|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote: Brian wrote: The fact that no one questioned the authorship of the gospels at the time doesn't really matter, does it? If the question wasn't even asked for the first two centuries of Christianity, how much credence could you really give their authorship? The fact that they weren't given any skeptical scrutiny (in terms of authorship) shouldn't be a point in their favor. As far as Jesus' brother goes, I don't really understand your position. We know that Jesus had a brother because it's mentioned in the Bible -- the same Bible that has a letter from Jesus' brother? What I would accept to verify the existence of Jesus' brother is the same thing I'd accept to verify the existence of Jesus: extrabiblical historical references. Otherwise, the James letter is no more authentic to me than the James osuary. construct wrote:
I'm not necessarily saying that the texts that we have are substantially different from the original texts. I think that the more important question is, are the texts written by those who bear their names? That's more important. We hear a lot about how the New Testament was written by "eyewitnesses", so I would think that establishing authorship would be Priority 1.
 "It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member  The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, Brian, it seems clear that I place great weight on the absence of disputes over authorship during the early centuries. I do not claim that the texts we have are precisely the same as the "original autographs" (whatever that is), but you're right in asserting that that is a different subject not really relevant to the question of primary authorship. My excusus on textual criticism was actually quibbling with Aethelred over his support of the majority text conflated with my argument against the idea that significant data about Jesus' life was intentionally suppressed. I would also suggest that the absence of any evidence, internal or external to the New Testament, of Jewish denial of the exitence of Jesus of Nazareth also weighs in favor of his existence. For purposes of this discussion, I would further suggest that each of the twenty-seven documents collected in the New Testament represents individual pieces of evidence because they were each written separately (with the possible exception of Luke-Acts which was not written by a personal associate of Jesus) over a period of approximately seventy years. The gospels refer to Jesus' brothers among whom James is named. James's letter was, I believe, among the earliest writings in the New Testament. I would date it in the 40s. The early church had no problem distinguishing which writers were eyewitnesses, and they accepted writings by people who were plainly not eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. Neither Paul nor Luke were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and nobody ever claimed they were. On the other hand, Matthew, Mark, John, James, and Peter were eyewitnesses. No one seriously doubted at the time that they were primary authors of documents later included in the New Testament which make statements supporting the physical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, I conclude that the evidence for the existence of a Jewish teacher named Jesus whose following developed into the new religion Christianity is very strong indeed. Last edited on 10:53 pm by construct |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member  Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That is why I prefer the modern critical texts to Aethel's majority text. Hi Construct, thanks for reading what I wrote and taking the time to respond to it, sometimes I wonder if anyone ever reads anything I write, not that they would be missing much if they didn't. My preference for the Majority Text is based on two things that perhaps you will be willing to comment on and educate me a bit. 1. The majority of MSS that we have (85% or greater as I understand it) are of the Majority Text/Byzantine family. Granted many of these are late, but when taken with my second point below I think a good case can be made for the Majority Text. 2. The majority of Scripture quotes by the early Church Fathers (near 90% as I understand it) conform to the Majority Text/Byzantine family of manuscripts. This does not mean that Minority Text MSS are void of value, but I think a case can be made for this family of MSS reflecting a specific local sect's beliefs. The fact that many Minority Text MSS are of an early date could be attributed to nothing more than a accident of geography. My understanding is that most early examples of Minority Text come from hot, dry areas which is where many of these sects were located. Last edited on 12:34 am by Aethelred |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aethelred wrote: That is why I prefer the modern critical texts to Aethel's majority text. Not sure why you would say this. I know several people, myself included, who pretty much always do!
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Aethelred wrote:That is why I prefer the modern critical texts to Aethel's majority text. There are much smarter people on all sides of every issue here, I just provide "filler posts." The only exception to this may be in the heated monkey vs. ape area of debate (I am pro-monkey and anti-ape by the way).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I haven't typed the New Testament quotes in the early fathers. And yes, the Alexandrine and Western text types come from areas where the climate was such that writing materials were more likely to survive. Still, the basic principles of modern textual criticism reasonably explain how the various text types came into being. How do the advocates of the Majority Text (which is not identical to the Textus Receptus) account for the shorter readings of the Alexandrine and Western types?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote: How do the advocates of the Majority Text (which is not identical to the Textus Receptus) account for the shorter readings of the Alexandrine and Western types? The Textus Reptus is part of the Majority Text/Byzantine family of manuscripts. While not identical, the differences as I undertand them are slight. I believe the only way to account for the shorter readings in the Alexandria Manuscripts (around 3000 words) is that sections that were not in keeping with the local theology were dropped. There are examples of NT quotes by Church Fathers dating to the 2nd Century where the quoted verses are found in the Majority Text, but not in the Alexandrian based Critical Text (which dates to the 4th Century). Last edited on 01:43 pm by Aethelred |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can you give a couple of examples of theological issues that turn on textual variants? I am not aware of any. Variants for John 1:18 is the only problem verse that I recall that might have significant theological consequence, and if I remember correctly it is a very doubtful reading. I think we'd also need to do some textual criticism on the Church Fathers as well. I have not done any work at all in that area. Have you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Oh, and the TR is an edited text that was based on six late manuscripts, all of them Byzantine. The TR was barely a start on the road toward establishing a text.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The fact that they weren't given any skeptical scrutiny (in terms of authorship) shouldn't be a point in their favor." Logically, this is true. A mere absence of criticism at a point in the timeline of a historical condition or event does NOT immediately confer legality or authenticity upon it. The early days of the Nazi Regime are a good example --- much of what they did SHOULD have been vastly critized by the majority of the German people, yet it was not. Same goes for many of the violations of the GOP financial conservative political line which were committed by the Bush Administration -which has created debt beyond all compare. Yet in the early days of that too, there was not nationwide high-percentage criticism of that- If we were external observers of both of these historical events in 1937-39, and 2001-2003, and we did not see massive criticism of these historical events, should we then assume moral and ethical authority and 'correctness' for these two events? Obviously, history has proven that we were correct to NOT assume moral high ground for either of these--- yet had we relied on the logical premise of "but no one was challenging these events, so they must therefore be utterly true" -we would have allowed the Nazis to prevail - we'd be at war in Iran and several other countries by now, without the at-least attempts by Congress to belatedly slow down the Bush Administrations full-speed charge into 'spend every penny the Treasury has on wars" Obviously, the Gospels have another justification which history has proven -- their value to the world, which has nothing to do with the authenticity of their authors -- the spiritual lessons are true and proven effective anyway, no matter who actually wrote them. so it doesn't really matter who wrote them to me--- the proof is in their spiritual lessons, not who wrote them.
Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote: Can you give a couple of examples of theological issues that turn on textual variants? I am not aware of any. Variants for John 1:18 is the only problem verse that I recall that might have significant theological consequence, and if I remember correctly it is a very doubtful reading. I'll get back to you on this a little later when I have time to reply in a more thoughtful manner. In other words after I have had my first two cups of coffee today.  I have not done any textual criticism of the Church Fathers writings, but that does sound like an interesting area to look at. Until later this afternoon....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez