Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RationalOkie

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

Recommended Posts

In Chapter 5 of 'Jesus Interrupted' Ehrman states that:

 

1) In Mark, the first gospel written, Jesus does NOT identify himself as the 'Son of Man'

Mark 8:38 "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels"

 

2) Jesus thought that the Messiah would set up an earthly kingdom which he, Jesus, would head and his twelve disciples (including Judas) would rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mark 13:30 "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place"

 

The early Christians, like Jesus before them, and John the Baptist before him, were apocalyptically minded Jews, expecting the imminent end of the age.

 

In Mark, (me talking now), Jesus is NOT the Messiah he's like John the Baptist. He too is waiting for the Messiah to come. It was the later 'Midrash' stories that followed that became known as Mathew, Luke, John. These versions, since the 'end of the age' didn't come, were altered by followers to explain what the prophet 'JESUS' was 'trying' to say in his lifetime. Like it or not, that's what Ehrman is saying in Chapter 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the book "on hold" at my local library and I can't wait to dig in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Morsel - "..it is in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus preaches the coming Kingdom of God. This Kingdom of God is not "heaven"--the place you go to when you die (as in later Christian tradition; I'll discuss this further in chapter 7). It is a real kingdom, here on earth, which will be ruled by God through his Messiah, a utopian kingdom where the first will be last and the last first. Only in the last Gospel, John, does Jesus no longer preach that this kingdom is arriving soon. And why is this teaching not in the last of our Gospels? No doubt because the kingdom never did arrive, and the later Gospel writer was forced to reinterpret Jesus' message for his own day. The earliest Gospel traditions, though, portray Jesus' message as about the coming kingdom. In fact, not only is this message generally found in our earlier sources, it is a leading message of our very earliest sources... " - JESUS, INTERRUPTED (pg 157)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I thought Jesus was a Republican!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I thought Jesus was a Republican!

 

No way...to Liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Jesus was a communist? After all, didn't they start the churches where they shared everything? They gave all their money and property to the church, and then gave to whoever needed it. At least that's my understanding. That would make Jesus at least a socialist. But since he started a worker class revolution (the grassroots against the religious oligarchy) it would make him a revolutionary communist (but at the same time encouraging individualism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Jesus was a communist? After all, didn't they start the churches where they shared everything? They gave all their money and property to the church, and then gave to whoever needed it. At least that's my understanding. That would make Jesus at least a socialist. But since he started a worker class revolution (the grassroots against the religious oligarchy) it would make him a revolutionary communist (but at the same time encouraging individualism).

 

Good point...Han, when I was reading this book I kept thinking about Jesus as this Apocalyptic sign holder in Jerusalem, kind of like the Naked Cowboy in New York City, and all of these people in town for the passover walking by trying not to make eye contact with the nut job. It's a different perspective than what I was taught in sundee (as they say in Oklahoma) school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point...Han, when I was reading this book I kept thinking about Jesus as this Apocalyptic sign holder in Jerusalem, kind of like the Naked Cowboy in New York City, and all of these people in town for the passover walking by trying not to make eye contact with the nut job. It's a different perspective than what I was taught in sundee (as they say in Oklahoma) school.

I got the image of a dude Jesus with a doobie in his hand, like Vigil's avatar. (Yes, doobie, it's slang for a joint in the 60's/70's--no one never wondered why our Doobie Christian here called himself that? It's Flower power Jesus!)

 

sd4bcd24bb76806a060cac4ej2.gif

Yo, Peace bro'. The kingdom of God is within you, you know. It's like, wow! You know.

The stoners will inherit the Earth. Yeah dude. The little guy against the Man.

If someone hits you on the cheek, just take another toke, and let him hit the other side.

Amen. Hallefuckingfallujah baby.

 

Like, do you have another stick, I'm kind of like out, dude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Jesus was a communist? After all, didn't they start the churches where they shared everything? They gave all their money and property to the church, and then gave to whoever needed it. At least that's my understanding. That would make Jesus at least a socialist. But since he started a worker class revolution (the grassroots against the religious oligarchy) it would make him a revolutionary communist (but at the same time encouraging individualism).
Technically, wouldn't that be Peter rather than Jesus since that got started in Acts? So, would Peter be a Jewish communist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a perfect Family Guy episode. Jesus the Apocalyptic stoner that hangs out in Jerusalem and everyone laughs at him. He'd be in the middle of a rant on sin and blank out because he's so stoned. The voice would have to be Keanu Reeves, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically, wouldn't that be Peter rather than Jesus since that got started in Acts? So, would Peter be a Jewish communist?

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Chapter 5 of 'Jesus Interrupted' Ehrman states that:

 

1) In Mark, the first gospel written, Jesus does NOT identify himself as the 'Son of Man'

Mark 8:38 "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels"

 

2) Jesus thought that the Messiah would set up an earthly kingdom which he, Jesus, would head and his twelve disciples (including Judas) would rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mark 13:30 "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place"

 

The early Christians, like Jesus before them, and John the Baptist before him, were apocalyptically minded Jews, expecting the imminent end of the age.

 

In Mark, (me talking now), Jesus is NOT the Messiah he's like John the Baptist. He too is waiting for the Messiah to come. It was the later 'Midrash' stories that followed that became known as Mathew, Luke, John. These versions, since the 'end of the age' didn't come, were altered by followers to explain what the prophet 'JESUS' was 'trying' to say in his lifetime. Like it or not, that's what Ehrman is saying in Chapter 5.

 

I have read Misquoting Jesus, but not JI yet; however, I am curious why he says that Jesus didn't refer to himself as Son of Man in Mark when there are fourteen references to that effect in the Gospel. Maybe you can clarify what he means by this assertion.

 

Second, Ehrman interprets the Gospels, and the whole NT for that matter, through a certain set of presuppositions. Although he has brought some useful and generally accepted arguments through his works, much of what he writes has been rejected even by his mentor, Bruce Metzger. Your second point above seems to me to be a stretch, and although I haven't read his arguments, I can't see how he would get to that conclusion. I don't see how he can conclude that Judas is going to be a part of the new kingdom. He also says in Mark 13:32 that no one knows the time of his return, so the term generation must be understood in a wider context than a single human generation. The word had other usages and meanings than that limited understanding.

 

Now, when you say that in Mark Jesus was not Messiah that is simply a lack of understanding of the context of the term Son of Man. Take a look at its reference point in Daniel 7.

 

13"I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven

there came one like a son of man,

and he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

14 And to him was given dominion

and glory and a kingdom,

that all peoples, nations, and languages

should serve him;

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

which shall not pass away,

and his kingdom one

that shall not be destroyed.

 

One cannot look at that reference and not understand that Jesus was claiming Messianic status. In many of the passages from Mark where he used this term, he also claimed special powers or authority that was consistent with Messianic understanding. Mark is believed to be the oldest of the Gospels and it is not generally disputed that the term Son of Man appeared in this Gospel. In 13:26 he makes direct allusion to Daniel in saying that he would come on the clouds. In Mark 14 he tells of his being seated in power, again alluding to Daniel. So, even though the term Messiah is not used in Mark's Gospel, the Son of Man term is just as strong a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another Morsel - "..it is in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus preaches the coming Kingdom of God. This Kingdom of God is not "heaven"--the place you go to when you die (as in later Christian tradition; I'll discuss this further in chapter 7). It is a real kingdom, here on earth, which will be ruled by God through his Messiah, a utopian kingdom where the first will be last and the last first. Only in the last Gospel, John, does Jesus no longer preach that this kingdom is arriving soon. And why is this teaching not in the last of our Gospels? No doubt because the kingdom never did arrive, and the later Gospel writer was forced to reinterpret Jesus' message for his own day. The earliest Gospel traditions, though, portray Jesus' message as about the coming kingdom. In fact, not only is this message generally found in our earlier sources, it is a leading message of our very earliest sources... " - JESUS, INTERRUPTED (pg 157)

 

In this point you are correct, the kingdom will be established in the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21-22) which will be populated by all who trusted in Jesus during this lifetime and by God. There will, however, also be a heaven as well as an earth, not just a new earth.

