Duke Leto

Toto.

Grog

I don't think this is fair without engaging AA on his theory, and really, his argument. He is correct that we don't see an emergence of actual physical evidence for Christian beliefs until the second century. We can conjecture why that may be so (we have copies of copies, leading back to the first century, e.g.). But AA's reliance on this physical evidence isn't laughable, he makes a consistent argument, in that regard. In another thread, I am trying to get some clarity on this myself. Comparing his position to Bozo the Clown is ad hominem. Let's just all be respectful.

As far as his argument goes: I am wondering how significant it is that we have no manuscripts earlier than the mid-second century (p52 being an outlyer and one case of misdating at 125). While it is true that the preservation of manuscripts is rare, we also know that NT manuscripts when they emerge are fairly numerous relative to other writings. So just by chance, we should find older copies of manuscripts from before 100 CE. Aren't there manuscripts amongst the Oxyrhynchus papyri dating to the first century? Yet nothing from the Christian tradition until the mid-second century. I am trying to find my way in this quagmire.

Sheshbazzar

The Gospel of John (as represented by p52) has a highly developed theology understood by textual and theological scholars to be indicative of a considerable gestation period.
That p52 is accepted as our earliest presently available exemplar is hardly indicative that the original composition does not in fact date to some quite earlier date.
AA would like us to accept his unlikely premise that fragment p52 dates to the very beginnings of the Christian religion, and that Christianity could not have existed any earlier than this surviving fragment.

That doctrinal and theological evolution that separates gJohn from the synoptic gospels would have likely taken decades to have developed and to have became accepted to the point that copies such as p52 would have been produced and distributed.

J-D

You are wrong. I did not compare aa5874's position to Bozo the Clown.

You are also wrong to imagine that such a thing as 'engaging AA on his theory, and really, his argument' is possible.I respect that. I just give you fair warning: don't expect any help from aa5874.

aa5874

Again, P 52 is NOT DATED to a specific year. It is dated to a RANGE of years.

Again, a COPY of an ORIGINAL can be made the VERY SAME WEEK or within the VERY SAME MONTH that the Original was published.

Again, if gJohn was COMPOSED c 150 CE it could be COPIED c 150 CE.

Please, are you NOT aware that even TODAY Doherty COMPLAINS that his BOOKS are BEING COPIED???

2000 years from NOW the same COPIED books if found would be dated WITHIN the VERY SAME DATE RANGE as the ORIGINAL.

Sheshbazzar

No one else has even attempted such a claim, in fact you seem to be the only person here concerned with positing any particular date for the original text of gJohn....as your alleged 'evidence' that Jesus and Christianity did not exist prior to the writing of p52.
Which I find to be a dowright silly proposition.

ah ah ah aa. This "....can be" is nothing more than pure speculation on your part.
You do not have any positive evidence to support that speculation. The original composition of gJohn -could just as well have been- 50 or more years BEFORE the p52 copy was made

Possible. But your "...could be" certainly does not serve as any evidence that this was the case.
It likewise equally -could have been- composed 50 years BEFORE the p52 copy, and you have no evidence that it was not.

This is a ridiculous pretend situation. Very much unlike the anonymous authors and the uncertain dating of the NT writings, Dorherty and the controversy of his writings are well known, and it is extremely unlikely that his writings would be copied into such perpetuity without any knowledge of their real author and origins.
This is no longer the Bronze Age with its limited information storage and retrieval ability, or extreme illiteracy rates.
It is ridiculous to attempt to pretend extrapolate the social conditions and the technological limitations of 2000 years ago, 2000 years into the future.

aa5874

Your statement is WRONG. You are promoting PROPAGANDA.

Again, P 52 is NOT dated to a specific year, it is dated to a RANGE of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

You are BLATANTLY making ERRONEOUS and MIS-LEADING statements about my position.

Please STOP immediately.

My position is that Jesus the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and that the DATED Texts of antiquity support my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

aa5874

You seem not to know the difference between Speculation and Logical deductions. You appear to be hopelessly confused.

It is completely reasonable to deduce that copies of originals of any book or letter whether in or out the Bible could have been done within a week or month.

Please, when WRITTEN STATEMENTS are examined one can make logical deductions based on the DATA provided.

My position is that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and the DATED evidence is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I expected--A BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century.

aa5874

Well, please provide a document that was actually recovered and dated 50 years EARLIER than P 52 or stop blowing HOT AIR.

I have P 52 and you have HOT Air and is merely making a lot of Noise.

Once you ADMIT that it is possible that an Original of gJohn and a COPY could be made in the same year then your argument has collapsed.

aa5874

What!!!!???? You just said it was POSSIBLY. You appear to be confused. Your story keep changing.