Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-31-2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Conklin:


Josephus died in ab't the year 100 (he was an eyewitness to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.). For him to have been "dependent" on anything from something that happened 300 years later is physically impossible.

I think he means that the reference to Jesus in Josephus dates to Eusebius.

David Conklin · 08-31-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
I think he means that the reference to Jesus in Josephus dates to Eusebius.

I was half hoping that's what he had in mind.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-31-2002, 06:07 PM

In the hopes of bringing the thread back on topic, it has been asserted: "Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so." I would love to know more about these tests ...

David Conklin · 09-01-2002, 07:15 PM

Here's some sites I just found on paleography:

<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html</a>

<a href="http://students.washington.edu/jjcrump/paleography.urls.html" target="_blank">http://students.washington.edu/jjcrump/paleography.urls.html</a>

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11403a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11403a.htm</a>

<a href="http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html" target="_blank">http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html</a>

Peter Kirby · 09-01-2002, 11:10 PM

I crossed this book by Crossan when at the library:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785809015/InternetInfidelsA" target="_blank">The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images</a>

Although little to no actual evidence regarding dating is provided in this slim volume, several pieces of Christian art are mentioned as belonging to the third century. An interested researcher could follow up in the scholarly literature with reference to the names of the early images mentioned to find those that are dated with reasonable reliability.

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr · 09-01-2002, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Conklin:


On the contrary. Look at any ancient mss and note how many lines per column and how many letters per line there are. Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration has a number of photographs of ancient mss. By knowing those numbers and placing the fragment in what the whole would have been you can tell exactly where it came from. The fragment 7Q5 has only one full word ("kai" = "and") and a number of fragments of others (it's about the size of a postage stamp) and from that they could tell that it came from Mark. It isn't guesswork when you know what to look for and how to look.

Really? How could they (ie Thiede) tell that it came from Mark?

Yuri Kuchinsky · 09-02-2002, 09:18 AM

Greetings,

Speaking about dating the gospels, one recent study should be mentioned here, "Dating Early Christian Gospels" by Andrew Bernhard.

<a href="http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm" target="_blank">http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm</a>

I think this is a very careful study, and he outlines all the standard arguments for and against the early dating of the gospels. I don't necessarily agree with some parts of what he says (such as, for example, I don't believe that the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch are authentic), still, it's well worth reading.

This is what he writes in his Conclusion.

"While it may be only natural to wonder exactly when significant ancient texts were written, some questions are better left unanswered. After nearly two millennia, the dates of gospel origins cannot be determined as precisely as we might like. Assigning speculative dates to early gospels does not contribute to our understanding of these texts, but inevitably prioritizes them. To avoid doing such injustice to these texts, the gospels should be located in the broad context of pre-canonical Christianity (ca. 60-150 C.E.)."

But, myself, I prefer to date the four gospels for the most part to ca. 80-180 C.E.. And also, there was probably a lot of additional minor editing even well into the 3rd century.

All the best,

Yuri.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-31-2002, 06:07 PM	#33
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	In the hopes of bringing the thread back on topic, it has been asserted: "Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so." I would love to know more about these tests ...

09-01-2002, 07:15 PM	#34
David Conklin Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 85	Here's some sites I just found on paleography: <a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html</a> <a href="http://students.washington.edu/jjcrump/paleography.urls.html" target="_blank">http://students.washington.edu/jjcrump/paleography.urls.html</a> <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11403a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11403a.htm</a> <a href="http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html" target="_blank">http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html</a>

09-01-2002, 11:10 PM	#35
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I crossed this book by Crossan when at the library: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785809015/InternetInfidelsA" target="_blank">The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images</a> Although little to no actual evidence regarding dating is provided in this slim volume, several pieces of Christian art are mentioned as belonging to the third century. An interested researcher could follow up in the scholarly literature with reference to the names of the early images mentioned to find those that are dated with reasonable reliability. best, Peter Kirby

09-02-2002, 09:18 AM	#37
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Greetings, Speaking about dating the gospels, one recent study should be mentioned here, "Dating Early Christian Gospels" by Andrew Bernhard. <a href="http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm" target="_blank">http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm</a> I think this is a very careful study, and he outlines all the standard arguments for and against the early dating of the gospels. I don't necessarily agree with some parts of what he says (such as, for example, I don't believe that the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch are authentic), still, it's well worth reading. This is what he writes in his Conclusion. "While it may be only natural to wonder exactly when significant ancient texts were written, some questions are better left unanswered. After nearly two millennia, the dates of gospel origins cannot be determined as precisely as we might like. Assigning speculative dates to early gospels does not contribute to our understanding of these texts, but inevitably prioritizes them. To avoid doing such injustice to these texts, the gospels should be located in the broad context of pre-canonical Christianity (ca. 60-150 C.E.)." But, myself, I prefer to date the four gospels for the most part to ca. 80-180 C.E.. And also, there was probably a lot of additional minor editing even well into the 3rd century. All the best, Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.