Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090374358

Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:45:58 -0400

How many "hands" are apparent in these "29 seperate texts" ? To call them seperate is not accurate. It is well known that there are interpolations in even the earliest works that we still have.

In a message dated 7/20/2004 7:13:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, (Roger Pearse) writes:

> 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: