Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Dec 2, 2011 8:21:13 GMT
The biggest question is one which the site apparently makes no attempt to answer: what would they accept as evidence of Christianity? My guess is they wouldn't - the thing comes across as a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories don't tend to consider opposing information so much as dismiss it. Consider what we know of the site's claims: 1. There is no pre-4th century evidence of Christianity; 2. Anything that appears to be pre-4th century evidence has in fact been forged; 3. The reason that there is no supporting evidence of of the Chrestians is that the evil church/empire destroyed it in a massive cover-up. Classic paranoid conspiracy stuff - explains everything and nothing.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 2, 2011 13:29:00 GMT
Ah yes, the old 'of course there's no evidence, we told you there wouldn't be, and that proves our case!' line.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 2, 2011 16:42:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 2, 2011 16:47:39 GMT
Well he responded as predicted, and hasn't once addressed any of the earliest papyri. And unsurprisingly, documentus didn't post the answers unkleE, humphreyclarke, and ignorantianescia gave to the numbered questions which were asked.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 2, 2011 17:29:41 GMT
From the comments of the above link (my emphasis): [/i] which may have been derived to mean bankers from the Greek χρῆσται (chrestai) meaning creditors, duns or usurers and also debtors (LSJ Lexicon). [/quote] ;D
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 2, 2011 17:34:33 GMT
So he says there's no evidence at all for Christ in any medium before the fourth century, except for... the evidence which he acknowledges exists. How surprising!
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 2, 2011 17:39:16 GMT
Well he responded as predicted, and hasn't once addressed any of the earliest papyri. And unsurprisingly, documentus didn't post the answers unkleE, humphreyclarke, and ignorantianescia gave to the numbered questions which were asked. That couldn't be helped by documentus, though. She posted her questions two days ago and the replies she did not post were two days old or younger. But yeah, his response was sorta unoriginal. From the comments of the above link (my emphasis): [/i] which may have been derived to mean bankers from the Greek χρῆσται (chrestai) meaning creditors, duns or usurers and also debtors (LSJ Lexicon). [/quote] ;D[/quote] Underscore is mine. Occupy Pompeii, those protesters were far out. Not even an eruption would stop their occupation.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 2, 2011 18:05:27 GMT
That couldn't be helped by documentus, though. She posted her questions two days ago and the replies she did not post were two days old or younger. There was time between the posting of those replies, and the posting of history hunter's first response, to post the replies we've made since. As expected.
|
|
|
Post by documentus on Dec 2, 2011 21:09:34 GMT
I am just getting a chance seeing the replies[both noise and useful leads] are flooding in..lol Remember, view me as a devil's advocate....Attempting to gauge arguments from all sides. If that was not my interest I could have easily accepted one side without engaging this forum. Some have done a good job of letting their responses be confined to the information presented without imputing motives. Somewhere above someone said that I did not post response over at the HHI...... fortigurn"documentus, before I answer your questions may I ask if you have taken any steps whatsoever to verify the claims of the website, using reliable scholarly sources?" I am doing so and this is a part of this process. If it was otherwise I would not be here asking this forums feedback. It would have been easy to say ok that facts are correct and thats it. I found it really amazing to view the actual manuscripts and artifacts saying one thing but with translations that are totally different. It is the implication if true ! I do read from the sources I am quoting. There was an apparent contradiction from one of the sites I do quote, an inquiry was sent to the sight author(s) about it. He has not responded as yet.[this is not from the two here that uncleE is talking about] The author at HHI is consistent the quote that uncleE makes from the second site is actually quoted in full by HHI using the very same quote see below response @unclee oh boy forti your sooo suspicious..lol "Well he responded as predicted, and hasn't once addressed any of the earliest papyri. And unsurprisingly, documentus didn't post the answers unkleE, humphreyclarke, and ignorantianescia gave to the numbered questions which were asked." This is unfair statement, it is rather tiresome to copy these response each time an update is done when you could simply comment over at HHI directly [pasting your various responses here]I am interacting on both forums while the responders here may deem it beneath them to respond over there or a waste of their time. I will attempt to post your responses over there anyway. @uncle@ This is a very interesting and informative response. "So having clarified that, perhaps I can ask you again, do you accept the findings of the secular historians or do you believe they are not to be trusted (in which case who can we trust?)?" I will have to read and study all the authors you list and compare and contrast all the evidence that they offer against the evidence that HHI has presented. "In the middle are the recognised scholars, still a wide range of views, but they are all (supposedly) based on solid historical investigation, and there is a fair degree of consensus. Among the most eminent in this group are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Ehrman, Sanders, M Grant, RL Fox), christians (e.g. Meier, Wright, Bauckham, Evans, Dunn), agnostic christians (e.g. Crossan, Borg) and even a Jew (Vermes). While many of these differ about some aspects of Jesus' life, including whether he was divine, I don't think there are any who disbelieve he actually existed." I have responded below in some fashion about what you say here "Note that the list doesn't include belief that Jesus was divine or that he actually rose again - many historians believe those things, many don't, but most that I have read believe they are matters of faith as well as history. So I hope you see I am not presenting some evangelical plot, but the study of history by respected academics." Well, I can say categorically that I do not believe in the supernatural and any scholar/expert attempting to parade supernatural claims as facts that is where I have a problem. So they are Euhemerest or Evemerist in large then based on what you are saying? "documentus, here are some quotes from your posts: Firstly, from your first post (my emphasis)" Then from a more recent post: Yesterday at 4:05am, documentus wrote:What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. As has been said, almost all scholars date P52 to early-mid second century, but even if we accepted your later dating, this document disproves your earlier statement. Is that not so? " uncleE again a minor correction, it is not "my dating" but I understand the point you are making. The quotes are from two different sites. The first quote comes from HHI. The author is consistent with what he asserts based on this post: "Though the amount of the text in P52 is hardly enough to make a positive judgment about its textual character, the text seems to be Alexandrian… – David P. Barret. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2001). Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 365" "The fragment of John in P52 is so small that is immaterial as a textual witness. – Helmut Koester. The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century (1989). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. p. 19" source: historyhuntersinternational.org/2010/05/09/archaeology-of-the-earliest-canonical-gospels/discussed further: historyhuntersinternational.org/2010/07/26/1508/The author discusses the matter here and deals with all that scholars have to say
"We have been in error, accepting the view of biblical scholarship and Christian tradition which dates the canonical gospels to the early period of the Roman Empire.
This error is personally mortifying, for I recognised and declared long ago the danger inherent in this approach. This is the sort of nonsense we accepted:
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest “manuscript” of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars. (Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen)
Use of the terms “fact” and “proved” is wrong. The early fragments of the New Testament do not have a secure, archaeological context and none have been radiocarbon-dated, relying instead on paleography. Here is better thinking:
What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts’s work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute “dead ringers” for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel. (“The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel” by Brent Nongbri, Harvard Theological Review 98:23-52, 2005.)" [he highlights certain part] fortigurn your answer to statement #3 above is noted
historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/06/18/canonical-gospels-fourth-century/
As can be seen the author is quoting from the very same document that the second site is quoting from.Both are quoting the same document The snippet that you quote is also out of context. See above for full context.
So no it is not so.
humphreyclarke
Another on my to read list[Many of the names listed above are on the list]
@ ignorantianescia
I take note of the source you provided and your responses attempt to address the questions, good.
@ sandwich & thegreypilgrim
Slurs like "mythers" and conspiracy is noise!. I would believe that that which is against all the experience of science and common sense is a better bet regarded as myth rather than believe in: virgin births 2. raising dead people. 3 turning water into wine 4 casting out demons. 5 floating to heaven. 6 People be Messiahs[rather than believed to be]..etc as a historical realities!
If you are saying that all of the supernatural paraphernalia listed above is bunk and there was just an ordinary individual named Jesus Christ of Nazareth then that is a different claim. Billions out there will differ with you [as is their right to both believe and differ]
@fortigun
Well I have answered my reasons for engaging this forum. We were going off on a tangent and these last set of responses are far more fruitful and sticking to the original questions.
for Q#2 response - you are saying that all of these mentions Christ or Christians?
What scholars (as uncleE does above) would you recommend... see related question/request below...
Question #7 These sources that have been offered in response to the questions do not belong to those that "It is a fact that many hold the opinion that there is christian archaeology in the 3rd century; it is not a fact - as far as I am aware - that there is such archaeology." (quoting again!)
@mike D
noise ....
jamierobertson quote mining
ignorantianescia
"That couldn't be helped by documentus, though. She posted her questions two days ago and the replies she did not post were two days old or younger."
There is hope for you yet igno lol....... repeat to fortigurn he did not see your response. Also there is a whole world out there away from the Internet.
QUESTION #8 Ok. Could you list recommended books from scholars in addition to the above that you would further recommend? Those that stick honestly to primary sources and achaeology as far as is possible and make scientific inferences from these are preferred. Lets use as a starting point uncleE suggestion above those scholars in the middle, who to the best of their expertise and objectivity put forth there view. Though it is my opinion you must read widely!
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 2, 2011 22:15:07 GMT
documentus,
Before I continue this discussion, may I make several clarifying points and suggestions please.
1. I am finding it difficult separating quotes from your own comments in your posts. There is a "Quote" button (second from the right on the bottom row of buttons) which you use by highlighting the text that is a quote and pressing the button. This would make things a little clearer, thanks.
2. It would be very helpful if you made it clear when you are offering a view, and when you are asking a question.
3. I would like to clarify what are the specific questions you are asking. Your topic title is "Vacuum of Evidence for pre-4th century Christ..y" whereas some of the quotes are referring only to the use of the word "Christ" and "Christian", which seems to me to be a very different matter.
I don't wish to be pedantic, but you are new to the forum and I only wish to help you communicate better. Thanks, and best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 2, 2011 22:38:39 GMT
All comments on their discussion thread are moderated. Will be interesting to see if mine gets through:
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 2, 2011 22:49:49 GMT
I will have to read and study all the authors you list and compare and contrast all the evidence that they offer against the evidence that HHI has presented. That would be a huge task that might take years. I wouldn't discourage you from it, but you may be able to resolve the matter quicker than that by picking one or two authors at the centre of scholarship. My suggesting, for getting a "lowest common denominator" view, would be to read EP Sanders and Michael Grant. Neither of them are christian believers, they take a fairly cautious view and they are well respected. I would say Sanders in particular is over-cautious, and I am happy to trust more christian scholars like Evans, Wright and Bauckham, but I think for you Sanders and Grant would be a good start. Everyone brings their biases into the discussion, so it is helpful for you to clarify yours. Fortunately, the supernatural isn't much at issue in the questions you have raised. I an not concerned which sites they come from, for I am discussing with you. And it remains true that the two statements you made were contradictory. I am not trying to blame you or criticise you, but simply to point out that one or the other site must be wrong (if not both). Helmut Koestler is a respected authority on these matters, but his comment is related to establishing the text of John's gospel - such a small fragment tells us little about what the "correct" text of John should be. But it is helpful in establishing a date for John's Gospel, and that is how I am using it in this context. So it remains a strong indication that John was written before the middle of the second century. And John contains a number of uses of the word "Christ", for example: John 1:17, 1:41, 4:25, 17:3, as well as (obviously) a lot of other information about Jesus. Most scholars believe John was compiled about 90-100 CE, and many believe it reflects the beliefs of that period more than factual accounts of Jesus. Even if that were true, it still shows that christianity and its main doctrines were well established by then. And recent archaeological studies (see Archaeology and John's Gospel) gives an indication that the historical sections of John, at least, are based on eye-witness memories. So we come back to conspiracy theories again. For the statement that there was no use of "Christ" early on, we have to prove that the consensus of scholars is wrong and that John must be dated 2-3 centuries later and P52 must be dated 2 centuries later. And this is just considering John, the latest of the NT texts. The argument you are bringing to our attention must also explain away the book of Acts, with its many accurate historical references (and many references to "Christ"), almost universally dated in the first century and accepted by classical historians as well as Biblical ones, Josephus, Paul's letters and the synoptic gospels. All the experts, christian and atheist, classical historians and Biblical scholars, historians and archaeologists, all must have got it not just a little wrong, but terribly, totally, wrong. Is that what you and your source conclude? Of course very little can be "proved" in history (or in life) - we have to be content with probabilities. And of course there are disagreements about the dating of texts. But if we are to be sceptical about dates, we should be equally sceptical about the dates your source is suggesting - if dating is so difficult, why should we accept his dating? Surely better to go with the experts, who go with the 100-150 date, with a few of the more sceptical opting for 150-200? Conspiracy theories like this require us to be sceptical about the experts but naively trusting of the conspiracy theorist. It's not really logical is it?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 3, 2011 2:49:08 GMT
