Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090254719

From: (Roger Pearse)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 19 Jul 2004 09:31:59 -0700
References: <>

wrote in message news:<>...
> In a message dated 7/17/2004 5:02:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> writes:
> > As others have written, if you reject the evidence of four gospels, all
> > written and agreeing on the same individual, most before about 70 AD, still in
> > the lifetime of his immediate disciples, plus the writings of Paul [about
> > 50AD+] and the Acts by Luke, who both give accounts of the local followers of the
> > same singular person, you need to come up with some contemporary documents
> > that fudge the issue- that present SOME alternative historical figures as
> > convincing candidates.
> Of course it's a little disengenious to claim that this are original
> documents. In the example of some genealogical sources, when we have a document that
> is a copy, we state, that this is or appears to be a copy from an earlier
> work. This is in order to alert readers to the issue that transcribing brings in.
> Similarly in this case. How many times was the Gospel of Luke copied before
> the earliest copies we now have came into existence? How much were the
> gospels reconciled to each other? That's the problem.
> Will

This is not a problem for the gospels specially, tho. This is the
process whereby all ancient texts are transmitted to us. The answers
are the same for all such texts. If it is asserted that we don't
really know what the original texts said, then we have to resign
ourselves that all ancient literary texts have perished. This is
because the text of the NT is better attested than any secular text
(because the monks who copied every text from antiquity copied bibles
more than anything else, of course -- obvious, but trivial). Such a
dismal conclusion would be obscurantist, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

This thread: