Warrior General Games

Originally posted by fletch03
Originally posted by DubsOnD

Just a quick question, how do we know that ANYTHING in our history books is correct or a 'direct personal observation'? I mean believing anything in a history book of any kind about ANYTHING is an act of faith. In fact believing anything that you didn't personally observe is an act of faith, and even when you see something personally there is always the chance that it wasn't what you thought it appeared to be.

History is written by the victors of wars. Much in our history books isn't necessarily false, but they don't show both points of view or both sides of the story. A good example of this is the Civil War.

It doesn't even need to be history, tonight when you turn on the news, many take it as 'Gospel' truth (pun fully intended) but to do that is an act of faith. In other words you pick and choose what you believe to be true.

Originally posted by Doug_Plank
Originally posted by fletch03



Well, actually we aren't exactly sure when they were written either. There are estimates that 2 of the books were written right after the death, but there are estimates that they were written 40-70 years later as well. But if we go with the traditional view of the authors, then we can assume that 2 of the books were first hand accounts.


At this point, argumentativeness is giving way to curiosity, since you clearly seem to know more about this subject than the others who have posted.

Q: Who has the "oldest known book of gospels"? literally, like in their possession right now - and when was it 'dated' -- im assuming it has been carbon -dated



Without doing any research I believe it dates to the 3rd century. I do not know who has it in their possession, but if I were to guess I would say the vatican.

Originally posted by robelder


Good post, thanks for responding.

I will agree to disagree on these reasons, but i see where you are coming from:
These books were actually letters and they were titled by their name often. It was a culture thing that is different from today.
These men did exist and may have used a Q document, but they were actually there when the events happened so whether they used quotes or not to reference, what they said about Jesus they stood behind as being witnesses of these events. Reliability could be an issue but it is a first hand account. It is their "testimony" of events that happened.

But like I said, I see where you are coming from.


If we go off the traditional view, 2 of the books can be considered first hand accounts (Mathew and John). The other 2 would be second hand accounts. Historians believe that they were written for the different cultures (Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc.) at the time which is why there are four and why much of the same information is in all of them.

Originally posted by fletch03
Historians believe that they were written for the different cultures (Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc.) at the time which is why there are four and why much of the same information is in all of them.


What exactly does that mean? Does that mean each of the four was written in a different language?? Or that they catered (ie changed) the parables to make more sense to the demographics of their respective audiences

I also would not like to 'rely on the traditional view'.. if the earliest actual evidence we have is from the 3rd century...... since that is not very scientific. i won't argue someone's faith, as that is impossible and silly to argue.. but I would be hesitant to 'rely on the traditional view' because again, there simply is not the hard evidence and even from speaking to my uncle (who is a deacon) I was under the impression (which could easily be wrong) that the books were not known to be written until well after JC's passing

Originally posted by Doug_Plank


What exactly does that mean? Does that mean each of the four was written in a different language?? Or that they catered (ie changed) the parables to make more sense to the demographics of their respective audiences

I also would not like to rely on the traditional view.. if the earliest actual evidence we have is from the 3rd century...... since that is not very scientific

The version from the 3rd century, this was written in Greek?

It is thought that all 4 books were originally written in Greek.

However the early church fathers believe the book of Matthew was written in aramaic. The book of Matthew is considered to be written to the Jews because it quotes a lot of the Old Testament, uses Jewish terminology, and traces the lineage of Jesus back to Abraham.

Mark was written in greek and is thought to be written for the gentiles as he describes jewish customs and aramaic words, that would not be needed if it was meant for the Jews.

As far as the version from the 3rd century, i do not know, I would have to do some research.

alright man.. even just reading wiki stuff it's clear that nobody really knows who wrote what...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

"The synoptic problem
Two parallel passages from Matthew and Luke. Identical wording is rendered in red.[3]
Main article: Synoptic problem

The relationships between the three synoptic gospels go beyond mere similarity in viewpoint. The gospels often recount the same stories, usually in the same exact order, sometimes using the same exact words. Some sections are repeated nearly verbatim.

Scholars note that the similarities between Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be accounted for by mere coincidence.[4] Since multiple eyewitnesses reporting the same events will never relate a story using exactly the same word-for-word recounting, scholars and theologians have long assumed that there was some literary relationship between the three synoptic gospels.

The precise nature of the relationships between the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke is known as the Synoptic Problem. The recognition of the question, and attempts to resolve it, date to antiquity. For example, Augustine of Hippo, a 5th-century bishop, tried to explain the relationships between the synoptic gospels by proposing that perhaps Matthew was written first, then Mark was written using Matthew as a source, and finally Luke was written using Matthew and Mark as sources. Although this specific solution has fallen out of favor with modern scholars, it represents one of the earliest and most influential proposed solutions to the synoptic problem.

[edit] Markan priority and the Triple Tradition
Markan priority hypothesizes Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke.
Main article: Markan priority

One of the first steps towards the solution of the synoptic problem was to note that Mark appeared to be the earliest of the four canonical gospels.

*****Several lines of evidence suggest that this is so. Mark is the shortest of the gospels – suggesting that the longer gospels took Mark as a source and added additional material to it (as opposed to Mark taking longer gospels but deleting substantial chunks of material). Mark's use of diction and grammar is less sophisticated than that found in Matthew and Luke – suggesting that Matthew and Luke "cleaned up" Mark's wording (as opposed to Mark intentionally "dumbing down" more sophisticated use of language). Mark regularly included Aramaic quotes (translating them into Greek), whereas Matthew and Luke do not********

For these reasons and others, most scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the Gospels Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source. If Markan priority is correct, the triple tradition would be explained as those parts of Mark which both Matthew and Luke chose to copy.

[edit] The two-source hypothesis and the double tradition
Main article: Two-source hypothesis
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second document called "Q" as a source.

Markan priority, while explaining most of the similarities between the three synoptic gospels, is unable to provide a complete solution to the synoptic problem. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have much material in common. While most of that material appears to have been copied from The Gospel of Mark, some of the material common to Matthew and Luke is not found in Mark.

This material (collectively known as the "double tradition") is often presented in both Matthew and Luke using very similar wording, and often presented in the same order. Since this material is absent from Mark, the use of Mark as a source cannot explain how the same stories, using the same words, came to be found in both Matthew and Luke.

Some scholars therefore suggest that in addition to using Mark as a source, Matthew and Luke may have both had access to some second source, which they both independently used in the creation of their gospels-- hence the name "two-source hypothesis". This hypothetical second source is referred to as Q (from the German "Quelle" meaning "source").

The two source hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted solution to the synoptic problem."


you know what this all boils down to? Again.. there is NO HISTORICAL CONSENSUS as to what the FIRSTHAND INFO about JC was.

Originally posted by DubsOnD
Originally posted by fletch03


Just a quick question, how do we know that ANYTHING in our history books is correct or a 'direct personal observation'? I mean believing anything in a history book of any kind about ANYTHING is an act of faith. In fact believing anything that you didn't personally observe is an act of faith, and even when you see something personally there is always the chance that it wasn't what you thought it appeared to be.

History is written by the victors of wars. Much in our history books isn't necessarily false, but they don't show both points of view or both sides of the story. A good example of this is the Civil War.

A better example of this is Christopher Colombus. There weren't any chapters in my history books about all the natives his people killed.

And as it is with much of history, there will never be a historical consensus. But there are many more scholars, historians, archaeologists that go with the traditional view. That is why they call it faith

Originally posted by Punk Rock Jocks
Originally posted by DubsOnD

Originally posted by fletch03



Just a quick question, how do we know that ANYTHING in our history books is correct or a 'direct personal observation'? I mean believing anything in a history book of any kind about ANYTHING is an act of faith. In fact believing anything that you didn't personally observe is an act of faith, and even when you see something personally there is always the chance that it wasn't what you thought it appeared to be.

History is written by the victors of wars. Much in our history books isn't necessarily false, but they don't show both points of view or both sides of the story. A good example of this is the Civil War.

A better example of this is Christopher Colombus. There weren't any chapters in my history books about all the natives his people killed.

And you probably didn't read that he might not have been the first to the new land.

But the civil war is closer in our time period than Columbus and has a definite one sided account in our history books. You don't read in the history books in middle school that the war wasn't about slavery. You also don't read that there were many black slave owners. Instead you read about how the south owned slaves and the north didn't want them to have slaves so there was a war. Or something to that extent.

Oh and I can't wait for preseason to start so we can talk about how the Sumatra Sting is the best team in the league instead of the gospels and civil war.

have you guys read any of Jared Diamond's books? Ie Collapse or Guns, Germs and Steel

Great books, imo. And yes, viking remnants dating back well before Columbus have been found in the 'New World'. http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/vinland.html

in Collapse, the author notes the first ever written Viking records of encounters with native peoples (inuits/eskimos in 'Greenland') -- something to the effect of 'very fat, bleed alot. Found 9 of them 1 escaped'.... so one attacked/bleeding native gets away from these scary murderous freaks......and from that point on the natives never... ever.. helped the Norse settlers in Greenland, which in turn helped kill those settlements during a particularly harsh winter. Aaand the fact that the vikings in Greenland didn't eat fish, due to it being taboo (Eric the Red's grandson got sick on it and the settlers never ate it from then on out -- like East Indians and Cows.. and Americans and dogs... it was just 'taboo'). The natives were adept at hunting different types of seals (which required different weapons and boats).. whereas the Vikings relied on one type that was particulary hard to hunt when the fjords froze and pushed them farther away. If the Vikes had made peace with the natives(like the Dutch did later..... who knows what "history" would be today) Anyway.. good book

Well after a little research, it looks like the oldest known fragment of the gospels dates to 175 AD. The oldest known complete gospels dates to the 4th century in which the Vatican has. An interesting read:


Originally posted by
"The Bodmer Papyrus, dated around the year 175, is the oldest extant copy of parts of the Gospels of John and Luke. Discovered in Egypt in the early 1950s, the papyrus influenced the course of biblical scholarship. When scholars saw such remarkable agreement between the texts, they had to acknowledge that the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete version of the Gospel, was indeed authentic.
The papyrus came into the hands of Frank Hanna III, a businessman from Atlanta, Georgia. Through what Hanna called a convoluted but remarkable series of events, he
Page 5 of 16
was able to purchase the papyrus before it was auctioned, and present it in January to the Holy Father as a gift for the Church.
The Bodmer Papyrus is tangible evidence that the Gospel that circulated among the early Christian communities was set down well before the fourth century and handed down in the form we now know.
In short, Hanna said, "this papyrus helps us authenticate our Christian Bible. So we have the Church itself built over the bones of Peter, and then we have right next door in the Vatican Library an early text of the Word of God, which authenticates what we have always known to be true." Moreover, it is one of the earliest known codices, or bound volumes, and is believed to have been used for liturgy, giving Catholics another concrete connection to the early Church."

http://www.stmaryswestmelbourne.org/smis/Download%20May%2007.pdf?35236cc6bf29f2c412cf87e5b6c72063=4e5118ef17a291913e51ad1422466f9c

Can I get an Amen.......?

Originally posted by fletch03
Well after a little research, it looks like the oldest known fragment of the gospels dates to 175 AD. The oldest known complete gospels dates to the 4th century in which the Vatican has. An interesting read:


Originally posted by

"The Bodmer Papyrus, dated around the year 175, is the oldest extant copy of parts of the Gospels of John and Luke. Discovered in Egypt in the early 1950s, the papyrus influenced the course of biblical scholarship. When scholars saw such remarkable agreement between the texts, they had to acknowledge that the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete version of the Gospel, was indeed authentic.
The papyrus came into the hands of Frank Hanna III, a businessman from Atlanta, Georgia. Through what Hanna called a convoluted but remarkable series of events, he
Page 5 of 16
was able to purchase the papyrus before it was auctioned, and present it in January to the Holy Father as a gift for the Church.
The Bodmer Papyrus is tangible evidence that the Gospel that circulated among the early Christian communities was set down well before the fourth century and handed down in the form we now know.
In short, Hanna said, "this papyrus helps us authenticate our Christian Bible. So we have the Church itself built over the bones of Peter, and then we have right next door in the Vatican Library an early text of the Word of God, which authenticates what we have always known to be true." Moreover, it is one of the earliest known codices, or bound volumes, and is believed to have been used for liturgy, giving Catholics another concrete connection to the early Church."

http://www.stmaryswestmelbourne.org/smis/Download%20May%2007.pdf?35236cc6bf29f2c412cf87e5b6c72063=4e5118ef17a291913e51ad1422466f9c

That is, if you decide to believe the article is true.

I'm not clicking on any second-hand links