Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to MrMacSon,

No, it's not. the key words are "hypothesis/theory".

I do not understand what you want to say.

BTW, the Gnostics had also a Jesus who was physical on earth for a time.

Some may have. Many didn't.

Who were the ones who didn't?

sorry, Bernard, they are poorly argued, and poorly set out.

I thought you implied you did not read that particular webpage about the gospels. If not, how much did you read?

Another key point is that the NT texts are likely edited and redacted many times; in many ways. via transliteration, translation, scribal error, and theological 'licence'.

Yes, I agree, and I spent considerable efforts to check translations and to detect interpolations & editing & some transliteration (from Aramaic to Greek), many of them caused by theological considerations. And I did that with pieces of evidence (usually many of them) in order to back me up.

We are unlikely to know what the original texts were, and when they developed: some may have started BC/BCE

Of course, I do not agree, at least for the main early Christian texts. Can you prove some of these original texts started in BC/BCE?

Cordially, Bernard

I am not really sure that starting a thread with the title 'Another Poster Here at the Forum is Stupid' is the best way to go about having a meaningful dialogue here.

Stephan Huller wrote:I am not really sure that starting a thread with the title 'Another Poster Here at the Forum is Stupid' is the best way to go about having a meaningful dialogue here.

I started this tread in response to a question/challenged Bernard posed, in another thread, about his work about historical jesus on his site, and so as to not hijack that other thread where Bernard posed that question challenge; which is in the OP -

Bernard Muller wrote:... I wonder if my all encompassing website on the matter is visible.
What's wrong with my case? I have the feeling my work is an elephant in the room.
http://historical-jesus.info/
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard

I reject the assertion I have personally attacked Bernard. I appreciate the amount of work he has done. I just don't assess the NT information the way he does, and have said why.

outhouse wrote: I don't know what your personal attack is all about.

But I find his work to be decent, and his hypothesis sound.

It sounds like another case of unsubstantiated mythicist denial, on your part.

As I alluded in my post preceding this one, I don't assess the NT information the way Bernard does and have said why; I have substantiated why I have rejected Bernard's assertions, so your comment, outhouse, is uninformed with regard to my commentary in this thread.

Your assertion I have made personal attacks in unsubstantiated; your charge of a personal attack by me is a strawman fallacy.

There needs to be a better argument about why and how a historical Jesus can be found in the New Testament texts.

It is unlikely to be a sound deductive argument. It may be a cogent inductive argument; it may even be a valid argument.

Using the theologically-infused NT, likely highly-embellished and with multiple-redacted conflated texts, simply begs-the-question.

.
This touches some of the issues of trying to discern NT documents and what we can discern from them -

3. Textual Problems in the Pauline Letters and Determining the Earliest Recoverable Text

"What we read in most English versions of Paul's letters is a translation of
what many scholars believe is the earliest recoverable text of the letters. As I
said at the outset, astute textual critics have acknowledged that the idea of an
"original text" of any of the documents of the New Testament is highly problematic.
They prefer to speak of 'the earliest recoverable text' or the 'initial text'.
The difference is more important than it might seem. Since our earliest manuscripts
of Paul's letters probably come from the third century, the best that textual critics can
do is to try to discern what the text looked like at that point in time. [p94]

p95: ..." the amount of variation preserved in the later manuscripts that we do possess and the comments
of Origen concerning the state of the manuscripts known to him at the end of the second century.

In regard to the gospels, Origen wrote

• "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the
  negligence of some copyist or through the perverse audacity of others;
  they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,
  or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."42 *

42 Commentary on Matthew, book 15, chapter 14. The translation is that of B. M. Metzger in
"Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts",
in J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson, eds., Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), 78-95;
repr. in B. M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 88-103.

* As Metzger discusses (Historical and Literary Studies, 88 n. 2), even this passage of Origen
itself contains textual discrepancies among the Greek and Latin manuscripts in which it is preserved.



Brent Nonbri, Pauline letter Manuscripts
Chapter 4 in All Things to All Cultures": Paul among Jews Greeks and Romans
Edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs
WILLIAM B EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE UK

http://www.academia.edu/5894452/Pauline ... anuscripts

It appears that MrMacSon is of the opinion that the original texts are virtually unknowable, and so one of his objections to Bernard's 'case' is that it is based on an analysis of material that may simply have no historical reliability at all. Correct me if I'm wrong MrMacSon.

I don't know enough to judge this, but will state that I've read most of your website Bernard, and find your reasoning to be a breath of fresh air, logically sound and full of a lot of common sense and interesting and reasonable 'insights' UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that you are adequately recognizing where the texts are reliable and where they are questionable. My 2 cents..

MrMacSon wrote: I don't assess the NT information the way Bernard does


.

And that is your problem.

He is not literal, and he is not attributing everything to be historical.

I may not agree with all he does, but because he follows traditional scholarships, as in there is a night and day difference, due to your lack of education on these topics. It does not give you the right to deride him.

Take a class on the NT or Paul, it will open your eyes to how much is known you have no clue of.


To me, your just showing typical appeal to ignorance.

In regard to the gospels, Origen wrote

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the
negligence of some copyist or through the perverse audacity of others;
they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,
or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."42 *

It is known, and not argued.

But im sure the context your trying to make out of this is night and day compared to what is actually known about many of these minor changes.

In context he Is talking about theological changes, more so then what would apply to historical possibilities. And in context these changes are often as valuable as the original text, as we see how the theology was changing as the movement evolved.

TedM wrote: the opinion that the original texts are virtually unknowable, and so one of his objections to Bernard's 'case' is that it is based on an analysis of material that may simply have no historical reliability at all. ..

That is a good point. There is a gray area here and what is known and guessed at.

By all accounts of plausibility, they are factually not devoid of historical content. There is a spectrum here on both sides that is acceptable.


But when one discounts to much evidence, one is now outside of plausibility. This is where education helps, not always but sometimes, to understand where these boundaries lie.

Actually, I checked for variations between ancient manuscripts before I make a point on a particular phrase or word.
But I went much further than that, by looking for discontinuities or notions conflicting with what the author exposed many times, in order to determine very early interpolations & editing & resequencing, prior to our earliest available manuscripts.
As example, in my website and blog, for many reasons for each of them:
I explained why the "empty tomb" in gMark, 1 Cor 15:3-11, the two bodily reappearances of Jesus in gMatthew, all the bodily reappearances of Jesus in gJohn were added on.
Also, I explained at length that 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians & Philippians were, for each ones, generated by combining three letters (at least).
Also I sorted out about 15-20 interpolations in Paul's deemed authentic seven letters (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians,1 Thessalonians, Galatians & Romans).
Also I indicated where Hebrews & 1 John were interpolated.
Also, I showed that Ascension of Isaiah (including the visions part), as known now, is the result of interpolations of strictly Jewish texts.
The same goes for Revelation (my page on Revelation is the most clicked on among all of my webpages).
Also, I explained the canonical gJohn is the result of a process along many years where an initial early text for added up several times and even reshuffled.
I also flagged at least one case on interpolation on an already interpolated passage.

Of course, deletions are hard to figure out. But two things are certain. GLuke was written with a very incomplete copy of gMark and one letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians is missing.

And that's only about the canonical texts (& AoI).
All I wrote above is justified on my website or/and blog. I would gladly direct on demand anyone to any of these justifications.

Last notes:
1) All these interpolations were made, for the most part, on items which were very important (theologically/christologically). Unfortunately these interpolations are widely used by fundies and mythicists (and others) in order to make their points.
2) Editing & some interpolations in the Pauline epistles looked to have been done to prevent tracking down the history behind these letters and to homogenize Paul's teachings, therefore hiding the evolution of his theology & christology.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Actually, I checked for variations between ancient manuscripts before I make a point on a particular phrase or word.
But I went much further than that, by looking for discontinuities or notions conflicting with what the author exposed many times, in order to determine very early interpolations & editing & resequencing, prior to our earliest available manuscripts.

That sounds interesting. As does specifics you mention -

Bernard Muller wrote:As example, in my website and blog, for many reasons for each of them:
I explained why the "empty tomb" in gMark, 1 Cor 15:3-11, the two bodily reappearances of Jesus in gMatthew, all the bodily reappearances of Jesus in gJohn were added on.
Also, I explained at length that 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians & Philippians were, for each ones, generated by combining three letters (at least).
Also I sorted out about 15-20 interpolations in Paul's deemed authentic seven letters (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians,1 Thessalonians, Galatians & Romans).
Also I indicated where Hebrews & 1 John were interpolated.
Also, I showed that Ascension of Isaiah (including the visions part), as known now, is the result of interpolations of strictly Jewish texts.
The same goes for Revelation (my page on Revelation is the most clicked on among all of my webpages).

Please clarify this

Bernard Muller wrote:Of course, deletions are hard to figure out.

But two things are certain. GLuke was written with a very incomplete copy of gMark and one letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians is missing.

Yes, there are like lots of deletions, especially if there were multiple editings, as Nongbri indicates

I think the point here - about editing to prevent tracking - is interesting