|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 1/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days)  Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Brian writes: There were no NT texts at Qumran Buz. You really should do your homework instead of being so gullible. This isn't just being gullible it is deliberate ignorance and cherry picking sources to support an obviously errant viewpoint. BTW, one of the prevailing theories of the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that of an Essenes-like group, a mystic sect of Jews that existed in the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD, who collected and stored the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew Bible manuscripts i.e. Old Testament) in the caves of Qumran. Jesus was not Essene/Qumramite, so why would Essene/Qumranite Jews be collecting writings from disciples of Jesus in the first place?
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D. Here is what this suspected "New Testament" manuscript of Mark looks like:
from this greek scholars can make out several fragmented koine greek letters: ‘ ‘ That's it. There are several arguments for this fragment fitting the description of being a fragment of Mark 6:52-53 but many counterarguments as well shown here and in fact as Wikipedia so eloquently states:
wikipedia writes: The majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's identification and it is "now virtually universally rejected" This is further amplified with verifiable sources which back up this statement: 1. Dr. Wayne McCready, Professor of Western Religions at the University of Calgary, Director of the Calgary Institute for the Humanities, previous President of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, Co-Chairman of the Conference on Second Temple Judaism and recognized subject matter expert in second temple Judaism and the origins of Christianity, says in his peer-review article "The Historical Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls":
McCready writes: Jose O'Callaghan has proposed that Greek fragments in Cave 7 were from a number of New Testament texts, including Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, James and 2 Peter. He is most certain about fragments identified with 1 Timothy (7Q4) and Mark (7Q5). On the whole, O'Callaghan's thesis has met with scholarly skeptism since the fragments are small, almost illegible, and his strongest case does not agree with known versions of Mark. further his footnotes specifies that
Dr. McCready writes: Greek fragments of Jewish scripture (e.g. Lev, Num, and Deut) were found in cave 4, and in addition to Greek versions of Exodus and the Letter of Jeremiah (an appendix of Beruch) 17 unidentified Greek fragments were found in Cave 7. so just because these fragments are in Greek does not implicitly dictate that they are manuscripts of Christian origins. 2. Dr. A. R. Millard, Emeritus Professor of Hebrew/Ancient Semitic Languages and History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, and Honorary Senior Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool states in "Reading and Writing in the time of Jesus":
Dr. Millard writes: In 1955 archaeologists exploring caves near the Dead Sea hoping to find more "Dead Sea Scrolls" entered one (Cave 7) and extracted 18 pieces of Greek papyrus rolls from the floor, with three small lumps of mud which carried in reverse the writings of other fragments transferred by dampness from papyrus which had later perished. Intensive scrutiny enabled M. Baillet, who edited the fragments for the official publication, to recognize one piece as Exod. 28.4-6 and another as part a copy of the apocryphal book of Baruch, containing 6.43-44. The others were left unidentified until 1972 when a Spanish papyrological scholar, J. O'Callaghan, published his identifications of some of them as remnants of book of the New Testament. As it is usually suspected the owners deposited the papyri in the caves at the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is about 67 or 68 AD, his work won wide publicity, for none of the Gospels had usually been dated so early. Were these fragments from New Testament books made before this date? The cave could have served as a hiding place later than the main collections of Hebrew scrolls, but the style of Greek script set these pieces in the early part of the first century AD, or earlier, so their age is not really in doubt. As soon as O'Callaghan's study was circulated, responses flowed from New Testament scholars and paleographers, all agreeing that the pieces are too small to support the identifications proposed, some arguing that others could be made from non-Christian Greek books. Interest waned as those most competent to judge showed that basis for the identification was weak. The fact that these fragments could not be identified is not unusual in the study of Greek papyri where many pieces, some much larger, suffer the same fate. It is equally true for some of the tatters among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Without an ancient copyright library holding an example of every published book, it is impossible to place each piece in a known book, and, in any case, a fragment may come from a unique work that only ever existed in a single copy which modern students could have no hope for identifying unless a considerable amount of text or some key words survived. However, further study has shown that three pieces fit together and they have been identified as parts of the Greek version of the book of Enoch. These are just a few critiques of Jose O'Callaghan analysis of these papyrus fragments. Buzz, to me your claims of these external evidences supporting the validity of the "New Testament" Jesus are highly speculative (notice I am not contesting the actual existence of a person named Jesus who may or may not have existed but rather that of the persona of Jesus written about in the New Testament). I will continue to research your other "sources" and examine their validity. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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 existingmanuscripts 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Buzzsaw writes: Myself writes:
You still have the rest to reckon with. Ok, but as I pointed out earlier, two of those you list are not regarded by Biblical scholars as being works of the NT. 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 person2. 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 BC2. 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, PennsylvaniaReuse, 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 Tolstoy2. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
