Abiyoyo Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 In the end if you believe these texts to be true and early dated, then they are so to you, but we have the same right to our opinion to the opposite. Just because the current method and evidence allows this discrepancy. But regardless, as far as considering the works historical, even if they were written in 200CE, they would still be apart of the history of Christianity at the least, and equal, if not higher in status than any Greek mythology, which is considered apart of history. As far as the ''authority'' of the writings themselves, I would have to say I at least would consider them the direct words from that era. That's like something happened in a major city thousands of years ago, and a tablet was found with some writing that lead scholars to feel that it was within this certain timeframe; it would be considered apart of history for that era, and so speak for the era in a sense. Why not Christian documents? Because it has to do with God, Jesus, spiritual things, miracles, people raising up from the dead, etc. It is tainted in the rational mind, but, ..that doesn't make it bogus. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 But regardless, as far as considering the works historical, even if they were written in 200CE, they would still be apart of the history of Christianity at the least, and equal, if not higher in status than any Greek mythology, which is considered apart of history. As far as the ''authority'' of the writings themselves, I would have to say I at least would consider them the direct words from that era. We probably could find some common ground around in that area. It's not that I deny these writings don't exist. It's not that I deny the Christianity existed, or that people believed in these books. (However, we might not know for certainty in what manner some of the groups did believe in the books or not.) Of course there were some kind of followers, believers, etc, and I think the belief they had was definitely earlier than their writings. I suspect however that the early beliefs were different from the kind that was written down, and especially that the stories were written down after Paul had contaminated the religious pool. We can't say for sure if the Gospels reflect the early Jewish cult, or if it rather reflect the later Paulinian religion. That's like something happened in a major city thousands of years ago, and a tablet was found with some writing that lead scholars to feel that it was within this certain timeframe; it would be considered apart of history for that era, and so speak for the era in a sense. Why not Christian documents? Because it has to do with God, Jesus, spiritual things, miracles, people raising up from the dead, etc. It is tainted in the rational mind, but, ..that doesn't make it bogus. :wink: Right. I think placing the artifacts/copies in one period, and the originals (which we don't have) in an earlier date, is not wrong, but the date range is rather wide, and actually I'm not saying for certainty (I keep an honest doubt on both sides) they were written at the late dates, but at the same time, I don't hold it for absolute certainty they were written at an early date. We have to allow the dates to be everything from 60/70 CE to 200 CE, for many of these writings. And I have studied a little in how language evolves, and beliefs evolve in a similar fashion, so it is not at all unlikely that many of the stories in the Gospels were "invented" at the end of the 1st century, and the Gospels written around that time. I don't see it at all impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Isn't that exactly what you were referring to earlier when you claimed that "orthodox" or "christian" scholars put the date earlier than the ones who are not? No. That was Heimdall's claim and we were talking about the dating of NT documents (i.e. when they were written). I noted that the majority of scholars, Christians and non-Christians alike, date the NT books somewhere in 1st Century A.D. When you are talking about "manuscript", are you talking about the original or the copy? No original texts exist, so yes, I'm taking about copies. I prefer the word "manuscript" since not all of them are fragments. No one has found the originals. So we can't date the originals, because we don't have them. We do however have fragments of copies. Of course we can't. But dating NT documents is not same thing as dating NT manuscripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts