|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2002 : 13:29:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
W. F. Albright
When Was the Bible Completed?
According to archaeological evidence there is "no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80."
William F. Albright was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist.
William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1955) p. 136
Return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmaster: rusty@bible-history.com
http://www.bible-history.com
quote:
Sir Frederic Kenyon
Kenyon on the Rylands Fragment (A Gospel of John Papyrus Fragment)
"This is at any rate objective evidence, not resting on theological prepossessions, and since it is accepted by all those who have had most experience in dating the gospel itself must on all grounds of probability be put back into the first century, in order to allow time for the work to get into circulation; and a date toward the end of that century is wat Christian tradition has always assigned to it.
With regard to the other books of the New Testament there is not much to say. No one doubts that the synoptic gospels belong to a period perceptibly earlier than the fourth gospel, so that the traditional dates round about the fall of Jerusalem remain approximately the latest possible, and the dating of Luke carries with it that of Acts.
For the Pauline epistles the only new evidence is that they were circulating as a collection by the end of the second century, and that this collection included Hebrews, but apparently not the pastoral epistles...
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. "
Sir Frederic Kenyon, "The Bible and Archaeology" (New York: Harper, 1940) p. 288
Return
quote:
Burrows
Papyrology and Dating the New Testament
Papyrology has had a phenomenal impact on biblical study. Since many of the papyri date to the first century, it is possible to establish the nature of the grammar of that period and to date the composition of New Testament books. "Even in much later manuscripts, as we have seen, the type of Greek represented by the New Testament is that of the first century. Unless we resort to the wholly improbable hypothesis of a deliberate and remarkably successful use of archaic language, it is evident therefore that the books of the New Testament were written in the first century."
Millar Burrows, "What Means These Stones" (New York: Meridian, 1957) pp. 53-54
Return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
B. Wallace
Koine Greek (330 BC - 330 AD)
"When primitive tribes of Indo-Europeans moved into Greece, presumably they spoke a single language. Geography and politics caused it to fracture into a score of dialects, only to be united once again on the battlefield.
Thus, ironically, the first military campaign in the third millennium BC brought confusion of tongues, while the last campaign not only restored linguistic unity, but forged a new language which was destined to become a Weltsprache (world language).
The Koine was born out of the conquests of Alexander the Great. First, his troops, which came from Athens as well as other Greek cities and regions, had to speak to one another. This close contact produced a melting pot Greek that inevitably softened the rough edges of some dialects and lost the subtleties of others. Second, the conquered cities and colonies learned Greek as a second language, this further increased its loss of subtleties and moved it toward greater explicitness (e.g., the repetition of a preposition with a second noun where Attic Greek was usually comfortable with a single preposition).
...Koine Greek became the lingua Franca of the whole Roman Empire by the first century AD...Even after Rome became the world power in the first century BC, Greek continued to penetrate distant lands. (This was due largely to Rome's policy of assimilation of cultures already in place, rather than destruction and replacement) ...Greek continued to be a universal language until at least the end of the first century AD. From about the second century on, Latin began to win out in Italy (among the populace)...
...Demotic is the spoken language of Greece today, the direct descendant of the Koine."
Daniel B. Wallace "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996) p. 15-17
Return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO all my apologies there was suppose to be "POST" with my quotes it was accdently errased.However, you missed the point far from conferming your skepticism the above quotes destroy it.First,the paleographic web sites I looked at said that while its not an "exact science" it has a range of + or - of 25 years ,one said 50, and its the only reliable method when dealing the time frames we are looking at.I presume your "modern" method is C-14 which has a+ or- 300 years,hardly acceptble for our time frame.Gotta go
Edited by - DARWIN ALOGOS on 02/27/2002 20:53:55 |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 14:48:41 [Permalink]
|
Gee, I found the 'Bible Quotes' website too. How convienent for you D Alogos. Wonder why you didn't bother with quoting, I dunno, the Pliny thing. I think maybe because Slater set the record straight on that earlier.
For any who are interested, http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/index.html, is where I found these quotes - verbatim.
D Alogos, we ask for original thought and discourse. Use various sites to support your position and to assist in answering others questions. Please, don't resort to throwing quotes at us, it makes for a less interesting discussion.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 16:16:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1955) p. 136
Sir Frederic Kenyon, "The Bible and Archaeology" (New York: Harper, 1940) p. 288
Millar Burrows, "What Means These Stones" (New York: Meridian, 1957) pp. 53-54
Koine Greek (330 BC - 330 AD)
Why thank you Darwin for finding these quotes which reinforce my points. You are begining to understand what Skepticism is all about after all.
Yes, all of these estimates of dates are from exactly the period I said they were, the 30's to the 50's. All before accurate dating tests were available.
No Christian document that has been tested by modern methods comes from before the fourth century. That's why you won't find any quotes about dating documents on Christian sites that were made during your life time. It isn't exactly lying...but it's a long way from telling the truth. And when you consider that it's much easier to find current information than it is to dreg up something from half a century ago it's hard not to believe Xians have an ulterior motive for doing so.
And the dates that you found for Koine Greek nicely illustrates my "twenty-three skid-doo" observation. 325 CE coming a bit before 330 on my calendar.
You really shouldn't have gone to all the trouble. Keep up the good work.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 02/27/2002 16:26:51 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 16:31:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You really shouldn't have gone to all the trouble. Keep up the good work.
Awww cripes, I think I cracked a rib laughing 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 22:18:29 [Permalink]
|
LOL! I love that several people picked "yes" or "no" without any explanation. Is there a view that is not covered by the poll choices?
-me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 08:21:05 [Permalink]
|
Hmm, 28 people voted for "Yes, he was nothing like the Jesus of the Bible."
I'd be interested in their reasoning...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 08:37:03 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Hmm, 28 people voted for "Yes, he was nothing like the Jesus of the Bible."
I'd be interested in their reasoning...
[/quote]
I would guess they fall into two camps:
1. Those who have read the bible and are familiar with its inconsistencies; they find it difficult to think that such an apparently well-fleshed out character could be based on imagination only. Note that this camp could include christians and non-christians.
2. Believers who have not really read the bible but are familiar with the current depiction of jesus as a kindly, loving, pacifist. Being believers, they cannot reject the character completely, but see that this depiction is not even internally consistent; anyone able to hold together the group of 12 rowdies that jesus did must be rougher and bawdier than depicted. They simply don't realize that they are not arguing against the bible depiction but the currently popular depiction.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 10:05:23 [Permalink]
|
I was poking around in a Science Fiction bookstore in Berkeley killing time because I was too early for an appointment. This store carries new and used books and I noticed that there was a genera that I didn't know existed. Collections of stories by various authors that are set in a world that another author created. They had one on Middle Earth, Oz, Tarzan, some Silverberg thing and a bunch more.
Not only would the contributing authors need to be familiar with the work of the subject author but the editor would need to send each of them a "fact sheet" to keep them all, some what, in line.
Back to my speculation about construction of the NT. For years now biblical scholars have insisted that there had been a text, now lost, known as "Q" (from the German [I]Quelle[/I], "Source) that Mark, Matthew and Luke all had; which was a list of the sayings of Jesus. "And each set the "Sayings" in his own way, like pearls in settings of his own invention. {Campbell}"
This "Q" would fit right into my idea of a Constantineian construction of the bible. "Q" would have been the [I]fact sheet[/I] that the "editor" sent out to the different authors. Just like with the Middle Earth paperback. There would be no need to preserve these "contest rules" after you were done with them, which would explain why there are no copies. And the authors could put their own spin on them in the stories they concocted.
It would also explain how all the different Gnostic, Arian, Orthodox and miscellaneous versions of the NT were ready in time for Nicaea if Constantine was the one who started the ball rolling (the "timing" being an interesting objection that Lars raised last week).
Anybody who's ever sat in at an editorial meeting would know that they differ very little for the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, except now when they "kill" a story they no longer kill the author with it.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 12:00:37 [Permalink]
|
Do you mean Q as a document existing prior to Constantine's creation of the religion with him just using it?
