|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 3, 2007 21:53:19 GMT -4
Well, that's lucky, since there isn't any other archaeological evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 21:54:56 GMT -4
Is that aimed at me? I have stated here that I don't know if Jesus existed. Oh, every one of my posts has to be about you, eh?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 3, 2007 21:57:07 GMT -4
My mistake, then.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2007 22:58:34 GMT -4
Well, that's lucky, since there isn't any other archaeological evidence. So are you saying the existence of this tomb, being the only archaeological evidence, has proved to you that the biblical Jesus existed?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 4, 2007 0:00:35 GMT -4
I said the earliest fragment that we have of the NT was a fragment called P52. I asked if you were aware of other fragments of the NT that predated it. I guess, for your sake, I should have said "a fragment of what would later become to be known as the New Testament." But, yeah -- I just said "fragment." Obviously a tremendously ignorant thing for me to have done. No you said, and I quote: So, 300 years later they took their 300 year-old original texts, bundled them together and voila, the Bible? And, yet the earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is from around the year 125 or later. You are making a lot of assumptions, here.So if you didn't mean that the NT was around 125 years after Jesus was supposed to be and you were questioning my putting out that the Bible didn't exist as such until 397, over 300 years after the Gospels were first written, what did you mean? Again you are representing the books as one work, they aren't. Just because they are a collection doesn't mean they can't be used to compare with each other, any more then you can claim that you can't use the books in the NY public library to compare with each other since they have been gathered into a single collection. As to the other points. How is the copying and translating any different to any other documents of antiquity? Again you are applying a double standard. Other documents have gone through MORE copies and translations but are accepted, and we have copies of the NT books from BEFORE they were gathered into one volume. You still seem to be avoiding your double standard here, you are willing to apply a different ruler to the documents that make up the bible, and those from every other source. Why is that? Well if that is what you are talking about, how about you answer his questions?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 4, 2007 0:07:26 GMT -4
And what's the archeological evidence that it is? Oh, that's right, 7 common names, of which the non-biblical histories say 2 shouldn't be there, and the Gospel says one of the others shouldn't be there. Add to that, one of the names is a major stretch to make fit, one that was never mentioned in any histories, and one wasn't even related, and we have 7 names, 4 of them with a dubious connection, and one that there was no proof of being related in any way to the Biblical Jesus. That hardly gets past circumstantial at the best.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 9:03:13 GMT -4
I very clearly stated that the earliest fragment we have of it is called P52 and is from around the year 125. Here is a link to a website with information about P52. There is even a picture. www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.htmlNote that below the picture, the site states: "P52 is the oldest known manuscript fragment of the New Testament." You should definitely take some time right away to contact them and insult them for calling it a fragment of the New Testament. I most definitely did not say that. All I asked was what archaeological evidence stands against it. Thanks for telling me again. If you repeat it enough, perhaps others will believe it. Answer his questions? Isn't that what this discussion is about? Aren't we talking about whether we can answer those questions? Guys, let's knock off the "he said," "he said" sh*t, okay? It really is getting old. I'm not playing, anymore.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 9:09:38 GMT -4
So let's go after Ginnie's questions. Earlier, I brought up the question of the genealogy of Jesus:
Genealogy of Jesus -- Luke 3:23-24 (from the Holy Bible Papal Edition, 1968): Joseph, son of of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, Son of Melchi, Son of Janne and on and on. 41 generations are listed between Joseph and David (incl.), with the genealogy continuing back to Adam. This is different from: Genealogy of Jesus -- Matthew 1:14-16: Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar, son of Eliud, son of Achim and on and on. 13 generations are listed between Joseph and David (incl.), with the genealogy continuing back to Abraham.
Christians claim that Luke's genealogy actually belongs to Mary. The text of Luke does not say that, however. Luke 3:23 clearly states a genealogy through Joseph and does not mention Mary.
If it is to be claimed that these are historical documents, what can we say about this? I would first say that my opinion is that one of them is wrong, as they can't both be correct. We can't be sure that either is correct, but one must be incorrect.
Thoughts on this?
edited to correct capitalization mistake
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 11:04:35 GMT -4
Are parts of the NT reliable enough to be used as evidence of a historical Jesus? Well, again we run into the barrier of "reliable enough", which is a very subjective term. We can look at the strictly secular facts and see if the New Testament matches up to them. Things like who were the government leaders at the time, are there any inconsistancies in the geography, etc. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of surviving outside sources to check these facts against, and even if they are consistent they only prove that whoever wrote the NT knew the place and time described. It does help to locate the documents in time and geography to the right place, but it can't say much about the truth of the narrative. Of course not. The New Testament is, as Phantomwolf has said numerous times, a collection of texts written by different authors at different times, collected together in one volume some hundreds of years after they were written. If one book is somehow proven to be completely fraudulent in authorship or incorrect in its facts that has little bearing on the others. In fact, even if parts of a single book are proven to be incorrect that does not mean we must discard the entire book. There are some parts of the various books of the NT that many NT scholars regard as later insertions or interpretations without denying the authenticity of the rest of the book.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 11:37:02 GMT -4
If it is to be claimed that these are historical documents, what can we say about this? I would first say that my opinion is that one of them is wrong, as they can't both be correct. We can't be sure that either is correct, but one must be incorrect. Thoughts on this? First of all they actually could both be correct. I've heard that the term translated as "son of" can also be translated as "descendent of", which means that there could be multiple generations between the two names listed. Matthew and Luke simply chose different names in portions of the line. This would also explain why Matthew gives only 25 generations between Joseph and David while Luke gives 40. Matthew is essentially giving us the Reader's Digest version while Luke gives a more complete list. Other possibilities: One could be Mary's lineage rather than Joseph's, as is a common Christian thought. Some individuals on the list could have been known by different names, with Matthew using one and Luke the other. Similarly, the same name in the two genealogies could be referring to different individuals with the same name. Go far enough back, and many people can find more than one way to track their lineage to an ancestor common to both of their ancestral families, especially when considering royal lines (which tended to intermarry). Therefore multiple lineages for an individual that lead to a common ancestor can be correct. The Jews had a custom (known as Levirate marriage) of having a brother marry his deceased brother's widow if there had been no children in order to produce children for her. The children were usually considered children of the first father (the deceased brother) rather than their true biological father, but either name could have been used in a geneology. One genealogy could be the line of royal succession while the other is actual biological descent. One or the other or both could be incorrect, although that does not necessarily discredit the whole book then. If I write a biography of an individual and use a genealogy written by someone else later proven wrong then I'm guilty of not having adequately verified my source, but other parts of the biography, especially parts I have a more direct connection to than the person's ancient ancestors, could be perfectly accurate.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 12:44:29 GMT -4
Matthew names each person twice, starting with Abraham. "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judas," arriving at "Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary." So there really isn't any place in Matthew for others to be included or excluded.
Luke shows the genealogy in the opposite order, starting with Joseph. "Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi," in an unbroken string through David and all the way back to "Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, who was God."
Both texts appear to be showing, at the least, that Joseph is in the house of David. To do this, the text must show an unbroken line of descent. Both do.
There is no evidence in the text to suggest that one or the other of the genealogies belongs to Mary. They both clearly use Joseph.
Some individuals in the genealogies could go by different names, but Luke shows 41 names between Joseph and David, while Matthew shows only 27. (My count of 13 earlier was a gross mistake, with 13 being the number from Babylon to Joseph) So name changing alone can't explain the difference.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 13:05:09 GMT -4
Matthew names each person twice, starting with Abraham. "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judas," arriving at "Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary." So there really isn't any place in Matthew for others to be included or excluded. Unless "begot" means "was the ancestor of", rather than indicating a direct father-son descent. Actually it's "Adam who was the son of God" not "Adam, who was God". Not necessarily. If Matthew is just naming some of the more well-known members of the House of David then readers already familiar with that line can fill in the gaps themselves. Remember that Matthew was written to the Jews, who would be familiar with the history of their royal house.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 13:41:35 GMT -4
Matthew begins the genealogy with "Abraham begot Isaac." Isaac is the son of Abraham.
My error. My Papal Edition has it as "Adam, who was of God." Missed the "of."
There appears to be an unbroken line of names, each repeated twice -- as if to make the very point that the line is not broken. I'm not sure how you would go about fitting additional names into Matthew.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 14:00:46 GMT -4
There appears to be an unbroken line of names, each repeated twice -- as if to make the very point that the line is not broken. I disagree that the repetition indicates that each set of names is a direct father-son relationship, or that other names could not be inserted in the list. The genealogy of the Kings that appears in 1 Chronicles follows some of the same line as Matthew but has more names.
|
|
|
Post by cr on Sept 4, 2007 14:53:50 GMT -4
Just to chime in for a moment... All this talk of being able to insert names between those listed in the genealogy instantly means two things: (1) The Bible is subjective enough to allow practically anything to be 'read in between the lines', and as such doesn't make for much of a historical document. This goes beyond simple interpretation and into the realm of making up anything one wants to fit one's own view. As such, (2) the Bible isn't literal. While the lessons it may impart may have value, using it as an accurate historical document is impossible.
I guess that's basically two ways of saying the same thing... sorry. But I wanted to point out that perhaps there is some value to the Bible for the lessons it imparts, if not for its historicity.
Edited to add clarifying point.
|
|