The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Minimalist]

Right then. So you're on record with equating a scientific discovery with crackpot claims.

In this case?  Yes.  Because they have submitted NOTHING to peer review.  Right now, this is little more than two jesus freaks claiming to have found the fucking ark again.

[The Grand Nudger]

The stories about "paul" being a roman citizen are hilarious in their own right.  He claims to have been born a roman and all of a sudden the sentries tremble in his presence?  Then,  teh damned joos plot against him -just like they did against jesus.... those fuckers!  Of course, because the super apostle deserves no less, and despite various civil disturbances and outright war in the region......The Evil Empire is so kind as to provide "paul" with hundreds of soldiers, complete /w cavalry to escort him out of the jurisdiction saving his neck (that the authors expected anyone to believe that Rome would do such a thing for any reason..let alone some crackpot claiming to be roman- is hard to understand) - he even gets a boat........  This only sets the stage.  

It really shouldn't be so radical, proposing that such a man never existed, that such events never took place.  The claim to roman citizenship is, itself, a magical claim.....it takes an awfully uncritical mind not to notice how ridiculous the narrative, and thus the claim..actually are.  That's one of the more amusing things about the NT, to me.  Even the seemingly mundane describes supernatural events.  

Let's put this plainly. No soldier, ever, gave a fuck what some rando claimed, and Rome never devoted a full combat unit to protect said rando from the local authorities -which they themselves established and supported-.  This story, the claim to "pauls" citizenship.......is a narrative device.  It overcomes critical objections at the exact point in the narrative that they present themselves...and sets the foundation for explaining "pauls" equally magical globe trotting conversion sideshow.  We may, someday, find earlier versions of this story, but at no point would an earlier date change the above.  The narrative itself will remain as fictive as it has always been, regardless of the first time the story was told.

@Aractus....I fail to see any means of confirming that "paul" was a roman -if- there were a "paul" to begin with, and I fail to see how an earlier date for any narrative would lend credence to a story which is suspect not on the grounds of it's date, but on the contents of the narrative -itself-? I still do not see what is left to explain once we acknowledge that greek was lingua franca, and that the work was intended for public view? There needs be no "paul", "paul" need not be roman, and going by the narratives supporting the claim, as above - it's obvious horseshit...and you don;t need a degree in textual criticism or tehology in order to determine this. You can perform a very simple experiment, let's call it "rigorous historical reenactment".

-Approach a state or federal officer after having been accused by local authorities of having committed a crime with the claim "I am a "x" citizen". Check to see how much tremble appears on the statey's face, see what sort of escort that gets you...and where you end up. For additional historical accuracy, do it in an active warzone in which you look suspiciously like the local insurgent flavor.......

[Huggy Bear]

The stories about "paul" being a roman citizen are hilarious in their own right.  He claims to have been born a roman and all of a sudden the sentries tremble in his presence?  Then,  teh damned joos plot against him -just like they did against jesus.... those fuckers!  Of course, because the super apostle deserves no less, and despite various civil disturbances and outright war in the region......The Evil Empire is so kind as to provide "paul" with hundreds of soldiers, complete /w cavalry to escort him out of the jurisdiction saving his neck (that the authors expected anyone to believe that Rome would do such a thing for any reason..let alone some crackpot claiming to be roman- is hard to understand) - he even gets a boat........  This only sets the stage.  

It really shouldn't be so radical, proposing that such a man never existed, that such events never took place.  The claim to roman citizenship is, itself, a magical claim.....it takes an awfully uncritical mind not to notice how ridiculous the narrative, and thus the claim..actually are.  That's one of the more amusing things about the NT, to me.  Even the seemingly mundane describes supernatural events.  

Let's put this plainly. No soldier, ever, gave a fuck what some rando claimed, and Rome never devoted a full combat unit to protect said rando from the local authorities -which theythemselves established and supported-.  This story, the claim to "pauls" citizenship.......is a narrative device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

• The right of immunity from some taxes and other legal obligations, especially local rules and regulations.[4]
  
• The right to sue in the courts and the right to be sued.
  
• The right to have a legal trial (to appear before a proper court and to defend oneself).
  
  
• The right to appeal from the decisions of magistrates and to appeal the lower court decisions.
  
• A Roman citizen could not be tortured or whipped, nor could he receive the death penalty, unless he was found guilty of treason.
  
• If accused of treason, a Roman citizen had the right to be tried in Rome, and even if sentenced to death, no Roman citizen could be sentenced to die on the cross.
  

Paul was punished without receiving a trial which was his right as a Roman citizen,

Acts 16
37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out.
38 And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans.