Or Q as the framework he had created and then passed out to the appropriate folks to build upon?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 12:29:04 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
...Q as the framework he had created and then passed out to the appropriate folks to build upon?
[/quote]
Sort of like a spec sheet.
"Listen guys, this is what the Emperor wants. Work up a book for us and get all of the outlined parts in. We'll need first drafts by Thursday the 28th, and two copies."
The problem with the bible is that even we Atheists start to see it as being magic. Mysterious origins and all that. The suggestion that's it's just a book created using the same procedures as any other book sounds strange.
But that's all it is, a book like any other. Rome had a large and old publishing industry at the time, they used many of the same editorial methods that we still do today. There's nothing magic about it, it's a business.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 13:26:57 [Permalink]
|
Got it. But, as you said, it still leaves Lars' point to be addressed.
On the practical side of this: let's assume it was Constantine's creation as you contend.
How to sell it to the masses? I don't mean the clergy or the hierarchy. How do you, as a practical matter, get the blue collar folk to switch over from what they had before? Even if it's based on some of the same stuff, it is still a change, and I assume the people didn't take their religions lightly then.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 14:31:23 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
How to sell it to the masses? I don't mean the clergy or the hierarchy. How do you, as a practical matter, get the blue collar folk to switch over from what they had before? [/quote]
You kill them if they don't.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 14:47:32 [Permalink]
|
Centurion: knock-knock
Peasant: Who's there?
Centurion: Special delivery from the emperor. It's your new manual for religious belief; we have a new god for you.
Peasant: But I like my old---
Centurion: STAB
Peasant's Neighbor: Where do you want me to build the church to the great new god?
Something like that?
I figured the answer would be like that, but, and I'm asking seriously, could that really be expected to work effectively enough to produce the widespread religion it apparently did?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 17:43:29 [Permalink]
|
[b] But, as you said, it still leaves Lars' point to be addressed.[/b]
I think it addresses Lars' point (we'll see if he does). His point is that there were so many different types of Christianity by 325 CE that it looks to him like the religion evolved. (Right Lars?) But you would get the same results without the time needed for evolution if you gave the same writing assignment to people in different parts of the Empire who were drawing from different sources
[b]How to sell it to the masses?[/b]
He didn't have to sell it to the masses at first. Only to the mostly Mithran Legions who were stationed in Britain and Gaul. It wouldn't be a hard job because their religion told them to expect something like it when Mithra returned to life.
[b]How do you, as a practical matter, get the blue collar folk to switch over from what they had before? [/b]
That didn't happen until half a century later during the reign of Theodosius the Great (r.379-395). He made it high treason to belong to any other religion
[b]Even if it's based on some of the same stuff, it is still a change, and I assume the people didn't take their religions lightly then.[/b] They didn't. Christians killed countless "Pagans" in the Coliseum who remained true to their gods to the death. The temples were sacked and looted by the Christians. You may have wondered why every ancient statue you see has a broken nose. Christians, they were "breaking off their nose to spite their face."
[b]Something like that?[/b]
Something very much like it.
[b]I figured the answer would be like that, but, and I'm asking seriously, could that really be expected to work effectively enough to produce the widespread religion it apparently did?[/b]
Work effectively? All of Western civilization collapsed and was lost for a thousand years. And @tomic thinks he has trouble with the HTML.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 18:13:33 [Permalink]
|
Well the idea that there was a common source document handed out to everybody to base there gospel on certainly would go some way to explain the different version at nicea.
Of courese one could then speculate about other aspects of this.
Why create different versions at all and not simply create one version that would not contradict itself.
If the differnent parts of the NT were produced specifically for Nicea, one would expect people not to be to closely attached to their versions. Not more so at least then to their lives.
There also is the problem of how Constantine
came to the source document. It would already have to be a rather complex document.
And it still leaves open the question why they did involve the part with the Jews at all. Were there good poltical reasons to include the stuff. Was the setting in Palestina choosen at random for it's unimportance?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