Remember, view me as a devil's advocate....Attempting to gauge arguments from all sides. If that were the case, you would not be so quick to dismiss the scholarly consensus. A real devil's advocate would realise that a website by a crank who has never published anything in the relevant scholarly literature, does not have equal weight with the scholarly consensus. You would also realise how much the website is leading you astray by deliberately concealing information from you. Correct, and I don't expect you will. You still haven't answered my questions, just as I said you wouldn't. This is an example of how easily you're being fooled. You've been shown perhaps three documents of scribal errors, and you think this is good evidence for the complete absence of the words 'Christ' and 'Christians' from any document prior to the fourth century. Someone who is serious about facts would have checked this before posting it. This is another example of how easily you're being fooled. These quotations re being used by 'history hunter' to discredit the early 2nd century date of P52. But neither of these quotations say anything whatsoever about the date of P52. The first quotation is simply saying that the fragment is too small to determine the text type, and the second is saying that it is too small to be a reliable witness to the textual tradition of the passage of John's gospel which it contains. Neither of these statements affects the accepted date of P52 in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, Helmut Koester is not a professional textual critic, and his view here is in disagreement with the majority view of textual scholarship. No it isn't. When people are conspiracy theorists, we should identify them as such. When they are asking us to believe them as opposed to the scholarly consensus, they have a significant burden of evidence. When we are expected to take their word for claims made without evidence, we know they're cranks and we should say so. This is completely irrelevant. No one has to believe in any of this in order to accept that Jesus was a real human being, and that there are textual and archaeological references to 'Christ' and 'Christian' before the first century. Yes. You will note that 'history hunter' addresses almost none of them. He doesn't want you to know about these texts. In addition to those listed by unkleE, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Robin Lane Fox, Hans Conzelmann, Alexander Wedderburn, Gerd Lüdemann, and Martin Hengel. This paragraph is completely incoherent. What are you saying? You have been given lists of such scholars before. To date you have demonstrated no interest in reading them, and you are prepared to believe some crank with a random website is better informed. This does not encourage me to believe that you are interested in objective examination of the evidence. Your continued failure to answer my questions leads me to the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 3, 2011 12:23:16 GMT
Documentus, you have claimed that no document pre-4th century mentions "Christ" (as opposed to "Chrest"). Can I clarify:
1) Do you mean that no actual papyrus/parchment copy which is dated before the 4th century says Christ, or do you mean that no document believed to have originally been written pre-4th century (but for which we only have physical copies from after the 4th century) says Christ? For example, Tacitus' Annals was written pre-4th century, but all the physical copies we have are from much later.
2) Do you include existing copies / fragments of copies of the Gospels in your analysis, and if not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Dec 3, 2011 17:38:33 GMT
1) Do you mean that no actual papyrus/parchment copy which is dated before the 4th century says Christ, or do you mean that no document believed to have originally been written pre-4th century (but for which we only have physical copies from after the 4th century) says Christ? For example, Tacitus' Annals was written pre-4th century, but all the physical copies we have are from much later. I guess "documentus" means the former? Jesus-mythicists place great importance on scientific-dating of material? But we have an increasing volume of texts that can be be dated back to "early Christianity": larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nt-papyri1.pdf "The amounts vary considerably, however. For example, the 17 earliest copies of John together preserve 823 of the 867 verses, about 95% of John.16 By contrast, the nine copies of Matthew from the same period comprise 139 of the 1070 verses, or about 13%, the one copy of Mark (P45) preserves 157 of 666 verses, about 23.5%, and the single copy of Philemon (P87) preserves five of the 25 verses, 20% of that text.17 Nevertheless, obviously we can only be grateful that we have these early remnants, however limited they are. Collectively, the 51 manuscripts dated to the 2nd or 3rd centuries give us copies of 20 of the 27 NT writings. Moreover, arguably, the veryrandom nature of what portions of text that they preserve actually enhances their value as witnesses to the NT writings."Documentus is an example of the inability of some unfortunate souls to pass beyond pasting off the internet?
|
|