Yes, TD, I noted that too. Wow.
Jeff
Are You Paul or are you Saul?
by reniaa 347 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Pistoff
" You see it boils down to this F A I T H !!!!"
Yes, well, you call it faith; I call it accepting the word of others who also have no evidence for what they think, and cannot explain the internal conflicts in the gospels except by saying we have to take it as a whole, or take it on faith, or say the differences mean nothing. They don't mean nothing; they are good evidence that the gospels are stories from starkly different communities, based on a common book of sayings of Jesus.
I no longer think the gospels were ever meant to be taken literally; the gospels do not make sense taken literally. They make sense when seen as faith documents, a theological interpretation like the OT. The followers of Jesus were disappointed and confused by his death; in retrospect, they put words in his mouth predicting his own death, "predicting" also the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and the destruction of the temple; finally, they put words in his mouth predicting he would come again and when he didn't, they took refuge in what beleagured groups did in the day; in apocalytic, the Revelation. When he did not come again, they kept waiting; we still wait.
What if it is symbolic only? Why not instead internalize the message that he taught and live this life to the fullest and most ethical? Why insist that it must be true in all detail? Does it not have merit and mean something anyway?
-
Mad Dawg
Mad Dawg (from previous post)
Pistoff
Mad Dawg’s responses in this post.
"The evidence for the miracles is the gospels themselves as they are eyewitness accounts."
This is circular logic.
Not at all, if we can’t use eyewitness accounts, what can we use?
"The synoptic “problem” is not a problem at all. If 2 or 10 people saw the same events, wouldn’t we expect them to give similar accounts? "
But you maintain that the Bible is inspired and inerrant;
So?
similar is not the issue. The gospels have serious differences, including the tone of what Jesus said and did, and the view of what Jesus was, whether extraordinary human or godlike. I agree that to you this is not a problem,
If this is not a problem, then why bring it up?
but it is to me and when I began reading what scholars (with no view to defend)
No view to defend? You are kidding me right? Every writer has biases.
found when analyzing texts, the differences are obvious.
As you said before, differences are not a problem. What is your point?
"Paul did mention the resurrection specifically. "
But Jesus did NOT perform the resurrection, right? Your view is that God resurrected him. Or are you saying that Jesus is God, and resurrected himself?
The best insight on this that have offhand is: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life , that I might take it again. John 10:17 KJV
I find this argument to be mostly semantics.
"Why would Paul preach the resurrection and discount lesser miracles?"
My point exactly! Either they developed after he wrote, or he DID NOT BELIEVE them.
So you don’t dispute the veracity of the resurrection. You are still trying to argue from silence. It is nothing more than speculation on your part. If he didn’t believe them he would have said so.
"What verse(s) in the gospels “caused” anti-semitism? There are those that twist verses to say what they were never intended to say, just as the WTS does."
“Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him" (Matthew 26:4).
“The Chief Priest, the elders, and the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death” (Matthew 26: 59-61)
“...all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death”(Matthew 27:1).
And the crowd? They cried that they would take the blood of Jesus on their head and their children's head.
Ø These are the verses that I had in mind when I referred to twisted verses.
Ø If these are the actual events, how is Matthew an anti-semite for recording them?
Ø Can you show me where the Scriptures confirms that Jesus’ blood would be on the heads of the Children?
Ø Are you aware that the OT says that sins of the father are only passed to the 3 rd and 4 th generation?
Ø If God confirmed the guilt on the children, it would have expired by the end of the 3 rd century.
Ø There is nothing in the Bible that confirms that Jews are to be persecuted for what a small minority of them did.
So Mad do you think that Pilate became a ruler by being bullied by the crowDo you really think that they changed his mind about executing someone that was being called the king of the jews?
It wasn’t the crowd that got Pilate to condemn Jesus, it was the priests – who were very influential in the politics of the time and region. Given the history of Jewish uprisings and Roman brutality in suppressing them, I have no doubt that Pilate would sacrifice an innocent man to keep the peace. Especially if his authority was being challenged.
"The interesting thing is that if we follow the sexual, dietary, sanitation, and other guidelines of the Bible; we would live a healthier life – today."
"I am convinced that God warns us against promiscuity to guard us from such diseases."
By the way, the most RABID anti Jewish accounts are found in Matthew,
Oh? And what may they be?
a book written from and for the Jewish community, who by the time it was written had ejected the Christians from the synagogues.
Rodney Stark, a real scholar, states that the division between the Jews and the Christian was slow and did not fully develop until the 6 th or 8 th centuries. What is your point here? Are you suggesting that Matthew was written after the 8 th century?
You mean I need …? Do I need to avoid pork? Where do you draw the line if you revere Mosaic laws? Should we stone adulterers again?
Why does he not warn us against all of the other health hazards of modern living?
Jesus fulfilled the law, we are no longer under the law. There are commands in the NT that reflect some of the ones of the OT.
As for eating pork, you missed the point. Suppose I gave up eating pork, would my health improve? Yes. Pork products are high in fat and cholesterol. If one goes on a weight loss program, some of the first things to go are bacon, ham, hot dogs, and most everything else made from pork. I am in no way saying that it is wrong to eat pork, just recognizing that one would be healthier without it.
Having numerous sex partners is also detrimental to one’s health. Diseases spread like wild fire. I have had friends die of AIDS that preached the necessity of “safe sex.” It is heart rending to watch them waste away.
It also destroys marriages and families. The familial instability it produces has a deep and lasting negative impact on the children in such situations. Such factors have an impact on the society as a whole. It can be easily argued that it was a significant factor in bringing down the Roman Empire.
Nowhere does the Bible try to warn about ALL hazards of life, past or present.
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments.
MD
-
orangefatcat
I apoligize for calling Paul a Gentile I assure you I knew he was a Jew, I must have not proof read my post, so I repent therefore in sack cloth and ashes,and ask for forgiveness.
Yours in Christ
Terry
Orangefatcat
"St. Paul" was born a Jew
In 2Cor 11:22 Saul wrote that he was descended from Abraham and Israel. Who were Abraham and Israel?
Abraham was the first Hebrew. God changed his name from Abram (Gen. 17:5). In Gen. 14:13 he is called Abram the Hebrew. Abraham is the father of the Jews (Acts 3:12-25). So we can see that Saul is descended from "Abram the Hebrew," the father of the Jews. Even to this day, Jews are also called "Hebrews", and the language of the Jews is "Hebrew."
Israel was originally called Jacob (Gen. 35:10-12) and he was Abraham's grandson (Matt. 1:2). He had twelve sons (Gen. 35:23-26) from whom come the Twelve Tribes of Israel. All of their descendants are known collectively throughout the Bible as the Children of Israel (Ex. 1:6-7).
One of those twelve sons was Judah (Gen. 35:23, Matt. 1:2) and it is from his name that we get the word 'Jew'. Although Yehudah (Judah) was only one of the twelve, by 700 BCE, because of the course of Israel's history, the word Yehudee (Jew) came to mean any person descended from Israel (Jer. 34:9). When Saul wrote that he was descended from Abraham and Israel, he was saying he was born a Jew.
-
Pistoff
Not at all, if we can’t use eyewitness accounts, what can we use?
No serious scholar thinks the gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone eyewitnesses; try reading the reasons sometimes.
If this is not a problem, then why bring it up?
What I said is it is not a problem for YOU; it is an issue for me that is consistent with authorship from different communities, with different beliefs and viewpoints, that wrote it with a common book of sayings as the base; the finding of Thomas lent weight to this idea.
No view to defend? You are kidding me right? Every writer has biases.
Yes, especially Rodney Stark. What I am interested in is historians and text scholars who are not interested in defending the text, only studying it.
But Jesus did NOT perform the resurrection, right? Your view is that God resurrected him. Or are you saying that Jesus is God, and resurrected himself?
So you don’t dispute the veracity of the resurrection. You are still trying to argue from silence. It is nothing more than speculation on your part. If he didn’t believe them he would have said so.
What I believe about the resurrection is not relevant to what PAUL thought about the miracles; he either had not heard of them, not likely if they circulated before or during his life, or he discounted them. It seems likely that if he had heard them he would have dealt with them somehow; either defend them, affirm them or deny them. The most logical reason he does not mention them is that they developed after he died.
“Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him" (Matthew 26:4).
“The Chief Priest, the elders, and the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death” (Matthew 26: 59-61)
“...all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death”(Matthew 27:1).
When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.” And all the people answered and said, “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24–25)
Ø These are the verses that I had in mind when I referred to twisted verses.
They plainly state that the Jews demanded Jesus be put to death; that is blaming the Jews for Jesus' death, right?
Ø If these are the actual events, how is Matthew an anti-semite for recording them?
IF they are actual, that is the point; historians of the texts and secular references say it is highly unlikely.
Ø Can you show me where the Scriptures confirms that Jesus’ blood would be on the heads of the Children?
Here you go:
When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.” And all the people answered and said, “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24–25)
Ø Are you aware that the OT says that sins of the father are only passed to the 3 rd and 4 th generation?
What are you talking about? Are you thinking that God really held the children accountable for killing Jesus??
Ø If God confirmed the guilt on the children, it would have expired by the end of the 3 rd century.
Ø There is nothing in the Bible that confirms that Jews are to be persecuted for what a small minority of them did.
PILATE killed Jesus; history confirms. Besides, if Jesus had not been martyred, you would not be saved, right? So you should be grateful for whoever killed him, they had a thankless job, right?
Oh? And what may they be?
What anti Jewish verses?
How about these:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Rodney Stark, a real scholar, states that the division between the Jews and the Christian was slow and did not fully develop until the 6 th or 8 th centuries. What is your point here? Are you suggesting that Matthew was written after the 8 th century?
No, but no one else among the entire scholar community thinks like Rodney Stark. Do the above verses suggest to you that the split between Jews and Christians may have occured in the first century??
Jesus fulfilled the law, we are no longer under the law. There are commands in the NT that reflect some of the ones of the OT.
I know that the law was done away with by Jesus' sacrifice; YOU made the point that the law led people to greater health. My point is that is a coincidence; they were PURITY laws, not health regulations. The same law called for stoning adulterers; do you advocate that too?
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Pistoff said:
"No serious scholar thinks the gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone eyewitnesses; try reading the reasons sometimes."
My Reply:
What is your definition of "serious scholar"? Can you name 5 "serious scholars" that do not think the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus? (I assume by "contemporaries" you mean people who were living at the same time as Jesus?)
Can you give me a few reasons why the Gospels should not be accepted as historically accurate accounts of what happened?
Are the "reasons" simply because they reported that Jesus performed miracles?
If the "reasons" are that the Gospels differ on some minor details, why should we throw out the Gospels as being historically accurate, when we do not throw out any other historical documents simply because they disagree on minor details?
I've been searching through the 4 Gospels recently, comparing them side-by-side to see if there are any "contradictions," and so far, all I have found are minor details that are slightly different.
-
Pistoff
The majority of textual and historical scholars do not think contemporaries of Jesus wrote the gospels; no eyewitnesses.
Some:
Thomas Sheehan
Michael Coogan
Elaine Pagels
Burton Mack
John Dominic Crossan
That is just the five I can think of; most of the fellows of the Jesus seminar do not think contemporaries of Jesus wrote them, and think that a majority of what is attributed to Jesus was from later followers.
But my point is this: see why they think this. I know that for most believers, what scholars say means nothing, but they do not publish what they do out of a hatred for believers, or belief, or because they don't want to believe. They write what they do after a process of examining the texts, and what can be determined from the internal evidence, and from historical verification.
Can you give me a few reasons why the Gospels should not be accepted as historically accurate accounts of what happened?
Because they are theologized in the same way as the OT accounts; they are colored by the viewpoint of the authors, they are internally inconsistent and they cannot be verified by outside sources, in fact the details in some cases contradict established history.
Are the "reasons" simply because they reported that Jesus performed miracles?
No, although that is a contributing factor. Here is the question no one has tried to answer: why does Paul not mention the miracles, or even what Jesus taught?
If the "reasons" are that the Gospels differ on some minor details, why should we throw out the Gospels as being historically accurate, when we do not throw out any other historical documents simply because they disagree on minor details?
The gospels were written by people who are invested in the idea that Jesus is the son of God and is now resurrected to heaven. That is not history; that is historiosophy, accounts written to prove that he was the one they think was referred to in certain lines from the OT. What other documents are you talking about being thrown out?
I've been searching through the 4 Gospels recently, comparing them side-by-side to see if there are any "contradictions," and so far, all I have found are minor details that are slightly different.
The gospels are similar when measured by the content of what they share, namely what is said to be the Q source, Jesus sayings; the rest of each one is tailored to a certain audience. Take Matthew; written from the perspective of a christian community wanting it's Jewish roots, but angry at being thrown out of the synagogues. They take their revenge on the locals by putting into Jesus' mouth very angry rhetoric about the pharisees, saduccees and scribes.
The book of John is nearly a mystic gospel, wherein Jesus talks more about himself than anything else, and paints Jesus as a central character in the battle between light and darkness, present at creation, embodied by the old concept of the Wisdom tradition, and divine. Some of those concepts are found in the sect of the Essenes, and predate Jesus.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Pistoff,
Thank you very much for your reply. I will definitely see what they have to say, and I will get back to you after I've checked them out.
(I am one of those "rare" Christians who loves to see what scholars have to say, and loves to find the truth, no matter where the truth leads...)
-
Mad Dawg
Those that support a late date argue from silence and ad hoc excuses. In fact, many archeologists, textual critics, and such accept an early date.
From: Here
(1) New Testament Manuscript Copies:
Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.
Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).
Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.
This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.
(2) Available Manuscripts:
A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let's then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let's compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).
Author
Date Written
Earliest Copy
Time Span
Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History)
480 - 425 BC
900 AD
1,300 years
8
Thucydides (History)
460 - 400 BC
900 AD
1,300 years
?
Aristotle (Philosopher)
384 - 322 BC
1,100 AD
1,400 years
5
Caesar (History)
100 - 44 BC
900 AD
1,000 years
10
Pliny (History)
61 - 113 AD
850 AD
750 years
7
Suetonius (Roman History)
70 - 140 AD
950 AD
800 years
?
Tacitus (Greek History)
100 AD
1,100 AD
1,000 years
20
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)
1st century
50-60 AD
co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John)
90 AD
130 AD
40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)
90 AD
150-200 AD
60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)
1st century
200 AD
150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)
1st century
200 AD
150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)
1st century
325-350 AD
275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)
1st century
350 AD
300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)
1st century
400 AD
350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.
What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.
The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!
The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!
What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).
We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:
(3) Versions or Translations:Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.) (McDowell 1972:49; 1990:47).
Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of that period. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such as Coptic translations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century) (McDowell 1972:48-50). The fact that we have so many translations of the New Testament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, had the disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them to have amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each one so that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in these translations today.
(4) Lectionaries:The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship services began from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135 lectionaries which have been catalogued from this period (McDowell 1972:52). If there had been a forgery, they too would have all had to have been changed.
( 5) Early Church Father's Letters: But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.
Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell's Evidence..., 1972 pg. 51):
Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.
Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.
Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.
Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament -
Mad Dawg
Pistoff said:
Yes, especially Rodney Stark. What I am interested in is historians and text scholars who are not interested in defending the text, only studying it.
You have obviously no clue as to Stark’s writings.
No, but no one else among the entire scholar community thinks like Rodney Stark.
How do you know this? Do you know what ALL scholars think? If you actually read Stark’s work, you would find that it is well documented.
Do the above verses suggest to you that the split between Jews and Christians may have occured in the first century??
The verses you cite, 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! And so forth are directed to a particular group of Pharasees andScribes. How does the condemnation of particular people in a particular place by Jesus prove that there was a split world-wide by everyone in these groups? I have condemned my government, does that mean I am not an American anymore?