The Goat Pen

What does your "overzealous scribe" think?

He thinks you've missed the point badly about multiple independent sources. You need to provide sources for that specific passage where Jesus is talking about his kingdom not being of this world. Not list folks who have quoted the entire Gospel a few hundred years later. That doesn't help your case, champ.

For example, take the basic premise of "Did a historical Jesus exist at all?". Historians like Carrier and Price actually posit that he did not. But we have passages in Mark, Q, M, L, Thomas, Josephus, Tacitus, all within a century of his death, all independent of each other and none of them appearing to even be aware of each other's writings, together are very strong evidence that he did exist.

How does your hypothetical, nameless, record-less, over-zealous scribe exegete John 18:36? I’d like to read his commentary.

Along those lines, and since you mentioned Q, would you please post the early manuscripts of that? Anything from the 1st or 2nd century would be great.

...Not list folks who have quoted the entire Gospel a few hundred years later. That doesn't help your case, champ.

Um, yes it does. Christian theologians and manuscripts of the first two centuries (as well as the centuries later) unanimously quote the Gospel of John as the Word of God. Where do you get the idea that any of them ever stood up and said, "This is the Gospel of John. I believe it is the inspired, authoritative, and canonical Word of God. But I don't believe 18:36. There must have been an overzealous scribe out there somewhere who tampered with what Jesus really said. So I'm taking my trusty exacto knife to all this 'My Kingdom is not of this world' stuff." That's just absurd. Here are some questions, which address the 2nd century only, not later.

1. The oldest extant fragment of a manuscript of the New Testament is the P95, dated around mid-2nd century. That fragment happens to include the very verse you don't like, John 18:36: "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”

Is it your contention that somewhere between c.95 and c.150, an unidentified overzealous scribe redacted a hypothetical original which said, "My kingdom IS of this world?" If so, how did the forgery get widely copied enough to be extant, and the original remains theoretical? Please present evidence to support your contention.

2. Tatian's Diatessaron was a harmony of the Gospels dated mid-2nd century. It includes John 18:36, "Jesus said unto him, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: now my kingdom is not from hence."

Is it your contention that somewhere between c.95 and c.170, an unidentified overzealous scribe redacted the hypothetical original which said, "My kingdom IS of this world?" If so, please present evidence to support that contention. Also, why do you think Tatian included John (including 18:36) in his Diatessaron if that book (all of that book) was not already widely considered the Word of God?

3. The Gospel of John was included in the Muratorian Canon - the list of accepted and canonical books in Rome, around 180 AD. It includes 18:36. Do you believe that Rome accepted the whole Gospel as the Word of God, but not 18:36 included in it? If so, please present evidence to support your contention.

4. Irenaeus, (2nd century), in Against Heresies, wrote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.

Given that Irenaeus forthrightly accepts the inspiration and authority of the Gospel of John, is it your contention that Irenaeus (or any other Patristic Christian theologian for that matter) ever said, "I believe John's Gospel is the Word of God, but I don't believe 18:36 is. I think there was an overzealous scribe somewhere who changed the original wording of that particular verse. I think the original said, "My Kingdom IS of this world. And so, my dear readers, ignore this verse from John's Gospel." If you believe that, please post supporting evidence here.

You need to provide sources for that specific passage where Jesus is talking about his kingdom not being of this world.

Okay. For starters...

Origen, 1st-2nd c., Commentary on the Gospel According to John.

We find him announcing also that, as when in response to to Pilate's question,"Are you the King of the Jews," he says, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now my kingdom is not thence.

Bad news for those rejoicing over the supposed death of Christianity in America:

From researchers at the fundamentalist Indiana University and that Bob Jones University-clone, Harvard:

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/dow ... 6to700.pdf

Professor Tiger wrote:

...Not list folks who have quoted the entire Gospel a few hundred years later. That doesn't help your case, champ.

Um, yes it does. Christian theologians and manuscripts of the first two centuries (as well as the centuries later) unanimously quote the Gospel of John as the Word of God. Where do you get the idea that any of them ever stood up and said, "This is the Gospel of John. I believe it is the inspired, authoritative, and canonical Word of God. But I don't believe 18:36. There must have been an overzealous scribe out there somewhere who tampered with what Jesus really said. So I'm taking my trusty exacto knife to all this 'My Kingdom is not of this world' stuff." That's just absurd. Here are some questions, which address the 2nd century only, not later.

1. The oldest extant fragment of a manuscript of the New Testament is the P95, dated around mid-2nd century. That fragment happens to include the very verse you don't like, John 18:36: "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”

Is it your contention that somewhere between c.95 and c.150, an unidentified overzealous scribe redacted a hypothetical original which said, "My kingdom IS of this world?" If so, how did the forgery get widely copied enough to be extant, and the original remains theoretical? Please present evidence to support your contention.

2. Tatian's Diatessaron was a harmony of the Gospels dated mid-2nd century. It includes John 18:36, "Jesus said unto him, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: now my kingdom is not from hence."

Is it your contention that somewhere between c.95 and c.170, an unidentified overzealous scribe redacted the hypothetical original which said, "My kingdom IS of this world?" If so, please present evidence to support that contention. Also, why do you think Tatian included John (including 18:36) in his Diatessaron if that book (all of that book) was not already widely considered the Word of God?

3. The Gospel of John was included in the Muratorian Canon - the list of accepted and canonical books in Rome, around 180 AD. It includes 18:36. Do you believe that Rome accepted the whole Gospel as the Word of God, but not 18:36 included in it? If so, please present evidence to support your contention.

4. Irenaeus, (2nd century), in Against Heresies, wrote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.

Given that Irenaeus forthrightly accepts the inspiration and authority of the Gospel of John, is it your contention that Irenaeus (or any other Patristic Christian theologian for that matter) ever said, "I believe John's Gospel is the Word of God, but I don't believe 18:36 is. I think there was an overzealous scribe somewhere who changed the original wording of that particular verse. I think the original said, "My Kingdom IS of this world. And so, my dear readers, ignore this verse from John's Gospel." If you believe that, please post supporting evidence here.

You need to provide sources for that specific passage where Jesus is talking about his kingdom not being of this world.

Okay. For starters...

Origen, 1st-2nd c., Commentary on the Gospel According to John.

We find him announcing also that, as when in response to to Pilate's question,"Are you the King of the Jews," he says, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now my kingdom is not thence.

Man you are not the brightest bulb on the string. Check out the book. It's a great read and you will come away understanding how history works on a scholarly level. You will also understand why the hypothetical Q manuscripts carry infinitely more weight than some theologian reciting previous texts and doctrine.

I think I'll pass on your kind offer. I wrote a thesis on Canonical Criticism, and specifically on an aspect of the work of Brevard S. Childs (peace be upon him). I've got plenty of books on the subject of canonization and scriptural authority/hermeneutics in the early Church. So I think I'm good to go. I'd be glad to help you you out on this subject where you seem to be so confused. In the meantime, I encourage you educate yourself on the subject of early Christian theology, canonicity, and hermeneutics. Maybe you could even read a book that was actually written by an early Christian theologian. That would be a real good start. Not one written by some postmodernist deconstructed Jesus-seminar John Spong wannabe, who think they understand early Christian theology better than the people who actually lived it and wrote about it.

He has a PhD in history, is all but fluent in ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and probably Aramaic, whereas you are an internet strongman who loves Sean Hannity and seems to think some theologian reciting scripture that has indoctrinated him is a historical source. Hmm who to choose?

He’s a dumbass.

I love it when people like your hero claim to “understand the REAL Jesus” or the “REAL New Testament” through a 2,000 year telescope. It is as silly as reading a 21st century communist claiming to be an expert on the “REAL Adam Smith.” The haters of capitalism deconstruct “Wealth of Nations.” At the end, they come up with all kinds of nitwittery. Scholarly papers with titles like, “Adam Smith - Champion of the Proletariat” or “Wealth of Nations as a Treatise on Dialectical Materialism.”

Atheist scholars of Christianity are like that. They write solemn treatises like “Paul: A Closeted Transgendered Person” or “The Gospel of Mark from an eco-feminist BDSM perspective.” But hey, anything that gets you tenure, amiright?

PS I’ve got three years of koine Greek and two years of Hebrew on my graduate transcripts, plus a little Latin in undergrad. My Greek is still very good, Latin less so, and Hebrew very rusty. It’s really no big deal.

semper ubi sub ubi

forever words to live by

sed nunc feminae

BTW, what's a BJU grad doing writing in Latin - the language of papists?

From an article I'm reading about Martin Luther. This kinda thing must make you proud to be a catholic...

"There were good reasons for an intense young priest to feel disillusioned. One of the most bitterly resented abuses of the Church at that time was the so-called indulgences, a kind of late-medieval get-out-of-jail-free card used by the Church to make money. When a Christian purchased an indulgence from the Church, he obtained—for himself or whomever else he was trying to benefit—a reduction in the amount of time the person’s soul had to spend in Purgatory, atoning for his sins, before ascending to Heaven. You might pay to have a special Mass said for the sinner or, less expensively, you could buy candles or new altar cloths for the church. But, in the most common transaction, the purchaser simply paid an agreed-upon amount of money and, in return, was given a document saying that the beneficiary—the name was written in on a printed form—was forgiven x amount of time in Purgatory. The more time off, the more it cost, but the indulgence-sellers promised that whatever you paid for you got.

Actually, they could change their minds about that. In 1515, the Church cancelled the exculpatory powers of already purchased indulgences for the next eight years. If you wanted that period covered, you had to buy a new indulgence. Realizing that this was hard on people—essentially, they had wasted their money—the Church declared that purchasers of the new indulgences did not have to make confession or even exhibit contrition. They just had to hand over the money and the thing was done, because this new issue was especially powerful. Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar locally famous for his zeal in selling indulgences, is said to have boasted that one of the new ones could obtain remission from sin even for someone who had raped the Virgin Mary. (In the 1974 movie “Luther,” Tetzel is played with a wonderful, bug-eyed wickedness by Hugh Griffith.) Even by the standards of the very corrupt sixteenth-century Church, this was shocking."

This kinda thing must make you proud to be a catholic...

FYI, I'm not Catholic.

But I am SO glad you brought that whole "sale of indulgences" thing to light. This is the biggest news since the discovery that "taxation without representation" led to the Revolutionary War. Gosh, nobody ever knew that the sale of indulgences triggered Luther and the Reformation before. Somebody ought to write a book about it.

You people are good at ignoring (or at the very least squawking about how that was sooo long ago) any evidence that proves that the main function of your church was to serve as a financial racket, with its secondary function being to foster and then protect pedophiles. A proud legacy...

"You people" is SOOO racist...

I just read on the internets somewhere that slavery and states rights triggered the Civil War. hedge, did you know that? We need to get this bombshell out so that people can know...

Funny how people still openly talk about that and recognize that it was horrible, yet all you people do is mewl and whine about how much "good" the church does and what a positive force it has always been...

Would you like to compare the death tolls of the Catholic Church in the 16th century vs. the death tolls of atheists Stalin, Mao, and Pot in the 20th?

As a percentage of the population at the time?

Which life is more valuable: one in the 16th century or one in the 20th century?

Whichever one is not yours...