Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 60 of 226 (703535)
07-24-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
07-23-2013 9:34 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Actual evidence would try to account for how it was that Christians (presumably the ones who would have added in such a passage) were the ones whose copies survived and the original line, without the passage, didn't.
That you don't understand this may be the source of all this confusion.
The oldest surviving manuscripts of Josephus are from the 11th century. Anything older than that is gone or lost. And who made these surviving copies? Monks. The versions of ancient texts which survived in these circumstances are the ones that monks decided were important enough or holy enough to copy.
You've made reference several times to the idea that, if there was controversy over a work, we would have access to all the books arguing this controversy, but we know for a certain fact that this is not the case. Texts generally do not survive. The versions we have are the copies made later. Copying was an expensive and time-consuming business, so the medieval copyists were selective about what they copied. The works of people who'd lost a struggle in the church and were considered heretics were not copied.
Consider Celsus. Celsus was an anti-Christian who wrote a work in the days of the early Church fathers explaining why Christianity was absurd in its claims and dangerous to the stability of Rome. Not one copy of his book is known to survive anywhere. The only reason anybody today knows he existed, is because Origen, the church father, took the time to write a lengthy rebuttal. Origen's work was copied by monks and exists today. Celsus' work was not copied, and so it's gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-23-2013 9:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 07-24-2013 12:17 PM caffeine has replied
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 07-24-2013 1:59 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-29-2013 10:25 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 63 of 226 (703570)
07-25-2013 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ringo
07-24-2013 12:17 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Roman Catholic monks, by the way. No doubt there was a conspiracy to preserve only the most pro-Catholic texts.
Actually, Greek Orthodox monks, in the case of Josephus, but still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 07-24-2013 12:17 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 226 (704641)
08-13-2013 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2013 11:24 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Sorry that I haven't had the time and energy to keep up with replies to this thread, but I just wanted to pop in here to quickly address one pet hate of mine, from Bertot's wikipedia quote:
quote:
Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce has said "the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning...It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians."
#
Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce is clearly an idiot, but sadly his particular brand of idiocy is oft-repeated. I'm referring to this bit:
quote:
the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning
People question the authenticity of classical authors all the time. Your quoted article mentions Tacitus' Annals which has several times been argued to be a later forgery. A couple of writers in the 19th century thought that the whole of the Annals was a 15th century forgery, which we now know to be false since we have documents much older than this.
Annals is nowadays generally considered to be Tacitus' work. Sometimes, however, the scholarly community eventually realises that works are not authentic. The Bibliotecha of Apollodorus of Athens is nowadays usually listed as being authored by 'Pseudo-Apollodorus' - the reason being that, whilst no one knows who wrote it, scholars have come to agree that it cannot possibly have been Apollodorus of Athens, as traditionally believed.
Also mentioned in your quote was the Iliad, the authorship of which has been a matter of debate for centuries. It's controversial whether they was any such person as Homer, and whether the poem was composed all at once or has been edited and had bits added by various authors before becoming the standardised version we have now.
I've only spoken about authenticity in the sense of whether or not a work was written in the form we possess it by the person it's attributed to. When it comes to whether the claims it makes are truth or fiction, of course we know that a lot of classical authors lied, made things up, and reported myths with no basis in fact.
The only reason people seem to have this strange idea that only the Bible is subject to such criticism, is because when a scholar questions some details about Diodorus Siculus, nobody cares apart from other classical scholars. When a scholar questions something in the Bible, however, lots of people get offended and take notice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 11:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2013 5:12 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 128 of 226 (704694)
08-14-2013 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dawn Bertot
08-13-2013 5:12 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Well anyone that considers F F Bruce an idiot, is not worthy of attention or reply. Enough said
Thank you for your careful consideration of my points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2013 5:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2013 8:47 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 132 of 226 (704729)
08-15-2013 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dawn Bertot
08-14-2013 8:47 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Your POINT was that a renound scholar was an idiot. That tells me something about your lack of judgement or obvious prejudice
No, my point was that the authenticity of classical texts is regularly questioned, and that people who claim the Bible is subjected to greater scrutiny only do so because they have no interest in the debates over secular texts. Calling Bruce an idiot was a hyperbolic assertion by way of introduction to this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2013 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot 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