4 ms·

You can say that about literally any mythos/origin story, including bible and probably old hebraic stuff too. The problem is when... maybe not so smart or expe

by jajko 2y ago

You can say that about literally any mythos/origin story, including bible and probably old hebraic stuff too. The problem is when... maybe not so smart or experienced in life people come, and desperately need things to be clear and simple for them. Clear yes and no, good and evil, good wins, just tell me what to think and what is the right way. People don't want to hear about boring life facts or how life is infinitely complex and everything and everybody is some form of shade of grey. I can see it well and alive these times too so additional education ain't gonna save us. The only difference with say bible is that nobody sat for a while few centuries after (if anything actually happened at all, pretty skeptical here) and wrote it down clearly enough so that major deviations from that point were hard to justify. Until of course new canon is written and everything old is thrown out of window... would love to see how original biblical verses read compared to over-translation that happened 1500 years later, given what was left in mostly old testament I'd say it would read pretty horribly and be completely incompatible with our modern values and ways of life. I'd even say Vatican would rather destroy such evidence, no sense keeping such an atomic bomb around in vaults. Maybe archaeology will eventually shed some objective light on this.

dtgriscom 2y ago
> Maybe archaeology will eventually shed some objective light on this. While archaeological technologies are getting better, the past decays and is continually overwritten by the present. For any historical event, there comes a time when there is just no more information to recover.
jcranmer 2y ago
> The only difference with say bible is that nobody sat for a while few centuries after (if anything actually happened at all, pretty skeptical here) and wrote it down clearly enough so that major deviations from that point were hard to justify. Um. The New Testament is generally dated to the late first century AD, which is to say, within living memory of Jesus. We have fragments of those texts that date to around AD 200, and several complete copies from the late 300s. > I'd even say Vatican would rather destroy such evidence, no sense keeping such an atomic bomb around in vaults. Rather than destroying such evidence, they keep them in their vaults, and they've even digitized them so you can see them online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209
- shakna 2y ago
  The Mark fragment from Papyrus 137 (P.Oxy. 83.5345; P137) may even be from the first century.

by jajko 2y ago

dtgriscom 2y ago

> Maybe archaeology will eventually shed some objective light on this. While archaeological technologies are getting better, the past decays and is continually overwritten by the present. For any historical event, there comes a time when there is just no more information to recover.

jcranmer 2y ago

> The only difference with say bible is that nobody sat for a while few centuries after (if anything actually happened at all, pretty skeptical here) and wrote it down clearly enough so that major deviations from that point were hard to justify. Um. The New Testament is generally dated to the late first century AD, which is to say, within living memory of Jesus. We have fragments of those texts that date to around AD 200, and several complete copies from the late 300s. > I'd even say Vatican would rather destroy such evidence, no sense keeping such an atomic bomb around in vaults. Rather than destroying such evidence, they keep them in their vaults, and they've even digitized them so you can see them online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

shakna 2y ago
The Mark fragment from Papyrus 137 (P.Oxy. 83.5345; P137) may even be from the first century.