotle's extant writings consist largely of his written versions of his lectures; some passages appear to be interpolations of notes made by his students; the texts were edited and given their present form by Andronicus of Rhodes in the 1st cent. BC Chief among them are the Organum, consisting of six treatises on logic; Physics; Metaphysics; De Anima [on the soul]; Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics; De Poetica [poetics]; Rhetoric; and a series of works on biology and physics. In the late 19th cent. his Constitution of Athens, an account of Athenian government, was found.
The Royal Library of Alexandria is founded under the reign of Ptolemy I Soter or Ptolemy II. At its peak it may have preserved 400,000 to 700,000 papyrus scrolls”the largest collection of recorded information in the ancient world. However, to keep the extent of this library in proportion one should remember that a papyrus scroll might contain a text about the length of one book of Homer.
Traditionally the Alexandrian Library is thought to have been based upon the library of Aristotle. By tradition it is also believed, without concrete evidence, that the much of the collection of scrolls was acquired by order of Ptolemy III, who supposedly required all visitors to Alexandria to surrender scrolls in their possession. These writings were then copied by official scribes, the originals were put into the Library, and the copies were delivered to the previous owners.
The Alexandrian Library was associated with a school and a museum. Scholars at Alexandria were responsible for the editing and standardization for many earlier Greek texts. One of the best-known of these editors was Aristophanes of Byzantium, a director of the library, whose work on the text of the Iliad may be preserved in the Venetus A manuscript, but who was also known for editing authors such as Pindar and Hesiod.
Though it is known that portions of the Alexandrian Library survived for several centuries, perhaps for as long as 500 or 600 years, or even longer, the various accounts of the library's eventual destruction are contradictory. The Wikipedia article on the Library of Alexandria outlines four possible scenarios for its destruction:
1. Julius Caesar's fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
2. The attack of Aurelian in the Third century AD;
3. The decree of Theophilus in 391 AD;
4. The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
It concludes that "although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that by the eighth century A.D., the Library was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.
Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagn writes:
Gerbert of Aurillac (afterwards Pope Sylvester II), became abbot of Bobbio in 982; and with the aid of the numerous ancient treatises which he found there he composed his celebrated work on geometry. It appears that at a time when Greek was almost unknown in western Europe, the Irish monks of Bobbio read Aristotle and Demosthenes in the original tongue.
Harris, History of Libraries in the Western World 4th ed, p. 78 writes:
Most of the surviving Greek literature was translated into Arabic by 750, and Aristotle, for example, became so widely studied that literally hundreds of books were written about him by Arabic scholars. The Moslems also obtained Greek works from Constantinople through regular trade channels and captured others in their various wars with the Eastern Empire.
Hunt in 'The Survival of the Classics' no. 54 writes:
'The Earliest Surviving Copy of Aristotle's Biological Works Circa 850 AD'A Greek manuscript of Aristotle's Biological Works written in Constantinople in the mid-9th century, and preserved at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, is probably the oldest surviving manuscript of texts that founded the science of biology. It contains annotations by Greek hands of the 12th and 13th centuries.
This 3rd century date is also confirmed also at the Archimedes Palimpsest Project website shown here.
Rebecca Morelle, Science reporter, BBC News writes:
Experts are "lost for words" to have found that a medieval prayer book has yielded yet another key ancient text buried within its parchment.
Works by mathematician Archimedes and the politician Hyperides had already been found buried within the book, known as the Archimedes Palimpsest.
But now advanced imaging technology has revealed a third text - a commentary on the philosopher Aristotle.
Project director William Noel called it a "sensational find".
The prayer book was written in the 13th Century by a scribe called John Myronas.
But instead of using fresh parchment for his work, he employed pages from five existing books...
series of clues, such as spotting a key name in the margin, led the team to its conclusion.
"The philosophical passage in the Archimedes Palimpsest is now definitely identified as a relatively early commentary to Aristotle's Categories," said Professor Netz.
He said that Aristotle's Categories had served as the foundation for the study of logic throughout western history.
Further study has revealed the most likely author of this unique commentary is Alexander of Aphrodisias, Professor Robert Sharples from the University College London told BBC News.
If this is the case, he said, "it gives us part of a commentary previously supposed lost by the most important of those ancient commentators on Aristotle".
R.W. Sharple, The New Commentary on Aristotle's Categories in the Archimedes Palimpsest writes:
The text is part of a formal commentary on Aristotle's Categories, covering 1a20-1b24. This work was a focus of philosophical debate from the first century BC onwards; the arguments which it prompted are most accessible to us now in the massive commentary by Simplicius, but even that is necessarily selective, and Simplicius does not always name the participants in the debates he echoes. Not surprisingly, there are numerous parallels between the new text and the debates in Simplicius; it contains named references, not all in Simplicius, to Andronicus and Boethus, the leading Peripatetics of the first century BC, and to Herminus, the second-century AD teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias. It also includes a reference to Strato, the third head of Aristotle's school, parallel to others in the doxographical tradition.
Kate Ravilious, National Geographic News April 26, 2007 writes:
At first glance, the manuscript appears to be a medieval Christian prayer book.
But on the same pages as the prayers, experts using a high-tech imaging system have discovered commentary likely written in the third century A.D. on a work written around 350 B.C. by the Greek philosopher Aristotle.
The discovery is the third ancient text to emerge from the layers of writing on the much reused pages. In 2002 researchers had uncovered writings by the mathematician Archimedes and the fourth-century B.C. politician Hyperides.
Last year one of the pages was found to contain a famous work by Archimedes about buoyancy that had previously been known only from an incomplete Latin translation.
Project director William Noel, curator of manuscripts at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland, called the latest discovery a "sensational find."
The findings were presented today at a general meeting of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Reuse, Recycle.
The book, known as the Archimedes Palimpsest, was first analyzed in 1906, when a Danish researcher recognized that it contained works by the ancient mathematician.
In the 10th century a scribe had copied the ancient Greek manuscripts from papyrus scrolls onto parchment”thin leaves of treated animal skin.
Later the writing was washed out using a solvent such as orange juice and overwritten with new text”a process known as palimpsesting.
"In those days, parchment writing materials were so valuable that they were commonly reused when the book was considered out of date or if the subject was judged inappropriate or less valuable," Roger L. Easton, of the Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote in an email.
By the 12th century, pages from five different earlier works had been erased, overwritten, and compiled into a Christian prayer book, the Euchologion”what is now called the Archimedes Palimpsest.
Since 2002 scientists have been using a technique known as multispectral imaging to take digital photographs of the book's pages at different wavelengths.
The images enable the researchers to pull hidden words out from behind the religious writings.
"There are seven quite large double-sided leaves of new text. We have deciphered around half of this so far," said Robert Sharples, project team member and a classicist at University College London.
After the Archimedes and Hyperides works were found, the team fine-tuned their multispectral imaging technique.
Revisiting some of the more difficult pages in the book revealed the writings on Aristotle.
"Even though I couldn't read ancient Greek, just the fact that I could see the words gave me shivers," Easton told BBC News.
Experts on ancient Greek texts are currently scouring the newfound work.
Clues, such as a name in the margin, indicate that the writings are an early commentary on Aristotle's Categories, one of the foundations of Western studies of logic.
"If this is the case, then it is an immensely significant find and very exciting," said David Evans, professor of logic and metaphysics at Queens University Belfast in Ireland.
The most likely author of the new find is thought to be Alexander of Aphrodisias.
"He was a philiosopher in his own right and a very important and insightful commentator," Evans said.
Translation of the text so far suggests that it may provide further insight into a debate on Aristotle's theory of classification.
"We have one book that contains three texts from the ancient world that are absolutely central to our understanding of mathematics, politics, and now philosophy," Noel, of the Walters Art Museum, told BBC News.
"I am at a loss for words at what this book has turned out to be. To make these discoveries in the 21st century is frankly nutty”it is just so exciting."
