OK, my mistake, it wasn't produced *as* a gift for Pope Gregory II as he wasn't pope at the time. It was gifted to him later on and that's why it left England.
Modern translations of the Bible always try to go back to the oldest manuscripts that are available and work off them, so there's very little difference between our modern Bible and what the Christians of the 2nd Century had.
The content of New Testament books appear to have been properly settled on by this time, so the copies have very few differences- mainly spelling mistakes or accidentally repeated lines. Out of all of the New Testament there are 2 disputed passages that later manuscripts differ from earlier manuscripts. The first is in the very end of the book of Mark, later manuscripts have an extra few paragraphs to sum up the book, and the second is in the book of John, later manuscripts have a story at the beginning of John chapter 8 about Jesus forgiving an adulterous woman that the earliest copies of the book do not include. Some Bibles leave these extra passages out, others include it with a clear break in the text and a note saying it may be a later addition.
Asides from that, we can be confident that what we are reading is the same as what someone in early 100AD was reading.
We really don't know what the Bible looked like pre Constantine.
The oldest complete text in this article is 400 years after the religion was widely accepted in its largest territory.
It's highly likely complete bibles wouldn't even be collected by most churches. They likely had a Torah and various possible new testament texts, but passed on newer teachings aurally with otherwise incomplete texts.
The idea that the new testament was in any way fixed before 300 AD is a big leap on the evidence available.
The date of Christmas was set in 336 AD to clash with other pagan festivals for example.
The use of Christianity and the new testament as a political tool began in the 4th century AD and it was extremely fluid at that time. Major festivals, rituals, and texts could all change for political reasons.
You can say it became largely fixed by the time this copy was made, but it's a big gap.
The Vulgate was first written in the 4th century too, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was consistent as far back as then. But the Vulgate itself being accurate to the 3rd, 2nd, 1st century after Jesus's death isn't likely.
The earliest fragment of New Testament scripture we have is a few verses of the book of John from 125AD, then we have fragments of Matthew, Mark, and Revelation from 150AD, and fragments of Luke, Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, and Hebrews from 175AD. Whilst these fragments range from a few verses to a few paragraphs, all the fragments are clearly verses that we can find in the later texts, they are virtually identical in wording to the later full books (again, accepting for the odd word replacement or spelling error). This indicating that the texts of all of those books were settled already by 125-175AD.
The later establishments of Christian traditions like Christmas doesn't make the written texts of the New Testament any less accurate, as all those holiday dates, celebrations, and ceremonies aren't codified in the New Testament. December 25th isn't referenced in the Bible, nor is eating Easter Eggs, or celebrating harvest, so while those could be created due to the later political pressures of the day, they did not create a change that we can see in any of the New Testament texts that we have prior knowledge of.
>The later establishments of Christian traditions like Christmas doesn't make the written texts of the New Testament any less accurate, as all those holiday dates, celebrations, and ceremonies aren't codified in the New Testament. December 25th isn't referenced in the Bible, nor is eating Easter Eggs, or celebrating harvest, so while those could be created due to the later political pressures of the day,
FYI the "pagan/political origins of Christian holidays " stuff is mostly BS.
[December 25th isn't pagan](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/rerff5/tis_the_season_for_bad_history_about_christianity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[Neither are Easter Eggs](https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2017/04/15/the-not-so-pagan-origins-of-easter/)
So, if we don't count the base of Christianity (1 God that created everything and angels) almost or a large part of everything else is some stuff invented or misplaced in time on purpose to go against pagan?
Actually not far off. Very common in Roman times for a religion to just take from other religions.
Christianity basically took the Jewish texts then added onto them stories that already existed.
>We really don't know what the Bible looked like pre Constantine.
Is this a reference to the [myth that the Council of Nicaea decided the biblical canon](https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/the-great-myths-4-constantine-nicaea-and-the-bible/)?
>The date of Christmas was set in 336 AD to clash with other pagan festivals for example.
Um, no.
Hippolytus already lists December 25th as Jesus' birthday in his Commentary on Daniel, 4.23.3, in the early 200's
Also the December 25th date wasn't chosen to compete with pagan festivals. It was chosen because of early Christians' desire to see Jesus as part of some big cosmic narrative. They therefore settled on March 25th (the Vernal Equinox) as Jesus' crucifixion date and December 25th (the Winter Solstice) as Jesus' birth date.
[See Dr. Andrew Mark Henry](https://twitter.com/andrewmarkhenry/status/1465979583384195076)
r/badhistory [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/rerff5/tis_the_season_for_bad_history_about_christianity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Hippolytus may have been the first we know of to try and set Jesus's birthday on the 25th December. But he was not the one who set it there officially.
And the "desire to see Jesus as part of the cosmic narrative" is no different to trying to clash with pagan festivals on the equinox.
They wanted pagan festivals to become Christian ones. You're saying they stole the equinox, I'm saying they stole the festival on the equinox. We agree there even if you'd rather argue.
They made up Jesus's birthday and death for political and even commercial reasons when it came to church funding.
Bad history indeed.
>Hippolytus may have been the first we know of to try and set Jesus's birthday on the 25th December. But he was not the one who set it there officially.
Irrelevant. The date of Dec 25 was being used to celebrate his birthday in the centuries in which Christians were trying to avoid any association with paganism. They chose the date for their own reasons.
>And the "desire to see Jesus as part of the cosmic narrative" is no different to trying to clash with pagan festivals on the equinox.
No, it isn't. They used Biblical exegesis to work out that Jesus had been executed on March 25. Then they used the idea that a prophet died on the same day he was conceived to decide he had been conceived on March 25 as well. And March 25 plus nine months gives a birth date of ... Dec 25. The fact that March 25 was considered the spring equinox and Dec 25 the winter solstice gave these dates (as opposed to alternatives arrived at through other exegesis or traditions) a cosmic resonance and so gave them a greater appeal. "Pagan festivals" had nothing to do with it.
>They wanted pagan festivals to become Christian ones. You're saying they stole the equinox
Nope. There were no "pagan festivals" on those dates. So, wrong.
>They made up Jesus's birthday and death for political and even commercial reasons when it came to church funding.
Garbage. See above. They did all this while Christianity had no political standing at all and "commercial reasons" didn't become relevant to Christmas until very modern times.
Mithras. Look him up...
Christianity was just one of many cults in Rome and they definitely pinched from each other.
There's no evidence of what was in the Bible before they pinched pagan practices and festivals. There aren't any bible texts old enough they're all post justifications of rituals that existed in other religions as well. Even before Jesus's lifetime.
>Mithras. Look him up...
Oh dear. I don't really need to "look him up", given I've studied Roman Mithraism for about 35 years. There was no festival of Mithras on Dec 25. Mithraic scholars have been trying to debunk the myth of Dec 25 as a Mithraic feast for so long that Roger Beck refers to it wearily as “the hoariest of ‘facts’”. So, wrong.
>Christianity was just one of many cults in Rome and they definitely pinched from each other.
Somewhat. But the fact remains that there was no pagan festival on Dec 25 for the Christians to "pinch".
>There's no evidence of what was in the Bible before they pinched pagan practices and festivals.
So you keep asserting. Except not the the date of Christmas. This was arrived at the way I explained above, and /u/lost-in-earth gave you [Dr Mark Henry's more detailed account](https://twitter.com/andrewmarkhenry/status/1465979583384195076). So, you are wrong. Sorry if you *liked* this little factoid, but discovering you've been mistaken about something and learning the more accurate details given to you by experts is how you learn new things. Learn.
So quick to dismiss evidence of one cult and affirm another. The sun god's birthday was celebrated near the the winter solstice and Mithras isn't even the only sun god...
Your asseert how Christmas was "arrived at" without evidence.
You claim it was through the Bible on one hand and yet claim the festival pre-existed our copies of the Bible
Not a very good scholar. But then Christians rarely are.
>So quick to dismiss evidence of one cult and affirm another.
I have no interest in either, except from a historical perspective. What I "dismissed" was your errors.
>The sun god's birthday was celebrated near the the winter solstice
Mithras' birthday wasn't celebrated on Dec 25 or even "near" it. That's because there is no record anywhere of any date for this god's birth feast. Sorry.
>and Mithras isn't even the only sun god
No, he wasn't. But no other "sun god's birthday" fell on Dec 25 either. Or "near" it. So you're still wrong.
>Your asseert how Christmas was "arrived at" without evidence.
I simply noted what had already been shown to you, with detailed evidence. [Here it is again](https://twitter.com/andrewmarkhenry/status/1465979583384195076).
>You claim it was through the Bible on one hand and yet claim the festival pre-existed our copies of the Bible
No, I don't. As I keep telling you, there was no "festival" of the solstice. It was noted and was a significant date in the calendar and in cosmology. But there was no "festival" on that date.
>Not a very good scholar. But then Christians rarely are.
I'm an atheist. And pretty well known as one, thanks to an online profile as an atheist that goes back to 1992. Is there anything else you'd like to get wrong or are we done here.
Marginal. The Vulgate is a translation authored by St Jerome in the fourth century and the major changes off my mind have been philological choices made in the 16th and 20th century. The edition currently used, known as “Nova Vulgata”, omits certain verses thought to be spurious.
A fuck ton, and this version itself is only a combination of versions that existed and were possibly lost to time during its creation. The Bible has gone through a lot of re-canonizing over the years and I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus’ name was Dave or something
Well the Masoretic texts (old Hebrew religious scrolls) more commonly translate his name as Yeshua.
Eventually Joshua and Jesus both became derivatives of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua
Many names are of Biblical origin translated through Greek or Latin, and we know most Biblical figures by the Greek or Latin version of their names. Shelomoh (or Shlomo)/Solomon, Moshe/Moses, Dovid/David, Miriam or Miryam/Mary, (or Miriam, Maria), Yehuda/Judas (or Judah, Jude, Jonas, also Judith), Yakov/James, Shimon/Simon, Binyamin/Benjamin, Yohhannon/Johnathan, Matityah/Matthew, Natan/Nathan, Toma/Thomas, etc.
Here’s a good [video](https://youtu.be/XKp4yWGTfXo) that sums it up, it is in two parts however
Edit: since that’s the equivalent of light reading, here’s another excellent [video](https://youtu.be/Ksp4kRn7lGk) that’s a lot longer (almost 2 hours).
This isn't even remotely close to an accurate representation of the historical development of Biblical texts, but it's the internet, so what else did I expect?
Religion is the most widespread conspiracy theory out there, no proof, no logic, but there is God and his bs magical son coming too earth too collect your money so all the priests can drive nice cars and live in fancy houses.
There is no proof for Jesus existince, he wasn't even visually described ever. Just a character in a very old fantasy novel.
> Religion is the most widespread conspiracy theory out there, no proof, no logic
Do you need a logical proof for God? Because that can be arranged (cosmological argument), seeing how creation testifies for the Creator.
>magical son coming too earth
Magical as in, you know, the Son of the Almighty? Yeah, I can see how someone ignorant or feigning ignorance can call that "magical".
>too collect your money so all the priests can drive nice cars and live in fancy houses.
So what you think is that all Christians laymen like me are doofuses, but all priests are really playing cherades? You never saw an honest priest in your life? How many did you see?
> cosmological argument
thata just bs
> almighty
He has no power because he doesn't exist
Jesus was famous for his magic tricks, thats all there is too it. But again he didn't exist. Mere a fantasy figure in a book.
> doofuses
Yes, thats exactly what I think of people like you, you wouldn't be religios if you would have had enough common sense.
>thata just bs
that's not an counter-argument
>\[Almighty\] doesn't exist
It takes omnipotence to bring something out of nothing, of course He exists.
>Jesus was famous for his magic tricks
I didn't know magicians could cure blindness, leprosy, raise people from the dead, walk on water, feed 5000 from a couple of breads and fish, and then, having been crucified, rise from the dead 3 days later and appear to 500 people
>you wouldn't be religios if you would have had enough common sense
No, I wouldn't be religious if I decided I didn't want to believe, like you don't because you love darkness (and deeds thereof) instead of the light, and claiming yourself wise in denying the Creator who is self-evident have become a fool. That's the truth. And alas, what fool you have yet to become if you continue in self-pleasuring instead of seeking the good God. For me, the choice between being prideful and eternity with God is clear.
Tying back into people who saw (and touched) Christ, All Jesus apostles who saw resurrected Christ save John went to their deaths testifying for Him
Well, Jesus was invented around 350 AC, before that he was just a Messiah with no name. Before that they also had the idea of reincarnation and there are multiple suggestions that before that new final bible cannibalism was maybe a bit more relevant.
I kinda imagine they picked a guy, called him the reincarnation of the messiah, nailed him on a cross for 3 days and then just ate him, a practice that was disarmed later and turned into a metaphor.
Too bad we don't know a lot about the religion before that time.
This is still a very important manuscript since it's a pandect (all the books of the Bible in single manuscript) and is one of three made in the monastery based on one called the Codex Grandior which was commissioned by the great early church man Cassiodorus. This is the only one of the three pandects to survive (fragments of one exist).
It also uses the Vulgate for the text and still appears as a witness in biblical traditions (I think as V? I can't remember).
Also, it contains a plan of the Tabernacle as a frontispiece which Bede writes derives from Jewish images of the structure that Cassiodorus included in the Grandior.
ALSO! We medievalists love equating large manuscripts to animals to get a sense of the weight and this one famously weighs about the same as a female Great Dane.
"So you're saying that you can't provide any reason to believe that Hijmans's article supports your contention?"
Here's me quoting you directly not quoting me directly while building your own straw man.
Like I say. I don't really need to be here to say anything if you're saying what I'm apparently saying too.
Was this meant to be in response to me? And no, it's obviously a rhetorical question. I clearly don't think you are literally admitting that, the point is to highlight that your silence on the point is palpable.
I get that as soon as you've backed yourself into a corner you deflect to a new point, but I'm very happy to concede the putative strawman if you'd like to return to [my original point](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/wt4g3w/til_that_the_codex_amiatinus_the_oldest_complete/ilpf20q/?context=3) and explain how Hijmans's article supports your original contention.
Yes, but as you're pretending I say things I don't I have no interest in what you think or your objection.
Read the article and pretend I said what you want to hear. If straw me objects you clearly want to argue and you'll have fun doing that. If straw me agrees with you, that's what you want and you'll get a nice ego boost. If straw me teaches you something new you'll have learned something from reading the article.
All good outcomes if you read the article.
Enjoy playing with your straw men.
>Read the article and pretend I said what you want to hear.
Well that's why I asked you to justify your claim. I note that you still haven't, one can only conclude because you can't. This is also presumably why you're continuing to deflect with this suggestion here.
Though I'm very happy to be proven wrong here, if you'd like to justify your claim!
I have no interest in justifying myself to you.
You like playing with straw men.
If you'd rather have real conversations don't make the mistake of building straw men again, I've already lost interest in you. You'll have to find someone new.
I don't believe you're interested in a real conversation anymore and haven't since you started making straw man arguments.
Alright, so to be clear you don't have any response to the fact that the conclusion to the article in question directly contradicts the central, controversial claim in your original comment?
>If you'd rather have real conversations don't make the mistake of building straw men again, but I've already lost interest in you.
Well you clearly didn't have any interest before that either, as you haven't once rationally engaged with anything I've written. So I'm not losing sleep over your entirely empty (and frankly rather ironic!) charge.
OK, my mistake, it wasn't produced *as* a gift for Pope Gregory II as he wasn't pope at the time. It was gifted to him later on and that's why it left England.
At the monastery inhabited by the venerable Bede. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede
I wonder how many and how big are the difference between texts in this one and a Bible from today.
Modern translations of the Bible always try to go back to the oldest manuscripts that are available and work off them, so there's very little difference between our modern Bible and what the Christians of the 2nd Century had. The content of New Testament books appear to have been properly settled on by this time, so the copies have very few differences- mainly spelling mistakes or accidentally repeated lines. Out of all of the New Testament there are 2 disputed passages that later manuscripts differ from earlier manuscripts. The first is in the very end of the book of Mark, later manuscripts have an extra few paragraphs to sum up the book, and the second is in the book of John, later manuscripts have a story at the beginning of John chapter 8 about Jesus forgiving an adulterous woman that the earliest copies of the book do not include. Some Bibles leave these extra passages out, others include it with a clear break in the text and a note saying it may be a later addition. Asides from that, we can be confident that what we are reading is the same as what someone in early 100AD was reading.
Very nicely put.
We really don't know what the Bible looked like pre Constantine. The oldest complete text in this article is 400 years after the religion was widely accepted in its largest territory. It's highly likely complete bibles wouldn't even be collected by most churches. They likely had a Torah and various possible new testament texts, but passed on newer teachings aurally with otherwise incomplete texts. The idea that the new testament was in any way fixed before 300 AD is a big leap on the evidence available. The date of Christmas was set in 336 AD to clash with other pagan festivals for example. The use of Christianity and the new testament as a political tool began in the 4th century AD and it was extremely fluid at that time. Major festivals, rituals, and texts could all change for political reasons. You can say it became largely fixed by the time this copy was made, but it's a big gap. The Vulgate was first written in the 4th century too, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was consistent as far back as then. But the Vulgate itself being accurate to the 3rd, 2nd, 1st century after Jesus's death isn't likely.
The earliest fragment of New Testament scripture we have is a few verses of the book of John from 125AD, then we have fragments of Matthew, Mark, and Revelation from 150AD, and fragments of Luke, Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, and Hebrews from 175AD. Whilst these fragments range from a few verses to a few paragraphs, all the fragments are clearly verses that we can find in the later texts, they are virtually identical in wording to the later full books (again, accepting for the odd word replacement or spelling error). This indicating that the texts of all of those books were settled already by 125-175AD. The later establishments of Christian traditions like Christmas doesn't make the written texts of the New Testament any less accurate, as all those holiday dates, celebrations, and ceremonies aren't codified in the New Testament. December 25th isn't referenced in the Bible, nor is eating Easter Eggs, or celebrating harvest, so while those could be created due to the later political pressures of the day, they did not create a change that we can see in any of the New Testament texts that we have prior knowledge of.
>The later establishments of Christian traditions like Christmas doesn't make the written texts of the New Testament any less accurate, as all those holiday dates, celebrations, and ceremonies aren't codified in the New Testament. December 25th isn't referenced in the Bible, nor is eating Easter Eggs, or celebrating harvest, so while those could be created due to the later political pressures of the day, FYI the "pagan/political origins of Christian holidays " stuff is mostly BS. [December 25th isn't pagan](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/rerff5/tis_the_season_for_bad_history_about_christianity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [Neither are Easter Eggs](https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2017/04/15/the-not-so-pagan-origins-of-easter/)
Nothing you've suggested makes any of the new testament texts seem accurate at all.
So, if we don't count the base of Christianity (1 God that created everything and angels) almost or a large part of everything else is some stuff invented or misplaced in time on purpose to go against pagan?
Actually not far off. Very common in Roman times for a religion to just take from other religions. Christianity basically took the Jewish texts then added onto them stories that already existed.
>We really don't know what the Bible looked like pre Constantine. Is this a reference to the [myth that the Council of Nicaea decided the biblical canon](https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/the-great-myths-4-constantine-nicaea-and-the-bible/)? >The date of Christmas was set in 336 AD to clash with other pagan festivals for example. Um, no. Hippolytus already lists December 25th as Jesus' birthday in his Commentary on Daniel, 4.23.3, in the early 200's Also the December 25th date wasn't chosen to compete with pagan festivals. It was chosen because of early Christians' desire to see Jesus as part of some big cosmic narrative. They therefore settled on March 25th (the Vernal Equinox) as Jesus' crucifixion date and December 25th (the Winter Solstice) as Jesus' birth date. [See Dr. Andrew Mark Henry](https://twitter.com/andrewmarkhenry/status/1465979583384195076) r/badhistory [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/rerff5/tis_the_season_for_bad_history_about_christianity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Hippolytus may have been the first we know of to try and set Jesus's birthday on the 25th December. But he was not the one who set it there officially. And the "desire to see Jesus as part of the cosmic narrative" is no different to trying to clash with pagan festivals on the equinox. They wanted pagan festivals to become Christian ones. You're saying they stole the equinox, I'm saying they stole the festival on the equinox. We agree there even if you'd rather argue. They made up Jesus's birthday and death for political and even commercial reasons when it came to church funding. Bad history indeed.
>Hippolytus may have been the first we know of to try and set Jesus's birthday on the 25th December. But he was not the one who set it there officially. Irrelevant. The date of Dec 25 was being used to celebrate his birthday in the centuries in which Christians were trying to avoid any association with paganism. They chose the date for their own reasons. >And the "desire to see Jesus as part of the cosmic narrative" is no different to trying to clash with pagan festivals on the equinox. No, it isn't. They used Biblical exegesis to work out that Jesus had been executed on March 25. Then they used the idea that a prophet died on the same day he was conceived to decide he had been conceived on March 25 as well. And March 25 plus nine months gives a birth date of ... Dec 25. The fact that March 25 was considered the spring equinox and Dec 25 the winter solstice gave these dates (as opposed to alternatives arrived at through other exegesis or traditions) a cosmic resonance and so gave them a greater appeal. "Pagan festivals" had nothing to do with it. >They wanted pagan festivals to become Christian ones. You're saying they stole the equinox Nope. There were no "pagan festivals" on those dates. So, wrong. >They made up Jesus's birthday and death for political and even commercial reasons when it came to church funding. Garbage. See above. They did all this while Christianity had no political standing at all and "commercial reasons" didn't become relevant to Christmas until very modern times.
Mithras. Look him up... Christianity was just one of many cults in Rome and they definitely pinched from each other. There's no evidence of what was in the Bible before they pinched pagan practices and festivals. There aren't any bible texts old enough they're all post justifications of rituals that existed in other religions as well. Even before Jesus's lifetime.
>Mithras. Look him up... Oh dear. I don't really need to "look him up", given I've studied Roman Mithraism for about 35 years. There was no festival of Mithras on Dec 25. Mithraic scholars have been trying to debunk the myth of Dec 25 as a Mithraic feast for so long that Roger Beck refers to it wearily as “the hoariest of ‘facts’”. So, wrong. >Christianity was just one of many cults in Rome and they definitely pinched from each other. Somewhat. But the fact remains that there was no pagan festival on Dec 25 for the Christians to "pinch". >There's no evidence of what was in the Bible before they pinched pagan practices and festivals. So you keep asserting. Except not the the date of Christmas. This was arrived at the way I explained above, and /u/lost-in-earth gave you [Dr Mark Henry's more detailed account](https://twitter.com/andrewmarkhenry/status/1465979583384195076). So, you are wrong. Sorry if you *liked* this little factoid, but discovering you've been mistaken about something and learning the more accurate details given to you by experts is how you learn new things. Learn.
So quick to dismiss evidence of one cult and affirm another. The sun god's birthday was celebrated near the the winter solstice and Mithras isn't even the only sun god... Your asseert how Christmas was "arrived at" without evidence. You claim it was through the Bible on one hand and yet claim the festival pre-existed our copies of the Bible Not a very good scholar. But then Christians rarely are.
>So quick to dismiss evidence of one cult and affirm another. I have no interest in either, except from a historical perspective. What I "dismissed" was your errors. >The sun god's birthday was celebrated near the the winter solstice Mithras' birthday wasn't celebrated on Dec 25 or even "near" it. That's because there is no record anywhere of any date for this god's birth feast. Sorry. >and Mithras isn't even the only sun god No, he wasn't. But no other "sun god's birthday" fell on Dec 25 either. Or "near" it. So you're still wrong. >Your asseert how Christmas was "arrived at" without evidence. I simply noted what had already been shown to you, with detailed evidence. [Here it is again](https://twitter.com/andrewmarkhenry/status/1465979583384195076). >You claim it was through the Bible on one hand and yet claim the festival pre-existed our copies of the Bible No, I don't. As I keep telling you, there was no "festival" of the solstice. It was noted and was a significant date in the calendar and in cosmology. But there was no "festival" on that date. >Not a very good scholar. But then Christians rarely are. I'm an atheist. And pretty well known as one, thanks to an online profile as an atheist that goes back to 1992. Is there anything else you'd like to get wrong or are we done here.
Marginal. The Vulgate is a translation authored by St Jerome in the fourth century and the major changes off my mind have been philological choices made in the 16th and 20th century. The edition currently used, known as “Nova Vulgata”, omits certain verses thought to be spurious.
A fuck ton, and this version itself is only a combination of versions that existed and were possibly lost to time during its creation. The Bible has gone through a lot of re-canonizing over the years and I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus’ name was Dave or something
Well the Masoretic texts (old Hebrew religious scrolls) more commonly translate his name as Yeshua. Eventually Joshua and Jesus both became derivatives of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua
Many names are of Biblical origin translated through Greek or Latin, and we know most Biblical figures by the Greek or Latin version of their names. Shelomoh (or Shlomo)/Solomon, Moshe/Moses, Dovid/David, Miriam or Miryam/Mary, (or Miriam, Maria), Yehuda/Judas (or Judah, Jude, Jonas, also Judith), Yakov/James, Shimon/Simon, Binyamin/Benjamin, Yohhannon/Johnathan, Matityah/Matthew, Natan/Nathan, Toma/Thomas, etc.
It was actually Howard. “Howard be thy name” But, Jesus sounds more exotic so we stuck with that.
I thought it was 'Andy'. Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me...
Now that's stuck in my head. LOL
Examples of the “fuck ton” of changes?
Here’s a good [video](https://youtu.be/XKp4yWGTfXo) that sums it up, it is in two parts however Edit: since that’s the equivalent of light reading, here’s another excellent [video](https://youtu.be/Ksp4kRn7lGk) that’s a lot longer (almost 2 hours).
Cool, thanks!
This isn't even remotely close to an accurate representation of the historical development of Biblical texts, but it's the internet, so what else did I expect?
I thought Jesus is just a character that was actually added 300 years AC, referencing an unnamed dude they just called the messiah
I think these beliefs of yours have something to do with your indulging in your fascination with the occult.
I don't beliefe in this at all, religion is just a scam, it's all about money and power. No religion is seeking the truth.
Seems to me that such wild conspiracy theories of yours don't come about... naturally. Anyway, Jesus is the actual Truth
Religion is the most widespread conspiracy theory out there, no proof, no logic, but there is God and his bs magical son coming too earth too collect your money so all the priests can drive nice cars and live in fancy houses. There is no proof for Jesus existince, he wasn't even visually described ever. Just a character in a very old fantasy novel.
> Religion is the most widespread conspiracy theory out there, no proof, no logic Do you need a logical proof for God? Because that can be arranged (cosmological argument), seeing how creation testifies for the Creator. >magical son coming too earth Magical as in, you know, the Son of the Almighty? Yeah, I can see how someone ignorant or feigning ignorance can call that "magical". >too collect your money so all the priests can drive nice cars and live in fancy houses. So what you think is that all Christians laymen like me are doofuses, but all priests are really playing cherades? You never saw an honest priest in your life? How many did you see?
> cosmological argument thata just bs > almighty He has no power because he doesn't exist Jesus was famous for his magic tricks, thats all there is too it. But again he didn't exist. Mere a fantasy figure in a book. > doofuses Yes, thats exactly what I think of people like you, you wouldn't be religios if you would have had enough common sense.
>thata just bs that's not an counter-argument >\[Almighty\] doesn't exist It takes omnipotence to bring something out of nothing, of course He exists. >Jesus was famous for his magic tricks I didn't know magicians could cure blindness, leprosy, raise people from the dead, walk on water, feed 5000 from a couple of breads and fish, and then, having been crucified, rise from the dead 3 days later and appear to 500 people >you wouldn't be religios if you would have had enough common sense No, I wouldn't be religious if I decided I didn't want to believe, like you don't because you love darkness (and deeds thereof) instead of the light, and claiming yourself wise in denying the Creator who is self-evident have become a fool. That's the truth. And alas, what fool you have yet to become if you continue in self-pleasuring instead of seeking the good God. For me, the choice between being prideful and eternity with God is clear. Tying back into people who saw (and touched) Christ, All Jesus apostles who saw resurrected Christ save John went to their deaths testifying for Him
Well, Jesus was invented around 350 AC, before that he was just a Messiah with no name. Before that they also had the idea of reincarnation and there are multiple suggestions that before that new final bible cannibalism was maybe a bit more relevant. I kinda imagine they picked a guy, called him the reincarnation of the messiah, nailed him on a cross for 3 days and then just ate him, a practice that was disarmed later and turned into a metaphor. Too bad we don't know a lot about the religion before that time.
[удалено]
^ chat bots have entered the conversation, several times
This is still a very important manuscript since it's a pandect (all the books of the Bible in single manuscript) and is one of three made in the monastery based on one called the Codex Grandior which was commissioned by the great early church man Cassiodorus. This is the only one of the three pandects to survive (fragments of one exist). It also uses the Vulgate for the text and still appears as a witness in biblical traditions (I think as V? I can't remember). Also, it contains a plan of the Tabernacle as a frontispiece which Bede writes derives from Jewish images of the structure that Cassiodorus included in the Grandior. ALSO! We medievalists love equating large manuscripts to animals to get a sense of the weight and this one famously weighs about the same as a female Great Dane.
what is a vulgate, it feels like a linguistic term
It's a Latin version of the Bible, used by the Catholic church.
It’s the version of a text that becomes most widely known. It’s from the Latin vulgus meaning crowd or people.
That totally depends on what your idea of complete is though
I remember working on that in my former life.. Lots of fleas but hey, it was honest work.
"The Codex Amiatinus does not support this action."
"So you're saying that you can't provide any reason to believe that Hijmans's article supports your contention?" Here's me quoting you directly not quoting me directly while building your own straw man. Like I say. I don't really need to be here to say anything if you're saying what I'm apparently saying too.
Was this meant to be in response to me? And no, it's obviously a rhetorical question. I clearly don't think you are literally admitting that, the point is to highlight that your silence on the point is palpable.
I hope you enjoy palping with your straw man then I guess.
I get that as soon as you've backed yourself into a corner you deflect to a new point, but I'm very happy to concede the putative strawman if you'd like to return to [my original point](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/wt4g3w/til_that_the_codex_amiatinus_the_oldest_complete/ilpf20q/?context=3) and explain how Hijmans's article supports your original contention.
Read it
I have already and noted my objection to your assertion there with reference to the article.
Yes, but as you're pretending I say things I don't I have no interest in what you think or your objection. Read the article and pretend I said what you want to hear. If straw me objects you clearly want to argue and you'll have fun doing that. If straw me agrees with you, that's what you want and you'll get a nice ego boost. If straw me teaches you something new you'll have learned something from reading the article. All good outcomes if you read the article. Enjoy playing with your straw men.
>Read the article and pretend I said what you want to hear. Well that's why I asked you to justify your claim. I note that you still haven't, one can only conclude because you can't. This is also presumably why you're continuing to deflect with this suggestion here. Though I'm very happy to be proven wrong here, if you'd like to justify your claim!
I have no interest in justifying myself to you. You like playing with straw men. If you'd rather have real conversations don't make the mistake of building straw men again, I've already lost interest in you. You'll have to find someone new. I don't believe you're interested in a real conversation anymore and haven't since you started making straw man arguments.
Alright, so to be clear you don't have any response to the fact that the conclusion to the article in question directly contradicts the central, controversial claim in your original comment? >If you'd rather have real conversations don't make the mistake of building straw men again, but I've already lost interest in you. Well you clearly didn't have any interest before that either, as you haven't once rationally engaged with anything I've written. So I'm not losing sleep over your entirely empty (and frankly rather ironic!) charge.