Originally posted by David CI have no evidence that someone called Jesus didn't exist. Likewise, I have no evidence he wasn't a nice guy, chances are if he did exist he probably was a good guy. He may even have been a great popular leader of the people, I just don't know.
You should.
When it comes to turning fish into wine, and curing leopards, I just don't believe it, and I don't believe that the bible represents an unbiased account of the life and works of this Jesus chap.
Let's remember that people in Jesus' time were not able to travel so much. Few people, and most of them from a single locality, would have actually met Jesus. Myths, of course, are more mobile than people, and they change on each re-telling. No matter how much people like lucifershammer try to tell you that there are 150 independant accounts of Jesus life, it's just not true. These people would have known each other, lived in similar cultural and social conditions, been subject to the same oppression, heard the same rumours and gossip, and ultimately, even after they [supposedly] wrote their accounts, generations of translators more than likely [unconsciously] harmonised the accounts, reconciling minor points to "clear up ambiguities" etc.
Originally posted by darvlaya predictable fictional book with easily solved puzzles, nearly wooden characters, blase writing, and a wee bit of entertaining speculation/conspiracy theorizing. Only people raised on cheap religion and bad TV find the writing appealing.
Da Vinci Code Fact #1:
It is a fictional book.
Originally posted by WulebgrThis looks like a cut-and-paste from an opinion elsewhere on the web. Having read the book, I agree with some of what you say, but writing a two-sentence condesecending dismissal of a book without any support behind your opinion leads me to believe that either a) you are joining the fashionable bandwagon in trashing a book without really having a supported opinion on it or b) you don't really know what you are talking about.
a predictable fictional book with easily solved puzzles, nearly wooden characters, blase writing, and a wee bit of entertaining speculation/conspiracy theorizing. Only people raised on cheap religion and bad TV find the writing appealing.
The thread is called 'The Da Vinci Code Facts', not "This is what I think of the book."
Originally posted by DOlivier2004I read the book several years ago, and realized as soon as the redhead was described that she would be end up in bed with the hero. The few puzzles set forth for the reader to solve required me a few seconds to solve.
This looks like a cut-and-paste from an opinion elsewhere on the web. Having read the book, I agree with some of what you say, but writing a two-sentence condesecending dismissal of a book without any support behind your opinion leads me to believe that either a) you are joining the fashionable bandwagon in trashing a book without really having a suppo ...[text shortened]...
The thread is called 'The Da Vinci Code Facts', not "This is what I think of the book."
Frankly, the book does not merit more than a two sentence dismissal.
If you wish to accuse me of plagiarizing from elsewhere on the web, at least take the time to google my sentence to see where I might have lifted it. You won't find it, however, because it originated here.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe historians appear to be concerned about certain ideas that are not exclusive to their book, rather than actual passages. From the news reports that I've seen, it is difficult to understand how the case made it to trial. If you know a link to a story that makes the lawsuit appear credible, sould you please post it?
Did you catch the news about brown being sued for plagerism?
In any case, once historians put forth an idea, novelists should play with it. Often, they do a better job of presenting the story.
Originally posted by WulebgrHave you read the book "Fatherland" by Robert Harris.
The historians appear to be concerned about certain ideas that are not exclusive to their book, rather than actual passages. From the news reports that I've seen, it is difficult to understand how the case made it to trial. If you know a link to a story that makes the lawsuit appear credible, sould you please post it?
In any case, once historians put forth an idea, novelists should play with it. Often, they do a better job of presenting the story.
Set in a post WW2 Germany. After they win the war. The facts are all correct up until 1944, whereafter artistic licence takes over.
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, IIRC, the NT books were written in Greek and the oldest extant (i.e. surviving) manuscripts date back to the 3rd cent.
I don't disbelieve that someone called Jesus actually existed. i have no evidence nor hold any position on that. I simply do not believe in the veracity of the bible as an [b]unbiased historical document. I've postulated before about the posibility that the gospels all represent versions of the same myth, bit like chinese whispers. Of cou ...[text shortened]... ich were not written until long after the [supposed] date of death, between 30 and 130 years).[/b]
That aside, you're missing a key point in historical analysis - the age of a historical document is identified not just by the age of the parchment it is written on - but also by textual analysis of language, script, vocabulary, usage etc. Even a layman can tell the difference in language between one of Shakespeare's sonnets and Plath's moody poems - do you really think historians cannot tell the difference between 1st cent. Greek and redaction a few centuries later?
Originally posted by lucifershammerIndeed.
That aside, you're missing a key point in historical analysis - the age of a historical document is identified not just by the age of the parchment it is written on - but also by textual analysis of language, script, vocabulary, usage etc.
It's a minefield you've wandered into, scottishinnz. Take a gander at this:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAh, indeed, Bosses' example was only written a mere 40 years after the events. Just like yesterday really, no rose tinted spectacles here - noooo.
Actually, IIRC, the NT books were written in Greek and the oldest extant (i.e. surviving) manuscripts date back to the 3rd cent.
That aside, you're missing a key point in historical analysis - the age of a historical document is identified not just by the age of the parchment it is written on - but also by textual analysis of l rians cannot tell the difference between 1st cent. Greek and redaction a few centuries later?
Interestingly a quick search found this URL
http://www.helsinki.fi/~merenlah/oppimateriaalit/text/english/newtest.htm
with the following interesting quotes,
"The books of the NT were written in Greek, and they date from c.50-150 A.D."
and, (more interesingly)
"The oldest manuscripts containing the whole New Testament are from the 4th century. The oldest known fragment of the New Testament is from the first half of the 2nd century, a copy of a passage from John's Gospel."
So the oldest fragment of the new testament is actually at least 70+ years after the events described.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAgain, you're confusing the dating of extant manuscripts with the age of the texts themselves. If every copy of Shakespeare printed before 1920 were suddenly destroyed, future historians would still be able to date them back to the 1600s based on the textual evidence.
Ah, indeed, Bosses' example was only written a mere 40 years after the events. Just like yesterday really, no rose tinted spectacles here - noooo.
Interestingly a quick search found this URL
http://www.helsinki.fi/~merenlah/oppimateriaalit/text/english/newtest.htm
with the following interesting quotes,
"The books of the NT were written in ...[text shortened]... of the new testament[/i] is actually at least 70+ years after the events described.
And yes, with regards to the historicity of Jesus, forty years is a very short time for an entirely fictional character to be cooked up in some secret conspiracy and then have followers all around the Roman Empire.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnother point to keep in mind is that ancient cultures placed a far greater emphasis on the accuracy of the spoken word than we do today because it was the primary mode of transmission of information.
And yes, with regards to the historicity of Jesus, forty years is a very short time for an entirely fictional character to be cooked up in some secret conspiracy and then have followers all around the Roman Empire.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is entirely your opinion, LH. What makes forty years a long or short period in this regard? How long should it take to invent a religion based on a god-man?
And yes, with regards to the historicity of Jesus, forty years is a very short time for an entirely fictional character to be cooked up in some secret conspiracy and then have followers all around the Roman Empire.
An interesting parallel:
"The Bacchantes by Euripides
Play is set in 1398 BC. Dionysus the son of Semele the daughter of Cadmus who claims Zeus as his father returns to Hellas from Phrygia. Everyone at Thebes except for Pentheus the son of Echion and Cadmus daughter Agave accept him as a God."
A case for the historicity of Dionysus? Why not...b