Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 76 of 107 (127686)
07-26-2004 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Kapyong
07-05-2004 10:28 PM


Re: Gospels un-known until early-mid 2nd century
You didn't answer why Christians would FORGE a correspondence between Paul and Seneca if a connection was not plausible?
Because the Christians in question were probably several centuries removed from the events and lived in precritical times, obviously. But I never ssaid that it was implausible for Paul and Seneca to have known each other. What is implausible is that Paul and Seneca should have known each other. In order for Seneca's silence about Jesus to have any significance, you (and I mean you, the one advancing the argument) have to give some reason that Seneca was likely to have known about Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Kapyong, posted 07-05-2004 10:28 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 77 of 107 (127693)
07-26-2004 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Kapyong
07-07-2004 12:40 AM


Re: No discussion of 1 Corinthians?
When the Gospels finally arose in early-mid 2nd century,
there was NO Jerusalem left,
all the Jews had been DISPERSED.
Who could check? How, exactly?
Suppose I made up a story now set in New Guinea in 1903, a century ago, (about the same period it took for the Gospels to arise) - how easy would that be to disprove, even in our modern era? What about in primitive iron-age culture? After TWO wars?
It's not an issue of second century Christians being able to check on facts. The issue is how second century Christians came to suddenly start thinking about the savior they'd been worshipping as having had a physical, historical presence, without commenting on the radical change in their theology -- despite being quite outspoken and argumentative about theology.
Your analogy doesn't address the question. Suppose instead that Mormon books appeared next week, claiming that Joseph Smith had actually lived in Tokyo. Do you think Mormons worldwide would accept them without comment or question?
Your timeline is inaccurate, by the way, even according to your own arguments. If Ignatius dates to the 130s, then stories about a historical Jesus were already established by then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Kapyong, posted 07-07-2004 12:40 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 78 of 107 (127747)
07-26-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by sfs
07-26-2004 1:00 AM


Re: Gospels un-known until early-mid 2nd century
Welcome back sfs!
Your comments are among the most cogent on this list and after a period of silence you have been busy on this topic.
I hope to find some time to go over Doherty's material in light of your comments, but until that may happen I'm including a quote, copied from The New International Version from Corinthians:
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
I don't know how well regarded the NIV is. There are so many translations and I don't know greek. But I wanted to focus on Paul's assertion that Christ was crucified by "the rulers of this age". Was Paul referring to secular rulers, kings, emperors? Or do you think Doherty is correct here in reading a reference to hellenistic conceptions of spirit powers that dominant the age? It's interesting to me that Paul does not say the Romans, or Jews, or this sect, or that person crucified Christ but that it was these "rulers of the age".
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 1:00 AM sfs has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 79 of 107 (127761)
07-26-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by sfs
07-26-2004 1:00 AM


Doherty on Paul's use of "flesh and blood"
I've looked at it, and at a number of his other pages. I haven't been able to find the references to spiritual beings who take on flesh and blood while not becoming historical. Could you point them out, please? I did note that Doherty discusses Paul's description of Jesus' descent "according to the flesh" without mentioning Paul's use of the identical term in the same letter, since Paul's clear meaning there would have demolished his argument. Does Doherty mention that item elsewhere? Because if he doesn't, I find it hard to see his approach as intellectually honest.
sfs,
Did you look at this paper of Doherty's:
But let’s go on. In Romans 1:3-4, Paul gives us two items of this gospel about the Son, encoded by God into scripture:
. . . who arose from the seed of David according to the flesh, and was designated Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness [or, the holy spirit] after his resurrection from the dead.
This part of the sentence is frustratingly cryptic, as reflected by the many different translations of its various elements. (The above translation of verses 1 to 4 are partly my own, in an attempt to lean toward the literal Greek.) Here, Paul offers two elements about the Son. One is kata sarka, literally according to the flesh, a vague and particularly cryptic phrase that is used throughout early Christian literature in a variety of subtle ways, often with unclear meaning. The other is kata pneuma, literally according to the spirit. Whether the latter is a reference to the Holy Spirit is also uncertain. Perhaps Paul is using kata to refer to something like in the sphere of the flesh and in the sphere of the spirit, which is a suggestion put forward by the eminent scholar C. K. Barrett. Such a translation is, in fact, quite useful and possibly accurate. But let’s look at kata sarka first.
. . . who arose from the seed of David, according to the flesh [or, in the sphere of the flesh] . . .
Is this a piece of historical datum? If it is, it’s the only one Paul ever gives us, for no other feature of Jesus’ human incarnation appears in his letters. But the fact that it is linked with the second element, which is an entirely spiritual event derived from scripture, suggests that it is not a biographical element Paul is offering.
In fact, it follows, grammatically and conceptually, out of what Paul has just said: it is an element of the gospel about God’s Son which has been pre-announced in scripture. Paul has told us clearly and unequivocally that this is where he has gotten this piece of information. In verses 1-2, Paul has focused on the message to be found in the sacred writings. Why would he suddenly step outside that focus and stick in a biographical datum about Jesus of Nazareth derived from historical knowledgethen return to scripture (as we shall see) for his second element? In fact, scripture was full of predictions that the Christ, the Messiah, would be descended from David. Paul, in reading these, would have applied them to his particular version of the Son, the Son who was a spiritual entity, not a human one.
As to issues of intellectual honesty I'm not sure what you are implying. Human beings will have biases. One important function of academic debate is to reveal and correct for unconscious bias as well as more deliberate bias. I don't think Doherty is being deliberately misleading. The traditional view point of the church has had centuries to influence how we see these things. Doherty is trying to show that there is another way of viewing the thinking of those times. I don't know if he is correct but I believe he is sincere and doing the best he can. That doesn't mean he is correct of course, but I don't think it follows that he is intellectually dishonest.
peace,
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 1:00 AM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 1:29 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 80 of 107 (127789)
07-26-2004 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by sfs
07-26-2004 1:00 AM