BTW, Alexander of Aphrodisias is a contemporary (lived at the same time) as Aristotle and thus confirms Aristotle's' existence including that he was the student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great himself. Greek philosophers after Aristotle all reference him in their writings. We have an exact accounting of Aristotle's life from a number of different commentaries and historians (a few contemporaries) including who his family (mother, father, wife and children) and friends were. He has over 45 works attributed to him (written by him). Nothing written by or about Aristotle contradicts with history.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (7 BC) wrote a brief biography of the life of Aristotle here:
Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus, who traced his lineage and his profession back to Machaon, the son of Asclepius. His mother, Phaestis, was descended from one of those who led the expedition from Chalcis which founded the colony at Stagira. He was born in the ninety-ninth Olympiad, when Diotrephes was archon at Athens, and was thus three years older than Demosthenes. In the archonship of Polyzelus, after the death of his father, he came to Athens, being then eighteen years of age. Having been recommended to Plato as a pupil, he spent twenty years in his society. When Plato died, in the archonship of Theophilus, he went off to the court of Hermias, the tyrant of Atarneus, and spent three years with him before returning to Mytilene in the archonship of Eubulus. Thence he went to the court of Philip, during the archonship of Pythodotus, and spent eight years there as tutor to Alexander. After the death of Philip, in the archonship of Evaenetus, he returned to Athens, and taught in the Lyceum for a period of twelve years. In the thirteenth year, after the death of Alexander in the archon-year of Cephisodorus, he set off for Chalcis, where he fell ill and died at the age of sixty-three. These, then, are the facts which the biographers of Aristotle have left us.
Also, here are a few more contemporaries and near contemporaries that wrote about Aristotle, referenced by Diogenes Laertius (225-250 AD) in his work "Lives of Eminent Philosophers":
1. Hermippus of Smyrna (flourished c.200 BC), On Aristotle. Hermippus was a student of Callimachus and a Peripatetic philosopher. H wrote the biographical work Bioi (Lives), much used by later writers. The book Diogenes mentions is probably another, solely on Aristotle.
2. Timotheus of Athens (2nd-3rd century AD), On Lives. Fragments of Timotheus remain only in Diogenes Laertius. He can not be dated with any certainty. He might be identical to Timotheus of Pergamum, said to have written on the virtue of philosophers.
3. Timaeus (c.352-c.256 BC). Timaeus the historian was the son of Andromachus, tyrant of Tauromenium in Sicily. He was banished from Sicily and passed his exile at Athens. The great work of Timaeus was a history of Sicily from the earliest times to 264 BC. Fragments remain of it. Timaeus is said to have been the first to record events by Olympiads - a system of dating that also Diogenes Laertius utilizes.
4. Demetrius of Magnesia (died 282 BC), Poets and Writers of the Same Name. This would be Demetrius of Phalerum in Attica, who was the son of a slave, but still managed to become Governor of Athens. Then he was driven from the city, and spent about twenty years in Alexandria. It is generally supposed that he gave the ruler Ptolemy the advice to found the famous library of that city. When Ptolemy II came to the throne, Demetrius was exiled and ended his own life. Plutarch cites his treatise On Socrates. The works of Demetrius are lost, except for a short text on the Seven Sages, which Stobaeus regards as written by Demetrius.
5. Aristippus, On the Luxury of the Ancients, first book. Almost nothing is known of Aristippus of Arcadia, and only a few fragments of his work remain. Not to be confused with Aristippus (c.435-c.356 BC) from Cyrené.
6. Favorinus (2nd century AD, flourished during the reign of Hadrian, i.e. 117-138 AD), Miscellaneous History, also Memorabilia, second book. Favorinus of Arelate (Arles), is said to have been an hermaphrodite or a eunuch. He was also a philosopher, highly appreciated in Rome for his wits. Favorinus wrote numerous works, in what seems to have been a light-hearted style, whereof only a few fragments remain.
7. Eumelus (first half of the 3rd century BC), Histories, fifth book. Eumelus the historian is not mentioned elsewhere than in Diogenes, and nothing else is known about him.
8. Apollodorus (flourished around 140 BC), Chronology. Apollodorus of Athens was a grammarian and historian, pupil of Aristarchus and the Stoic Panaetius. The Chronica lists dates in history from the fall of Troy, which he set to what we have as 1183 BC, down to his own time. Only fragments remain. The book Bibliotheca, with mythological material, is traditionally but doubtfully regarded as his writing.
9. Ambryon, On Theocritus. No Ambryon is know outside of Diogenes Laertius. It may be an error of his, intending the Grammarian Amarantus, who did write a commentary to Theocritus of Chios.
10. Timon (3rd century BC). A Skeptic philosopher who wrote numerous works in prose and poetry. The most celebrated of his poems were the satiric compositions called silli (silloi), on the philosophers and their teachings. Fragments of his poems remain.
Thus it seems there is much collaborating evidence for the existence of Aristotle from a number of different sources and McDowell's 1500+ years after the fact date is out to lunch. It seems to be more like 500-600 years for the earliest known manuscripts collaborating his existence. In addition there is a lot more collaborative evidence for the existence of Aristotle than for Jesus Christ.
However, there is a level of expectation for accepting the authenticity of the Bible that is not expected with that of Aristotle or any non-religious scripture. Does Aristotle demand that we obey his teachings and if not we will eternally tormented in hell? No. Even if the persona of Aristotle was deemed by scholars to be a mere fabrication would this affect anything? Absolutely not. No one's soul is at stake and nothing would change about how we would live our lives. Does Aristotle have to actually exist in order for this persona's teachings (whether originally written by Aristotle himself or not) to be valid? Absolutely not. It may well be fabricated though I highly doubt it based on accumulated, corroborating evidence. Either way it makes really no difference on how we live our lives.
Does Jesus pass this test? Can his teachings still stand if never existed? Some teachings may i.e. the golden rule, etc but the entire concept of the Christianity faith i.e. damnation to hell, going to heaven, salvation from sin, etc. would be in shambles if he was not real much less divine.
BTW, there are a few scholars who doubt the existence of a real person called Socrates and think that he was a fabrication of his supposed student Plato (who in turn was the teacher of Aristotle himself). However the majority of scholars do not agree with this assessment of the authenticity of Socrates based on the amount of collobarting evidence to the contrary. Aristotle though has a lot more evidence supporting his existence and no scholar I have hear of doubts his existence.
LOL. Mohammed's writings are not nearly as ancient and subject as much loss, destruction, both deliberate, time related, disasters such as the destruction of Jerusalem, weather elements, etc.
The Jewish leaders who hated and had Jesus killed had a vested interest in destroying anything that would advance his religion which they considered cultish and false.
The Pagan Roman emperors persecuted the Christians and burned their scrolls.
It's a wonder that as much as we have still exists; perhaps and likely providential since writers of scripture themselves prophesied that they would never be and Jesus prophesied one or more times in the Olivet discourse gospels that before the end of the age his gospel would be published world wide.
So what does that have to do with it? The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack. This is an unknown and therefore merely speculating about supposed existence of such corroborating evidence is a moot point.
Thus the Bible became the world's all time best seller, last I heard.
Poppycock! Popularity has nothing to do with authenticity. Here is Time magazine's top 10 list of Best Seller's, should we believe that any of these stories are true just because they are popular?
Time writes:
1. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
2. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
3. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
4. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
7. The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
8. In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
9. The Stories of Anton Chekhov by Anton Chekhov
10. Middlemarch by George Eliot
Or how about most number of copies? That would be of course the Bible. However, in close second is "The Little Red Book" of communism by Chairman Mao. Should we not investigate the validity of his writings based on shere number of copies? Of course not. Same said for the Bible. Evidence of popularity only means that a lot of people WANT to believe what is said in it is true and the shere momentum of the Christian monopoly on religion and extension for power, nothing more. Though I am sure many of these Bibles collect dust on bookshelves as well.
If you want to get into early corroborating stuff, there's an impressive amount of it for the NT as well. No?
After the fact. No contemporary sources. Anyone can invent a story after the fact and distribute "evidence" to support this. Take the Book of Mormon distributed by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and his cronies. In less than 150 years his religion has spread to all four corners of the world and is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Same with Islam. Need I say more?
That was not his job description. That's why he had 12 disciples. Jesus busily went about doing miracles and lecturing while others observed what would be proclaimed and written about him.
That is your belief based on an unsubstantiated book.
After all, certainly the mighty and amazing works that Jesus did would not go unpublished and unrecorded.
They did go unpublished and unrecorded until over 100 years after his death.
LOL. We could cite multitudes of notable ancients (Aristotle?) who's existence is not validated by original manuscripts contemporaneous to the time which he lived.
As well, if the quantity of corroborating literature is important relative Caesar, so be it with Jesus.
There is more evidence for the existence of Caesar than for Aristotle and a lot more than Jesus Christ. Caesar had nearly a dozen contemporary sources supporting his existence. He is as real as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. The same is not true for Jesus Christ. Besides even if Julius Caesar and Aristotle were fictional what difference would it make on modern society? None. What if Jesus was fictional? You religion would collapse.
LOL. Gautama Buddha had no corroborating evidence for himself or his Buddhism such as the Biblical record which has many prophecies in the OT relative to Jesus, verified as prophetic via the Dead Sea Scrolls. As well the Biblical record has all of the prophetic and archaeological etc corroborating evidence for it's credibility.
Self-fulfilled prophecies are easy to create. There is no way we know whether the NT writers didn't just fabricate the existence of Jesus to "fulfill" these prophecies.
My friend, you're and intelligent man. Man, it's time you get apprised on the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Without looking now, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think you said much, if anything on my Middle East prophecy thread. If not, how about that?
That is a separate topic all together but from what I have read you're "prophecies" seem out to lunch. Are we going to shift topics again since you are obviously losing this battle here?
Man, it's no wonder you slid into agnosticism! Without the prophecies and all of the good corroborating Biblical record stuff, likely I'd be agnostic as well.
Ad hominum attacks do nothing to help your argument. There are no corroborating Biblical record "stuff" this is all fundamentalist Christian apologetics bullshit.
I've listened occasionally to good brother Josh. I'm not with him on some pre-trib rapture, and other stuff, so I don't take him at face value. Nevertheless at least I give him the due respect when he's right.
That is what I meant by taking things at face value. You don't examine his claims to see if what he is saying is true. It speaks volumes of your refusal to face reality.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Add subtitle

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 8:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2009 3:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 133 of 306 (494873)
01-19-2009 2:32 PM


Ever tried academic books Buz?
Buz, over the years I have seen you sing the praises and accept as true many claims made by people whose works you cite are not peer reviewed, or are not specialists in the area they are writing about.
Ron Wyatt was a nurse who had no archaeological training at all, yet you swallowed everything he claimed. The same with Moller, who basically stole Wyatt's nonsense.
Then we now have Josh Macdowell, whose work is essentially high school level, he makes so many errors and so many unsupported claims that I don't know if he is thick or is very clever.
The market that these people aim at are those people who are very keen on finding 'evidence' to support the Bible. Josh MacDowell's books sell very well, but I can gaurantee you that the quality of his work would not pass that required by a university undergraduate course.
Seriously Buz, have you every read academic books or journals that would give you a far better idea of the Bible and the world it was created in, or are you happy reading this 'pulp' crap that has no substance to it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-19-2009 3:08 PM Brian has not replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4446 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 134 of 306 (494876)
01-19-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Brian
01-19-2009 2:32 PM


Re: Ever tried academic books Buz?
Hasn't this been the case forever? People worldwide are so tied up in a belief system with nothing but ignorance, fear and blind devotion to support it. They seek even an infinitesimal point on which to hang. Their lives are such that for some reason anything is better than their lives without it. They're like a deer in the proverbial head lights.
And there are billions of them. What does this say about us as the supreme thinkers in the animal kingdom? Is it insecurity, inbred fear?
After all, the non-believers in any religious persuasion are in the minority. Are we non-believers missing something? When we drive by churches filled to the rafters with often scary devotees, do we ask ourselves this question? Have we missed something others have found like some of our posters? Because I just don't get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Brian, posted 01-19-2009 2:32 PM Brian has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 135 of 306 (494883)
01-19-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by DevilsAdvocate
01-19-2009 11:59 AM


Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
However, there is a level of expectation for accepting the authenticity of the Bible that is not expected with that of Aristotle or any non-religious scripture. Does Aristotle demand that we obey his teachings and if not we will eternally tormented in hell? No. Even if the persona of Aristotle was deemed by scholars to be a mere fabrication would this affect anything? Absolutely not. No one's soul is at stake and nothing would change about how we would live our lives. Does Aristotle have to actually exist in order for this persona's teachings (whether originally written by Aristotle himself or not) to be valid? Absolutely not. It may well be fabricated though I highly doubt it based on accumulated, corroborating evidence. Either way it makes really no difference on how we live our lives.
Does Jesus pass this test? Can his teachings still stand if never existed? Some teachings may i.e. the golden rule, etc but the entire concept of the Christianity faith i.e. damnation to hell, going to heaven, salvation from sin, etc. would be in shambles if he was not real much less divine.
Somewhat what I was wanting to contribute earlier by citing Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, Part II, in which he distinguishes between writings which have inherent worth based on their content and not on their authorship, and those whose worth is derived solely from their authorship. If the latter were found to not have been written by the purported author, then it would be worthless.
Paine wrote (my emphasis):
quote:
I know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements of Geometry; and the reason is, because it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of everything relating to time, place, and circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the same authority they now have, had they been written by any other person, or had the work been anonymous, or had the author never been known; for the identical certainty of who was the author, makes no part of our belief of the matters contained in the book. But it is quite otherwise with respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to Samuel, etc.; those are books of testimony, and they testify of things naturally incredible; and therefore, the whole of our belief as to the authenticity of those books rests, in the first place, upon the certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel; secondly upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may believe the first, that is, we may believe the certainty of the authorship, and yet not the testimony; in the same manner that we may believe that a certain person gave evidence upon a case and yet not believe the evidence that he gave. But if it should be found that the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part of the authority and authenticity of those books is gone at once; for there can be no such thing as forged or invented testimony; neither can there be anonymous testimony, more especially as to things naturally incredible, such as that of talking with God face to face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at the command of a man. The greatest part of the other ancient books are works of genius; of which kind are those ascribed to Homer, to Plato, to Aristotle, to Demosthenes, to Cicero, etc. Here, again, the author is not essential in the credit we give to any of those works, for, as works of genius, they would have the same merit they have now, were they anonymous. Nobody believes the Trojan story, as related by Homer, to be true- for it is the poet only that is admired, and the merit of the poet will remain, though the story be fabulous. But if we disbelieve the matters related by the Bible authors, (Moses for instance), as we disbelieve the things related by Homer, there remains nothing of Moses in our estimation, but an impostor. As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we credit them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no farther; for if we do, we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame man and a blind man, in just the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must also believe the miracle cited by Josephus, that of the sea of Pamphilia opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of the Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; consequently the degree of evidence necessary to establish our belief of things naturally incredible, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is far greater than that which obtains our belief to natural and probable things; and therefore the advocates for the Bible have no claim to our belief of the Bible, because that we believe things stated in other ancient writings; since we believe the things stated in these writings no further than they are probable and credible, or because they are self-evident, like Euclid; or admire them because they are elegant, like Homer; or approve of them because they are sedate, like Plato or judicious, like Aristotle.
And here too, the worth of that paragraph lies not in the fact that it was written by Thomas Paine, the Father of the American Revolution, but rather because of the genius it contains.
Besides even if Julius Caesar and Aristotle were fictional what difference would it make on modern society? None. What if Jesus was fictional? You religion would collapse.
Not quite, I'm afraid.
On CompuServe back in the day (late 80's to early 90's) there was a curious denizen named Suds, a former mathematician who had to retire when he suffered a stroke, who would offer some rather bizaare arguments, most of them revolving around word-magick (ie, basically, that saying that Reality quite literally is only what we say it is).
But there was one thing that he said that did make a lot of sense to me. grep'ing on the spur of the moment, I could only locate what I had written about it on a CS forum in early December 1995:
quote:
[Suds] said that it doesn't make any difference at all to society whether Christianity is actually true or not, but rather it only matters that society had believed it to be true. Christianity had a profound effect on Western civilization because Western society had believed Christianity to be true and so had acted and planned accordingly. Their actions over the centuries had nothing to do with objective reality, ie with whether Christianity was really true or not, but rather had everything to do with their perception of Christianity being true. The same holds true for all other societies and their belief systems. Yet again, we find that we act upon our perceptions, not upon what really is.
Regarding the effects on the history and development of western civilization, it doesn't matter whether the Christ had ever existed or not, nor whether any actual historical Jesus character had ever existed or not, nor whether anything at all about Christianity is true or not. All that mattered was that the people believed that it was true and that the Christ had actually existed.
Similarly, even if Jesus were found to be fictional, that would not cause the collapse of the Christian religion. That is, as long as the believers do not realize that he's fictional. Once believers realize that he's fictional, then, yes, the religion will collapse, but not before. Which is why they must fight against that realization. Just at they feel they must fight against evolution, because they believe (quite falsely, as we know) that if evolution is true then their god doesn't exist.
Where do I stand? As always, for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Even though they do not seem to be valued much anymore.
Edited by dwise1, : had left a word out

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-19-2009 11:59 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2009 5:05 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 137 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-19-2009 8:10 PM dwise1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024