Confirmations of the New Testament

[One Bad Pig]

Er, no - one source doesn't over rule four.

And there is more than adequate evidence for rational people that the earliest fragments date no later than the Second Century (with fragments actually dating to the First but I'm just using the 'older' known documentation) - which utterly and completely destroys the


myth.


You, as usual, are wrong.

I am only aware of one manuscript (John) which is generally acknowledged to be within 100 years of Christ; others have been dated by some to late 1st/early 2nd century, but their arguments have generally not been accepted by the wider community. However, that is very much beside the point. Most scholars of antiquity would give their right arm and their firstborn for anything within 500 years of its composition. We have very little surviving writing from 2,000 years ago, and Christian writings tended to see heavy use. Given an oral culture where Christian writings were regularly read aloud in meetings, it would have been much more difficult than people imagine to slip changes past unnoticed.

This is all immaterial for the argument at hand, regardless. We could have original autographs securely dated to AD 32, and he'd just find some other reason to handwave them away.

[shunyadragon]

I am only aware of one manuscript (John) which is generally acknowledged to be within 100 years of Christ; others have been dated by some to late 1st/early 2nd century, but their arguments have generally not been accepted by the wider community. However, that is very much beside the point. Most scholars of antiquity would give their right arm and their firstborn for anything within 500 years of its composition. We have very little surviving writing from 2,000 years ago, and Christian writings tended to see heavy use. Given an oral culture where Christian writings were regularly read aloud in meetings, it would have been much more difficult than people imagine to slip changes past unnoticed.

This is all immaterial for the argument at hand, regardless. We could have original autographs securely dated to AD 32, and he'd just find some other reason to handwave them away.

Could have? This is an assertion without academic references. As cited there are no fragments acknowledged by the archaeologiste, and Biblical historians that have dated any fragment before 100 AD. The dating of the oldest fragment (P52) of John.

[shunyadragon]

No, we DON'T.

Source: Wikipedia

Despite the prominent place of the speech in the history and popular culture of the United States, its exact wording is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand differ in a number of details, and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech.
Source

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, we DO.

We still have the edited versions of the Gettysburg address in Abraham Lincoln's own handwriting.

[shunyadragon]

The irony of all this is shunya is ostensibly Baha'i, and those writings have been massively edited over the less than two centuries since the Bab. He seems to have no problem with that.

Do you have a citation on the Baha'i writings to support this assertion?

[One Bad Pig]

Could have? This is an assertion without academic references.

It is an observation based on your posting history. I rather doubt academics have bothered analyzing that.

As cited there are no fragments acknowledged by the archaeologiste, and Biblical historians that have dated any fragment before 100 AD. The dating of the oldest fragment (P52) of John.

It helps to read for understanding before posting, shunya. You're not contradicting anything I said here - just making sloppy references to "the archaeologists" and "Biblical historians" when you should be consulting papyrologists (which I acknowledged as mostly agreeing with your position on the earliest fragments).

[Teallaura]

We still have the edited versions of the Gettysburg address in Abraham Lincoln's own handwriting.

None of which agree with each other. Literally, none are the same.

So what exactly DID he say at Gettysburg?

[Tassman]

"Widely divergent" copies are the extreme exception.

intent

I'm sure I don't need to remind YOU that Aland & Aland is not holy writ.

Indeed. See above.

Try not uncritically copying from sloppy atheist sites

You mean as opposed to not

[shunyadragon]

None of which agree with each other. Literally, none are the same.

So what exactly DID he say at Gettysburg?

The Gettysburg address.

[shunyadragon]

It is an observation based on your posting history. I rather doubt academics have bothered analyzing that.

It helps to read for understanding before posting, shunya. You're not contradicting anything I said here - just making sloppy references to "the archaeologists" and "Biblical historians" when you should be consulting papyrologists (which I acknowledged as mostly agreeing with your position on the earliest fragments).

Picking on wording does not change the academic research and published works on the earliest fragments of NT text. Actually the dating of the earliest fragments was interdisaplinary effort including specialists in Hebrew, archaeologists, Biblical historians, and papyrologists.

[One Bad Pig]

intent

They were holy enough to be regularly read aloud at meetings. That puts the lie to the "living text" idea.

You mean as opposed to not

I believe this is an example of "poisoning the well". If all you've got is argument by fallacy, you've failed. It's quite a stretch from "saying what I want to hear" to accusations of sloppy quoting, which is effectively all you've got.

This would be your opportunity to show where the quotation is misleading. Your move.

[One Bad Pig]

Picking on wording does not change the academic research and published works on the earliest fragments of NT text. Actually the dating of the earliest fragments was interdisaplinary effort including specialists in Hebrew, archaeologists, Biblical historians, and papyrologists.

Are you trying to look obtuse?

That was a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer.

[shunyadragon]

References were provided - and you are still wrong.

And don't use the possessive.

References not provided that would base the existence of fragments of the NT before 100 BCE. Actually the references you provided confirm that the fragments are post 100 AD except for the reference to the Mark fragment as previously cited was a pre-publication estimate. The date of the final research and publication of the results on the Mark fragment dated the fragment as well after 100 AD.

[rogue06]

References not provided that would base the existence of fragments of the NT before 100 BCE.

You didn't think this statement through, did you?

[One Bad Pig]

You didn't think this statement through, did you?

Shunya would look a LOT smarter here if he bothered to do that on a regular basis.

[Teallaura]

The Gettysburg address.

No substantive answer given.