FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2001, 06:50 PM   #51
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by not a theist:

Are you saying that the redactor or the Beloved Disciple composed the epistles? If you are claiming it was the redactor (as I think you are), that seems reasonable given the similarity.</font>
If we postulate a dating of 90+ A.D. for the epistles, then believing that the Beloved Disciple himself wrote them becomes very difficult to believe. Even given an age of 20 when Jesus died (c. 33AD), this would put him in his 80's by this point, and that is very old.

On this basis, a final redactor, who would have been in his 20's or 30's at the time the Gospel of John was finally published (c. 65 AD), then he would only be in his 60's by the time the epistles were written. On this basis attributing authorship of the Johannine epistles to this final redactor seems pretty reasonable to me.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Bede (from this board, not the venerable one) seems to think that the Elder (who under his theory would be the second author) wrote 2 and 3 but implies that the BD wrote 1 (though he seems non-commital on it). Do you also subscribe to this theory?</font>
I have not studied the authorship of GJohn or the epistles as extensively as has Bede, but my own view is that the BD wrote GJohn more or less as is, with John 1:1-19 and John 21 possibly being added later on (but before publication of ANY of GJohn). John 21:22-23 and especially verse 24 seems to indicate that the principle author of the Gospel (the BD) had recently died.

Attributing authorship of 1 John to the BD would require us to more or less accept that the Gospel of John was written c. 90AD as well, and as I have shown already in my previous posts, I think that the earlier 60's date is more reasonable and plausible.

As a final note, I think I would have to let Bede speak for himself, since the theory supported by Brown is that 1&2 John are from the same author (the redactor of GJohn), and 3 John was independently written. I do not know Bede's arguments that 2&3 John were authored by the same person.

Nomad

 
Old 03-04-2001, 09:30 AM   #52
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

(8) The date of P55 at c. 100-150, coupled with the date of Papyrus Egerton 2 at about the same time—a document which employed both John and the synoptics—is almost inconceivable if John is to be dated in the 90s.

Nomad,

I think Dr. Wallace is mistaken on the dating of P55.
My source (http:www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/teste/Papyri-list.html) shows that P55 dates from the sixth or seventh centuries. Maybe he meant P52 which dates to the first half of the second century.

rodahi
 
Old 03-07-2001, 01:36 PM   #53
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

I think Dr. Wallace is mistaken on the dating of P55.
My source (http:www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/teste/Papyri-list.html) shows that P55 dates from the sixth or seventh centuries. Maybe he meant P52 which dates to the first half of the second century.</font>
Hi rodahi.

Thanks for the catch, I think you are right, and Wallace made a typo here. He almost certainly meant p52 instead of p55.

I have not forgotten about this thread, but had to finish up some reading first, so after I get home from this trip I hope to post my thoughts on the Petrine Letters (along with Jude and James), probably this weekend.

In the meantime, welcome to the boards. It's a pleasure to meet you, and if you have any other thoughts or questions on my posts thus far, please let me know.

Peace,

Nomad
 
Old 04-25-2001, 07:12 PM   #54
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Rodahi, in a recent thread, claims that he finds my conclusions on this thread unconcinving. Since he has not bothered to respond to any of my arguments for an earlier than traditional dating for the Gospels, I thought I would bring this thread back to the top and give him another crack at it. Anyone else is free to offer questions, comments, challenges and thoughts as well of course. Please, just be prepared to back them up. We do not get very far if all sceptics wish to do is say that I am wrong, but don't go any further than this.

Thanks, and looking forward to the discussion.

Nomad
 
Old 04-25-2001, 07:35 PM   #55
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Rodahi, in a recent thread, claims that he finds my conclusions on this thread unconcinving. Since he has not bothered to respond to any of my arguments for an earlier than traditional dating for the Gospels, I thought I would bring this thread back to the top and give him another crack at it. Anyone else is free to offer questions, comments, challenges and thoughts as well of course. Please, just be prepared to back them up. We do not get very far if all sceptics wish to do is say that I am wrong, but don't go any further than this.

Thanks, and looking forward to the discussion.

Nomad
</font>
No scholar, to my knowledge, takes Young Kyu Kim's opinions seriously. Why should anyone else?

rodahi

 
Old 04-25-2001, 07:38 PM   #56
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

No scholar, to my knowledge, takes Young Kyu Kim's opinions seriously. Why should anyone else?</font>
You missed my point rodahi. You have said that NO ONE thinks the Gospels are possibly from the dates that I have suggested. As you will note, my argument rests on far more than a single point by Kim regarding the introduction of the codex.

So, do you have any arguments to present my early dating of the Gospels or not? If so, please offer them. I seriously would like to debate this topic with someone that believes in the traditional (70-95AD) dates for the Gospels.

Thanks,

Nomad
 
Old 04-26-2001, 04:37 AM   #57
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
No scholar, to my knowledge, takes Young Kyu Kim's opinions seriously. Why should anyone else?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: You missed my point rodahi. You have said that NO ONE thinks the Gospels are possibly from the dates that I have suggested.

What do Kim's opinions have to do with the "Gospels?" His commentary is on P46, a MS that DOES NOT contain anything from the NT narratives. Surely you know this, Nomad.

Nomad: As you will note, my argument rests on far more than a single point by Kim regarding the introduction of the codex.

Look at my statement again, Nomad. Let's stick to one issue at a time.

Nomad: So, do you have any arguments to present my early dating of the Gospels or not?

This is another "bait and switch," Nomad. The issue is about Kim's opinions.

Nomad: If so, please offer them. I seriously would like to debate this topic with someone that believes in the traditional (70-95AD) dates for the Gospels.

Again, Kim does not comment on the dating of the NT narratives. Surely you know that, Nomad. He commented on P46. Do you know what this MS contains?

rodahi

 
Old 04-26-2001, 08:48 PM   #58
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

Nomad: You missed my point rodahi. You have said that NO ONE thinks the Gospels are possibly from the dates that I have suggested.

rodahi: What do Kim's opinions have to do with the "Gospels?"</font>
Still trying to keep you on topic rodahi. You specifically said that no on thinks that the Gospels are possibly from the dates I have suggested. You brought up Kim, and have continued to refuse to back up (or withdraw) your assertion. Since my arguments are not based on Kim's dating of P46, then can you offer arguments that support your beliefs or not?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">His commentary is on P46, a MS that DOES NOT contain anything from the NT narratives. Surely you know this, Nomad.</font>
I am sure that you can make a connection in the dating of a codex and arguments about dating the Gospels. If the codex dates to the 1st, as opposed to the commonly believed 2nd Century, then we may well have to redate a number of papyri. These documents are typically dated to the 2nd Century because it is believed that the codex is a 2nd Century invention, but surely you can see that this is ciruclar reasoning. I found Kim's arguments interesting, and have yet to see anyone present any counter arguments that are not based on authority alone.

Do you have any such arguments or not?

Secondly, are you going to defend your idiotic assertion that no one dates the Gospels to the time period that I have offered? Thus far you have not. I keep reminding you of your failing, and I am left to wonder how long you wish to remain silent on this matter.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: As you will note, my argument rests on far more than a single point by Kim regarding the introduction of the codex.

rodahi: Look at my statement again, Nomad. Let's stick to one issue at a time.</font>
We are. Do any scholars date the Gospels to the period of time I have suggested or not? You have said that no one has done this. Will you withdraw this stupid claim or not?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: So, do you have any arguments to present my early dating of the Gospels or not?

rodahi: This is another "bait and switch," Nomad. The issue is about Kim's opinions.</font>
I did not make you say that no one dates the Gospels at the dates I have offered. You did. Please prove your point, or withdraw it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: If so, please offer them. I seriously would like to debate this topic with someone that believes in the traditional (70-95AD) dates for the Gospels.

rodahi: Again, Kim does not comment on the dating of the NT narratives. Surely you know that, Nomad. He commented on P46. Do you know what this MS contains?</font>
You did not answer my question. Further, since my original post on the topic said that P46 was a codex of the Pauline epistles (less the pastorals), why are you asking this question now? Sure you actually read my posts before you heap scorn on them.

Nomad
 
Old 04-27-2001, 03:41 PM   #59
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: You missed my point rodahi. You have said that NO ONE thinks the Gospels are possibly from the dates that I have suggested.

rodahi: What do Kim's opinions have to do with the "Gospels?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Still trying to keep you on topic rodahi. You specifically said that no on thinks that the Gospels are possibly from the dates I have suggested.

You are mistaken. I brought up Young Kyu Kim's name to show how you contradicted yourself. Please provide the quote where I said anything "specific" about the "Gospels."

Nomad: You brought up Kim, and have continued to refuse to back up (or withdraw) your assertion. Since my arguments are not based on Kim's dating of P46, then can you offer arguments that support your beliefs or not?

There have been two issues: (1) You contradicted yourself by saying you would be "loathe" to accept the conclusions of only one popular scholar, when, in fact, you accept the conclusions of one obscure man named Young Kyu Kim. This led to (2) You accept Kim's dating of P46. I challenged your acceptance.

rodahi
 
Old 04-27-2001, 03:48 PM   #60
James Still
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
Post

It is very unbecoming to call others or their arguments "stupid" and "idiotic." Let's all take a deep breath please. Thanks.
James Still is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.