|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2002 : 19:15:20 [Permalink]
|
[b]Of courese one could then speculate about other aspects of this.[/b]
True, but bible scholars have been going on about "Q" for decades. This would explain it and explain why nobody saved a copy.
[b]Why create different versions at all and not simply create one version that would not contradict itself.[/b]
So that the Emperor could choose which he liked best. (Which is exactly what happened) Not an uncommon practice with business executives today. (I want a print advertising campaign for soup. Show me three comps by next week.)
[b]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.[/b]
But the winners would (and did) become rich and powerful. Romans made a habit of knocking off rivals. Once they had won the losers became "evil heretics" instead of innocent competitors.
[b]There also is the problem of how Constantine
came to the source document. It would already have to be a rather complex document.[/b]
He would have known-generally-what he wanted since he already started Christianity as a war cult (In this sign shall you conquer). It didn't have to be all that complex. A story out line, and some of the sayings of Hercules. A dozen or so pages at most.
[b]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? [/b]
It was a romantic far off land in a "once upon a time". (Half the books of the bible presented at Nicaea didn't say when Jesus lived--only some time long ago. Parts of 'Paul' haven't a clue as to when Jesus lived.) Many of the "travelers tales" that were a popular fiction genera at the time were set there. The people were exotic. It must have been like "the Arabian Nights" to the Romans. The Jewish people were also all gone for the last 250 years. Nobody to bring up any annoying facts-- like it never happened. Remember when Constantine's Mom, Helena, went there on a trip nobody who lived there knew anything about Jesus, one way or the other.
I can't swear that this is what actually happened. But the pieces do seem to fit the puzzle. Which is more than you can say about the church's version.
-------
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] |
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 19:34:56 [Permalink]
|
[quote] I can't swear that this is what actually happened. But the pieces do seem to fit the puzzle. Which is more than you can say about the church's version.
[/quote]
You always make a lot of sense and you have done some research. I will go with that thinking...
ljbrs  
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 19:56:59 [Permalink]
|
Did anyone notice that instead of making a new post that Darwin has changed his last?
He is now making the astonishing claim that science's present ability to determine the dates of documents is worse now by a factor of 12X than it was in the first half of the last century.
No wonder he doesn't trust science.
-------
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]
Edited by - slater on 02/28/2002 20:00:16 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 20:00:49 [Permalink]
|
I understand the idea of handing out an outline and then choosing between the different proposals. I even understand how it can make political sense to choose more than one work in the end.
But there still were even after any editing that might have happened at nicea a lot of contradictions between the books that were choosen. Why not edit some more? Who was to know if the winners arranged for a more homogene endproduct among each other?
One explanation that makes sense would be, that their versions were already in use back home. Maybee in some sort of beta-whorship.
I know that there are not many connections between the Old and the New Testament, but they are there. How did they come to be?
If the NT had developed from some legends or stories that originated in the area explainig that would be easy. But I can't see why all that baggage should be incorporated into a totally new state religion.
There might be good reasons for including all the other pagan stuff, but were there a lot of people who were familar or cared about jewish traditions?
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 21:00:38 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>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
[/quote] [quote]Eusebius is next heard of as bishop of Caesarea. He succeeded Agapius, whose time of office is not known, but Eusebius must have become bishop soon after 313. Nothing is known about the first years of his official activity, but with the beginning of the Arian controversies he becomes prominent. Arius appealed to him as his protector, and from a letter of Eusebius to Alexander it is evident that he aided the exiled presbyter (see ARIUS). When the Council of Nicaea met in 325, Eusebius was prominent in its transactions. He was not naturally a leader or a deep thinker, but as a very learned man and well trained in history, at the same time a famous author who enjoyed the special favor of the emperor, he came to the front among the 300 members of the council. The confession which he proposed became the basis of the Nicene formula (see Nicaea, COUNCIL OF). Eusebius was variously implicated in the further development of the Arian controversies, as, for instance, in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch (q.v.). Eustathius combated the continually growing influence of Origen and his allegorizing exegesis, seeing in his theology the roots of Arianism. Eusebius, on the other hand, was an admirer of Origen, and employed the same principles in |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 21:10:16 [Permalink]
|
Uhhhh, at the bottom and top of each page there is a link marked Reply to Topic"
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 22:49:39 [Permalink]
|
There were five bishops in the early church named Eusebius.
Eusebius Pamphili was the Bishop of Caesrea in Palestine and is called the "father of church history" in fact there's a Penguin paperback of his "The History of the Church" So your confusion is understandable.
You will note however in my signature line the infamous quote from Eusebius of Nicomedia, Bishop of Bertus. He did get banished at Nicaea but it only lasted 2 years because--according to Ammianus Marcellinus--he was a relative of the Imperial family. By 329 he was riding high and working for his cousin.
Spare us the quotes from the 1955 Funk & Wagnalls. One or prehaps even two things have been learned since then.
-------
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] |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 23:13:09 [Permalink]
|
[b]But there still were even after any editing that might have happened at nicea a lot of contradictions between the books that were choosen. Why not edit some more? Who was to know if the winners arranged for a more homogene endproduct among each other?[/b]
It did come out with a pretty fair match when you consider that (A) it was made by a committee and (B) almost nothing matched at all when they started.
Then you have to consider just who was going to say it was "F"ed up. For one thousand four hundred years it would cost you your life to point out the flaws.
[b]One explanation that makes sense would be, that their versions were already in use back home. Maybee in some sort of beta-whorship.[/b]
What I'm trying to do is to find an answer based solely on provable facts. There is no reliable record of this earlier worship so I can't claim it existed.
[b]I know that there are not many connections between the Old and the New Testament, but they are there. How did they come to be?[/b]
The Romans owned Israel for a long time. If they were setting a religious story there it's not strange that they would incorporate parts of the local religion. That they only get parts right is telling.
[b]If the NT had developed from some legends or stories that originated in the area explainig that would be easy. But I can't see why all that baggage should be incorporated into a totally new state religion.[/b]
There were over three hundred people at Nicaea trying to get a piece of the pie.
[b]There might be good reasons for including all the other pagan stuff, but were there a lot of people who were familar or cared about jewish traditions?[/b]
No, which was why when you changed them nobody cared. Even today most people think that John the Baptist was Jewish practicing a Jewish ritual. Any Jew can tell you that they never ever had baptism.
To the Romans of the fourth century Jews would have seemed an exotic people from the golden past.
-------
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] |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2002 : 19:17:49 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
[quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>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
[/quote] [quote]Eusebius is next heard of as bishop of Caesarea. He succeeded Agapius, whose time of office is not known, but Eusebius must have become bishop soon after 313. Nothing is known about the first years of his official activity, but with the beginning of the Arian controversies he becomes prominent. Arius appealed to him as his protector, and from a letter of Eusebius to Alexander it is evident that he aided the exiled presbyter (see ARIUS). When the Council of Nicaea met in 325, Eusebius was prominent in its transactions. He was not naturally a leader or a deep thinker, but as a very learned man and well trained in history, at the same time a famous author who enjoyed the special favor of the emperor, he came to the front among the 300 members of the council. The confession which he proposed became the basis of the Nicene formula (see Nicaea, COUNCIL OF). Eusebius was variously implicated in the further development of the Arian controversies, as, for instance, in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch (q.v.). Eustathius combated the continually growing influence of Origen and his allegorizing exegesis, seeing in his theology the roots of Arianism. Eusebius, on the other hand, was an admirer of Origen, and employed the same prin |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2002 : 20:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Beatty is eponymous?
What's named after him?
[quote] The dates assigned to these documents are approximate and a matter for debate among papyrologists. [/quote]
How does this differ from what I've been saying?
Is the delete key broken on your key board or do you just like wasteing space?
Do you really think that peering at hand writing styles through a Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass is a more accurate dating method than the accelerator mass spectrometer technique?
-------
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]
Edited by - slater on 03/01/2002 20:14:52 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 00:52:23 [Permalink]
|
To Slater, thanks for the tip on the delete button(I never thought of it).Now concerning your question on which method I think is more reliable: [quote]Do you really think that peering at hand writing styles through a Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass is a more accurate dating method than the accelerator mass spectrometer technique? [/quote],I know you don't think so but I am a reasonable person,and I have no vendata against science nor the C-14 dating method.Therefore,if you can show me the results of the C-14 test done on the documents in question:1 The Chester Beatty Papyra(155 AD),2 The Bodmer(200AD)ad,3The John Rylands (130AD) I will concede the dates given in the results.Now my question to you is if you can't give me those results are you reasonable enough to accept the fidings of the "old fashion" papyrologist(heck I'll even give you the latest dates they give,the + years they say is + or - 25 I'll give you 75) 
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 01:58:08 [Permalink]
|
DA, it doesn't work that way. There is no gentleman's agreement when it comes to truth. Think about what you proposed seriously for a moment. Slater not producing c-14 dating proof to your satisfaction hardly proves the primitive dating of over a century ago.
In fact, you both could be wrong. That's not necessarily how it is but the absence of proof by one party does not prove the position of the other. This is a common creationist fallacy.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 08:37:15 [Permalink]
|
To Atomic ,first I think Slater can speak for himself.Secondly,the dating method I'm proposing has been accepted by scholars for years,and not only with christian documents but secular as well.
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 08:54:59 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
To Atomic ,first I think Slater can speak for himself.Secondly,the dating method I'm proposing has been accepted by scholars for years,and not only with christian documents but secular as well.
[/quote]Slater not producing c-14 dating proof to your satisfaction hardly proves the primitive dating of over a century ago.
In fact, you both could be wrong. That's not necessarily how it is but the absence of proof by one party does not prove the position of the other. This is a common creationist fallacy.
[quote] As far as "primitive" thats your unprofessional opinion and as far as a "fallacy" I think your the best at doing that.Case in point, [b]In fact, you both could be wrong[/b] ok but how are you ever going to tell,what other test would apply to make that decsion? What no answer,thats called " thef [b]fallacy of ingnorance[/b].
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 11:25:26 [Permalink]
|
No DA, you just don't get that there is the possibility that you are both wrong. You can't cut a deal with slater for the truth. That's not how it works.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
