Posted on 08/15/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Severus Alexander was Emperor of Rome from 222-235 AD. He ascended to the throne at the tender age of 14.
Rome did fairly well under him, except for the fact that he was completely incompetent militarily.
It is said on pretty good evidence that he erected a temple to Christus.
Now, the Romans were alot closer time-wise to what went on during Christs life. Another issue is that the Romans were pretty damn anal about dotting every I and crossing every T, they kept excellent records and had a wide network of historians and informants.
Now it is true that they erected temples to the Roman gods.
But they NEVER would have erected a temple dedicated to a man who was relatively contemporaneous unless that man had actually lived and Romans themselves had seen him with their own eyes.
Mr. Rogers:
Do you have some sort of biblical historicity ping list? If so, I’d like to be on it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts?page=62#62
To: SunkenCiv; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; metmom; Brian S. Fitzgerald; onedoug; mdk1960; blue-duncan; ...
I’m surprised there isn’t a biblical archaeology/historicity ping list.
I’d be willing to start one if it has critical mass. That would be me and 3 others. My freeping activity is too erratic to rely upon me, so I would be posting such a list on my homepage for others to copy.
Please let me know if you’d like to be on this list [that’s no guarantee that the list will get started, i.e. if we don’t achieve critical mass]. Also, please forward this ping list opportunity to your other historically-minded ping lists. Yes, that’s you, Sunken Civ... ;-)
SunkenCiv; Alamo-girl; betty boop; metmom; Brian S. Fitzgerald ; onedoug ; mdk1960 ; mdk1960 ; blue-duncan; longtermmemmory; Tax-chick; Salvation ; Gamecock; guitarplayer1953 ; XeniaSt; Antoninus ;
62 posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:42:37 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Mr Rogers, if you start a ping list, please add me to it.
That may be true but there are enough changes in the wording that I'm not comfortable with it...John 3:16 is one of many examples...The NIV says one and only son, where the KJV say only 'begotten' (only born) son...
Ok...most objective.
Actually not most objective. Liberal theologians, like liberal politicians, tend to be among the least objective.
FFBruce, in this article, gives examples of that.
The word translated begotten is monogenes, meaning:
“1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”
I don’t think the NIV translation is an attempt to demote the specialness of Jesus, but to convey the meaning of monogenes to a world where ‘begotten’ is either unknown, or means gave physical birth. The NIV attempts to emphasize the singularity of Jesus without allowing modern readers to think this verse talks about Jesus as a created being, born in some reproductive act by ‘The Father’.
The ESV uses “only Son”, then later talks about “adopted sons”.
“Begotten” is a good translation, but not if modern people don’t understand it. It is one of those verses that ought to have a translator’s footnote explaining the word in more detail.
What is the date of the copy? The fact that the Trinitarian "formula" is in it doesn't mean it was there in the original. By some as yet not challenged accounts, Christian copyists were neither professional nor highly accurate (as compared to Jewish copyists), and apparently altered text to keep up with the "developing doctrine" of the faith:
"Unfortunately we cannot be certain either how skilled (and therefore potentially accurate) were the earliest copyists of the Gospels or the extent to which they may have altered their texts in light of the increasing theological precision in the development of Christian doctrine." (Andrew Gregory, The reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus, p. 27)
As Gregory (an Oxford scholar) reflects on the relatively "free transmission of Christian text" (i.e. Gamble 1995: 74. Ehrman 1996: 27, 276, 280) he mentions Kim Haines-Eitzen who argues that "the early Christians scribes were not hired professionals and that they "performed not only a conservative task (reproducing written texts) but also a creative one (rewriting, ie modifying and correcting, these texts in the process of copying them." (200:16) [my emphasis]
Of the references mentioned in your link, all the ones I could find were of post-Nicene date, so the tripartite expressions are not surprising but at the same time there is no proof they were there in pre-Nicene editions. This is not to say that they were not. Early Christianity did not have a defined theology, so it is very likely that some used the Trinitarian formula and some didn't.
And even among those who used the tripartite terminology did not think of the Holy Trinity in the same way, nor did their Trinitarian notion necessarily agree with the dogmatic pronouncements of the forthcoming Ecumenical Councils. In fact, a cursory research will show that up to the Nicene Council the general Trinitarian theology was one of Son's subordination rather than equality. So, the fact that some of them used the terminology doesn't automatically assure orthodox doctrine or their documents were "doctrinally sound."
Finally, it is worth mentioning that even though seven Ignatian letters are believed to be his—according to Eusebius—the controversy over their versions (long and short) has by no means been resolved.
Even if his Ecclesiastical History relied upon earlier sources, there is nothing directly to substantiate the notion that he had in his possession an early copy of Matthew’s Gospel that left off the tripartite formula. Further, the fact that Eusebius’ style of quoting sources has been characterized as often “inexact” should caution us in giving too much weight to his allusions or quotations of Matthew 28:19.”
This is a scientist you hold in high regard? Eusebius was by no means perfect or very reliable, nor was his thoelogy very orthodox, but in this instance evidence suggests to the contrary. He quotes this verse without the tripartite formula no less than 17 times before the Nicene Council, and the remaining five times when he includes the formula are all post-Nicene! Not only does this suggest that he is exact but consistent as well in this particular instance.
Let us not forget that the Gospel writers were not always examples of exactness either, yet I have never encountered a Protestant scholar who went out of his way to say that Mark's or Luke's, etc. "quoting style can be characterized as inexact." And God knows the quotes of supposedly the same event are sometimes unrecognizable. I suppose inexactness in quoting styles of the Gospel writers is okay because it's "inspired," right?
Irineaus' writings survive in complete form only in the Latin translation from about AD 380. The original Greek works survive in fragments only. It would indeed be to demonstrate that the passage where he mentions the tripartite terminology can also be found in his pre-Nicene (pre AD 325) fragments. But this would merely mean that this is how he believed, not how the Church as a whole believed. It would most certainly not automatically mean that his Trinitarian concepts were orthodox.
It is well known that he refers to Mary in the Latin copy as advocata (and advocate) of Eve. The problem with this is that, when retro-translated into Greek, it reads Paraclete!
No, you are actually mixing and matching. The link provided is the accurate description and definition by those who do the studies for a living. If you wish to mis-define termonology - I cannot stop you. But to do so in the face of the correct definitions is less than an honest presentation of the facts.
The word translated begotten is monogenes, meaning:
“1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”
As you can see, there is disagreement in what the actual Greek word means...Who is right??? And how do we know who is right???
I don’t think the NIV translation is an attempt to demote the specialness of Jesus, but to convey the meaning of monogenes to a world where ‘begotten’ is either unknown, or means gave physical birth. The NIV attempts to emphasize the singularity of Jesus without allowing modern readers to think this verse talks about Jesus as a created being, born in some reproductive act by ‘The Father’.
Another way to look at it is although 'begotten' is an older, not so used word today, it is easy to remember and is generally only applied to Jesus Christ...
The bible speaks in many place of the 'sons of God'...When we see the word begotten, it takes on a special significance...We immediately know that Jesus was the only son of God who was 'begotten', without going into a theological exegesis of the meaning of the Greek language to understand what the verse is saying...
Further, when we get into the geneologies and we see the old word 'beget', it's easy to figure out the meaning of the word just by the context, without an education in Greek language...
Many of the newer translations use the word begotten...Jerome used begotten...Obviously it's not the fault of the Greek word that is the problem, it's whoever is doing the translating...And most translate the word as begotten...Works for me...
I'd be interested, too!
“Please let me know if you’d like to be on this list”
I would be interested but I belong to a highly esteemed, well thought of and oft quoted as an authoritative source, listless group. So, perhaps you could ping me, not as a list member, but kind of as an after thought.
Thanks Kevmo. Or should I say, “Pingmeister Kevmo!” ? ;’)
Thanks for the post, very comprehensive and full of info.
Have you looked carefully at Luke 4:4 lately????
” 4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” - Luke 4.4, NIV
4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. - KJV
4And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’” - NASB
Cross reference Deut 8.3: “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. “
Guess I’m blind - what doctrine is affected?
“”but by every word of God” omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, NASV, NEB, NWT, JB. AMP italicises the words.
Ruckman (54) p 18, states that the words are found in three families of manuscripts (Western, Caesarean, Byzantine) and in Tatian’s Diatessaron (2nd Century). Aleph and B and their associates omit the words, together with the Boharic (North African) and Coptic versions.”
Sounds like a difference of opinion on what is the most accurate Greek text, but I see of no doctrinal issue...Deuteronomy is still in the Bible.
No doctrinal issue?????? Isn't it a doctrine that "man shall live by the Word of God". As a matter of fact it is the most fundamental doctrine in the Word of God, isn't it???
What sense does Luke 4:4 without the second part which is also the most important part. And by the way it was Marcion the Apostate who is responsible for this corrupted abbreviated verse -- and 1900 years later supposed intelligent men are still defending and excusing his corruption.
What source suggests that Marcion abbreviated it? Payrus 75 agrees with the shorter version, as does Codex Vaticanus. Payrus 4 (Alexandrian) text seems to agree with Codex Sinaticus and the longer version.
Why could the short version not have been the original and and the longer version an attempt at bringing it into harmony with Deu 8:3? It wouldn't have been the first missquote!
Either way...it it STILL in Deuteronomy. It is still a part of scripture!
Have you read Irenaeus lately???? Marcion was notorious for shortening the Book of Luke to erase any connection between Jesus and the God of the OT.
Why could the short version not have been the original and and the longer version an attempt at bringing it into harmony with Deu 8:3?
Why not the other way around? or why not, if you have a disdain for the God of Holy Writ, just leave out the words you don't like -- like that part of a verse that says that every word of God is necessary for man to have life???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.