'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Thursday, November 30, 2006 23:02
VIEWED: 13388
PAGE 7 of 10
Cartoon- I'm fascinated that you say you have an intepretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially since the Israeli Antiquities Authority sat on the scrolls for 40 years, dribbling out translations at such a miserly rate that the Huntington Library finally made photographic records freely available in late 1991 out of sheer scholarly frustration. The translation is not YET complete, and there is no consensus on the translated portions. Here are some interesting quotes from someone who appears to have a historic- as opposed to relgious- interest in their content:
"The early editors (IAA) certainly appeared to be participating in an attempt to control the interpretation of the scrolls by limiting access to the evidence. This type of behavior has a foul reek even if the excuses used to explain it away may have some merit. Only small minds think they can get away with such a small-minded exercise."
"The diversity of the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls is somewhat surprising considering the impressions one gets from the early publications. If one small sect in the desert could hold such a diversity of incompatible views about itself, its God, its raison d'etre, its neighbors, and its enemies, then I will be flabbergasted. There is more going on than anyone has suspected and it looks as though it might take decades more to figure out, if we ever can, what it was."
"One tidbit that I find very revealing is that no two copies are alike. These people had, it seems, an opinion very different from that held by many modern religious authorities about the immutability of the biblical texts; even those with centuries of tradition already behind them, such as the Book of Isaiah. It might be concluded that each scribe considered it his duty to "improve", clarify or "correct" each text he copied. That gives me the impression of a rather more flexible religious canon during the intertestamental period."
http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm
In the meantime, other authenticated versions of that time, including the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas, appear to contradict the canonical version of the New Testament.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cartoon- I'm fascinated that you say you have an intepretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially since the Israeli Antiquities Authority sat on the scrolls for 40 years, dribbling out translations at such a miserly rate that the Huntington Library finally made photographic records freely available in late 1991 out of sheer scholarly frustration.
Sure.
Yes, I just purchased it this past summer. It's not "complete", in that it does not have a translation of the non-biblical scrolls. However, it contains a full translation of all of the biblical scrolls translated to date. It also footnotes where there are variations among the different scrolls. I found it extremely fascinating.
It is The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich. Published by Harper, San Francisco. First edition (1999). It is 659 pages in length.
It includes translations of the various scrolls of nearly every book in the Hebrew Bible (as translated thus far), and even compares the descrepencies (footnoted) against the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch.
It also footnotes descrepencies among the various scrolls of the same text, etc. (which, as I stated previously, is minor and rare).
The most frustrating thing about the whole book is that some of the books of the Old Testament are extremely fragmentary -- in some cases, merely a few paragraphs. Fortunately, in other cases, they've translated near-complete books (like Isaiah). Other books which they have large portions from are Genesis, Psalms, and Deuteronomy.
Also, when I was deciding whether to purchase this or not, there was another similiar volume by other editors -- so, apparently, this isn't the only one available.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: Regarding the quote of your source as saying "no two copies are the same", I'm assuming he means the "commentary" scrolls. The commentary scrolls are not part of this volume, although this volume alludes to them. Apparently, there were myriads of "commentary" scrolls, where the Essene community wrote their opinions on the scriptures (much as we have people who write commentaries on the Bible, today).
The quote doesn't (as far as I can see) apply to the actual scriptural scrolls, as the volume I possess has footnotes related the few descrepencies which exist among the scrolls, themselves. As stated previously, probably 99.9% of them fall into the category of tense/gender, different word with same meaning, or a miscopied phrase or sentence in a different place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was an interesting text of the NT that used to be called "what Jesus really said". It's still available, but under a new name which I don't remember. What the scholars did was remove all a-historical writings (the sermon on the mount was one), later additions etc. Then they printed the NT where the invalid stuff was in black and the rest was in red. More than 90% of the NT got screened out as not being contemporaneous with the time of Jesus.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Of course there's scholarship disputing that Jesus even existed. There's very little scholarship that supports that He did.
Wow. I’ll be honest, and admit that you’ve caught me by surprise with this move HK. After vehemently backing up the claim that Jesus was a homosexual, I never saw it coming that you would then argue the case that Jesus never existed. Perhaps you believe both points are true?
No, *sigh*, I don’t think you agree with either one - you’re just being contrary. That, and picking a fight on a subject where you are very learned, but one which I’m not really interested in debating, I’m afraid.
Out of all this your approach to history comes across as: ‘Don’t worry about what actually took place; everyone make a case for whatever you want to believe – then feel free to try and propagate that belief.’
Which I find disappointing.
Quote:
Like, maybe that that person is an individualist? Most professors that have any expertise in their field have heterodox opinions. You seem to have a pretty Soviet notion of what should be taught in college, kpo.
History is to some an extent an exact science, in that some things happened and some things didn’t (interpretation of historical events and their causes etc is another matter). I would prefer that exact sciences be taught just that way – exact, or as accurate as our limited evidence allows us. For all your tolerance of different views, I suspect that creationism is one academically heterodox view that you wouldn’t be able to stomach in a physics professor’s lecture. Wouldn’t you suppose that that professor had some bias that was influencing him, and be upset about it? Well that’s what’s I’m saying in the case of the professor with the spurious view that Jesus was a homosexual – he has an anti-christian bias.
Quote:
And lumping early church scholarship which does not support one's religious beliefs with Holocaust deniers is pretty inflammatory itself, kpo.
Yeah, that’s right, you be outraged. Your approach up till now has been to defend any spurious, inflammatory opinion, saying; ‘Ah, but there’s scholarship!’ and then telling us about the scholarship. But I touch on an opinion that is so spurious and so inflammatory that you can’t comfortably defend it, and then you do an about turn, do the politically correct thing and show contempt for this view, and act outraged that I use such an extreme example to make my point very clear. Nice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand HK's point to be that if you look at the bible, you could make a case for all sorts of things. And that is why one shouldn't take the bible literally, either as moral compass or as 'historical document' (think Galaxy Quest).
I don't think we could even accurately describe one day, let alone a 3000 year empire. Since history is an overwhelming amount of fact, the picking and choosing becomes paramount. So even history is subjective rather than exact.
Creationism - a system of belief not subject to testing or revision - as science ? That's an old discussion on this board, but I think you'll find that most people think it's OK to teach creationism - in say a comparative myths class - as long as it's not taught as a science.
I have more to say, but just don't have the time ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There was an interesting text of the NT that used to be called "what Jesus really said". It's still available, but under a new name which I don't remember. What the scholars did was remove all a-historical writings (the sermon on the mount was one), later additions etc. Then they printed the NT where the invalid stuff was in black and the rest was in red. More than 90% of the NT got screened out as not being contemporaneous with the time of Jesus.
Yes, I'm actually familiar with it, Rue.
Most (if not all) conservative, biblical scholars consider it hogwash. According to the standards they used to tear into the New Testament, there isn't a single ancient document which would hold up as authentic.The best thing the New Testament has going for it is the closeness of the dates of authorship to the earliest surviving manuscripts. Nothing else in antiquity comes close the amount of early surviving manuscripts -- period, much the less the degree of closeness (in some cases, nearly only a century after the period of authorship).
To utilize my previous example about the earliest biographies of Alexander, they were authored more than 4 centuries after Alexander's death. The New Testament was written within decades (approximately 3 to 7) after Christ's crucifixion, and we have surviving manuscripts of various parts of it dating from barely a century after they were written.
One thing I also like to point out when discussing New Testament manuscript authencity is the fact that the Apostle John lived at least until the year 100 AD. By most contemporary accounts, he lived a few years beyond that, into the first decade of the second century.
John, who walked with the Lord, would've certainly been acquainted with all of the New Testament documents -- those by the other Apostles: Matthew & Peter; those by the Apostle Paul; those by the Lord's brothers: James & Jude; as well as Luke's two volumes; and Mark's gospel (as told by Peter). (The author of Hebrews is much debated, but I'm sure John would've been familiar with that, as well.)
How can I be sure that John would've been familiar with all of these books? Well, for one thing, because John was a circuit preacher, who travelled practically everywhere between Rome and Jerusalem. All of these books were also circulated from one group of believers to another, and much copied in the process. These house-churches would have had their copies (of whatever they were priviledged to have acquired) while John was there among them.
Imagine you are the member of a local house-church (and that's what they all were until early in the 4th century, when the government-sponsored persecutions of believers was stopped by Constantine).
Now, imagine that the Apostle John stops by your assembly of local believers. This is one of the guys who actually walked and studied with the Lord. You know the first words out of your mouths are going to be -- "Was it true? Did this happen this way, or not?"
Aside from that, even more compellingly, some of the books of the New Testament even refer to other books from the New Testament. (And again, in the event that someone missed it in my previous post, the New Testament is a compilation of multiple books by multiple authors. So, if various books within the compilation agree with other books within the compilation, it's not like having Shakespeare merely agreeing to something else Shakespeare said. It's like having Dickens agree to what Shakespeare said, and then Stevenson agreeing to what Dickens said.)
One example of this is found in I Timothy 5:18, where the Apostle Paul quotes from Luke's gospel, and calls it "Scripture".
Another example can be found in II Peter 3:15, where the Apostle Peter makes reference to the writings of the Apostle Paul as written "with the wisdom that God gave him" (NIV)("God" is actually implied, not explicit in the Greek), and in verse sixteen, equates these writings of Paul's ("all of his epistles") with "Sc
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder who authored your translation? Apparently not much is available on-line, but according to what I found, the translation was tightly controlled by a very small group of people until 1991. This group of people (IAA) prohibits access to actual scrolls and the non-documentary artifacts found with the scrolls that would authenticate the provenance and findings.
For example, I saw a show about a religious text (I think it was a portion of Bible but I can't remember for sure) that had been written on vellum that had been scraped of it's previous writings. By UV(?) analysis the previous writings could be made out, as I recall they were somewhat heretical and were literally erased from existance.
Also, there is a difference between being able to trace a writing backwards as opposed to forwards. There were MANY contrary writings that were eliminated from official Church history, such as Thomas and Judas which were elided over time.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I wonder who authored your translation?
If you mean the book I have with a translation of the biblical scrolls, I mentioned that above: The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich. Published by Harper, San Francisco. First edition (1999). It is 659 pages in length.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, there is a difference between being able to trace a writing backwards as opposed to forwards.
Yes, but we don't need to trace textual history backwards if we're making our current translations from the oldest copies still in existence, right? Or am I missing something? (I'm not asking sarcastically, but genuinely, in the event that I've misread what you're saying. I've already misread one poster on this subject, so I'm already over my quota for allowable blunders per thread.)
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There were MANY contrary writings that were eliminated from official Church history, such as Thomas and Judas which were elided over time.
I can only state the criteria by which the early church determined which books were authentic.
Firstly, regarding the Old Testament, that was decided easily enough. They just chose to follow the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible -- although, they rearranged the order in which the books were presented. Why they rearranged the order, I have no clue. My personal preference is that they should've left the Old Testament in the original Hebrew order (not that the order in which the books are read should make any difference).
Regarding the New Testament, the first and foremost criteria for inclusion into the canon of Scripture was that the book had to have been of accepted apostolic authorship -- or accepted authorship of someone very closely associated with the apostles -- such as Luke (who was associated with Paul) or Mark (who was associated with Peter), as well as the Lord's brothers, James & Jude (who were both affiliated with the apostles; Paul even refers to James as one of the "pillars" of the church) -- but, which contained an internal consistency of message.
The only books in today's New Testament which were ever considered "dubious" by any of the pre-Nicean church fathers were James, II Peter, II John, III John, and Jude. And the only conservatively-orthodox, pre-Nicean church fathers to question their possible authenticity were the later Pre-Nicean church fathers, such as Origen (185-254) and Eusebius (260-340). The earliest church fathers, including Ignatius & Polycarp (both born near the end of the first century; and Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John), Iranaeus (120/140-200/203)(who was a student of Polycarp) and Clement (150-215) cast no doubts (at least none that have survived in their writings) about any of these books found to be "dubious" by Origen & Eusebius.
We also have surviving quotes from either Ignatius or Polycarp from three of the gospels, Acts, Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Hebrews, I Peter, I & III John. Iranaeus quotes (or alludes to) passages from everything in the New Testament except Philemon, II Peter, III John & Jude.
Curiously, none of these early church fathers recognized any of the "disputed" texts which were not included in the canon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I understand HK's point to be that if you look at the bible, you could make a case for all sorts of things. And that is why one shouldn't take the bible literally, either as moral compass or as 'historical document' (think Galaxy Quest)
this is interesting... if the bible isnt to be taken as a moral compass, presumably because you disagree with it... then what determines your moral compass? what is this universal standard that youve tapped into? if their truly is no God, and we are just a variation of animal, than what is morality and what makes it emperical?
i wasnt present 2000yrs ago when Jesus initiated the greatest following ever... so barring first hand experience, im willing to take into consideration the accounts of Jesus' apostles, who were all brutally murdered for their first hand witness and testimony to Jesus' deity and ressurection. if Jesus' wasnt God, how did he survive his torture and suspension on the cross, only to be witnessed fully healed 3 days later?
you can say.. 'well, thats what the bible says happened, but its been interpolated'.. but then it needs to be explained why this person named Jesus' was so highly esteemed that people gave their lives for his cause. it doesnt seem logical to me that whole masses of people would voluntarily be persecuted for what they saw and testified to, if they didnt asbolutely believe it to be true... since i doubt someone would prefer death to submission, over events they werent convinced really happened anyways; that seems far fetched.
where is the evidence that refutes the biblical accounts ... ive heard that Jesus' was permanantly killed, never killed, never performed miracles, or never even existed; but the burden of proof is on the skeptics to provide an alternative version of history that can adjust all the variables that Jesus' presence created. considering, again, that we werent there... isnt that something we in the 21st century ought to be a little more reserved speculating about, if all of this documentation is incredulous to begin with?
nevermind the hypocracy and double standard of you all in the secular world; go dig up the sources that we used for information on Caeser and some other philosophers of antiquety and youll find that we based those 'facts' on a lot less recorded data, with even greater gaps between the occurance of events and their recording.. then we did with Jesus and his gospels. but i guess in this case, those sources and 'facts' are so much more credible than ours
Quote:
Creationism - a system of belief not subject to testing or revision - as science ? That's an old discussion on this board, but I think you'll find that most people think it's OK to teach creationism - in say a comparative myths class - as long as it's not taught as a science.
like evolution is science? prove to me that 'BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO'.. or an incomprehendable amount of time removed from us, when no one was present as witness, all the matter in the universe came from nowhere, and eventually, hundreds of millions of years since, mankinds earliest ancestor, the rock, goes from lifeless inadamacy to an organic lifeforce by its own volition! evolution says the rock chose to come alive, therefore the rock must be its own 'god', since it gave life to itself. evolution goes further, saying mankind makes continuous changes to himself genetically, over time, so that one day we may become a bird or a sea serpent. in other words the progenitor and common denominator of all life on earth- the rock, symbolizes in itself the divinity in mankind to be the God of himself
you may not recognize this concept from the bible.. but its the very same proposition Satan made to Eve in the garden of Eden, when he lied and said "you shall be as Gods"...
do i need to point out the destruction this
concept causes to the human psyche? evolution promotes a worldview and idealogy that allows the conscience to conform to its own discretions, with no universal laws, and an underlying premise t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im willing to take into consideration the accounts of Jesus' apostles, who were all brutally murdered for their first hand witness and testimony to Jesus' deity and ressurection.
Well, not quite John -- at least not as far as we know. But, yes, the other ten (plus Paul) were all murdered for their faith.
John came close a few times. According to Shaff's "History of Christianity", John was supposedly in Rome when Peter was executed and then when the city was set aflame by Nero. Apparently at that time, John was also designated for execution, but miraculously escaped the city.
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
you can say.. 'well, thats what the bible says happened, but its been interpolated'.. but then it needs to be explained why this person named Jesus' was so highly esteemed that people gave their lives for his cause. it doesnt seem logical to me that whole masses of people would voluntarily be persecuted for what they saw and testified to, if they didnt asbolutely believe it to be true... since i doubt someone would prefer death to submission, over events they werent convinced really happened anyways; that seems far fetched.
Exactly.
As Strobel points out in his book, people will willingly die for something which they believe to be true (but in actuality isn't), but that no one would likely be willing to die for a lie which they knew to be a lie. As you correctly stated, the Apostles all claimed to have seen Jesus raised from the dead. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, they would've been lying, and known they were lying. It's highly unlikely they would've allowed themselves to be gruesomely murdered (and in many cases, hideously tortured prior to their murders) for maintaining what they knew to be a lie.
Another point of noting is how these Apostles changed -- practically overnight. By their own admissions, when Jesus was crucified, all of the apostles but John were cowering in the shadows, behind locked doors.
Three days later, after seeing the risen Lord, they're suddenly enboldened. A few weeks later (after Jesus's ascension), they're proclaiming the risen Savior publically in the streets. They're threatened by the local officials with imprisonment and death, then beaten, and what do they do? They go right back out into the street and continue proclaiming the risen Savior.
Subsequently (a decade or so later), there's this guy from the Sanhedrian who relished persecuting these "believers in Christ" (delivering them over to be killed). One day he is on his way to arrest more Christians in another town (Damascus), when Jesus appears to him, and promptly instructs him to get his act together and stop persecuting Him (notice that Jesus equated the persecution of His followers with a persecution of Himself).
Before you know it, this former Sanhedrian hitman who hated believers in Christ, is the most vocal proponent of Christ -- the Apostle Paul -- who eventually wound up martyred for the Lord he had previously persecuted with a fury.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME