[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Historical Jesus Versus Faith?

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:56:43 -0600, jpman@accesscomm.net writes:
>
>Thomas M Simms wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:37:50 -0600, jpman@accesscomm.net writes:
>> 
>
   [... snip, snip ... already related material omitted ...]

> >
>>    Again, what are the earliest datings of these manuscripts?
>
>  Josephus wrote c. 70-75 CE. Tacitus' Annales covers the period
>14 to 68 CE and was written in the 90's.  Suetonius 98ish to 100.
>The Baraitha and Tosefta are Tannaite supplements to the Mishnah that
>date to the second century and cover oral traditions of the 2nd Temple
>period.
>

     I know that their texts date them as you note, but what date
     are the earliest surviving manuscripts!  The more recent they are,
     the more likely they were to be altered.  This is what I mean by 
     provenance.  The provenance of the Nag Hammadi corpus was the late
     1940's.  In their case, they were undisturbed from 4th c to present
     but some were lost as kindling for a mother's stove!  So they were
     not only altered but lost.

     The earliest complete Massora text is 10th c. CE, for example.  The 
     earliest LXX is much earlier.  Both are well quoted in other writings.
     Our classical literature comes from manuscripts mostly dated from the
     sack of Constantinople by the crusaders.  And so on... there are details
     outside the preceeding but I think the above is mostly correct.

>> >> The Rabbinic texts are perhaps more cleanly datable.  However, there is

   [... snip, snip ... already related material omitted ...]

>>    These statements - what is their provenance?  Then we may argue about
>>    when they were written...???  The latter may be quite a catfight?
>
>  These were oral traditions that date to the time of Jesus through
>the first century.
 
     So they allege, but what date are the earliest surviving manuscripts.

>
> 
>> >> I think you have all seen my brief note on the fever of Paul's conver-

   [... snip, snip ... already related material omitted ...]

>  As an expert on biotoxins, I agree.  If, for the sake of argument,
>Jesus survived the crucifixion, I dont think we have to look for exotic drugs
>but simply to a product of the formula Au placed firmly in the hands of
>Roman legionnaires.

   If you mean the spear, the formula is Fe, and it likely did no more   
   damage than Alexander's chest field surgery did at Multan.  (No mean
   effect, but survivable.)  Glad to know you're on board re the biotoxins. 
   However, if you mean the gold, Roman legionnairs were well paid.  Pilate
   would take a bribe, if his recall later means anything.  Somehow I don't
   think the average centurion, knowing the uproar behind the occasion and the
   seriousness of his duty, would let himself be liable to join the victims.

Tom Simms

>
>Jack Kilmon
>JPMan@accesscomm.net
>