More on Doherty's view of Paul
sfs,
From another paper on Doherty's website:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar
The second Pauline passage most often appealed to in support of Paul’s knowledge of an historical Jesus is Galatians 4:4-5.
. . .God sent his own Son, born of woman, born under the Law (literally, becoming or arising out of woman / the law) to purchase freedom for the subjects of the law, in order that we might attain the status of sons.
[snip]
Burton also notes that the word usually translated as born (genomenon) is not the most unambiguous verb to use for this concept; a form of gennao, to give birth, would have been more straightforward. Instead, Paul uses a form of ginomai, which has a broader meaning of to become, to come into existence. Out of woman, of course, implies birth, but the point is, the broader concept lends itself better to the atmosphere of myth, if that is what Paul has in mind. And his born of woman is not only something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysos (and various other products of Zeus’ mythical dallyings), it is a detail he could well have based not on history, but on the source he uses for all he says about the Son: the Jewish scriptures. The famous passage in Isaiah 7:14,
A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. . .
was taken by Jew and early Christian alike to refer to the Messiah. Paul links this idea with Jesus being subject to the law. The latter was a paradigmatic feature which Christ had to possess, so that he could stand in parallel with those whom Paul is addressing, those who had themselves been subject to the lawuntil Christ abrogated it in this new age of revelation and faith.
Again, as in the Romans 1 passage, if Isaiah referred to the Messiah as born of woman, Paul would have concluded that in some way there must have been a spiritual world archetypal process to which this scriptural passage pointed. There would have been little difficulty in accepting this, given the overriding philosophy of the day which saw all things on earth as counterpart copies of primary manifestations in the higher spiritual realm. And as the mythical stories of all savior gods contained human-like features, including births from women, such a characteristic of the spiritual Christ would not have seemed out of place.
A glance back to the sentiments of Galatians 3 should confirm that, however Paul saw Christ as born of woman, born under the law, he didn’t see him as arriving in the present time through that birth. The key verses are 3:23 and 25:
Before this faith came, we were close prisoners in the custody of the law, pending the revelation of faith . . . Now that faith has come, the tutor’s charge is at an end.
Clearly, the present event of salvation history is not the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whose life and death are once again missing from the picture. Rather, it is the arrival of faith in the response to the missionary movement represented by inspired apostles like Paul. Here Paul is consistent with the way he expresses himself in many other places.
The mythicist position as I understand it is that a majority of scholars accept a historical Jesus because they evaluate the writings in light of modern thought that has developed for 2000 years. Doherty is attempting to reconstruct the world view of Paul's milieu which is very different from ours and then understand Paul in that context. I think this is a valid undertaking. Hardly anyone today would look at say the conflicts between Communism and Democracy's as being ruled by aeons, spiritual powers in a zone above earth as being literally meaningful. It appears many people in the first century would philosophically have no problem understand their "age" in terms like those.
Doherty also emphasizes that Paul works exclusively from scripture. That Paul's concern is to show the relationship of the Christ he experienced to those scriptures. History does not seem to enter into Paul's arguments. This is a mind set very different from our time.
peace,
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 1:00 AM sfs has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 81 of 107 (127799)
07-26-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by lfen
07-26-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Doherty on Paul's use of "flesh and blood"
As to issues of intellectual honesty I'm not sure what you are implying.
Yes, I read that paper (well, skimmed it anyway). What I mean by intellectual honesty is that when presenting a case, you should also acknowledge any arguments against it. Here, Doherty has to deal with what looks like a clear statement by Paul about Jesus' physical origins. He does so by saying that we really don't know what "kata sarka" meant. The obvious thing to do, under the circumstances, is to ask how Paul, in particular, uses "kata sarka", especially in this kind of context. It turns out that Paul does use "kata sarka" in the context of one's physical origins elsewhere, and in the same letter. In Romans 9:5, Paul again says that Jesus was Jewish "kata sarka"; two sentences earlier, he describes himself as being Jewish "kata sarka". It certainly seems to me that Paul's parallel use of the phrase for himself and for Jesus argues strongly that when he uses it about Jesus it means exactly what it seems to mean: that Jesus was physically Jewish. And it also seems to me that if you're going to discuss Paul's use of the phrase at one point in Romans, you'd better address the other occurences in the same book.
Also, is there anywhere in the kind of Platonic literature that Doherty is using as context an example of a spirit being who is said to be descended from a human, in any sense whatsoever?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 07-26-2004 11:44 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 07-26-2004 1:49 PM sfs has not replied
 Message 83 by lfen, posted 07-26-2004 2:10 PM sfs has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 82 of 107 (127811)
07-26-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by sfs
07-26-2004 1:29 PM


Re: Doherty on Paul's use of "flesh and blood"
sfs,
what a quick reply! May I quote your question about "kata sarka" in asking Doherty about clarification? He does respond to questions and I'd like to hear what he says. You have a point but I would like to hear his response.
I believe Doherty does gives examples of other mythical deities who were born of woman, but I generally have very poor recall and my memory is muddled as it's been a year since I read his site in detail. I'll see if I can stumble on them again and cite them here when I do.
peace,
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 1:29 PM sfs has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 83 of 107 (127819)
07-26-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by sfs
07-26-2004 1:29 PM


Re: Doherty on Paul's use of "flesh and blood"
sfs,
Well this from the same paper I quoted earlier.
And his born of woman is not only something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysos (and various other products of Zeus’ mythical dallyings), it is a detail he could well have based not on history, but on the source he uses for all he says about the Son: the Jewish scriptures. The famous passage in Isaiah 7:14,
A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. . .
was taken by Jew and early Christian alike to refer to the Messiah. Paul links this idea with Jesus being subject to the law. The latter was a paradigmatic feature which Christ had to possess, so that he could stand in parallel with those whom Paul is addressing, those who had themselves been subject to the lawuntil Christ abrogated it...
Not much detail. Somewhere, and it may not have been Doherty I recall reading a little about the Mithras cult and a few other solar saviours who are born of woman and sacrificed themselves to save their followers. I had thought at one time that the virgin mother was the earth and that the dying and reborn son was the crops that were renewed each year, but that has been so long ago I'm not sure where I got that notion, from Greek mythologies I suppose.
Certainly Christians assigned Christ the same birthday as Mithras and that is on or around the winter solstice or the rebirth of the sun. Twelve disciples does smack of the zodiac which was apparently and logical part of the solar hero cycle. If Christ was not a solar deity subsequent Christians borrowed some practices and conventions from pagan sources.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 1:29 PM sfs has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 84 of 107 (127933)
07-26-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by sfs
07-26-2004 7:16 AM


Re: No discussion of 1 Corinthians?
Greetings sfs,
Thanks for your detailed response, more answers follow later,
meanwhile ...
"Then why do we have a copy of the gospel of John that dates from early in the second century? "
We don't.
We have a tiny scrap of one passage which is also found in G.John (P52.)
It is entirely false to say we have a copy of Gospel of John. This passage could have existed as a pericope without G.John.
My point was our
"MODERN Gospels only took form in late 2nd century"
and I provided detailed evidence of this.
Evidence e.g. that early proto-Gospels were NOT like our modern four (Papias, Justin)- and the first evidence for Gospels LIKE our modern four comes from Irenaeus.
P52 does NOT tell us about the form of any Gospel it MAY have been in.
P52 is NOT certainly dated from early 2nd century - it merely MAY be.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by sfs, posted 07-26-2004 7:16 AM sfs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ramoss, posted 08-11-2006 3:04 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Jeannot
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 107 (131859)
08-09-2004 11:43 AM


????
If Jesus wanted us to put so much faith in a book, why didn't he write one? Perhaps because he thought "the time is short"?
Also, Paul, the earliest NT writer, seems to know nothing about the doctrine of the Incarnation, formulated later.

  
oblivionlord
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 107 (338731)
08-09-2006 2:34 PM


Perhaps I'm one who needs more convincing evidence other than just stories in a book. For example we'll look at the 10 commandments. I'm not questioning the teachings for I think that they are a valuable lesson; however why do we attempt to justify that these were manifested by God? Why don't we give more credit to ourselves? The human mind is such a powerfull and expansive book of knowledge in itself that it is more plausable to me to believe that man wrote the 10 commandments. It bothers me that man finds it so difficult to acknowledge that we ourselves could have created (and probably did create) such a promising book of guidelines.
Why is it that we believe that such subjects are factual for example Jesus? Why couldn't he have been just a human with good teachings? Why do we believe that he was some mystical being above us? It's within the human condition that we want leadership which is why we have managers, CEO's, supervisors, leaders of our country. In the meantime why don't we give credit to ourselves? Why deem it in the form as it is neccessary to glorify a human and turn him into a God when we ourselves have the same knowledge in ourselves before he voiced it? Was he really performing miracles or was it that primitave man believed in anything?
People in Japan believed that their emperor was a living God. Therefore what really makes him any diffrent than Jesus? Just because they don't follow the Christian religion, does that mean they are believing in a false God? 1% of Japans population consits of Chrsitians. Some in Japan believed that Jesus died in Japan. Here is a link...
Tomb of Jesus in Herai
What makes Jesus anymore a God than the ones who believe that the Sun is a God? Can you prove that even though the Sun is formed out of gasses that it doesn't have some means of life in itself? Are you able to prove metaphysics or solve the unified field theory? Maybe not right now, but later on perhaps. Does that make these people in the past such great monarchs when we ourselves were always capable of performing such feats, but only at a time when we became more aware of our environment?
Lets look at the Newton's first law: " I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.". How is this profound? There is nothing mysitical, there's no great revelation, there's no growth from this statement that we didn't already know thousands of years ago.However it is important to us because it was put into a book. His laws of motion, just like any other great teachings, were created in the human mind and put down on paper. So again why do we need to believe that the 10 commandments are God's word instead of giving credit were credit is due to ourselves who knew these teachings long before they were written down?
Or perhaps are all of our thoughts just mere messages from God? If this is the case than exactly how are we free will thinkers to learn things for ourselves?
I have a system of belief but, I do not come to any finnalized conclusions of my beliefs. To only believe in 1 outcome and dismiss all other forms of possibilities is nothng more than blind faith. Don't you believe? I like to annalize things more rationaly than to just see things as mere coincidence. I can reconize that the emotion of Love and Hate can not be seen by the naked eye but, only a mere feeling. Since feelings are subjective than are you able to truly know if your loved one really loves you or does your best friend truly love their parents? We naturally cannot know this without the use of technology therefore if someone came down displaying their powers of creation and destruction and then said that they are God, are you going to believe them?
With the knowledge of modern science, we can simply touch the brain and make certain portions of the body twitch. I'm sure in the future we will be able to recreate or produce new sensations of sight, sound, taste, smell, touch. Therefore the question is... If someone was able to remotly infuse the brain with the ability of theirs by means of technology or "unknown means" then how will you know for sure that someone is not deceiving you? The world's first remote controls were radio-frequency devices that directed German naval vessels to crash into Allied boats during WWI. There just isn't anything to say that we can't remotly do the same to the human mind. Forced love is not true love but, then again exactly what is the truth when we aren't capable of knowing it ourselves naturally. I'm not saying that you should be a hermit isolating your life away from the outside world living out of fear but, just to not let fear overwhelm your reality.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by AdminPD, posted 08-09-2006 7:33 PM oblivionlord has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 87 of 107 (338823)
08-09-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by oblivionlord
08-09-2006 2:34 PM


Welcome to EvC
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.
You've chosen a very old topic to resurrect. I don't think there would be a problem except that your post doesn't really deal with the topic. The topic deals with the Gospel Authors.
If you really want to resurrect this topic, please write a post that deals with the topic as presented in the opening post.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well.
Again welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by oblivionlord, posted 08-09-2006 2:34 PM oblivionlord has not replied

      
    oblivionlord
    Inactive Member


    Message 88 of 107 (338861)
    08-10-2006 12:29 AM


    Im just replying to peoples comments of the eyewitness account since evidence is a determining factor.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by AdminPD, posted 08-10-2006 5:48 AM oblivionlord has not replied

      
    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 89 of 107 (338876)
    08-10-2006 5:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 88 by oblivionlord
    08-10-2006 12:29 AM


    Reply Button
    It is difficult to tell who you were replying to since you didn't use the reply button at the bottom right of the post you were replying to, just as you didn't when replying to me. Using the reply button helps people know who you are talking to and let's the poster know they received a reply.
    Since this is not a discussion about the nature of evidence and your post is off topic, I'm afraid you won't get much response or have much luck reviving this thread unless you actually address the topic, which concerns the Gospel Authors.
    Also since this is a very old thread, many of the posters you might reply to may not be active anymore. If you click on the poster's name at the right of the post, you will see the topic index for that poster. This will show you if they are still active or not. If you check the two preceding posts you will notice that Jeannot is not actively posting, but Iasion and Ifen are still active posters.
    Remember that this is a very old thread and the discussion is cold. It may take a bit for people to get back into the rhythm of the discussion. Make sure you have read the whole thread so you don't cause posters to rehash what has already been said.
    If you wish to revive this thread, please address the topic.
    Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
    Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
    Thank you Purple

    Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

    Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by oblivionlord, posted 08-10-2006 12:29 AM oblivionlord has not replied

      
    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 612 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 90 of 107 (339262)
    08-11-2006 3:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Kapyong
    07-26-2004 9:23 PM


    Re: No discussion of 1 Corinthians?
    There is actually some good reason to think that the date of 135 C.E. that is given the Ryland script is overly early. The Ryland script is a little piece of papar, smaller than a napkin. IT is being dated independantly of any other archelogical evidence that might have accompanied it. It is being dated on the style of writing alone.
    Brent Nongbri in his essay "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel" (Harvard Theological Review 98 [2005], page 48). In his conclusion Nongbri states:
    quote:
    "What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Kapyong, posted 07-26-2004 9:23 PM Kapyong has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2006 1:00 AM ramoss has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024