Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

More secular proof of Jesus' existence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    It sounds more like he was using "section" to reference what we would classify as an entire chapter, doesn't it, not a specific verse? The entire chapter 3 discusses sacrifice (though I'm not sure that is the specific chapter he was referencing).

    Also, it's true that the manuscript works we find of that era (i.e. Qumran scrolls) don't have chapter and verse (from my memory at least), but this could be explained by the possibility they had manuscripts they used strictly for preservation and manuscripts they used for daily use. The former would make it less likely the manuscript would wear out quickly or get damaged. I think sectioning off the passages would have been just as convenient and practical to the ancients as it is to us, but the reason we don't find these might be because they wore out faster
    It was way too labor-intensive to make copies for people to make special copies of manuscripts for preservation, and, if actually done, there would have been no reason to write them differently.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Occam's razor. Don't try to excuse it when it sits in the middle of a book of frauds. The most likely explanation is that the letter is fake too.

      These hucksters were not sophisticated. They made these kinds of errors frequently. That is why it is so easy to spot what a fraud Joseph Smith was with the Book of Mormon. Full of anachronisms.
      Okay, cool, but I still don't see how you're using that as an error. The passage you referenced has Caiaphas not focusing on one verse because he generalizes a litany of sacrifices -- "maybe seen if we turn to the third Book of Leviticus, section 10, wherein is the special order made by our God to Moses, that we should offer the bullock, the ram, the flour and oil, and the people should fast seven days, and this should be kaphar, or atonement for the sins of all the people." So I don't understand why you focused on just one verse when what he describes basically covers an entire chapter. "Third" may have been a reference to the book number or order, not necessarily a verse.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        It was way too labor-intensive to make copies for people to make special copies of manuscripts for preservation, and, if actually done, there would have been no reason to write them differently.
        What would have happened if a manuscript they were using got destroyed? You don't think they were preserving back-ups?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          What would have happened if a manuscript they were using got destroyed? You don't think they were preserving back-ups?
          I'm rather certain they weren't preserving backups. If you want a clue to how "daily use" manuscripts would have appeared, look no further than the Cairo genizah, which is where Jews disposed of everything from worn out scripture to letters.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            I'm rather certain they weren't preserving backups. If you want a clue to how "daily use" manuscripts would have appeared, look no further than the Cairo genizah, which is where Jews disposed of everything from worn out scripture to letters.
            Is that really a fair comparison though? We are theoretically talking about the head honcho at Jerusalem. I honestly don't know how resourceful synagogues in Egypt were and how they handled manuscripts, but I doubt they matched the resourcefulness that was required for the Judaic adherents at Jerusalem.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              Is that really a fair comparison though? We are theoretically talking about the head honcho at Jerusalem. I honestly don't know how resourceful synagogues in Egypt were and how they handled manuscripts, but I doubt they matched the resourcefulness that was required for the Judaic adherents at Jerusalem.
              We are theoretically talking about ANE habits in general. You're positing something which has zero archaeological evidence and flies in the face of what we know about the culture. Manuscripts were written to be used. Only the rich had the resources to have manuscripts at all.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                We are theoretically talking about ANE habits in general. You're positing something which has zero archaeological evidence and flies in the face of what we know about the culture. Manuscripts were written to be used. Only the rich had the resources to have manuscripts at all.
                We're both arguing with zero evidence. We don't have enough extant manuscript material to be sure of anything in regards to how the ancient Jewish culture preserved records during that period, much less the priestly system at Jerusalem. A synagogue in Egypt is not what evidence makes. So we're pretty much back to square zero in theory here when assessing whether or not Caiaphas would have been referencing scripture that way.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  We're both arguing with zero evidence. We don't have enough extant manuscript material to be sure of anything in regards to how the ancient Jewish culture preserved records during that period, much less the priestly system at Jerusalem. A synagogue in Egypt is not what evidence makes. So we're pretty much back to square zero in theory here when assessing whether or not Caiaphas would have been referencing scripture that way.
                  Since you (by proxy for the Archko book) are the one claiming an extraordinary find, it would be up to you to support it with some actual evidence, like what other places do the Jews reference scrolls in such a way as in this letter. Or show where the actual letter is, since the author of the Archko claims to have found it (I believe in the vatican?)

                  If a con artist wrote and sold a book that has been shown to be fake, and you want to believe a part of it is real, it would take some really good evidence to overcome the perfectly valid bias that the whole thing is a fraud.

                  Is there any record of this Father Freelinhusen who was supposed to be in charge of the Vatican Library? Surely you should be able to find him listed somewhere?
                  Last edited by Sparko; 02-24-2020, 11:32 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Since you (by proxy for the Archko book) are the one claiming an extraordinary find, it would be up to you to support it with some actual evidence, like what other places do the Jews reference scrolls in such a way as in this letter. Or show where the actual letter is, since the author of the Archko claims to have found it (I believe in the vatican?)

                    If a con artist wrote and sold a book that has been shown to be fake, and you want to believe a part of it is real, it would take some really good evidence to overcome the perfectly valid bias that the whole thing is a fraud.

                    Is there any record of this Father Freelinhusen who was supposed to be in charge of the Vatican Library? Surely you should be able to find him listed somewhere?

                    Actually the burden is not really on me to prove anything because I'm not that enthusiastic about it to prove that it's legit to folks that don't think it is. If someone wants to dismiss it all because Mahan is a fraud, therefore all of it is fraud, so be it.

                    I was more interested in what one's critical analysis of it would be after actually reading it. If someone is going to present a critical argument why they think a particular work is a fraud from reading it themselves, then at least come up with a decent argument. Your argument was that he was referencing chapter and verse, but this isn't the case at all, but that was the type of argumentation I was interested in.

                    I would actually argue that his odd reference to scripture supports the authenticity of the first letter even more. When you read it, you see he often cites Hebrew scripture or situations from scripture with specific numbered references that don't look at all like the chapter and verse we're familiar with. In fact, you can't make any sense of how he's referencing it. One could argue the forger did that purposely to deceive, but again, Mahan doesn't seem to have that level of creative talent. Then when you read the second letter (the letter I believe shows a clear distinction from the first), he doesn't reference scripture that way at all, in fact, makes no reference to Hebrew scripture.

                    If someone were to find Jewish authors referencing scripture this way in another work, you could then make the argument that this is where Mahan got the idea.

                    As to what you said about evidence that it exists, to my knowledge no one has found it to verify it (though I'm not sure how thorough others have searched for it).
                    Last edited by seanD; 02-24-2020, 12:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      Actually the burden is not really on me to prove anything because I'm not that enthusiastic about it to prove that it's legit to folks that don't think it is. If someone wants to dismiss it all because Mahan is a fraud, therefore all of it is fraud, so be it.
                      You're striving mightily hard to argue for something you pretend to be neutral about after push-back, the point of attempting false equivalence.
                      I was more interested in what one's critical analysis of it would be after actually reading it. If someone is going to present a critical argument why they think a particular work is a fraud from reading it themselves, then at least come up with a decent argument. Your argument was that he was referencing chapter and verse, but this isn't the case at all, but that was the type of argumentation I was interested in.

                      I would actually argue that his odd reference to scripture supports the authenticity of the first letter even more. When you read it, you see he often cites Hebrew scripture or situations from scripture with specific numbered references that don't look at all like the chapter and verse we're familiar with. In fact, you can't make any sense of how he's referencing it. One could argue the forger did that purposely to deceive, but again, Mahan doesn't seem to have that level of creative talent. Then when you read the second letter (the letter I believe shows a clear distinction from the first), he doesn't reference scripture that way at all, in fact, makes no reference to Hebrew scripture.

                      If someone were to find Jewish authors referencing scripture this way in another work, you could then make the argument that this is where Mahan got the idea.

                      As to what you said about evidence that it exists, to my knowledge no one has found it to verify it (though I'm not sure how thorough others have searched for it).
                      If you want to see how Jews of Jesus' time referenced scripture, read the NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd bet the farm that you won't find ANY reference to specific numbered references; if anything, you're not going to get more than the book and/or author.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        You're striving mightily hard to argue for something you pretend to be neutral about after push-back, the point of attempting false equivalence.

                        If you want to see how Jews of Jesus' time referenced scripture, read the NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd bet the farm that you won't find ANY reference to specific numbered references; if anything, you're not going to get more than the book and/or author.
                        I actually do believe it's legit. What I'm neutral about is proving this to others when the push-back is based on the integrity of the forger. If someone wants to present an argument why they don't believe it's real from a clue within the work itself, THAT'S what I'm interested in.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          You're striving mightily hard to argue for something you pretend to be neutral about after push-back, the point of attempting false equivalence.

                          If you want to see how Jews of Jesus' time referenced scripture, read the NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd bet the farm that you won't find ANY reference to specific numbered references; if anything, you're not going to get more than the book and/or author.
                          Most of the learning was oral memorizing too. They would instantly recognize a quote. Especially a High Priest.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Most of the learning was oral memorizing too. They would instantly recognize a quote. Especially a High Priest.
                            The counter argument to that would be that Caiaphas felt he needed a more direct approach to scripture as an authority in defense of his actions.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              I actually do believe it's legit. What I'm neutral about is proving this to others when the push-back is based on the integrity of the forger. If someone wants to present an argument why they don't believe it's real from a clue within the work itself, THAT'S what I'm interested in.
                              The very first Christian writings, from Paul, are filled with admonitions against counterfeits being passed off as Paul's writings. The early church went to great lengths to thresh out their scriptures from the far more abundant chaff. From the infancy gospels to the Apocalypse of Peter and from the Shepherd of Hermas to the Acts of Thomas, frauds, pious and otherwise, have always been a part of your religious tradition.

                              A risible minority of skeptics find Jesus' existence questionable. The rest of us see y'all as gullible, because everywhere we turn, we see Christians acting like you. How can you read this thing without asking the obvious questions. What is the provenance, where are the originals, who did the translations? Why was the author denounced as a fraud and barred from continuing to distribute this book?

                              Two pages into this Archko Volume, it's shrieking fraud.

                              Why does Rev. Mahan's "most learned" German, H.C. Whydaman, claim a Father Freelinhausen is the guardian of the Vatican and is willing to create a transcript of the Gospel of Nicodemus, aka the Acta Pilati, himself, in 1857, in Rome, when a transcript in both Greek and Latin, with notes, had been available in Leipzig since 1832, and when the noted Biblical scholar Tischendorf, also of Leipzig, had included it within his Evangelica Apocrypha in 1853.

                              And you didn't notice.

                              And you're thinking this is the kind of argument you'd like to present to skeptics.

                              Good luck with that.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                                The very first Christian writings, from Paul, are filled with admonitions against counterfeits being passed off as Paul's writings. The early church went to great lengths to thresh out their scriptures from the far more abundant chaff. From the infancy gospels to the Apocalypse of Peter and from the Shepherd of Hermas to the Acts of Thomas, frauds, pious and otherwise, have always been a part of your religious tradition.

                                A risible minority of skeptics find Jesus' existence questionable. The rest of us see y'all as gullible, because everywhere we turn, we see Christians acting like you. How can you read this thing without asking the obvious questions. What is the provenance, where are the originals, who did the translations? Why was the author denounced as a fraud and barred from continuing to distribute this book?

                                Two pages into this Archko Volume, it's shrieking fraud.

                                Why does Rev. Mahan's "most learned" German, H.C. Whydaman, claim a Father Freelinhausen is the guardian of the Vatican and is willing to create a transcript of the Gospel of Nicodemus, aka the Acta Pilati, himself, in 1857, in Rome, when a transcript in both Greek and Latin, with notes, had been available in Leipzig since 1832, and when the noted Biblical scholar Tischendorf, also of Leipzig, had included it within his Evangelica Apocrypha in 1853.

                                And you didn't notice.

                                And you're thinking this is the kind of argument you'd like to present to skeptics.

                                Good luck with that.
                                I never argued Mahan wasn't a forger, or even that he was that bright. The former is obvious just reading the content which is why I don't want to get bogged down on that issue.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X