Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels

Religions > Atheism > Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 4 of 32

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	25 Oct 2006 05:25:17 AM
Object:	Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels

http://www.equip.org/free/DJ028.htm
BOOK REVIEWS
Eyewitness to Jesus:
Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels
by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d'Ancona
When I first read in the Los Angeles Times in early 1995, that an
expert had reevaluated some papyrus fragments of the Gospel of Matthew
and dated them to the first century, I realized this could have
far-reaching ramifications for biblical scholarship. For the past two
centuries, liberal higher critics have used literary arguments and the
lack of manuscripts from the first century to support their assumption
that the Gospels were written long after the events they describe.
If hard artifacts verify the dating of Matthew's Gospel as far back
as A.D. 60, these artifacts would destroy the foundation of liberal
higher criticism. Since some of these same scholars argue that Mark
wrote the first Gospel, this discovery would push the composition of
Mark to within 20 years, at most, of the events his Gospel describes.
Taken together, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and
Luke's second volume, Acts, would give us a record of the events of
Jesus' life, death, and resurrection indisputably written within the
lifetimes of those who were eyewitnesses and who, therefore, could have
disputed any untrue assertions. There would be no time for fabrications
to develop, no time for a "Jesus of faith" to replace the "Jesus of
history," no time for the church to evolve a supernatural story from a
simple inspiring teacher, and no time for Christians to transform
first-century events into second or third-century pseudohistory.
Although the literary arguments and philosophical presuppositions of
the liberal higher critics have their own fatal flaws, their subjective
nature sometimes makes them difficult to refute clearly. For example, a
common liberal presupposition is that Jesus Himself never claimed to be
God, so any deity statements attributed to Him in the Gospels must be
later composition inserted in His name. A discovery that depends, not
on changing theories of literary interpretation, but on empirical
evidence from paper, ink, and penmanship, would refute the liberal
theories with unmistakable finality.
I found another report of the discovery in a biblical archaeology
magazine and realized that, if it could be verified, it would provide
an even more important historical context for the New Testament than
that provided for the Old Testament by the 1948 discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. This is because it affirms eyewitness authorship.
Carsten Peter Thiede's work first appeared in a professional journal
on which the London press reported. Shortly thereafter, Thiede
collaborated with Matthew d'Ancona, the London Times editor who broke
the story. The result is the very readable, clearly written Eyewitness
to Jesus. Although the book is not overtly a Bible apologetic, it
certainly lends itself to that. Those who want to learn more about this
fascinating subject will also appreciate the book's helpful
footnotes, glossary, and extensive bibliography.
In addition to Thiede's well-argued redating of the Matthew
fragments, chapter six, "Scribes and Christianity," contains
fascinating auxiliary information for understanding the literary and
historical background of the New Testament. In this chapter Thiede
discusses the multilingual society of first-century Israel; Jesus'
childhood exposure to Greek culture in Sepphoris, the capital of
Galilee, less than four miles from Nazareth; Jesus' use of Greek
literary terms; Jesus' and Paul's familiarity with Greek drama;
first-century scribal techniques; first-century "shorthand," especially
customary religious abbreviations called nomen sacrum; and a summary of
traditions regarding Peter's final days before his martyrdom. The
contents of this chapter alone will enrich anyone's understanding and
appreciation of the New Testament.
The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College
(Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and
p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together
representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments
are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6 cm.
Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona
Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15;
5:20-22, 25-28.
The Magdalen Papyrus surfaced in the modern world in 1901, when Charles
B. Huleatt purchased it from an antiquities dealer in Luxor, Egypt.
Nothing is known of the fragment's preservation before that time.
Huleatt donated the fragments to Magdalen College, where they were
given a cursory examination by Magdalen scholar Arthur Hunt, who
tentatively dated them to the fourth century. In 1953, Colin Roberts
redated the Magdalen Papyrus to the later second century and
established their connection to the Barcelona fragments.
More than 40 years later Thiede reexamined the fragments, using
state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the
paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate
the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede's tests and skill appear to
be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have
met with strong opposition from critics.
I have examined most of the critical articles and have found their
criticisms less convincing than Thiede's conclusions. A layperson's
paraphrase of one common criticism is that the papyrus must not be from
the first century because there weren't any codexes (book-leafs) in
first-century Jewish/Christian literature but only scrolls, even though
the papyrus has all of the physical characteristics of a first-century
document. As Thiede rightly points out, the argument against
first-century codexes is an argument from silence - of the small
percentage of recovered early manuscript portions, no indisputable
first-century codex portion has been identified. If, however, the
Magdalen/Barcelona codex is first century, then we do have an example
of a first-century codex. Moreover, if critical assumptions are
reconsidered, and cutting-edge papyrology tests are applied to other
previously dated fragments, we may well find other early examples of
codexes.
Time and careful scholarship will tell whether Thiede's redating is
sound. If it is (and the more I study the issue, the more confidence I
have in Thiede), we will have valuable affirmation of the eyewitness
nature of the Gospel records, the uninterrupted and unchanging
preservation of those testimonies, and our twentieth-century
inheritance of "the faith that God has once for all entrusted to the
saints" (Jude 3) by those who "did not follow cleverly invented
stories," but "were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 1:16).
- Reviewed by Bob Passantino
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	21 Nov 2006 01:33:50 AM

In message <dys8h.7380$y92.7056@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

Clearly you have never read Josephus.

I have read enough Josephus never to believe anything he says unless there is
coroboration from anyother source. I thought everyone knew that by now.

Matt, I apologise. I had forgotten that you never read anything unless it is
on a kooky website. As for never believing Josephus, that fits with your
whole approach to evidence: if it is clearly mad and preferably
anti-semitic, you believe it implicitly; if it doesn't pander to your
prejudices, you dismiss it.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels	22 Nov 2006 05:17:23 AM

Kendall K. Down wrote:

In message <dys8h.7380$y92.7056@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

Clearly you have never read Josephus.

I have read enough Josephus never to believe anything he says unless there is
coroboration from anyother source. I thought everyone knew that by now.

Matt, I apologise. I had forgotten that you never read anything unless it is
on a kooky website.

And as I have read Josephus from believer websites I do have to admit believers
are kooky.

As for never believing Josephus, that fits with your
whole approach to evidence:

My approach is passing that sanity test which none of his population numbers do
and a second source for his claims. But if you like his description of Judaism,
you can read what he wrote and see he would not be considered a Jew today.

if it is clearly mad and preferably
anti-semitic, you believe it implicitly; if it doesn't pander to your
prejudices, you dismiss it.

I have very clear reasons for what my positions and you only need ask to learn
them.
Consider where the members of the IDF take their induction oath, Masada.
According to Josephus they are taking their oaths on the site of the last stand
of a gang of assassins, Iscaria, who murdered their wives and children before
suiciding. If that is your view of modern Israel then fine with me. I consider
that view to be supremely antisemitic.
And as to antisemitism, I prepared an explanation of it.
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/
That is the substance of it. I never connected Zionism with Judaism. Zionists
did. And I have yet to find them condemned for doing it.
--
A certain thing in this world is if you say Jews are inconsequential then
Jews will start making claims of Jewish power they would call antisemitic if
a non-Jew had said them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3713
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	22 Nov 2006 11:31:50 AM

In message <7lW8h.6138$CR6.3259@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

Matt, I apologise. I had forgotten that you never read anything unless it is
on a kooky website.

And as I have read Josephus from believer websites I do have to admit believers
are kooky.

So, at last you admit what I have long suspected: you don't read books; you
only read websites (kooky or otherwise).

I have very clear reasons for what my positions and you only need ask to learn
them.

No thanks. You've expatiated on them at length and I have no desire to learn more.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels	23 Nov 2006 04:56:55 AM

Kendall K. Down wrote:

In message <7lW8h.6138$CR6.3259@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

Matt, I apologise. I had forgotten that you never read anything unless it is
on a kooky website.

And as I have read Josephus from believer websites I do have to admit believers
are kooky.

So, at last you admit what I have long suspected: you don't read books; you
only read websites (kooky or otherwise).

You appear to be saying Josephus is different when in a book rather than on the
web. Can you explain why this is true? And if it is the same, what is the point
of insisting upon reading it in a book?
As for why the internet, on most any subject I can several versions and
commentaries. If I were specializing in a small number of subjects I could
probably afford the hundreds of dollars for books on each subject. To in fact
own the number of volumes to have the many variations and analyses of hundreds
of subject I would have to add a large room to hold the bookshelves which would
be several times cheaper than the cost of the books for fill them. Pardon but us
mortals do not share your wealth.
More practically, additional information on related subject is seconds aways,
much faster than even getting another book containing it even if knowing exactly
which book it is in.
And if your hint go to the library pardon I do not have access to a library
with material like and if I did a few seconds of google search against minutes
of personal library search would stretch to hours of travel time and search time
in the library.
Why is it you try to hide behind the mystique of books? Within the first few
years of the Gutenburg Project there was more material available than a hobbyist
with a middle class income could afford. Before google one had to be familiar
with the books to use them for research in the form of "I think I read something
about that in ..." With google prior familiarity and accurate memory is no
longer important.
Your silly pretension is better suited to someone in his 70s with a tweed
jacket and pipe sitting in a musty library boring grad students. This is the
modern world. Consider using your computer to do more than show off usenet is
the only thing you have figured out.

I have very clear reasons for what my positions and you only need ask to learn
them.

No thanks. You've expatiated on them at length and I have no desire to learn more.

If you have learned enough when will you begin to emulate the insistence upon
the absolute requirmeent for physical evidence? That is really all there is to
it. You react as though it is a sin to question Josephus. You act as though
there is something wrong noting the number of Jews he claims were killed on a
single island is many times greater than the entire population today. He
obviously had no concept of numbers. That should be obvious even to you.
EVERY questionable story requires corroboration. It is as simple as that.
EVERY story must be credible at first reading, that is, it must pass a sanity
test. If incredible now it was incredible then so the author is expected to
include mention of the extraordinary factors.
Every story must be physically possible by the rules of nature as best we know
them.
Why do you not apply those rules to everything? Why are you so gullible?
--
The war on terror can last for thirty years. Israel claims to have been
fighing terrorism for 58 years and there is no end in sight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3729
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	23 Nov 2006 11:30:11 AM

In message <X7f9h.9984$y92.8677@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

So, at last you admit what I have long suspected: you don't read books; you
only read websites (kooky or otherwise).

You appear to be saying Josephus is different when in a book rather than on the
web. Can you explain why this is true?

Certainly: with the exception of reputable publishers like Project Gutenberg
(but you do not claim to have read Josephus from them, but from "believers'
websites"), all you are getting is excerpts, selected by the webmaster to
fit in with whatever point he or she is wanting to make. They may be honest,
they may be dishonest; they may quote all the context, they may just quote a
sentence or two; they may use marks to indicate an ellipsis or they may not
be that intelligent. If you want to pose as a scholar and claim to have read
Josephus, get the book.
And before you ask, I have read Josephus, in a book, from cover to cover.

As for why the internet, on most any subject I can several versions and
commentaries.

Can you, indeed? A sentence which underlines why websites are not an
adequate source of knowledge: after all, they may be run by people as
ignorant and illiterate as you.

If you have learned enough when will you begin to emulate the insistence upon
the absolute requirmeent for physical evidence?

Because I am an historian, not a nut-case.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels	24 Nov 2006 02:15:21 AM

Kendall K. Down wrote:

In message <X7f9h.9984$y92.8677@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

So, at last you admit what I have long suspected: you don't read books; you
only read websites (kooky or otherwise).

You appear to be saying Josephus is different when in a book rather than on the
web. Can you explain why this is true?

I said the entire text or did you not notice?

They may be honest,
they may be dishonest; they may quote all the context, they may just quote a
sentence or two; they may use marks to indicate an ellipsis or they may not
be that intelligent. If you want to pose as a scholar and claim to have read
Josephus, get the book.
And before you ask, I have read Josephus, in a book, from cover to cover.

All of his books?

As for why the internet, on most any subject I can several versions and
commentaries.

Can you, indeed? A sentence which underlines why websites are not an
adequate source of knowledge: after all, they may be run by people as
ignorant and illiterate as you.

You falsely, presumably deliberately, assume something I did not say.

If you have learned enough when will you begin to emulate the insistence upon
the absolute requirmeent for physical evidence?

Because I am an historian, not a nut-case.

I thought we had been over the fact that you are not an historian.
History also has an absolute requirement for physical evidence which is why
there are no histories by real historians of Atlantis or Troy or of bibleland
for that matter. Those things are found in Plato, Homer and the OT respectively.
You never noticed the absense of such works by real PhD historians? Of course
if I am in error you are free to post the titles. This does not mean authors
writing about history with PhDs. It means authors with PhDs in history and the
texts bear their professional credentials and reputation as authority. Please
start with the most recent as I read that a couple were produced in the 18th c.
before history was defined.
--
The war on terror can last for thirty years. Israel claims to have been
fighing terrorism for 58 years and there is no end in sight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3729
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	24 Nov 2006 01:13:22 PM

In message <tSx9h.16791$lD6.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

All of his books?

Speaking from memory - I can't be bothered to walk downstairs to get the
book from the bookshelf - the volume was the complete works of Josephus and
included Antiquities, Wars, Against Apion, Discourse concerning Hades, and a
couple of other documents.

As for why the internet, on most any subject I can several versions and
commentaries.

Can you, indeed? A sentence which underlines why websites are not an
adequate source of knowledge: after all, they may be run by people as
ignorant and illiterate as you.

You falsely, presumably deliberately, assume something I did not say.

I assumed nothing. I picked up on your incoherent sentence.

History also has an absolute requirement for physical evidence which is why
there are no histories by real historians of Atlantis or Troy or of bibleland
for that matter. Those things are found in Plato, Homer and the OT respectively.

No histories about Troy? Idiot.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels	26 Nov 2006 04:41:45 AM

Kendall K. Down wrote:

In message <tSx9h.16791$lD6.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

All of his books?

You can't be bothered to go downstairs and I can google them without
getting up.

As for why the internet, on most any subject I can several versions and
commentaries.

Can you, indeed? A sentence which underlines why websites are not an
adequate source of knowledge: after all, they may be run by people as
ignorant and illiterate as you.

You falsely, presumably deliberately, assume something I did not say.

I assumed nothing. I picked up on your incoherent sentence.

If you were unable to understand it that may serve as an excuse.

No histories about Troy? Idiot.

You are always free to cite the papers and texts on the history of
Troy. That is not the Arkie evidence of the cities built on the site. It
is in fact the history of the city of Illium as described in the Illiad.
So please feel free to do so. I for one would like to know more about
the city than is found in that poem. What are the histories (plural) of
Illium equivalent to a history of Athens, Sparta and Rome? Please I am
interested in the titles.
.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	22 Nov 2006 06:37:25 AM

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:33:10 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <N4X7h.3573$CR6.2984@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

The man is correct. They were not permitted to carry out a death sentence and
it follows that official tribunals were not permitted to order it.

Yet the evidence is that they did indeed both order and carry it out. One of
the high priests was deposed for precisely such an action.

You make my point.

They would
certainly have been permitted to appeal to Rome for execution. But the idea of
bullying Pilate to excessive force is contrary to the one indeterminate mention
of Pilate.

Clearly you have never read Josephus.

Where he confirms that it was forbidden?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels	19 Nov 2006 05:15:02 AM

thomas p. wrote:
....

Yes it does, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to believers.
Just to name two examples: the emperor never ordered nor was there ever
held an empire-wide census especially not with the totally impossible
conditions described in the Bible

I have read from non-believer sources that there was a census called for about
that time but that the results did not survive. That does not negate your
"impossible conditions described" observation.
I was questioning it myself until I found a non-believer mention of it. I did
not make a note of the reference. But as to impossible, people did not usually
travel more than 30 miles from their place of birth in their lifetimes so the
trivial travel distance required for place of birth is not significant.
But as the results did not survive neither did the manner in which it was to be
conducted survive.
But still even though the reference it still strikes me odd there was a census.
My first thought as the manner and purpose did not survive we would make a very
big mistake assuming it was what we mean by a census. The Domsday Book is
considered the first modern census so one assumes there was not a one-time
occurance around the year "zero" which meant the same thing.
I join you in doubting it was a "census" in any sense we would consider a
census. Simply having to be in the town of birth means it was not a census as we
would consider it. That would be like you were born in Germany, became of
citizen of the US and Germany wants to count you.
The use of the word census is in English as the translation of some Greek word
and only census because by the time of King James that was the best guess as to
the translation.

and it was illegal for a local
authority to pass or carry out a sentence of death - making it
naturally illegal and absurd for a Roman authority to carry out the
illegal sentence of death issued by a local authority. In fact "Gone
With The Wind" is much more reliable as far as historical accuracy is
concerned.

I find it worse than that. Pilate, the evil shield dedicator, has the modern
reputation of being excessively harsh in his rule and was bullied by the priests
into a harsh sentence on the threat of being reported to Rome as too lenient.
If we go by what was found in Roman writings we really do not know what the
problem was with him. If we go by the Gospels, we read he could not risk being
lenient.
--
Blaming Jews for the actions of Israel is the new blood libel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3710
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	20 Nov 2006 06:14:35 AM

Matt Giwer skrev:

thomas p. wrote:
...

I have read from non-believer sources that there was a census called for about
that time but that the results did not survive. That does not negate your
"impossible conditions described" observation.

There was a census at about that time, but it was not empire-wide.

I was questioning it myself until I found a non-believer mention of it. I did
not make a note of the reference. But as to impossible, people did not usually
travel more than 30 miles from their place of birth in their lifetimes so the
trivial travel distance required for place of birth is not significant.

The empire stretched over a huge territory at that time. There were a
great number of people that had travelled far from their original home.
There were Greeks in Britain, Britains in Egypt etc. Rome itself was
extremely cosmopolitan with people from every corner of the empire and
beyond living in it. Such a census would have brought the empire to
collapse.

But as the results did not survive neither did the manner in which it was to be
conducted survive.

But still even though the reference it still strikes me odd there was a census.
My first thought as the manner and purpose did not survive we would make a very
big mistake assuming it was what we mean by a census. The Domsday Book is
considered the first modern census so one assumes there was not a one-time
occurance around the year "zero" which meant the same thing.

I join you in doubting it was a "census" in any sense we would consider a
census.

ln that it would have been impossible.
Simply having to be in the town of birth means it was not a census as
we

would consider it. That would be like you were born in Germany, became of
citizen of the US and Germany wants to count you.

There was no such census, but, as a side comment, the US and Germany
are not part of one empire; so the analogy doesn't quite work.

The use of the word census is in English as the translation of some Greek word
and only census because by the time of King James that was the best guess as to
the translation.

All very interesting but it doesn't have anything directly to do with
the problems I mentioned.

What we do know is that the Romans were very jealous of their monopoly
of the right to execute anybody in areas under their direct rule.
Violators of that rule would be guilty of murder if not also treason.
One suspects that that part of the story was an attempt to avoid
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	20 Nov 2006 06:20:49 AM

thomas p. skrev:

Matt Giwer skrev:

thomas p. wrote:
...

I have read from non-believer sources that there was a census called for about
that time but that the results did not survive. That does not negate your
"impossible conditions described" observation.

There was a census at about that time, but it was not empire-wide.

I join you in doubting it was a "census" in any sense we would consider a
census.

ln that it would have been impossible.

Simply having to be in the town of birth means it was not a census as
we

would consider it. That would be like you were born in Germany, became of
citizen of the US and Germany wants to count you.

There was no such census, but, as a side comment, the US and Germany
are not part of one empire; so the analogy doesn't quite work.

The use of the word census is in English as the translation of some Greek word
and only census because by the time of King James that was the best guess as to
the translation.

All very interesting but it doesn't have anything directly to do with
the problems I mentioned.

the last part of the above sentence got lost - here it is:
offending Rome.
.

User: "Azaliah"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	14 Nov 2006 05:13:17 PM

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:03:17 -0500, while bungee jumping,
George Peatty <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> shouted thusly:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:03:30 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

Christians may have other reasons for putting a lot of faith in the Bible,
but those reasons are irrelevant to an archaeology newsgroup.

I'm not so sure. I don't claim to be an expert in archaeology, but my
understanding is that archaeology has confirmed many of the biblical
accounts: the existence of the Hittites, for example. And, some who are
archaeologists have said this on the relationship of their discipline to the
biblical accounts:

Archaeology has never disproved the Bible. But idiot atheists
love to claim that it has, because something hasn't been found
YET. They also love to take whatever claims are made about
a find at first and if they support the Bible, dismiss them
and if they don't seem to, then they latch onto that and
ignore the final results, which may come a time later, which
show that the initial conclusions were in error. Of course
they were, since these finds are usually discovered by those
who do not want the Bible to be right. But in the end, truth
wins out and the atheists hate it when that happens and so,
like I said, they cling to the old conclusions and insult you
when you show them how wrong they were. <chuckle>

G.E. Wright states,"We shall probably never prove that Abram really
existed...but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in
the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but
imperfectly within any later period."

We can also prove that Joseph existed and was in Egypt
and this goes a long way toward proving that Abraham
existed.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.

User: "Paul Ransom Erickson"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 01:05:49 AM

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:03:30 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <mnsel2dtpo7cilri24ldjomc2vgjfuh1ab@4ax.com>
Paul Ransom Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of some past historical
figure who sparked the Christian stories -- in fact, I think it's
likely that there was some such person. Or, maybe, people. But the
evidence is very skimpy and of a notoriously unreliable sort -- so
nobody can really be certain.

Good. I agree with you - but remember, no one can be really certain *one way
or the other*. It is just as wrong to say that Jesus never existed as it is
to affirm that He did. Both statements are assessments of the evidence and
of probabilities and have to be tentative.

Oh but I can say for pretty damn sure that Jesus _as described in the
Gospels_ never existed.

Christians may have other reasons for putting a lot of faith in the Bible,
but those reasons are irrelevant to an archaeology newsgroup.

Those personal experiences that are sooo hard to pin down...
.

User: "George Peatty"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	14 Nov 2006 02:52:56 PM

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:31:39 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

Plus, with Jesus the stakes are higher. And the claims are far wilder
than those made about Tacitus, Philo, Aristotle, Suetonius, etc etc.
It's appropriate to demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary
claims.

How so? I don't dispute that the claims are extraordinary; what I dispute
is your claim that the stakes are.
.

User: "Paul Ransom Erickson"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 01:20:21 AM

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:52:56 -0500, George Peatty
<peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:31:39 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

How so? I don't dispute that the claims are extraordinary; what I dispute
is your claim that the stakes are.

For Christians the stakes are higher.
I mean that disputes over the existence of a historical Jesus mean far
more to some people than disputes over the existence of Aristotle or
Socrates.
Some people are very commited to demonstrating said existence -- and
nobody is immune to wishful thinking.
That's the sort of higher stakes I meant.
Peace
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 01:23:42 PM

In message <tnctl29kvnaldusb6ngotb1lcl375krnq7@4ax.com>
Paul Ransom Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

I mean that disputes over the existence of a historical Jesus mean far
more to some people than disputes over the existence of Aristotle or
Socrates.
Some people are very commited to demonstrating said existence -- and
nobody is immune to wishful thinking.

Very true. :-)
Mind you, some people are very committed to demonstrating the opposite - and
with much the same degree of wishful thinking.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Paul Ransom Erickson"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	19 Nov 2006 11:02:39 PM

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 19:23:42 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <tnctl29kvnaldusb6ngotb1lcl375krnq7@4ax.com>
Paul Ransom Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

Very true. :-)

Mind you, some people are very committed to demonstrating the opposite - and
with much the same degree of wishful thinking.

Likely enough.
.

User: "George Peatty"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 10:08:51 AM

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:20:21 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

For Christians the stakes are higher.

I'm not sure I agree. No true Christian has to be persuaded of the
historicity of Jesus Christ. Like the Apostle Paul, we know who we have
believed ..
Where this likely becomes an issue is with Christians trying to persuade
skeptics. Even then, the emotional investment is higher for the skeptic,
inasmuch as he is emotionally bound to the delusion that Christ did not
exist, or existed but was not at all like the person declared in the
Gospels. Evidence or reason that threatens this delusion threatens the
skeptic at some deeply personal level ..

I mean that disputes over the existence of a historical Jesus mean far
more to some people than disputes over the existence of Aristotle or
Socrates.

I suspect I am atypical in this regard, because the historicity of Christ is
a subject I never debate. For me, the statement is an assumption that
requires no proof, not a premise, which may or may not be provable.
Someone wishing to disabuse me of this view can do so very easily: find the
body ..
.

User: "marcinmd"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 02:58:32 PM

The Church is the body of Christ...
www.ourlifeinchrist.com
.

User: "Paul Ransom Erickson"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	19 Nov 2006 11:01:57 PM

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:08:51 -0500, George Peatty
<peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:20:21 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:

For Christians the stakes are higher.

I'm not sure I agree. No true Christian has to be persuaded of the
historicity of Jesus Christ. Like the Apostle Paul, we know who we have
believed ..

Where this likely becomes an issue is with Christians trying to persuade
skeptics. Even then, the emotional investment is higher for the skeptic,
inasmuch as he is emotionally bound to the delusion that Christ did not
exist, or existed but was not at all like the person declared in the
Gospels. Evidence or reason that threatens this delusion threatens the
skeptic at some deeply personal level ..

That might be the case with some of us, but that's only to be expected
when the surrounding culture is so Christian -- and when the majority
of us were likely Christians before we were atheists. Sure, likely
lots of us have some fear of God hanging around in the background.
(That does not make you right though.)
That might be the case with some, but please do not tar us all with
the same brush. Because you are here displaying a little sample of
the behavior that makes atheists legitimately worried about Christian
assumptions: religious people tend to have been taught a stock image
of what's going on in the minds and hearts of those who do not share
their religion. In the case of Christianity (and many other religions
and political persuasions), unwillingness to hear the truth figures in
the stock explanation.
People do tend to squesl and throw insults when pinned down, even when
they know they are right. There is no need to add all the stuff about
threatened delusions to explain such behavior.
Now it doesn't matter to me that you think I want to avoid the truth
and am in desperate denial. Go ahead and think that about me. But
when you deal with the people around you based on such stereotypes
things might get a little ugly. Plus, it's the worse for you not to
be able to see the full complexity of what's really going on inside
us. Christian or not, you are better off knowing the truth instead of
a simplistic stereotype.
Now as far as "true Christians": it will be a huge surprise to most
Christians that the real historical existence of Jesus is not more
important than the real historical existence of some other figure from
the same period. Maybe most self-called Christians are not "true"
Chrsitians by your reckoning, but that's not my call.
It's no skin off my nose in either case, since for all I know there
might or might not have been such a historical figure. One question
does arise, though: how similar does the historical figure have to be
to the hero of the Gospels for the two to be the "same", and this for
Jesus Christ to have existed historically?

I mean that disputes over the existence of a historical Jesus mean far
more to some people than disputes over the existence of Aristotle or
Socrates.

Well, I have rarely debated it myself, except to say that I hardly
care...
Peace
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 02:54:48 PM

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:48:12 -0500, "hippo" <hippo@south-sudan.net>
wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote:

[.]

To someone with an open mind, it is nearly impossible for a cult with so
many fervent adherents to have been created from thin air. It just doesn't
happen in human societies. That's why I think there was an historical
Jesus.
That in no way implies I support the claim of believers that he was
divine,
semi-divine, a prophet or anything else but an historic figure. -the Troll

Was there an historical Moroni as well? After all what you have just
said applies equally to the Mormons.

There was an historical Joseph Smith. He was the founder of the movement as
Jesus of Nazareth was of his. -the Troll

One slight difference - there is corroborating secular evidence for
Joseph Smith. The only evidence for Moroni is inside the Mormon
tradition. Just as the only evidence for Jesus is inside the Christian
tradition.

User: "hippo"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 08:43:06 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote:

[.]

To someone with an open mind, it is nearly impossible for a cult with so
many fervent adherents to have been created from thin air. It just
doesn't
happen in human societies. That's why I think there was an historical
Jesus.
That in no way implies I support the claim of believers that he was
divine,
semi-divine, a prophet or anything else but an historic figure. -the
Troll

Was there an historical Moroni as well? After all what you have just
said applies equally to the Mormons.

There was an historical Joseph Smith. He was the founder of the movement
as
Jesus of Nazareth was of his. -the Troll

A negative is also proof of nothing. There is very little secular proof of
any Jew living in the early first century beyond kings, zealot leaders, high
priests, and important civic leaders. Until 1961 there was no secular proof
of the historical prefect Pontius Pilate. Now there is. Little by little we
put the pieces together. -the Troll
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 01:17:47 AM

In message <ooa4l21lvpbv1ptcq8s1mdg24g6pclon0a@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

Was there an historical Moroni as well? After all what you have just
said applies equally to the Mormons.

Actually, no. Although the basic principles apply in exactly the same way,
the fact is that we have much more documentation from the 1800s than we do
from the first century. From the historical perspective, it is reasonable to
believe that Jesus existed (and reasonable to question that as well) but it
is not reasonable to believe that Moroni existed.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "George Peatty"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 06:49:29 PM

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:49:25 -0500, "hippo" <hippo@south-sudan.net> wrote:

To someone with an open mind, it is nearly impossible for a cult with so
many fervent adherents to have been created from thin air. It just doesn't
happen in human societies. That's why I think there was an historical Jesus.
That in no way implies I support the claim of believers that he was divine,
semi-divine, a prophet or anything else but an historic figure. -the Troll

Well, we'll work on the divine business, but it's nice to know you're with
us, at least, hypothetically, on his historicity ..
.

User: "hippo"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 11:40:32 PM

"George Peatty" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote:

Well, we'll work on the divine business, but it's nice to know you're with
us, at least, hypothetically, on his historicity ..

Chuckle, who are 'we' and 'us'?
My opinion is only opinion and clearly indicated. There is no specific
historical evidence one way or t'other. What there is is highly subjective.
Advocating early Christianity wasn't the place for a carnival shill. It was
dangerous, not remunerative, and certainly no road to power as power was
understood in the first century. It makes no sense that the early Apostles
believed anything less than they claimed to believe or had anything but
altruistic reasons to do what they did. This is clearly different from early
Marxists, for example, who were selling ideas and were after both power and
revenge. -the Troll
.

User: "George Peatty"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 02:56:44 PM

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 00:40:32 -0500, "hippo" <hippo@south-sudan.net> wrote:

Well, we'll work on the divine business, but it's nice to know you're with
us, at least, hypothetically, on his historicity ..

Chuckle, who are 'we' and 'us'?

I should think that was obvious: those of us who accept both his historicity
and his divinity ..
.

User: "hippo"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 05:08:14 PM

"George Peatty" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote:

Well, we'll work on the divine business, but it's nice to know you're
with
us, at least, hypothetically, on his historicity ..

Chuckle, who are 'we' and 'us'?

I should think that was obvious: those of us who accept both his
historicity
and his divinity .

You are a rare bird here amongst the flaring egos, venom and thorns. -the
Troll
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 09:15:01 PM

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:08:14 -0500, "hippo" <hippo@south-sudan.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <12l7d7440p5bm41@corp.supernews.com>

"George Peatty" wrote in message

"hippo" wrote:

Well, we'll work on the divine business, but it's nice to know you're
with
us, at least, hypothetically, on his historicity ..

Chuckle, who are 'we' and 'us'?

I should think that was obvious: those of us who accept both his
historicity
and his divinity .

You are a rare bird here amongst the flaring egos, venom and thorns. -the
Troll

The both of you are deranged and delusional children.
Go back to worshipping the fake archeologist.
That should keep you wanking for a few more minutes.
--
.

User: "hippo"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	10 Nov 2006 05:18:01 PM

"Michael Gray" wrote in message
[.]

The both of you are deranged and delusional children.
Go back to worshipping the fake archeologist.
That should keep you wanking for a few more minutes.

My, my, aren't you delightful fellows to chat with on a Friday evening. It's
ironic that I agree with you guys in principle, but like believing
Christians a whole lot better. Wonder why that is? I can't wait for your
opinion. -the Troll
.

Page 4 of 32