 

I think you are interpolating in your conclusion of John's Gospel rather than exegeting the text. The Gospels had different audiences and were meant for different purposes which is why they are not carbon copies of the other. John's Gospel is not synoptic in nature as he told the stories in his ordering to make a case for Jesus. Overall though, I would generally agree with the statements above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He also says in Mark 13:32 that no one knows the time of his return, so the term generation must be understood in a wider context than a single human generation. The word had other usages and meanings than that limited understanding.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know! Maybe all the people of that generation are all wandering magical Jews that never die and they're all cursed to walk the Earth until the end of time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LNC said -I have read Misquoting Jesus, but not JI yet; however, I am curious why he says that Jesus didn't refer to himself as Son of Man in Mark when there are fourteen references to that effect in the Gospel. Maybe you can clarify what he means by this assertion.

 

My answer: According to Ehrman he talks about the Son of Man but never claims to be the Son of Man in Mark.

 

LNC said - Second, Ehrman interprets the Gospels, and the whole NT for that matter, through a certain set of presuppositions.

That's funny. Like you guy's don't start with a preconceived idea? Pleeeeeeeease.

 

LNC said - I don't see how he can conclude that Judas is going to be a part of the new kingdom.

Maybe, Jesus didn't know what was going to happen to him. He was human.

 

LNC said - He also says in Mark 13:32 that no one knows the time of his return, so the term generation must be understood in a wider context than a single human generation. The word had other usages and meanings than that limited understanding.

No problem here.

 

LNC said -

Now, when you say that in Mark Jesus was not Messiah that is simply a lack of understanding of the context of the term Son of Man. Take a look at its reference point in Daniel 7.

 

13"I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven

there came one like a son of man,

and he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

14 And to him was given dominion

and glory and a kingdom,

that all peoples, nations, and languages

should serve him;

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

which shall not pass away,

and his kingdom one

that shall not be destroyed.

 

Tradition holds that the Book of Daniel was written by Daniel himself during the Babylonian Exile, in the sixth century BCE. However, the book was written in the third person, and there are some difficulties in accepting Daniel as a first-hand account. The author was clearly uncertain about historical details during the time of the Exile, even confusing Kings Cyrus and Darius, but became more accurate when prophesying events that had apparently not yet happened. It is much more likely that the author lived during the time when his account was historically accurate and was simply relying on unreliable sources for earlier details.

 

The latest attested historical event with which the author of Daniel was familiar was the desecration of the sanctuary in 167 BCE, giving this as the earliest date for the Book of Daniel. He did not mention the joyous occasion of the recovery and rededication of the sanctuary only three years later, suggesting that this had not yet occurred. Many commentators would therefore assume that the Book of Daniel was written sometime between 167 and 164 BCE, soon after the desecration of the sanctuary. Thus we can rule out Daniel as the author of the book of the same name, but can not say with certainty who the real author was, other than to say that he lived during the second century BCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this point you are correct, the kingdom will be established in the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21-22) which will be populated by all who trusted in Jesus during this lifetime and by God. There will, however, also be a heaven as well as an earth, not just a new earth.

 

I think you are interpolating in your conclusion of John's Gospel rather than exegeting the text. The Gospels had different audiences and were meant for different purposes which is why they are not carbon copies of the other. John's Gospel is not synoptic in nature as he told the stories in his ordering to make a case for Jesus. Overall though, I would generally agree with the statements above.

 

You are arguing with Bart Ehrman here. My entire post was in qoutes and written by him. You should buy the book and write him a scathing letter afterword. :grin:

 

I will also say this, LNC, Arguing over the texts of the bible seems completely futile to me. Case in point, there are about a 500 denominations all from the same book. You see it your way and I see it my way. A qoute from Antlerman yesterday stated it best:

"does it make sense to you for religion to criticize science for not interpreting the natural world in terms of angels and demons, miracles, and visions, etc? Is it in anyway a legitimate act for a church to say science is wrong because they don't recognize angels?"

 

Now, what he's saying here is very logical. A story book from 2,000 years ago IS what it IS. You can jump up and down, pretend to heal people, pretend to see, hear or even feel the presence of just about anything. But is it rational? Is it plausible? No - It's wishful thinking. The stories in the bible aren't original and in the words of Bart Ehrman:

In Jesus' day there were lots of people who allegedly performed miracles. There were Jewish holy men such as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the circle drawer. There were pagan holy men such as Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher who could allegedly heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. He was allegedly supernaturally born and at the end of this life he allegedly ascended to heaven. Sound familiar? ...Anyone who is willing to believe in the miracles of Jesus needs to concede the possibility of other people performing miracles, in Jesus' day and in all eras down to the present day and in other religions such as Islam and indigenous religions of Africa and Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will also say this, LNC, Arguing over the texts of the bible seems completely futile to me. Case in point, there are about a 500 denominations all from the same book. You see it your way and I see it my way. A qoute from Antlerman yesterday stated it best:

"does it make sense to you for religion to criticize science for not interpreting the natural world in terms of angels and demons, miracles, and visions, etc? Is it in anyway a legitimate act for a church to say science is wrong because they don't recognize angels?"

 

Now, what he's saying here is very logical. A story book from 2,000 years ago IS what it IS. You can jump up and down, pretend to heal people, pretend to see, hear or even feel the presence of just about anything. But is it rational? Is it plausible? No - It's wishful thinking.

After having now spent many years of sifting through all this I find it like arguing over an interpretation of the color blue. Seriously. I hear this tune in my mind being sung by the voice of Louis Armstrong:

"You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither

Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

 

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto

Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off

 

But oh, if we call the whole thing off Then we must part

And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

 

So if you like pyjamas and I like pyjahmas, I'll wear pyjamas and give up

pyajahmas

 

For we know we need each other so we , Better call the whole off off

Let's call the whole thing off."

 

Arguing that myth is fact and not myth is a lot like arguing over the right way to say tomato, disallowing for any regional differences. So what's so bad about looking at it as myth that you feel a need to argue it's not? Since when does myth have to be "credible" to be "believed"? It's really more a case of preference and relevance as a mythology. That's the real argument.

 

In any case, as a point of study in the evolution of the Christ mythology I'm going to look into what Ehrman brings up about Mark's community not seeing Jesus as the Jewish messiah. It's possible, but part of me doesn't feel confident about that for some reason at this point. It has something to do with the context of the myth within the Markan community. The Gospel of Mark was their origin myth, so would the events of the day which spawned it's creation see them imagining Jesus as himself looking for the messiah? Or does it make more sense that they, in response to the Pharisees and the event of the destruction of the temple imagine the Jesus in their community's origin myth as being the messiah?

 

You certainly see the literary vehicle being used of what is called the "messianic secret" in Mark's myth, where the demons in the first half of the story know the "secret" of Jesus' power and authority, which serves as the basis for his vindication as a martyr being rejected and dying for his truths in the second half of the story. At what point does Ehrman say early Christians began imagining Jesus as the Jewish messiah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither

Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdH2ODFYV5s

 

Such a classic.

 

I will also say this, LNC, Arguing over the texts of the bible seems completely futile to me. Case in point, there are about a 500 denominations all from the same book. You see it your way and I see it my way.

A good chunk of them listed here: Wiki List of Christian denominations

 

But they're all false of course, except the one which LNC belongs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will also say this, LNC, Arguing over the texts of the bible seems completely futile to me. Case in point, there are about a 500 denominations all from the same book. You see it your way and I see it my way.

A good chunk of them listed here: Wiki List of Christian denominations

 

But they're all false of course, except the one which LNC belongs to.

We are fortunate that someone from the right one found us! I think we should just go delete all the other Christians' posts here so we don't get deceived. We need to be more careful about letting the right Christians in here! :HaHa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are fortunate that someone from the right one found us!...

I wonder which one he belongs to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My answer: According to Ehrman he talks about the Son of Man but never claims to be the Son of Man in Mark.

 

However, I gave you many examples of where he did call himself Son of Man in Mark.

 

That's funny. Like you guy's don't start with a preconceived idea? Pleeeeeeeease.

 

The question is not whether a person has presuppositions, but whether those presuppositions are valid and can be backed up. In Ehrman's case, I don't think he does so.

 

Maybe, Jesus didn't know what was going to happen to him. He was human.

 

However, he never clearly said that Judas was going to be a part of the kingdom, so Ehrman is simply making a supposition

 

Tradition holds that the Book of Daniel was written by Daniel himself during the Babylonian Exile, in the sixth century BCE. However, the book was written in the third person, and there are some difficulties in accepting Daniel as a first-hand account. The author was clearly uncertain about historical details during the time of the Exile, even confusing Kings Cyrus and Darius, but became more accurate when prophesying events that had apparently not yet happened. It is much more likely that the author lived during the time when his account was historically accurate and was simply relying on unreliable sources for earlier details.

 

The latest attested historical event with which the author of Daniel was familiar was the desecration of the sanctuary in 167 BCE, giving this as the earliest date for the Book of Daniel. He did not mention the joyous occasion of the recovery and rededication of the sanctuary only three years later, suggesting that this had not yet occurred. Many commentators would therefore assume that the Book of Daniel was written sometime between 167 and 164 BCE, soon after the desecration of the sanctuary. Thus we can rule out Daniel as the author of the book of the same name, but can not say with certainty who the real author was, other than to say that he lived during the second century BCE.

 

The Cyrus/Darius issue is a potential problem; however, I would suggest that we start by giving the benefit of the doubt to Daniel before quickly writing him off from our perspective 2.5 millennium later. Some historians believe that Darius and Cyrus were actually the same person as Kings often assumed multiple names. So, there are potential answers to this issue by respected historians.

 

Second, you assume very liberal dating for Daniel. The best scholarship dates it in the 5th century B.C., not the second as you state. That dating is based upon the fact that Daniel foretells the desecration of the Temple; however, that is a prophetic vision that Daniel has which naturalists chalk up to knowledge of the actually event. This is simply based upon naturalistic presuppostions. So, the fact that Daniel didn't also foretell other events is not problematic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are arguing with Bart Ehrman here. My entire post was in qoutes and written by him. You should buy the book and write him a scathing letter afterword. :grin:
I would love for LNC to email Ehrman and show him the error of his ways and how he's going to hell. You can contact Ehrman from his official site here: http://www.bartdehrman.com/ I had emailed Ehrman myself and I got a very quick response back, so LNC can always email Ehrman himself if he really has the one true way. I'm sure Ehrman would gladly reconvert if he could show him his errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's funny. Like you guy's don't start with a preconceived idea? Pleeeeeeeease.

 

The question is not whether a person has presuppositions, but whether those presuppositions are valid and can be backed up. In Ehrman's case, I don't think he does so.

Then why bring it up? If presupposition is something we all suffer from, and it's not really valid for the discussion, then why even bother pointing that out? Unless your thought at first was that in your opinion Ehrman is influenced more by presupposition than others, and hence would be "less right" than you?

 

Basically you bring it up, then someone respond with a valid remark, and you shoot it down with a counter that it shouldn't be important to discuss. Obviously you thought it was important enough when first mentioned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are arguing with Bart Ehrman here. My entire post was in qoutes and written by him. You should buy the book and write him a scathing letter afterword.

 

I will also say this, LNC, Arguing over the texts of the bible seems completely futile to me. Case in point, there are about a 500 denominations all from the same book. You see it your way and I see it my way. A qoute from Antlerman yesterday stated it best:

"does it make sense to you for religion to criticize science for not interpreting the natural world in terms of angels and demons, miracles, and visions, etc? Is it in anyway a legitimate act for a church to say science is wrong because they don't recognize angels?"

 

Now, what he's saying here is very logical. A story book from 2,000 years ago IS what it IS. You can jump up and down, pretend to heal people, pretend to see, hear or even feel the presence of just about anything. But is it rational? Is it plausible? No - It's wishful thinking. The stories in the bible aren't original and in the words of Bart Ehrman:

In Jesus' day there were lots of people who allegedly performed miracles. There were Jewish holy men such as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the circle drawer. There were pagan holy men such as Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher who could allegedly heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. He was allegedly supernaturally born and at the end of this life he allegedly ascended to heaven. Sound familiar? ...Anyone who is willing to believe in the miracles of Jesus needs to concede the possibility of other people performing miracles, in Jesus' day and in all eras down to the present day and in other religions such as Islam and indigenous religions of Africa and Asia.

 

It is not the first time that I have argued with Ehrman, nor am I the only one who does. Even his own mentor, Bruce Metzger, argues with many of his conclusions. I did a review paper on his Misquoting Jesus and though I found that some of his conclusions were correct, many were very problematic. Ehrman and I also share some commonalities in our backgrounds that I found interesting. If you want a good counterpoint to MJ I recommend NT scholar, Daniel Wallace.

 

The fact that there are many denominations doesn't mean that they all disagree. Sure, many may have minor disagreements, yet most agree on the core elements. However, if disagreement over issues was a way to show that there is no truth there, then many of our scientific theories would be in trouble. Also, I don't subscribe to a religion that criticizes science for not interpreting the world in terms of angels and demons; however, I will criticize scientists like Richard Dawkins for blurring the line between science, philosophy and religion. Dawkins does this as he delves into the fields of philosophy and religion and tries to tackle those ideas using his scientific street cred as a cover. He does neither field any justice and even gets into trouble when he ventures outside of his scientific field of biology into cosmology and physics.

 

Now, regarding Apllonius, I find it interesting that you would bring this up in comparison, but will be glad to consider that with you. Let's compare the historical evidence.

 

Both were supposedly contemporaries of each other according to the history that we have. However, let's look at what we have for history. Jesus: four written accounts of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd hand witnesses, plus other written accounts from first hand witnesses (approximately 3-4 more direct witnesses). Applonius - one account written by some who was neither a direct witness and probably didn't have access to any direct witnesses.

 

Jesus: accounts written from 20-60 years after he died (died 33 A.D., accounts written from 56 to 90 A.D.). Appolonius: account written more than a century later (died approximately 97 A.D., account written approximately 217 A.D.).

 

So, right here we have a problem in that the credibility of the stories of Appolonius would be questionable to any historian, while the accounts of Jesus have, in many cases, a high degree of credibility among scholars. Also, since the accounts of Applonius were written so much later there is a tendency to create legend, whereas the Gospels were written too close to allow legend to develop according to scholars.

 

Why should your unproven presumption of naturalism be more rational than someone who has a presumption of the supernatural? I see no evidence or reason that you give for this, you merely assert it as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus: accounts written from 20-60 years after he died (died 33 A.D., accounts written from 56 to 90 A.D.). Appolonius: account written more than a century later (died approximately 97 A.D., account written approximately 217 A.D.).

I see, so it's the number of years that decides the truthfulness. 20-60 years = true story, and 100 years = false story.

 

Earliest fragment from the Bible, around 120 CE, which is almost 100 years after. The original is estimated to be earlier, but the actual copy is later.

 

p45 - A substantial document purchased by an American business man called Chester Beatty. It was copied between 150 and 250 AD and contains: Matthew chs 20,21,25,26; Mark chs 4-9,11,12; Luke chs 6,7,9-14; John chs 10,11 and Acts chs 4-17.

 

p46 - Another of the Chester Beatty Papyri, this time copied between 90 and 175 AD. It contains: Romans chs 5,6,8-16; the whole of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians chs 1,2,5 and the whole of Hebrews.

 

p66 - This papyrus was bought by Martin Bodmer, another philanthropic businessman. It was copied between 150 and 200 AD and contains the Gospel of John, almost complete.

 

p72 - This is another of the Bodmer papyri. This one was written in the 200's AD and contains 1 and 2 Peter and Jude.

 

p75 - A third Bodmer papyrus, this time written between 175 and 200 AD and containing part of the gospel of Luke (chs 3-18 & 22-24) and John chs 1-5.

Notice, the p45 doesn't contain the Gospels.

 

P52 - is about 125-150 CE.

 

So most of the Gospel copies are 100 years after the story... aha! 100 years = false story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.