Arcadia Discussion Zone

I asked you is it common for manuscripts to survive over 15 centuries? And I directed you to the various pieces of Papyrus that have survived. You haven't 'to date' answered my questions regarding those. Or answered Tim regarding Migdol! Or etc! Same old tricks, Bill. You're not fooling anybody, even yourself.

Christian Literary Texts in Manuscripts of Second & Third Centuries
From L. W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts:
Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006),
Appendix 1, pp. 209-229. Latest update 31 January 2011

http://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com ... turies.pdf

Plans announced by the Foundation Bodmer in October 2006 to sell two of the Bodmer manuscripts for millions of dollars, to capitalise the library, which opened in 2003, drew consternation from scholars around the world, fearing that the unity of the collection would be broken.

Then, in March 2007 it was announced the Vatican had acquired the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, which is believed to contain the world's oldest known written fragment from the Gospel of Luke, the earliest known Lord's Prayer, and one of the oldest written fragments from the Gospel of John.

The papyri had been sold for an undisclosed "significant" price to Frank Hanna III, of Atlanta, Georgia. In January 2007, Hanna presented the papyri to the Pope. They are kept in the Vatican Library and will be made available for scholarly review, and in the future, excerpts may be put on display for the general public. They were transported from Switzerland to the Vatican in "An armed motorcade surrounded by people with machine guns."

Thanks Sheila, I had assumed that all of the P- lettered fragments, were just that "fragments". P-46 seems to be the most interesting and complete, not only that but most of it is just down the street from me, in Ann Arbor.

Wow, a thanks for Sheila, and not so much as f u for me, even after I went to the trouble of listing all the relevant 'fragments' worthy of your attention...wtf Bill, where is all the love gone?

Anywhooo, perhaps now you can address the point I made to you in reply to your 'where have all the manuscripts gone' question?

If you are not here for the love T.D., then are you here for the money?

As for being internet buddies, you are not a friend for long.

Plans announced by the Foundation Bodmer in October 2006[9] to sell two of the manuscripts for millions of dollars, to capitalize the library, which opened in 2003, drew consternation from scholars around the world, fearing that the unity of the collection would be broken.

Then, in March 2007 it was announced the Vatican had acquired the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV (P75), which is believed to contain the world's oldest known written fragment from the Gospel of Luke, the earliest known Lord's Prayer, and one of the oldest written fragments from the Gospel of John.[10]

The papyri had been sold for an undisclosed "significant" price to Frank Hanna III, of Atlanta, Georgia. In January 2007, Hanna presented the papyri to the Pope. They are kept in the Vatican Library and will be made available for scholarly review, and in the future, excerpts may be put on display for the general public. They were transported from Switzerland to the Vatican in "An armed motorcade surrounded by people with machine guns."[11]

WHOAH

hmmm, AFAICT, most all of the P-lettered fragments are only fragments except for P-46, which is the Pauline Epistles, as this is the basis for the founding of the church, this does seem interesting. Also P-46 is known as the collection most riddled with errors.

You're right Sparty, I apologize, and I will give you that!---Bill

"Jesus Walking on the Water."

Do you object to faith-based religion S.P.? Isn`t FAITH the point?

Spart,
Sorry, I'm not a 'serious' researcher, just someone who is interested in all this. I thought though that the 4th Century was a pivotal time. Wasn't this the time of Constantine (and the aacceptance of Christianity within the state), Nicaea (the Arian debate), Athanasisus (refer: http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html) and the production of the first Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ment_canon) or should I say 50 bibles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibl ... onstantine)?

So to me the relevance here, was up until this point the 'Church' was akin to the city states of Greece - each 'Church', although Christian (although I'm not sure what 'Christian' can be said to mean pre formal Church - as the beliefs seem to be fundamentally different between the groups), potentially using different texts and believing variants on a theme. They fought their positions and beliefs waxed and waned.

It would appear then that Constantine saw the mess and realised that to unite his east/west empire, he would also need to unite this emerging belief system and coalesce it into a coherent doctrine. It was a tool that he used - as isn't it held that he wasn't actually 'Christian' himself - he 'converted' but it didn't appear that he necessarily followed it as an adherent - and isn't he a 'saint'?

Renne, are you now also accusing me of being Thomas?

All the Papyrus are worthy of attention, considering your claim Bill, particularly IMHO Papyrus 45 (Gospels and Acts, c. 225 CE); Papyrus 46 (Pauline Epistles, c. 225CE); Papyrus 47 (Revelation, c. 275 A.D. ); Papyrus 66 (John, c. 200CE); and Papyrus 75 (Luke and John c. 200CE).

Correct me if I'm wrong Bill, but isn't it your contention that the New Testament was 'reworked' sometime around the 4th century to exclude or deny the truth about the Magdalene? Isn't that why you keep asking 'why there are no pre-4th century manuscripts'? I'm assuming it is because you believe the 'anti-Magdalene conspirators' gathered them up and burned them all so they could rewrite Christian history! (Be honest now Bill, don't suddenly change the goalposts )

Anywhooooo, what I wanted to know was whether a reading of the above fragments of Christian writings (which is fairly substantial despite it fragmentary state) supports your claim that the New Testament narrative has been substantially reworked? And have you found any evidence at all within this pre-4th Century CE 'corpus' of Christian writings that supports your claim that the 'true' role of the Magdalene as been somehow 'denied'?

Btw I also asked, regarding your earlier use of 'Q' to bolster your claims, whether any 'Q' scholar has supported your claims that the Magdalene's supposed true role was something more in 'Q' than that portrayed in the New Testament canon.

Bill wrote:



Are you claiming that these 'errors' support your claim that the generally accepted Christian narrative was reworked? In other words, do these 'errors' substantially (or even slightly) effect how the general narrative should be understood?

Thank you, Bill

All the Papyrus are worthy of attention, considering your claim Bill, particularly IMHO Papyrus 45 (Gospels and Acts, c. 225 CE); Papyrus 46 (Pauline Epistles, c. 225CE); Papyrus 47 (Revelation, c. 275 A.D. ); Papyrus 66 (John, c. 200CE); and Papyrus 75 (Luke and John c. 200CE).

Correct me if I'm wrong Bill, but isn't it your contention that the New Testament was 'reworked' sometime around the 4th century to exclude or deny the truth about the Magdalene? Isn't that why you keep asking 'why there are no pre-4th century manuscripts'? I'm assuming it is because you believe the 'anti-Magdalene conspirators' gathered them up and burned them all so they could rewrite Christian history! (Be honest now Bill, don't suddenly change the goalposts )

Anywhooooo, what I wanted to know was whether a reading of the above fragments of Christian writings (which is fairly substantial despite it fragmentary state) supports your claim that the New Testament narrative has been substanially reworked? And have you found any evidence at all within this pre-4th century 'corpus' of Christian writings that supports your claim that the 'true' role of the Magdalene as been somehow 'denied'?

Btw I also asked, regarding your earlier use of 'Q' to bolster your claims, whether any 'Q' scholar has supported your claims that the Magdalene's supposed true role was something more in 'Q' than that portrayed in the New Testament canon.

Bill wrote:



Are you claiming that these 'errors' support your claim that the generally accepted Christian narrative was reworked? In other words, do these 'errors' substantially (or even slightly) effect how the general narrative should be understood?[/quote]



OK Sparty, I will try this again. No, it is not my contention that the scripture was reworked in the 4th century. There was an event that began in 303 ad during which conveniently the existing scriptures were destroyed.

My contention is that that the Pauline epistles had become the basis for the orthodoxy of the church much earlier.

No I am not claiming any errors in P-46 support my claims. For one thing it is doubtful any of Pauls writings were edited (at least for major content). One point I was trying to make is that none of the fragments are without error, this particular one is known as the one with the most errors.

As for Q, you must also know that the existence of Q is only a theory, nobody has ever seen even a fragment of Q. I did not use the possible existence of Q to bolster my claims.

Keep the subject matter narrow so I can keep up, and don't belittle with your bitchey little comments and maybe we can be friends again.

Wayward wrote:



Ok. I thought you had made claim many times on this forum that the New Testament text was altered by propagandists intent on hiding the supposed 'true' significance of the Magdalene!

Wayward wrote:



What significance to do you attach to this supposedly 'convenient' destruction? What do you mean by the word 'conveniently'?

Wayward wrote:



Surely every lucid individual would accept that?!

Wayward wrote:



Ok, well, this is what you wrote earlier:





Considering the context of your claim here, I think it is obvious that you are claiming that the New Testament was edited in the 4th century!

Wayward wrote:



And I asked you whether you are claiming that those errors were errors that were deliberately inserted by redactors (editors) intent on hiding the 'true' role of the Magdalene? In other words, Bill, are those errors fairly typical scribal errors or are they evidence of 'editors' to use your own words? (Try to be honest now Bill, don't move the goalposts again )

And to just to recap the 'Q' bit:











Wayward wrote:



Sorry Bill, IMHO what you call 'bitchey' [sic!] little comments are in fact an accurate appraisal of your contribution. You continually make claims here to bolster your belief system, and then when those do not stand up to scrutiny, you very rarely hold up your hands and admit 'ok, fair enough'. And perhaps much more importantly, none of these seemingly never ending evidential fails have any effect whatsever on your adherence to your cherished beliefs. IMHO therefore it is absolutely clear that your Maghead beliefs are faith-based, and your continued attempts to portray them as evidence based are at best misrepresentative! As such IMHO you are cut from exactly the same cloth as the Christians you ridicule! Their faith is based on the New Testament, and your faith is based on the Da Vinci Code.

Why do you write trash like this Sparty, does it make you stand taller?

Ok Bill, I rest my case...

To be quite honest, following this thread - watching these two - has made me suicidal.

And thats with me being interested in Mary Magdalene too!!!!!

Sorry Sandy, it won't happen again.

My new New Years Resolution is to stay out of pedant arguments on this forum, a difficult thing to do btw.

A very interesting study on the authorship of the 4th gospel by catholic theologian, Ramon Jusino.
I posted this some time ago, but thought it might be worthwhile to put it here again.



http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html

I like this
from your link Bill
Raymond Brown has likened the quest to identify the author of the Fourth Gospel to a good detective story (1966: lxxxvii). A good detective sifts through evidence which is relevant and discards that which is not. When the evidence begins to point in a certain direction, he or she pursues leads and explores all of the various explanations and alibis. When one theory emerges as plausible and more credible than any other, the detective draws a conclusion that usually involves the naming of a suspect or suspects. The evidence supporting authorship of the Fourth Gospel by Mary Magdalene is much stronger than that which established John of Zebedee as its author for nearly two thousand years. After careful consideration of the evidence cited herein, I respectfully submit that the "prime suspect" in any quest to identify the author of the Fourth Gospel should be Mary Magdalene.


I think the person has to make the decision who is the "prime suspect"

I personally think the denial that Magdalene had any involvement in the early church after reading the New Testament
seems a harder sell since the Nag Hammadi Scrolls were discovered

It adds more data that there was strife between Peter and Magdalene

Peter really says it
Simon Peter said to them:
'Let Mary go out from among us,
because women are not worthy of life.'

Jesus said:
'See, I shall lead her
so that I will make her male,
that she too may become a living spirit
resembling your males.
For every woman who makes herself male
will enter the Kingdom.'

- Gospel of Apostle Thomas

I think the BIG Question is Was Peter the chosen one to lead

It begs the question how different would the church have been if women were allowed representation at Conclave

I know a woman who worked in the delivery room of a Catholic Hospital long ago and she baptized babies to
save them from Limbo....nurses were trained to do Baptism in emergencies

The women played an active part in the church in Acadia ...the priests were too few in the early country


While the Church has an extended rite of Baptism which is normally celebrated, which includes roles for both parents and godparents, the essentials of that rite are two: the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The Minister of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Since the form of baptism requires just the water and the words, the sacrament, like the Sacrament of Marriage, does not require a priest; any baptized person can baptize another. In fact, when the life of a person is in danger, even a non-baptized person—including someone who does not himself believe in Christ—can baptize, provided that the person performing the baptism follows the form of baptism and intends, by the baptism, to do what the Church does—in other words, to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of the Church.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm

What it says here is PERSON...it doesn't mean only men ....women were allowed

It means the Magdalene may have baptized in the name of Jesus
now that is a interesting idea...since the oral tradition says she help convert France