Question...
Bryce Anderson bryce_anderson@yahoo.com
Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:42:46 -0800 (PST) (00911817766, 19981123044246.15534.rocketmail@send101.yahoomail.com)
---chief blackfoot <blackfoot@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
CHIEF
> >> Well, someone just suggested these sources:
FITZ
> >>>The Magdalen Papyrus fragments of Matthew's Gospel
> >>>have recently been redated to 60 AD. Many scholars
> >>>consider this to be "hard evidence confirming that
> >>>St. Matthew's Gospel is the account of an eyewitness
> >>>to Jesus." For a further discussion of this important
> >>>recent find (1994), please see the book, "Eyewitness
> >>>to Jesus, Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the
> >>>Origin of the Gospels" by Carsten Peter Thiede and
> >>>Matthew D'Ancona, Doubleday Copyright 1996.
> >>
> >> I'd like anyone's input as to how good these sources
> >> are.
>
> >ELF
> > Some information is available at:
> >
>
>http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/archive/1996/dom/960408/archaeology.html
BRYCE
The link didn't work for me, but oh well.
ELF
> >The best that can be said is that it appears the scholarly
> >world is a bit underwhelmed.
CHIEF
> Hmmm...It would be interesting to see the methods & arguments
> used to cast doubt on Thiede's conclusion.
BRYCE
I read Thiede's book about two years ago. I'm working from
memory, so take everything with a pound of salt. The Magdalene papyri
are two postage stamp-sized pieces of paper that were discovered in
the Qumran caves and sat in the basement of Magdalene College for
years. Originally, the fragments were dated to about 200 AD, but
Thiede claims that this dating was based entirely on the presumption
that the fragments would fit the current understanding of the
manuscript history (throughout the book, he makes claims that his
theory is being dismissed, not on merit, but because his theory is
dangerous to the "anti-supernatural bias" of modern scholarship).
If I recall, the big proof for his overthrow of the current
paradigm is the fact that the letter "omega" isn't formed correctly to
fit the 200 AD theory. He also believed he could reconstruct a "nomen
sacra" (sacred name, in this case meaning that the name of a deity was
shortened and a dot put over the top) in one of the missing areas.
There was also something involving scrolls versus codices that I can't
remember.
I found it difficult to trust Thiede's research. First, his
Christian roots showed throughout the book, as his conclusions seemed
wildly speculative considering the evidence. He seemed to be
campaigning for the complete acceptance of the total historicity of
all the gospels (including the resurrection). Secondly, he postponed
the peer review process until after he'd already leaked this
history-making discovery to the press.
As for the manuscript itself, not a single line contains more
than six letters and there isn't enough material to carbon date it.
CHIEF
<snip>
> In reading a Dan Barker debate that someone posted earlier
> this week (which he seemed kind of weak in), I noticed at
> least one good point where Dan Barker cites a religious
> root that produced some detailed accounts within days.
> Specifically the Virgin Mary sighting in Yugoslavia 1981.
>
> He also made a point about the ability for people to
> quickly blow stories out of proportion under many different
> stresses. (refer to the debate)
BRYCE
Horner's main argument was that there simply hadn't been enough
time for legendary development, and that there was no way for errors
to creep in until after the deaths of the eyewitnesses. He was
unimpressed with the Virgin Mary apparation, because there was no
"historical core" to be contradicted. Someone on the list mentioned
Roswell, New Mexico as a good example of legendary development from a
historical core. I had another, which I was saving for Fitzgerald,
but it looks like he'll never get himself off home plate. So here it
is.
Horner based quite a lot on his "it takes two generations for a legend
to arise" assumption, as can be seen by several of his quotes from the
debate:
"I gave arguments for the early dating of the Gospels. I haven't seen
any response for those. And even if the Gospels were written post-70
AD, between then and 90 AD, that's still within the two-generation
time frame that Professor Sherwin-White tells us is not enough time
for legend to win out over historical fact. You just don't find that
in history, where in the same geographical location legend pushes out
historical fact prior to all the eyewitnesses dying off."
Later:
"Dan says that he has claimed that he's caught me in a contradiction
that on the one hand I'm claiming legend doesn't happen very quickly,
but yet I'm saying it can happen in just a few days. All that I
admitted was that an event, it either happened or doesn't happen.
That's all I admitted in that little exchange there. And that is true.
An event is either true or false. It either happened, or it didn't
happen. I don't know if it's legendary or not. The point I'm making is
[that] legends can't win out over history in less than two
generations. Legendary stories can begin to develop. But as long as
the eyewitnesses are still there, legend will not win out."
Still later:
"I don't think so. We're asking the question, "Is this historically
reliable, or is it legend?" with an open agnostic approach, saying,
"We don't know." And given the principle that it takes longer than two
generations for legend to prevail over fact, then these writings which
were produced within that time frame are more likely reliable than
legendary. That's the logic of the argument. It's not . . . you don't
begin with the assumption that it's true."
Finally:
"What criteria do we use to find out whether it's fictitious or
legendary, or historically reliable? And I'm saying one of the
criteria that's been shown in historical research by Professor
Sherwin-White, is that it takes more than two generations, because the
eye-witnesses are around, and a fictitious or legendary story that
would arise earlier would not be accepted, but these writings by the
disciples and followers of Jesus were accepted by the early church, by
the eyewitnesses."
On June 27, 1844, the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith was killed in
Carthage Jail, along with his brother, Hyrum. Smith had never made
any policy of succession clear, and in fact there were almost a dozen
of his followers who considered themselves rightful heirs to his
mantle. The two most effective claims were lodged by Brigham Young
(one of Smith's twelve apostles) and Sydney Rigdon (the prophet's
right-hand man). Rigdon was in Pennsylvania, and didn't hear of
Smith's death for a while, giving Brigham Young a head start in
consolidating his power base. Eventually, Rigdon returned, and on
August 7 the proposition was put to a vote. Would Rigdon replace
Joseph, or would the LDS Church be run by Brigham Young?
Sidney Rigdon was allowed to argue his claim of being "The
Prophet's Spokesman."
After an hour break, Brigham Young got up to speak.
According to many accounts, something wonderful happened. Though
Brigham was the person speaking, many of the people in the audience
swore that it was the voice of Joseph Smith. The prophet was speaking
through a man whose countenance had transformed to that of their
fallen leader. Thus, the Lord gave a sign to the Church that day,
demonstrating that He supported Brigham Young's claims.
The reality is somewhat less interesting. Everyone at the
meeting failed to notice anything unusual. In fact, no account of the
meeting describes such events until after the Mormons came to Utah.
Furthermore, several diary accounts of the meeting were recorded by
the audience, without any mention of the event. But in Utah, the same
people recopied their diaries, making "corrections." The later
accounts were far more derogatory towards Rigdon, portrayed Brigham
Young in a better light, and (most importantly) began including the
transfiguration accounts. Even LDS Apostle Orson Hyde went on record
as a witness to the blessed event (even though he didn't make it to
Nauvoo until four days after the meeting).
We have a historical core (Rigdon gave a good speech, while Young
gave a better one) that was revised in the minds of the eyewitnesses
within ten years of the event. Since the legend deals with the LDS
Church and not the Virgin Mary, Horner wouldn't have been able to say,
"Well, maybe there really was an appearance." Horner's reliance on
his theory seems to fly in the face of the truth: Legends can spread
and overtake historical truth within years, not generations.
==
Bryce Anderson
http://members.tripod.com/~Idafab/index.html
"The animal that coils in a circle is the serpent; that's why so many cults and myths of the serpent exist, because it's hard to represent the return of the sun by the coiling of a hippopotamus." -Foucault's Pendulum
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com