The Testimony of Nathan

[Drich]

I had mentioned this in passing in another thread, but I believe it needs a thread of its own. There's a slim volume out on Amazon.com with the title The Testimony of Nathan Son of Isaac Concerning Jesus of Nazareth translated from the Greek by Ben Armhardt. It has been tentatively dated to the eleventh century but purports to be written by a contemporary of Jesus who debunks certain of the miracles and the resurrection. If authentic--i.e. a copy of something that was actually written in the first century--it would really do in Christianity. However, it would also do in the mythicists as well. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it. Any textual critics in the house?

you guys kill me.. when ever we have a 2nd or 3rd century source it is automatically discarded as being in authentic no matter what it's provenance may actually be. and here you are with a confirmed 11th century document and you are pushing it to be written in the time of Jesus.. Never mind the best efforts and the resources of the church to assimilate and preserve everything written on Christ, and still yet can only provide a 3rd century copy of his works.. Some how your single source material predates any effort to date it!
IF you had half as much faith in God you would be able to harness so much of the Holy Spirit you could probably heal people.