Spartacus Paraclete wrote:
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.
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
Also P-46 is known as the collection most riddled with errors.
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.