Of course they were scared, because they could be brought up on charges themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

Cicero received the honorific "Pater Patriae" for his efforts to suppress the conspiracy, but lived thereafter in fear of trial or exile for having put Roman citizens to death without trial.

[Minimalist]

Let's be clear about something.  "Paul" (or whoever) never says that he was a Roman citizen in any of his alleged epistles.  That claim comes from Acts which is a pile of shit from the word "go."

[Over the Hill]

Let's be clear about something.  "Paul" (or whoever) never says that he was a Roman citizen in any of his alleged epistles.  That claim comes from Acts which is a pile of shit from the word "go."

I see Acts as Luke trying to write a sequel years later to his 'best selling' Gospel. But as is often the case with sequels, it does not measure up to original. Losing the main character of the original in the first chapter is not a very good start. Plus Acts does not have the driving dynamic of gLuke - sticking his tongue out at Matthew.

The scriptures are a lot more fun if you do not take them seriously but look at the different stories being told and why they are being told that way.

[Minimalist]

Not bad, Newbie.


I see Acts (and gluke, for that matter) as what emerged after the heretic Marcion showed the other early xtians what a canon of scripture could be useful for.  Marcion's canon consisted of 10 epistles of "paul" and a version of "luke." 

It is unthinkable that Marcion could be denounced as a heretic but that the denouncers would then take his books and use them intact.

Keep up the good work.

[Over the Hill]

Not bad, Newbie.


I see Acts (and gluke, for that matter) as what emerged after the heretic Marcion showed the other early xtians what a canon of scripture could be useful for.  Marcion's canon consisted of 10 epistles of "paul" and a version of "luke." 

It is unthinkable that Marcion could be denounced as a heretic but that the denouncers would then take his books and use them intact.

Keep up the good work.

I see Acts as definitely written by the same author as gLuke. And I see gLuke as very much a product of the 1st century when belief in an early return of Jesus was still thinkable. Notice that gJohn gives up on that, as does Acts. gLuke is much too neat and coherent a work to have been added to later.

[Polaris]

I have a hen that shits golden nickles but neither you nor anyone else can see it.

Do you buy that too?


Look, Danny.  How many times have these religious fuckwits found the "ark?"  How many Mt Sinai's have been identified?  Ron Wyatt claimed to have found the ark of the covenant...in addition to Noah's Ark and a host of other shit so preposterous that even the asshats at AiG called him a fraud.  And when those frauds call you a "fraud" you are a fucking fraud.

Just because some shithead with a theology degree says something does not make it true and no one in their right mind should accept their bullshit for a heartbeat.

Wake up, man.  

Right then. So you're on record with equating a scientific discovery with crackpot claims.

I compared the masks mss to the dss and you compared them to crackpot ark discovery claims. We'll wait until 2017 and see who's right.

It's all he has. He never studied this, so he just quotes from bloggists who likewise never went to college. You will see he can only repeat the same tired "evidence" because he doesn't actually have the experience to back his BS.

[Minimalist]

Oh, look.  The jesus freak is back to swear by his bullshit.

Give it up polecat.  You come across like a fool.

And Danny, your comparison to the dss is erroneous.  The dss have been studied for 60 years by the best minds in the field.

Your alleged mss is a fart from the brain of some theist who has failed to produce it.  Aren't you the least bit skeptical of why we have to wait until 2017 or are you so ready to believe that it all makes perfect sense to you.

I think you want to be conned.

[Aractus]

No, the delay does not make me sceptical. As you well know, it's not the theologians or scholars who own them. For all we know they decided to pull a whole bunch more masks apart and search for more interesting ancient texts. Who cares why it's taking so long, the fact is that two leading scholars have said that a new testament manuscript exists and that to the best of their knowledge it dates to the first century AD. They're the ones doing the work, not you. You can criticise when they publish the material, your eagerness to criticise now before they've published anything from the finds shows your clear lack of respect for historians that do the ground work.

And stop saying "my alleged mss". Again, what I said was that there is evidence of a first century mss, and that evidence is the testimony of two respected New Testament scholars. If you were to swear under oath and under penalty of purgery that you have a hen that shits gold nickels, then yes that could be accepted as evidence. The absurdity of your claim however may have your evidence dismissed. As it is, Wallace and Evans have not made an absurd claim. They aren't claiming to have a hen that shits gold nickels, nor are they saying that they have the newly discovered first century mark mss, all they're claiming is that such a mss exists, that it has been determined to be a copy of Mark, that it has been dated to their satisfaction (and on this point in a court of law they may be considered expert witnesses to testify on the age of New Testament era Greek documents) using carbon-14 and palaeographic dating methods, and that the dating showed the mss is from the first century.