translated from the Greek?

Religions > Bible > translated from the Greek?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 4 of 12

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Yuri Kuchinsky"
Date:	27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM
Object:	translated from the Greek?

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	11 Nov 2003 10:49:46 AM

Didymos wrote:

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FAFABDA.60204FD3@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Trotter960 wrote:

From: Libertarius

Your agreement re. "evolution" is exactly what I have been

attempting to

show: i.e. that the only full story we have is from the second and even

the

third century. That reductions, amplifications and changes were made

during

those centuries is obvious. What else was changed and added is

impossible

to say, but to expect that the Gospels represent historical data is

simply

naive. -- L.

That is not quite true. The gospel manuscripts we have date to the second
century. The story they tell is older. Might I suggest you compare the
possible dates thrown up by archaeologists for the Trojan War and compare
them with the dates of the manuscripts of the Iliad? What we tend to forget
is that the ancient Near East and Mediteranean basins were oral cultures
where literacy was extremely rare. The Iliad and Odyssey were part of an
oral tradition for centuries before they were written down. I suspect the
same is true of the Pentateuch and much of the Old Testament. To assert
that the date of the earliest manuscript is the date of the event is flatly
and manifestly incorrect.

===>What are you arguing about?
Who said "the date of the earliest manuscript is the date of the event"???

You've got quite a bit of emphasis on "change" in the above paragraph

and a

false connection to historicity. Compared to other manuscript

traditions, the

NT tradition shows relatively little change.

===>That is a false conclusion from a lack of evidence.
How do you know what changes those books went through
before they appeared in their extant form?

There are variant manuscript records of every ancient manuscripts I have
studied. That is not to state that I have studied every ancient manuscript.
But I think my professors or the authors of the many books I have read on
the subject would probably have pointed out any exceptions. But there are
far more Christian manuscripts from aniquity than any other single topic or
author, and the surviving Christian manuscripts are closer in time to the
events they describe. Oxyrhynchus not only provided some of the earliest
witnesses to Christianity, but also to many pagan works.

===>SO???
How does any of that prove that the content already existed
in the FIRST century?
How does any of that make the content of the COMPLETE Gospels,
as it exists in the earliest manuscripts, is historically true?
.

User: "Didymoss"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	12 Nov 2003 12:18:05 PM

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FB1132A.42DD8AC6@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Didymos wrote:

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FAFABDA.60204FD3@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Trotter960 wrote:

From: Libertarius

Your agreement re. "evolution" is exactly what I have been

attempting to

show: i.e. that the only full story we have is from the second and

even

the

third century. That reductions, amplifications and changes were

made

during

those centuries is obvious. What else was changed and added is

impossible

to say, but to expect that the Gospels represent historical data is

simply

naive. -- L.

That is not quite true. The gospel manuscripts we have date to the

second

century. The story they tell is older. Might I suggest you compare the
possible dates thrown up by archaeologists for the Trojan War and

compare

them with the dates of the manuscripts of the Iliad? What we tend to

forget

is that the ancient Near East and Mediteranean basins were oral cultures
where literacy was extremely rare. The Iliad and Odyssey were part of

oral tradition for centuries before they were written down. I suspect

the

same is true of the Pentateuch and much of the Old Testament. To assert
that the date of the earliest manuscript is the date of the event is

flatly

and manifestly incorrect.

===>What are you arguing about?
Who said "the date of the earliest manuscript is the date of the event"???

It is implicit in your theory. You have demonstrated a tendency to
denigrate the historiocity of the New Testament manuscripts because they are
separated in time and space from the events described. I maintain, and
believe the totality of circumstances and evidence from all sources
demonstrates, that the New Testament manuscripts are just as close, if not
closer, in time and space to the events described than almost any other
ancient manuscripts.

You've got quite a bit of emphasis on "change" in the above

paragraph

and a

false connection to historicity. Compared to other manuscript

traditions, the

NT tradition shows relatively little change.

===>That is a false conclusion from a lack of evidence.
How do you know what changes those books went through
before they appeared in their extant form?

There are variant manuscript records of every ancient manuscripts I have
studied. That is not to state that I have studied every ancient

manuscript.

But I think my professors or the authors of the many books I have read

the subject would probably have pointed out any exceptions. But there

are

far more Christian manuscripts from aniquity than any other single topic

author, and the surviving Christian manuscripts are closer in time to

the

events they describe. Oxyrhynchus not only provided some of the

earliest

witnesses to Christianity, but also to many pagan works.

You can't seem to drop this silly notion that manuscripts Aleph and B are
the earliest manuscripts worthy of note, can you? You are perilously close
to the kooky Mr Yuri Kuchinsky, Bachelor of Arts, school of history. The
kind that makes up its own "evidence," uses silly adjectives and adverbs to
wildly exaggerate the evidence that does exist, and then draw silly
conclusions based upon meaningless superlatives. Both Aleph and B contain
lacunae. Doesn't the fact that these lacunae exist disqualify them as
"COMPLETE Gospels"? Can you tell us precisely what words are in John's
gospel in manuscripts Aleph and B that are not in the papyrus manuscripts
dated before Alph and B? And then demonstrate that any additional words in
Aleph and B were not added after the autograph was written? Best of luck .
.. .
I will go through this yet again. We have gospel manuscripts and fragments
dating to the first quarter of the second century, and these are obviously
parts of the same texts containing very nearly complete texts. That is the
concensus of scholarly opinion, and for every expert you can trot out for a
later dating, I can produce three or more with equivalent or superior
qualifications in papyrology and graphology who provide reasonable evidence
of the earlier dating of these manuscripts. And I can produce hundreds who
maintain that P-52 is from the Gospel of John and that P-104 is from the
Gospel of Matthew for every single genuine scholar who has written that
these fragments are not part of John and Matthew, respectively. That, of
course, presumes that you can find any genuine New Testament of Classical
scholar who claims these are not part of the gospels. Frankly, I have never
even read of any, but then I have not read everything.
Since the sources of these early second century manuscripts are multiple
locations, it is more likely that there was a lag in time and space of some
years between the autographs and the known extant manuscripts. In fact, I
solicited your opinion concerning one of the earlier datings and you deigned
not to reply. Young Kyu Kim has proposed and defended a dating of P-46 to
the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.) based upon six criteria. (See Kim,
Paleographical Datng of P-46 to the Later First Century, " Biblica 69
(1988); 248-57. A summary is also in Comfort and Barrett, :"Text of the
Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts," 2001; 203-206. ) Do you care to
comment now?
In any case, since the extant manuscripts are most probably separated from
the autographs by time and space and these known manuscripts are dated early
in the 2nd century, a valid working hypothesis is that the trajectory leads
directly back to the first century. (Or do you believe the autographs of
Matthew and John and Paul were composed in the Fayum or Oxyrhyncus, Egypt?
I anxiously await your evidence for that . .. ) And I am fully cognizant
that this theory is merely a working hypothesis until such time as
manuscript evidence is discovered, analyzed, and dated to the first century.
I am confident that will someday happen because only a tiny part of the
Middle East has been excavated, although I may not live to see it.
Nevertheless, there is no reason I know of to believe the gospels or Paul's
corpus were written in the 2nd century. Much like the big bang theory, the
trajectories of New Testament manuscript evidence point to the first
century, in the same way that the red shift discovered by Hubble provided a
trajectory back in time and space that led to the big bang theory. And a
second item in support of first century composition is that the culture that
produced Christianity was primarily oral and thus it is the normal course of
events that it would take some years for the oral tradition to be compiled
and recorded. Can you present a theory based upon evidence that the gospels
and Paul were first written in the 2nd century?

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	12 Nov 2003 03:58:18 PM

Didymoss wrote:

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FB1132A.42DD8AC6@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Didymos wrote:

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FAFABDA.60204FD3@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Trotter960 wrote:

From: Libertarius

Your agreement re. "evolution" is exactly what I have been

attempting to

show: i.e. that the only full story we have is from the second and

even

the

third century. That reductions, amplifications and changes were

made

during

those centuries is obvious. What else was changed and added is

impossible

to say, but to expect that the Gospels represent historical data is

simply

naive. -- L.

That is not quite true. The gospel manuscripts we have date to the

second

century. The story they tell is older. Might I suggest you compare the
possible dates thrown up by archaeologists for the Trojan War and

compare

them with the dates of the manuscripts of the Iliad? What we tend to

forget

is that the ancient Near East and Mediteranean basins were oral cultures
where literacy was extremely rare. The Iliad and Odyssey were part of

oral tradition for centuries before they were written down. I suspect

the

same is true of the Pentateuch and much of the Old Testament. To assert
that the date of the earliest manuscript is the date of the event is

flatly

and manifestly incorrect.

===>What are you arguing about?
Who said "the date of the earliest manuscript is the date of the event"???

It is implicit in your theory.

===>I already told you, I have no "theory".
So, NOTHING can be "implicit" in what does not exist.

You have demonstrated a tendency to
denigrate the historiocity of the New Testament manuscripts because they are
separated in time and space from the events described.

===>"Denigrate"???
Hardly anyone but the most conservative biblical fundamentalist would claim
that the NT is historical. But it is NOT solely because of the separation of
the events from the dates of writing.

I maintain, and
believe the totality of circumstances and evidence from all sources
demonstrates, that the New Testament manuscripts are just as close, if not
closer, in time and space to the events described than almost any other
ancient manuscripts.

===>Fine. You are entitled to "believe" and "maintain" anything you wish.

You've got quite a bit of emphasis on "change" in the above

paragraph

and a

false connection to historicity. Compared to other manuscript

traditions, the

NT tradition shows relatively little change.

===>That is a false conclusion from a lack of evidence.
How do you know what changes those books went through
before they appeared in their extant form?

There are variant manuscript records of every ancient manuscripts I have
studied. That is not to state that I have studied every ancient

manuscript.

But I think my professors or the authors of the many books I have read

the subject would probably have pointed out any exceptions. But there

are

far more Christian manuscripts from aniquity than any other single topic

author, and the surviving Christian manuscripts are closer in time to

the

events they describe. Oxyrhynchus not only provided some of the

earliest

witnesses to Christianity, but also to many pagan works.

===>"Obviously"???
Even TODAY, if I took, say, ten pages out of someone's Bible,
and it happened to be from, say, the GOOD NEWS BIBLE,
it would not match the wording of most other Bibles.
So, how can you insist that a fragmentary piece represents any
of the texts we know of.
This has become a most tedious line of arguments and I have no
desire to continue with you.
You go on and believe whatever you wish.
Libertarius
==========
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	10 Nov 2003 04:44:24 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAEDE44.65552E92@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

===>To make a long story a lot shorter, IMO the material in the Bible
SHOULD be give the same treatment as any other literature, but IT IS NOT!
It is called "inspired", "inerrant", the "Word of God". No one makes
similar assertions about those other pieces.

I think this is to confuse two different topics, if you don't mind my
suggesting this. We've been talking about the preservation of the
text.
Issues of inspiration, etc, are theological points, on which no
non-Christian can legitimately have an opinion, I'd have thought. If
it doesn't bother them, how can it bother us? We have no test for
inspiration, after all.
However, if the argument is that a text which is preserved in the
normal way for all texts cannot be inspired, since it involves copying
by fallible human beings, well, I would ask why. How do you determine
that a text is inspired?
a. Did the fathers think this, living in the manuscript world as they
did?
b. If not, if they did not think this, how can it worry us?
Just imagining a parallel case, I know that if I had to 'beam down' a
text to a primitive people, I would write it in such a way that exact
wording wasn't crucial, so I could deal with this. If I can imagine
such, no doubt an all-powerful God can do something better.
Whatever the situation, the Christians, knowing the problems of
transmission, nevertheless consider their book inspired. I don't see
how anything discussed so far can be relevant.

Your agreement re. "evolution" is exactly what I have been attempting to
show: i.e. that the only full story we have is from the second and even the
third century. That reductions, amplifications and changes were made during
those centuries is obvious. What else was changed and added is impossible
to say, but to expect that the Gospels represent historical data is simply
naive. -- L.

Does this apply to non-Christian texts also? This won't work, you
know. The confusion is between the critical history of the text, and
the presumption that these affect in any significant way the story
being told. They do not. Not even the long text of Acts does this.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	10 Nov 2003 09:24:27 AM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAEDE44.65552E92@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

I think this is to confuse two different topics, if you don't mind my
suggesting this. We've been talking about the preservation of the
text.

Issues of inspiration, etc, are theological points, on which no
non-Christian can legitimately have an opinion, I'd have thought. If
it doesn't bother them, how can it bother us? We have no test for
inspiration, after all.

However, if the argument is that a text which is preserved in the
normal way for all texts cannot be inspired, since it involves copying
by fallible human beings, well, I would ask why. How do you determine
that a text is inspired?

a. Did the fathers think this, living in the manuscript world as they
did?
b. If not, if they did not think this, how can it worry us?

Just imagining a parallel case, I know that if I had to 'beam down' a
text to a primitive people, I would write it in such a way that exact
wording wasn't crucial, so I could deal with this. If I can imagine
such, no doubt an all-powerful God can do something better.

Whatever the situation, the Christians, knowing the problems of
transmission, nevertheless consider their book inspired. I don't see
how anything discussed so far can be relevant.

Does this apply to non-Christian texts also?

===>Of course it does.

This won't work, you
know. The confusion is between the critical history of the text, and
the presumption that these affect in any significant way the story
being told. They do not.

===>How do you know that?
No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
have contained. All we DO know is that the stories have grown,
have been changed, no doubt invented since the letters written
by Saul/Paul of Tarsus, who appears to have been totally unaware of
them. -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	10 Nov 2003 03:19:31 PM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFADAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAEDE44.65552E92@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

I think this is to confuse two different topics, if you don't mind my
suggesting this. We've been talking about the preservation of the
text.

Issues of inspiration, etc, are theological points, on which no
non-Christian can legitimately have an opinion, I'd have thought. If
it doesn't bother them, how can it bother us? We have no test for
inspiration, after all.

However, if the argument is that a text which is preserved in the
normal way for all texts cannot be inspired, since it involves copying
by fallible human beings, well, I would ask why. How do you determine
that a text is inspired?

a. Did the fathers think this, living in the manuscript world as they
did?
b. If not, if they did not think this, how can it worry us?

Just imagining a parallel case, I know that if I had to 'beam down' a
text to a primitive people, I would write it in such a way that exact
wording wasn't crucial, so I could deal with this. If I can imagine
such, no doubt an all-powerful God can do something better.

Whatever the situation, the Christians, knowing the problems of
transmission, nevertheless consider their book inspired. I don't see
how anything discussed so far can be relevant.

Does this apply to non-Christian texts also?

===>Of course it does.

This won't work, you
know. The confusion is between the critical history of the text, and
the presumption that these affect in any significant way the story
being told. They do not.

===>How do you know that?

Pardon? Trying looking at the examples. A good guide is whether or
not they make it into the footnotes in translation.

No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
have contained.

Excuse me, but I don't quite see how you can argue from what we do not
know.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	11 Nov 2003 01:30:26 PM

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFA
: DAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:> Roger Pearse wrote:
:> > This won't work, you
:> > know. The confusion is between the critical history of the text, and
:> > the presumption that these affect in any significant way the story
:> > being told. They do not.
:>
:> ===>How do you know that?
: Pardon? Trying looking at the examples. A good guide is whether or
: not they make it into the footnotes in translation.
:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.
: Excuse me, but I don't quite see how you can argue from what we do not
: know.
Yes, Roger, and I think that this is precisely the point that Libertarius
is trying to make.
You really have no way of telling if the earliest versions of the gospels
told the same story as our present day canonical gospels.
Myself, I think that the earliest versions of the gospels were a lot
closer to Judaism.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is
when we are not sure that we are doubly sure." -- Reinhold Niebuhr
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	11 Nov 2003 05:04:14 PM

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFA
: DAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:> Roger Pearse wrote:

:> > This won't work, you
:> > know. The confusion is between the critical history of the text, and
:> > the presumption that these affect in any significant way the story
:> > being told. They do not.
:>
:> ===>How do you know that?

: Pardon? Trying looking at the examples. A good guide is whether or
: not they make it into the footnotes in translation.

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

: Excuse me, but I don't quite see how you can argue from what we do not
: know.

Yes, Roger, and I think that this is precisely the point that Libertarius
is trying to make.

You really have no way of telling if the earliest versions of the gospels
told the same story as our present day canonical gospels.

Myself, I think that the earliest versions of the gospels were a lot
closer to Judaism.

===>It is possible, if anything was actually written down.
But as you agree, we just don't know. There is even
some strength to the argument that the imminently hoped for
Parousia would have made any such thing appear unnecessary.
Also, whatever was written by the "Judaizers" was
probably very different from the currently known
"Gospels", which harmonize quite well with the PAULINE
"gospel" which, as he writes, he did not receive from others
but was "revealed" to him.
Anyway, things would have gotten into writing only after the
destruction of Jerusalem was followed by the painful lack
of the "Second Coming", alluded to by the pseudonymous
"Second Peter".
Also, there would have been a clear difference between
Pauline Christian and Ebionite material right from the
start. E.g. the Gospel of the Hebrews appears to side
with James the Just, brother of Jesus, while e.g. ACTS
obviously sides with Saul/Paul of Tarsus.
Some of the original material in "Matthew" may have been
taken from the "Judaizers", especially some of the pro-Torah
passages, and the original of "John" as well as Revelation
may have been more Messianic Jewish than Pauline
Christian.
Hopefully your work will shed some more light on these
matters.
Libertarius
============
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	12 Nov 2003 04:00:45 AM

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,
I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

: Excuse me, but I don't quite see how you can argue from what we do not
: know.

Yes, Roger, and I think that this is precisely the point that Libertarius
is trying to make.

You really have no way of telling if the earliest versions of the gospels
told the same story as our present day canonical gospels.

Myself, I think that the earliest versions of the gospels were a lot
closer to Judaism.

I think we agree that we know little of the text before 200.
I naturally presume that the text, not having changed a great deal
since 200, was pretty much the same from composition to 200. In
general, if we have a text written in the first century, and our first
knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
leaves the author's hands.
However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is so,
we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
some supposition of radical change, not documented?

This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards the
end of the apostolic ministry.
[Various points snipped, to focus on the one issue.]
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "David Christainsen"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	12 Nov 2003 10:40:08 AM

(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0311120200.ac60bf4@posting.google.com>...

...
This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards the
end of the apostolic ministry.

[Various points snipped, to focus on the one issue.]

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The gospels redated via the Scrolls
Date: 23 Feb 2001
From: Barbara Thiering ---
David Christainsen wrote 2/23/2001 on DSS Forum ---
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk//kking/ntdocs4.html
So, John dates first among the 4 Gospels written before Fall of Jerusalem
etc.
If we accept NT converges datewise with DSS, identification of major figures
follow logically.
While we are waiting for Bob's ink to be scientifically dated, does my
suggestion have plausibility?
---
The link with Kevin King's website was interesting, in that he accepts the
pre-70 dating of the gospels while
upholding a fairly orthodox Christian view about Jesus. As he said, the
redating of the gospels was first argued
by J.A.T. Robinson in the 60's. Robinson's insight was that the very late
date
came from a desire to justify the
incredible content of the gospels, chiefly the miracles and the apparent
contradictions. Time was needed for the
growth of legend. The dating simply ignored much of the historical evidence
because of this theological motive.
Now there is a huge quantity of new information, which Christian biblical
scholars are only slowly digesting,
much gored by papal bulls. The Scrolls are capable of making an even bigger
difference to the NT than the 19th
century discoveries of Creation and Flood stories made to the OT.
The Scrolls' information leading to a redating of John (for a start)
includes
the fact of the zealot activities of the
Qumran community in its 1st cent CE phase, taken with the many evidences of
an
institutional connection of
Qumran with the early Christians. Further, the enemies of the Teacher are
said
to be Samaritans in 1QpMic. From
this and a great deal more (Clementina, Acts 8, Eusebius, the stone found in
the Tiber etc etc), the pesher
technique identifies Simon Magus the Samaritan as a leading figure in the
history. He was an associate of Jesus,
who is called a Samaritan in Jn 8:48, and he was the zealot leader, being
also
Simon the Zealot of the disciples (Lk
6:15), also Simon the leper of Bethany, and Lazarus of Bethany (numerous
pseudonyms used for political cover,
as was also the case in the Scrolls' treatment of their opponent). Simon was
the leader of the
'Seekers-after-Smooth-Things', Diaspora Essenes, and was the main person
crucified for zealotry by Pilate, 'the
Young Lion of Wrath' (pNah). Jesus was only a subordinate who was crucified
as
an act of treachery instigated
by the zealots themselves.
Since Lazarus is treated sympathetically in John's gospel, (his 'raising
from
the dead' in Jn 11 being the lifting of
his ban of excommunication), this means that this gospel was written before
Peter and Paul denounced him (Acts
8, also Acts 13: 8-12 re Bar-Jesus). Acts 8 may be dated, internally from
the
pesher, in 37-39 CE. A split occurred
in 44 CE, in the tolerant reign of Claudius, when pro-Roman Christians
separated with a new name, and the zealots
remained in the Damascus party that produced CD.
The composition of John's gospel may, on these grounds, be placed very early
indeed, before 37 CE, only a few
years after the crucifixion. Its dualistic philosophy of light-darkness,
once
taken to be a sign of very late
Hellenistic influence, is now known to be thoroughly at home in the Scrolls,
as Albright saw at once.
Other gospels follow. The pesher indicates that Mark was written in c. 45
CE,
Luke at about the same time, and
Matthew completed (after an earlier version, the Hebrew Logia) by 49 CE. For
further on this, see my 'Jesus of the
Apocalypse' (1995) and 'The Book that Jesus Wrote - John's Gospel' (1998).
Questions, comments and criticisms that show an understanding of what is
being
argued would be welcomed.
B.T.
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	01 Dec 2003 12:06:35 PM

(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0311120200.ac60bf4@posting.google.com>...

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <

> wrote:

: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFA
: DAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:> Roger Pearse wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

So when you read the story of Paulina and Mundus, following as it does
the TF, you think that that is how it was pretty much composed by
Josephus? And I could add a few more examples from Josephus, such as
the story of Helena and Izates, the account of the death of John, and
the account of the death of Zechariah. No-one can convince me that
the editors of Josephus and the NT were not up-to-their eyeballs in
religious chicanery, and that there were not simpler unspoilt records
about the early Christians. Robert Eisenman has amply indicated in
his works that Acts and the gospels were heavily garbled.
Somehow, I think that garbling involving the NT is on a different
scale from any other form of historical lying. The Crosstalkers
continuously chase their tails interpreting the extant texts - after
all some of them make their living out of doing so. They have a
vested interest in preserving the integrity of the Greek text of which
they are so fond. The editors must be laughing their socks off in
heaven, or hell.

However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is so,
we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
some supposition of radical change, not documented?

Why not? Is the original text that sacrosanct? The editors were
pretty clever in covering their tracks, and you imply that we are up
the creek without a paddle. Lying was an art form. Is it possible to
reconstruct in a consistent way? The Scrolls at least should give some
sort of theological standard to work from. For my money, theology
holds the key to the history.
Geoff
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	02 Dec 2003 10:26:26 AM

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312011006.1f9b03a1@posting.google.com>...

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0311120200.ac60bf4@posting.google.com>...

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

So when you read the story of Paulina and Mundus, following as it does
the TF, you think that that is how it was pretty much composed by
Josephus?

Certainly. Why would anyone suppose otherwise?

And I could add a few more examples from Josephus, such as
the story of Helena and Izates, the account of the death of John, and
the account of the death of Zechariah.

You haven't actually made a point here. What is the problem you see
with these accounts (which are not familiar to me, I should say).

No-one can convince me that the editors of Josephus and the NT were not
up-to-their eyeballs in religious chicanery, [more assertions of the
same sort snipped]

<smile>
You -- and anyone -- are welcome to believe any old nonsense you like.
But there are penalties in doing so. It's like the man who was
imprisoned for his beliefs: he believed the bank alarm system had been
disabled.
The sort of beliefs that people make up about these matters are
worthless. No-one makes up their beliefs in matters of money and
day-to-day transactions.

Why not? Is the original text that sacrosanct?

I'm not sure I understand you, or you understood me. Sorry.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	09 Dec 2003 08:32:40 AM

(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312020826.6fe10ef9@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312011006.1f9b03a1@posting.google.com>...

(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0311120200.ac60bf4@posting.google.com>...

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <

> wrote:

: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFA
: DAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:> Roger Pearse wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

So when you read the story of Paulina and Mundus, following as it does
the TF, you think that that is how it was pretty much composed by
Josephus?

Certainly. Why would anyone suppose otherwise?

Roger,
Doesn't the ridiculous story of Paulina and Mundus strike you as being
very odd coming immediately after the TF? Scholars have spouted much
about the latter, while ignoring the former, as though one had nothing
to do with the other. What kind of scholars would ignore context?
Such a story is most unlike Josephus' usual realistic reporting. The
fact that it follows a critical Christian passage just smacks of a
historical cover-up.
With regard to penalties in maintaining a very suspicious attitude
towards the NT and some of Josephus' works, I see none, apart from
making some enemies of my "friends". Its a lonely path I have chosen
to tread, but I went through a period of reverse conversion to break
free from religious dogma.
Geoff
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	09 Dec 2003 02:02:48 PM

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312090632.13767529@posting.google.com>...

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312020826.6fe10ef9@posting.google.com>...

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312011006.1f9b03a1@posting.google.com>...

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0311120200.ac60bf4@posting.google.com>...

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

So when you read the story of Paulina and Mundus, following as it does
the TF, you think that that is how it was pretty much composed by
Josephus?

Certainly. Why would anyone suppose otherwise?

Doesn't the ridiculous story of Paulina and Mundus strike you as being
very odd coming immediately after the TF?

I think I understand your point. But I don't actually see it as a
problem. Possibly this is because I read a lot of ancient texts,
where digression is the rule, not the exception (this is because they
were read aloud to entertain, rather than written for a modern
university curriculum). So in fact I don't see this as a problem.
Second-guessing what an ancient writer will see fit to include isn't
for us: we don't live in that culture and all of our guesses will be a
bit suspect.
Incidentally, were you aware that Antiquities is a mess, editorially?
I learned from H. St. John Thackeray's edition that the Greek text was
worked on by various ghost-writers/editors, whose stylistic
peculiarities can be detected depending on which classical author
(e.g. one is fond of Sophocles) they favour? Josephus seems to have
talked to the slaves, and they went and wrote it up. If this is so --
I haven't checked myself -- it makes more sense of the rather patchy
style.

Scholars have spouted much
about the latter, while ignoring the former, as though one had nothing
to do with the other.

Nice to meet someone else who recognises this: I agree entirely. It
is strange, isn't it?

What kind of scholars would ignore context?

It sounds like a fair question to me. But I really don't think we can
trust the judgement of scholars on matters of controversy.
Worse still, I think that zeroing in on one set of text distorts the
picture of the whole. It comes to have a far greater importance than
the author ever gave it: the fish-eye effect, if you like.

Such a story is most unlike Josephus' usual realistic reporting. The
fact that it follows a critical Christian passage just smacks of a
historical cover-up.

Not sure why you think this. The dubious morals of eastern cults are
something I've seen elsewhere in Roman literature.

With regard to penalties in maintaining a very suspicious attitude
towards the NT and some of Josephus' works, I see none, apart from
making some enemies of my "friends".

I admit I don't see the point. It's hard not to believe that
Christianity was founded by a chap in a beard on a soapbox. What
ideology isn't? The account of Christian origins given by the NT
seems fair enough to me, in general; it fits all the facts, and the
alternatives have no evidence for them. (Whether that makes his
claims true, of course, is another matter.)

Its a lonely path I have chosen to tread, but I went through a period of
reverse conversion to break free from religious dogma.

I think I understand. I should say that I was brought up an agnostic,
so I don't have any feelings about 'religious dogma' either way. My
parents are unbelievers, so Christianity was a rebellion for me. I'm
sorry if you had a bad experience of some sort -- I've met some very
odd folk myself. Being a Christian does not mean letting the
self-elected trample on you, or should not. Each of us dies alone,
after all.
But the problem with not being a Christian (or member of some
long-term value-idea-system) is, 'what then'? It invariably seems to
mean conformity to some subset of the values and ideas acceptable in
our age (which I grew up with).
But this system of ideas did not arise rationally, but partly by drift
and partly by media manipulation by the powerful. One might call it
'late-20th century US hegemony.' Indeed I am just old enough to
remember the previous consensus: 'early 20th century European
imperial'. The ideas of the former, assessed by the latter, seem
daft. The former storms abuse at the latter. And no doubt in 30
years, the same will happen again.
These value-idea-sets (sorry about the terminology, but I am not a
professional, and am groping for words) change every 25-40 years.
After all, once they cease to be fashionable, there is nothing to be
said for them. I'm not sure I could even state our current cultural
consensus in a form that makes sense -- it is never done.
So, adopting this approach cannot be right. We will come to grief
over the fashionable lies -- like the sad sort of person who goes out
and has a one-night stand and gets Aids. The value-system was not
contrived for our benefit, I take that as certain. And they are quite
willing to bribe us, with sex or drugs or whatever -- 'if it feels
good, do it' is the bribe used by everyone seeking power by
overthrowing an existing system. Timeo danaos et dona ferentes, in
fact. Unless we are aware of the snare of conformity to the spirit of
the age, nothing we think will be more than an expression of it.
Not sure where that leaves us, but that is my thought on it. Unless
we reject the culture of our day, as a source of ideology, we're just
wasting ourselves. It can't be right. Whatever the truth is, it must
be something different. IMHO, of course.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "386sx"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	02 Dec 2003 12:04:19 PM

Roger Pearse writes:

No-one can convince me that the editors of Josephus and the NT were not
up-to-their eyeballs in religious chicanery, [more assertions of the same
sort snipped]

<smile>

You -- and anyone -- are welcome to believe any old nonsense you like.
But there are penalties in doing so.

So, what are the penalties for thinking there existed some "religious
chicanery?" Let's say someone decided to invent some very nice fictional
stories (which we won't call myths, for fear of penalties) for some of the
duller sort of crowd, and then we don't tell these dullards that these
things which are not myths are not things that really happened, but,
paradoxically, these dull dullards are too dull to figure out they are
fiction, and they think they are the real thing. Would this be religious
chicanery? If so, what would the penalty be?

It's like the man who was imprisoned for his beliefs: he believed the bank
alarm system had been disabled.

The sort of beliefs that people make up about these matters are worthless.

Right, up to a point. Until they start thinking their myths are everybody
else's myths - penalties and nonsense and all, then sometimes things start
costing a bit more than they're worth.

No-one makes up their beliefs in matters of money and day-to-day
transactions.

"No-one makes up their beliefs in religion."
--
"If an opponent rebuts a claim of irrelevance, the other party must reply to
the opponent's rebuttal of the claim." -- J.F. Till
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	13 Nov 2003 12:39:29 PM

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[Yuri:]
:> > Myself, I think that the earliest versions of the gospels were a lot
:> > closer to Judaism.
: I think we agree that we know little of the text before 200.
It may indeed be "little", Roger, but it's still something...
: I naturally presume that the text, not having changed a great deal
: since 200, was pretty much the same from composition to 200. In
: general, if we have a text written in the first century, and our first
: knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
: leaves the author's hands.
: However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
: of this, anything may be supposed.
Not at all...
: This cannot be right: if it is so,
: we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
: antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
: test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
: gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
: some supposition of radical change, not documented?
Nothing can be further from my intentions. It's not a habit of mine to
invent any stories.
My basic approach to investigating early Christian gospels is to follow
the lead of Alfred Loisy, who was one of the great biblical scholars of
all times. Unfortunately, hardly anybody has read him in our day and
age... :(
But it's not too late!
Here are a couple of his most important books for free,
The Birth of the Christian Religion (1933),
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/
The Origins of the New Testament (1936),
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/
It was Loisy who argued quite competently that the earliest versions of
each of our 4 canonical gospels were a lot closer to Judaism. But later
they were all re-edited heavily by the Gentile editors.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the
well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing
a new road. -=- Voltaire
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	12 Nov 2003 10:52:47 AM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

I think we agree that we know little of the text before 200.

I naturally presume that the text, not having changed a great deal
since 200, was pretty much the same from composition to 200. In
general, if we have a text written in the first century, and our first
knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
leaves the author's hands.

However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is so,
we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
some supposition of radical change, not documented?

This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards the
end of the apostolic ministry.

===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes. This does not mean that some
portions of earlier pieces were not included. Indeed, it appears
that several earlier pieces may have been combined at times,
some of which may have been translations from Aramaic.
Originally there were no doubt only one or two copies of anything,
written for the use of one particular religious community, which were
either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately if the new version was
to replace its predecessor. -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	13 Nov 2003 07:34:17 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2655F.95D698D8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

I think we agree that we know little of the text before 200.

I naturally presume that the text, not having changed a great deal
since 200, was pretty much the same from composition to 200. In
general, if we have a text written in the first century, and our first
knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
leaves the author's hands.

However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is so,
we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
some supposition of radical change, not documented?

This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards the
end of the apostolic ministry.

===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.

How do you know?

This does not mean that some
portions of earlier pieces were not included. Indeed, it appears
that several earlier pieces may have been combined at times,
some of which may have been translations from Aramaic.

Possibly.

Originally there were no doubt only one or two copies of anything,
written for the use of one particular religious community, which were
either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately if the new version was
to replace its predecessor. -- L.

How do you know?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	13 Nov 2003 03:54:39 PM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2655F.95D698D8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

I think we agree that we know little of the text before 200.

I naturally presume that the text, not having changed a great deal
since 200, was pretty much the same from composition to 200. In
general, if we have a text written in the first century, and our first
knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
leaves the author's hands.

However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is so,
we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
some supposition of radical change, not documented?

This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards the
end of the apostolic ministry.

===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.

How do you know?

===>Luke 1:1,3
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account
of the things accomplished among us...
it seemed fitting for me as well,
having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,
to write it out for you in consecutive order,
most excellent Theophilus"
John 20:31
"but these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".
Those are just two obvious admissions of the purpose of
those writings.

Possibly.

How do you know?

===>They did not have printing presses or copy machines,
as far as I know.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	14 Nov 2003 08:33:37 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FD9F.6715D4BD@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2655F.95D698D8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or may not
:> have contained.

I think we agree that we know little of the text before 200.

I naturally presume that the text, not having changed a great deal
since 200, was pretty much the same from composition to 200. In
general, if we have a text written in the first century, and our first
knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
leaves the author's hands.

However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented proof
of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is so,
we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for a
gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we invent:
some supposition of radical change, not documented?

This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards the
end of the apostolic ministry.

===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.

How do you know?

This does not demonstrate that the gospels were "written and edited,
probably numerous times, for religious propaganda purposes."

John 20:31
"but these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".

Indeed. But this does not demonstrate your statement either.

Those are just two obvious admissions of the purpose of
those writings.

Well, they do not say what you represent them as saying, unless no-one
ever writes anything except as propaganda.

Possibly.

How do you know?

===>They did not have printing presses or copy machines,
as far as I know.

The same applies to every ancient document. I don't see how it
relates to your statement, which supposes deliberate destruction in
order to replace them. Sorry.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	16 Nov 2003 03:03:58 PM

Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some idea / purpose
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0311140633.21a6f00f@posting.google.com...

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message

news:<3FB3FD9F.6715D4BD@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message

news:<3FB2655F.95D698D8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Hello Yuri, Libertarius,

I hope you won't mind if I reply to both of you in this post, as
you're making the same point more or less?

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in

message news:<3FB16AEE.608BF0DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in

message news:<3FAFA

: DAB.42F9475A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:> Roger Pearse wrote:

:> No one knows what the first drafts of those books may or

may not

:> have contained.

: Excuse me, but I don't quite see how you can argue from what

we do not

: know.

Yes, Roger, and I think that this is precisely the point that

Libertarius

is trying to make.

You really have no way of telling if the earliest versions of

the gospels

told the same story as our present day canonical gospels.

Myself, I think that the earliest versions of the gospels were

a lot

closer to Judaism.

first

knowledge of it is ca. 900, we accept that it is pretty much as it
leaves the author's hands.

However, your point suggests that, in the absence of documented

proof

of this, anything may be supposed. This cannot be right: if it is

so,

we have no reason to suppose anything much has survived from
antiquity, which is plainly absurd and contradicted by what we can
test. I do not see how it can be right, as a method, to look for

gap in the historical record and insert into it some story we

invent:

some supposition of radical change, not documented?

This last is probably why the gospels were only written towards

the

end of the apostolic ministry.

===>They were written and edited, probably numerous times,
for religious propaganda purposes.

How do you know?

This does not demonstrate that the gospels were "written and edited,
probably numerous times, for religious propaganda purposes."

John 20:31
"but these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".

Indeed. But this does not demonstrate your statement either.

Those are just two obvious admissions of the purpose of
those writings.

Well, they do not say what you represent them as saying, unless no-one
ever writes anything except as propaganda.

Possibly.

Originally there were no doubt only one or two copies of anything,
written for the use of one particular religious community, which

were

either lost or destroyed, possibly deliberately if the new version

was

to replace its predecessor. -- L.

How do you know?

===>They did not have printing presses or copy machines,
as far as I know.

The same applies to every ancient document. I don't see how it
relates to your statement, which supposes deliberate destruction in
order to replace them. Sorry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT	17 Nov 2003 08:34:42 AM

"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:

Propaganda is the use of media[s] in order to propagate some idea / purpose

===>Hello, Old Mystic!
Hope all's well with you.
Libertarius (Hairetikos)
.