Originally posted by seanD
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOccam'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostIt 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWhat would have happened if a manuscript they were using got destroyed? You don't think they were preserving back-ups?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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIs 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.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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWe'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.
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSince 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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostActually 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).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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMost of the learning was oral memorizing too. They would instantly recognize a quote. Especially a High Priest.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostThe 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
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment