Current Biblical Archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:07 pm

well i see minmalist is busy so i will try to do some research and find something controversial to present for discussion.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:23 pm

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:48 pm

though it would solidfy the gospels more, they don't need it.

LOL. Compared to the gospels, the OT is an impeccable work of history...and that has about a thimbleful of actual fact to it!

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:53 pm

Doc, it's still my impression that they are comparing copies of documents, not original manuscripts. If these copies were written out a century or two later who can say what mischief may have been undertaken along the way? You can have the finest scholarship in the world but if the original material is dubious what does it really prove.

If I'm incorrrect in this, and they are working from documents in Paul's own hand, please say so.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:53 pm

archaeologist wrote:well i see minmalist is busy so i will try to do some research and find something controversial to present for discussion.

Why don't you come up with a few more circumcised centurions for a start?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:49 pm

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:25 pm

Not necessarily "evil shenanigans"....no more so than any of the gospels, which are fictitious accounts also.

I don't get why you are so convinced that Paul is genuine (or, at least the copies of his letters are genuine) and this other stuff is a crock of shit.

To my mind, it's all a crock of shit.

john · Post by **john** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:35 pm

the fun begins -

min, you are right on target, having identified the doppleganger effect of "copies of copies".

the most likely conclusion is that both the original statement - if indeed it ever existed - and its intent, have been lost forever.

furthermore, i am not aware of any evidence that greek, spoken and/or written, was either the native tongue or the lingua franca of the israelites.

we can analyze the physical age of the scrolls by any number of ways.

however, choosing one textual variant over another as "true" might be compared to readers 2000 years from now choosing which post, among all the authors on this thread, is "true".

"when adam delved

and eve spanned

who was then the better man?"

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:44 pm

furthermore, i am not aware of any evidence that greek, spoken and/or written, was either the native tongue or the lingua franca of the israelites.

I don't know if Doc will agree with this or not, but, the above is almost irrelevant. Early christianity seems to have been a widespread phenomenon with different aspects emphasized by different groups. Thus, while the Jerusalem group may have pushed for acceptance among Jews, it seems that Saul/Paul was mainly working among gentile populations elsewhere in Asia Minor and Greece. Given the realities of the 4th century BC Hellenization of the area under Alexander and the later maintenance of the empire by his generals, I have no problem with the idea that Greek was the primary language in those areas. Even Jerusalem was dominated by Greek-based governments for centuries so at least the elite should have had an understanding of Greek. It is also true that the Roman nobility spoke Greek so they would have merely continued the trend.

Christianity, though, unlike Mithraism, was open to women and slaves and in that it was unique and one would expect that the common tongue of Aramaic would have been used extensively.

Let's let Doc weigh in with a few words of Greek.

john · Post by **john** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:09 pm

greek may have been the uber-language, but i doubt it was street language, and doubt ever further that it was the language of the countryside.

and w/reference to doc's "evil shenanigans",

i could add considerably to the pauline library, by referring to some obscure texts which just happen to be in my possession, and

two millennia from now, those obscure texts having passed into physical nonentity, but my transliterations still extant, how are the latter day scholars to know?

bob's your mum.

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:28 pm

greek may have been the uber-language, but i doubt it was street language, and doubt ever further that it was the language of the countryside.

That's what I'm saying.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:29 pm

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:31 pm

Found a great map while surfing around.....demonstrates the extent of the Egyptian Empire during the so-called biblical period.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:32 pm

but it does not change the fact that some guy wrote it.

Some guy wrote Humpty Dumpty, too. So what?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:49 pm