Bible Translations -- Opinions & Questions

Originally posted by edsinger
I have read some of berman?s work, he is good, but that still doesn't deny nor change the fact that the New testament is the most documented book from antiquity that we have.....that's fact.

...if the new testament can be considered a BOOK. which it can't. it's actually several books in a compilation

but i need to know what you mean by "most documented" before i can respond further

Actually its a codex of books.

As for the most documented, it has m more manuscripts evidence, not only the vaticanus, sianitic, and Alexandrian codices, but many other one to boot, not including the early church fathers correspondence between themselves.

For an ancient book, it has more evidence to back it up than ANY other ancient work. The New Testament I feel is very well documented for a 'book' of 2000 years.

Actually, more evidence for it exists than for the Koran, which is 600 years NEWER.

Originally posted by edsinger
Actually its a codex of books.

As for the most documented, it has m more manuscripts evidence, not only the vaticanus, sianitic, and Alexandrian codices, but many other one to boot, not including the early church fathers correspondence between themselves.

For an ancient book, it has more evidence to back it up than ANY other ancient work. The New Testament I feel is very well documented for a 'book' of 2000 years.

and yet... not a single shred of evidence can back up the existence of its main character...

Where was this thread when I needed it two months ago?

I got my father a new bible for father's day. He had tried studying the bible with a King James and then a Catholic Bible, but he got frustrated with all the the "thee" and "thou" in the text. So after asking some folks on a previous post, I got him this bible.

So far, my father likes it. It has the standard NIV text along with some maps and profiles. I've been thinking of getting a new bible for myself as well. I lost my student bible when I moved from college. I think the that achelogical bible seems right up my alley.

Originally posted by madnessinmysouland yet... not a single shred of evidence can back up the existence of its main character...

So Josephus means nothing? The other guy whom I can not remember, the Roman historian who tells of this Christos person whom was killed by pilot? Tactnasius or something like that...

That's 2.

Originally posted by Cowboy Clint
I lost my student bible when I moved from college. I think the that achelogical bible seems right up my alley.

You will not regret it, I also like a few more but that is my favorite.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by madnessinmysouland yet... not a single shred of evidence can back up the existence of its main character...

So Josephus means nothing?

there's been recent doubt as to the validity of josephus, so i'll consider that pending... and josephus is still about 30 years after the supposed death of jesus... if it was real he was relying on third hand accounts at best.

The other guy whom I can not remember, the Roman historian who tells of this Christos person whom was killed by pilot? Tactnasius or something like that...

tacticus... one of them. and that was 60+ years after the supposed crucifixion. and one thing you don't seem to grasp is that "christus" means annointed... it's bastardized greek. so tacticus said someone named "annointed" was crucified.... nope, he was using an adjective. so it could be one of the many zealots claiming to be the hebrew messiah at the time... pilat was known for killing those.

christians, those of the annointed.

That's 2.

neither are contemporaries and one gives no name.

[edit on 8/5/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoultacticus... one of them. and that was 60+ years after the supposed crucifixion. and one thing you don't seem to grasp is that "christus" means annointed... it's bastardized greek. so tacticus said someone named "annointed" was crucified.... nope, he was using an adjective. so it could be one of the many zealots claiming to be the hebrew messiah at the time... pilat was known for killing those.

Well you said none, I gave 2, and one of these you leave in limbo..

Historians think one part that talks about Jesus had been added to. With these extra bits taken away they think Josephus wrote:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.

LINK




So lets look at just what was said by the Roman historian...

Tacitus wrote:

"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following."
Annals 15 : 44.

I know you have read them, but for those that have not, I place it for reference.

50 - 100 years after the fact is an issue with you? That would also lead to the opinion that the New Testament writings are false as they also date to after the fact, although some (except Paul in your beliefs from our previous talks) were written by eyewitnesses.

hmmm

Edit ........ one more

Pliny, Roman Governor
Pliny the younger was a Roman Governor in Bithynia (Turkey). He was executing Christians, but there were a lot of them! In 112 CE he wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking what he should do.

"They were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a fixed day. They would recite in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a God, and would bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any criminal act, but rather that they would not commit any fraud, theft or adultery, nor betray any trust nor refuse to restore a deposit on demand. This done, they would disperse, and then they would meet again later to eat together (but the food was quite ordinary and harmless)."

LINK





[edit on 5-8-2007 by edsinger]

ahem, i will have to go to a source far beyond my knowledge of this topic, supermod byrd.

here's a quote from another thread

Originally posted by Byrd
Madnessinmysoul is correct:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Tacitus doesn't reference "jesus" he references "christus"
"christus" is a title, not a name.

...and he's just reporting what he's been told by other sources, some 50 or so years after the presumed death of Jesus.

Josephus has been found to be a forgery

Correct. And the mention of "Chrestus" in Josephus isn't consistant with Jesus (the comment indicates that Chrestus was inciting the Christians (not Jews) to riots and other acts... in Rome, not Israel.
skeptically.org...

Tranquillas only mentions CHRISTIANS, not jesus

it even mentions theActs of Pontius Pilate... which nobody has been able to really verify...

Actually, that's a forgery.

and none of the sources come from before 55 CE

Exactly.

Several things mentioned in the Bible about Jesus' life are demonstratably false:
Herod never enacted a census (Quirnius did, but only for Judaea)
There was no slaughter of infant boys (there are no graveyards full of male toddlers and babies and no Jewish tradition records this slaughter... and believe me, they would have revolted against Rome and the records of this would be very prominent.)
...and so forth:
home.freeuk.net...

Now, to balance things out: the early Christians (300 AD to 500 AD) apparently destroyed sources with negative information about Jesus, which means they MAY have destroyed documents that called him a 'mad prophet' or a 'deranged homelsess street preacher'.

Where would you find such things? There could be (but haven't been reported) references to the negative reports in old letters (Roman, Greece, Israel circa 0 AD to 50 AD) or manuscripts. The best place to look for those is in the trash heaps of the large cities of the time.

The site mentioned above has a much better review of the historical documents than are found on most church websites. Even though the author takes the position that Jesus was not a real person, the texts he mentions are worth a look -- and you can find copies of them to confirm what the author is saying :
home.freeuk.net...

For the skeptics, the above page provides some very strong evidence of "who knew what and when did they know it."

"Josephus has been found to be a forgery" is just an opinion, he is otherwise known as a very accurate Historian. Never heard all his stuff was a forgery.....

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Josephus has been found to be a forgery

Correct. And the mention of "Chrestus" in Josephus isn't consistant with Jesus (the comment indicates that Chrestus was inciting the Christians (not Jews) to riots and other acts... in Rome, not Israel.

"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following."
Annals 15 : 44.

Lets see what was actually said,

The originator of that name, Christus
These Christians, disgraceful though they be, were originated by Christus.

Originated by Christ. the founder of the Cult, whom was executed by Pilate.....Seems straightforward to me..



[edit on 6-8-2007 by edsinger]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but i need to know what you mean by "most documented" before i can respond further

Most documented, as in more ancient manuscripts than any other book of antiquity by a very long shot with those manuscripts dated more closely to the original than many, if not all other books of antiquity.

Until the Dead Sea Scrolls , the documents of the New Testament were at least 700 years older than any of the Old testament.

It is sad that the Jewish scribes destroyed so many but the dead Sea scrolls proved the accuracy of the Masoretic text we have today.

Also the latest finds of Papyrus also proved Westcott and Hort correct about the true Greek versions, although the 'received text' was good it dated to only 1100 AD or so. Now we have some that date to mid to late second century.

Hopefully more will be found yet even older. Textual criticism is a very interesting subject indeed.

edsinger, now you're completely flying in the face of a subject matter expert. byrd explicitly stated that josephus was a forgery, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

And he is wrong if you were to ask most experts, parts of it they think were added after the fact, but most is considered factual and to be honest he was considered a very good historian with good accuracy.

I believe Byrd is wrong on this matter.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
edsinger, now you're completely flying in the face of a subject matter expert. byrd explicitly stated that josephus was a forgery, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Byrd's very educated and she knows a lot, but that doesn't mean she's always right, and it doesn't mean that her interpretation of facts is the only correct interpretation.

I've never even heard that Josephus' writings were fradulant (I have heard that some bits and pieces had been added much later to support some political and religious opinions that were in need of support, but even that was highly questionable as his writings are corroborated by a Roman historian (his name escapes me, not a Christian nor Jew) as well as Luke, another Roman historian, and the Talmud, which is the Jewish oral tradition (written, oddly enough).

I've never heard all of his stuff is a forgery until reading your post.

Originally posted by junglejakeI've never heard all of his stuff is a forgery until reading your post.

Either had I except for the "additions" you and I spoke of.

Originally posted by junglejake
Byrd's very educated and she knows a lot, but that doesn't mean she's always right, and it doesn't mean that her interpretation of facts is the only correct interpretation.

I've never even heard that Josephus' writings were fradulant (I have heard that some bits and pieces had been added much later to support some political and religious opinions that were in need of support, but even that was highly questionable as his writings are corroborated by a Roman historian (his name escapes me, not a Christian nor Jew) as well as Luke, another Roman historian, and the Talmud, which is the Jewish oral tradition (written, oddly enough

).

however, the part about jesus seems to be an INSERTION... take it up with the expert here, this is beyond me.

I've never heard all of his stuff is a forgery until reading your post.

i never said ALL of it was a forgery.... did i? only that part. most of it is spot-on.

She's not participating in the thread, and you've quoted yourself as making the same statement. What backs that up? How does it account for other extrabiblical sources stating the same thing?

Ok then I misunderstood you, that portion has been 'claimed' to be a fabrication. That I will grant you.

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok then I misunderstood you, that portion has been 'claimed' to be a fabrication. That I will grant you.

quite legitimately challenged in fact. tacticus isn't even referencing someone in the palestinian region