Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090321992

From: (Roger Pearse)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 20 Jul 2004 04:13:12 -0700
References: <>

wrote in message news:<>...
> Not 29 "seperate documents".
> Most of these are bound up with each other in codex's, so they are not seperate at all imho.

You seem to confuse texts with the manuscripts in which they are
preserved. Literary texts are not like autograph letters!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

> Will
> In a message dated 7/19/2004 12:59:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, (Jared Linn Olar) writes:
> >Peter Stewart <> wrote in message news:<DFZJc.3829$>...
> >> We could decide if you will only cite this alleged heap of 1st-century
> >> documents setting down the divinity of Christ, the basis of
> >> Christianity.
> >
> >First of all, there is no need to get into matters of theology here.
> >All we need to do are find Christian writings from the first century
> >A.D.  The most convenient repository of first century Christian
> >writings is known as the New Testament.  Besides that, we have the
> >Didache and St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians.  That's 29
> >separate documents.
> >
> >Whatever those documents say or do not say about Christ's divinity is
> >irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the documents exist.  In
> >contrast, Islam has no seventh century documents.  Therefore
> >Christianity's origins are better documented than Islam's.  (This
> >conclusion holds even if we admit the few Muslim poems and biography
> >you mention -- original Christian documentation would still outnumber
> >original Muslim documentation.)
> >
> >Jared Linn Olar
> >
> >

This thread: