Does Asimov somehow relate that bit about "Babylon" being Rome to the date question? Because even the authorities (not that Asimov is one, of course) who argue in favor of a 1 Peter date just before Peter's death (probably in AD 65 under the persecution of Nero) suggest that the "Babylon" reference was a cryptogram for Rome. Just curious why you cited it.triadboy said:
historical proof that jesus existed
- Thread starter Shroud of Akron
- Start date
-
- Tags
- existed historical jesus
ReasonableDoubt
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 287
I found the site to be shallow and amateurish. What "bits and pieces" did you find compelling?triadboy said:
triadboy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 2,556
ceo_esq said:
Yes it does mean Rome. I can't type the whole section of Asimov's Guide, but basically because it refers to Rome as "Babylon" is the reason the early date doesn't work. Rome would have been "Babylon" under Emperor Domitian NOT Nero. Nero did not repress Christianity empire-wide - only (supposedly) in Rome - the majority of Christians were unaffected.
Asimov:
triadboy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 2,556
ReasonableDoubt said:
I read a lot of the information before, but hadn't heard the information contained in the Tosefta and the Baraitas. I thought it was interesting. For instance, I always wondered where the Pantera story came from. I will study this further, but this gives me some place to start.
davefoc
Philosopher
Reasonable Doubt,
Thank you for the links. I spent a bit of time reading through some of the many articles linked to by your link:
http://www.christianorigins.com/
One article that I came across indirectly through your links was this one:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
The article, puts together many of the standard arguments against the historical reliability of the Gospels, but it adds some information that I wasn't aware of. Apparently, Mathhew, in addition to copying large parts of Mark and adding embellishments perhaps taken from a q document, also made many corrections to Markian material when he detected apparent errors made by Mark with respect to Jewish traditions and laws.
I found this interesting, both because it suggested that the earliest Gospel author may not have been Jewish (based on his apparent unfamiliarity with Jewish traditions) and that a later Gospel writer was either Jewish or had a detailed understanding of Jewish traditions.
I don't know if this supports the idea that there was a semi-independent group of Jewish-Christians that were developing a kind of Christianity about the same time as the Gentiles led by Paul were or not. I believe that the Jewish-Christians were thought not to incorporate many of the ideas of the Gentile Christians but the author of Matthew appears to be a Jew that not only believed in the Gentile version of Chrisitianity but was creating it.
I also found these artilcles interesting:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm
These discuss the oldest source materials for the new testament and how they vary from each other and how they vary from what are now the accepted versions of the new testament biblical stories.
Thank you for the links. I spent a bit of time reading through some of the many articles linked to by your link:
http://www.christianorigins.com/
One article that I came across indirectly through your links was this one:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
The article, puts together many of the standard arguments against the historical reliability of the Gospels, but it adds some information that I wasn't aware of. Apparently, Mathhew, in addition to copying large parts of Mark and adding embellishments perhaps taken from a q document, also made many corrections to Markian material when he detected apparent errors made by Mark with respect to Jewish traditions and laws.
I found this interesting, both because it suggested that the earliest Gospel author may not have been Jewish (based on his apparent unfamiliarity with Jewish traditions) and that a later Gospel writer was either Jewish or had a detailed understanding of Jewish traditions.
I don't know if this supports the idea that there was a semi-independent group of Jewish-Christians that were developing a kind of Christianity about the same time as the Gentiles led by Paul were or not. I believe that the Jewish-Christians were thought not to incorporate many of the ideas of the Gentile Christians but the author of Matthew appears to be a Jew that not only believed in the Gentile version of Chrisitianity but was creating it.
I also found these artilcles interesting:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm
These discuss the oldest source materials for the new testament and how they vary from each other and how they vary from what are now the accepted versions of the new testament biblical stories.