mountainman

There are a number of reasons we we should not accept the
assessment of handwriting analyses of papyri fragments as the
primary means to the date papyri fragments. None of the
fragments so dated have a date on them. Their dating has
been estimated by the handwriting alone.

IamJoseph

Yet there is a mystery here. The pre-chrstian Europeans were not dumb, but it does look like they had no choice in accepting what was forcefully imposed upon them, and this became a belief down the track. Islam displays the same traits. These are religions of force, and these two are varied from all other religions: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism - are NOT based on enforced conversion and conquerings, and do not villify those who do not subscribe to that belief.

Its like a child being taken away from his biological parents, who were murdered off. The child grows up loving the new parents same way as one would their biological parents. This child would be aghast at someone coming up anew and claiming to be their parents - they will hate any changes of mode here. Christianity and islam emerged on the heels of the destruction of the jews and their homelan, so they thought - and what they did then cannot in any way be aligned to any Godliness, but represents only its antithesis. Aside from the booty looted and turning the people into slaves, villifying them with unending false charges, the heritage of Jews was the most saught after, and this is what both religions did - they robbed it with no history of observing any of those beliefs before.

Most plausably, the Romans, than the pre-islamic arabs did a PROTOCOLS OF ZION job, and THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE IS A ZIONIST PLOT job, respectively. Same people, same opportunity, same aspiration. Now, they absolutely hate Jews who somehow exist and did the ultimate RESURRECTION job in returning, threatening all that is cherished to Christianity and Islam, not by anything they do or plan, but by their very existing. This is why we see unending grotesque demands on Israel, and every one of them based on anihilation of Jews and what they represent: christians and muslims have no need for a new golf course on soccer-sized Israel. Behind all the propaganda of occupation, is a death sentence on the Jews. Nothing else appears satisfactory, and this is what history also says.

Chrstianity and islam can only evidence their veracity how they deal with Jews and Israel. Moses was the first zionist - and there is no crime in a child clinging to his true motherland. I ask mysef why is christianity and islam so effected by the smallest nation of peoples - what is their problem?

Toto

[staffwarn]NO MODERN POLITICS IN THIS FORUM[/staffwarn]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is way outside the time of this forum, as is current European policy towards the modern state of Israel

ripley

From what I understand, Carbon-14 dating has often supported the conclusions of paleographers. Perhaps we're putting a lot of faith in paleography when it comes to gospel fragments and such, but it seems the technique has proved its mettle elsewhere. That said, I'm not aware of any paleographers who date P52 later than the 3rd century. I can't imagine a scholarly bias so entrenched that such consensus could emerge without good reason.

Your thoughts?

mountainman

As a supportive and secondary callibrative tool and/or mechanism
to assess the chronological dating, paleography has always been
relegated to a secondary role. As such it usually requires other dating
techniques and independent corroborating testimony.

At the turn of the 20th century the prevailing paradigm was that
"we have plenty of evidence for the historical jesus", which has
appeared to have evaporated in the last century. At that time,
paleographical assessments were made on the "good faith" that
accompanied such pronouncements by New Testament and Biblical
Scholars (and other "church figures") - all was within the bounds of
the epoch. And within the bounds of 20th century "belief".

In 2009 as you point out we have C14 technology available. There
are 2 C14 citations with respect to the NT literature (actually both
are NT apocryphal tractates) and these are:

(1) gJudas (290 +/- 60 years) although the archaeological team are
suggesting a fourth century date; and

(2) gThomas (348 CE +/- 60 years) from the Nag Hammadi codices.

The C14 itself is thus suggesting something other than what the
paleographical assements are saying. The C14 suggests very strongly
that we are looking down he barrel of a fourth century chronology
for this "christian literature". The earliest codices and all other
chronological dating from the document traditions in Greek, Syriac,
Latin and Coptic are found to arise from the fourth century.

So you see at the moment the paleographical assessments which were
only ever intended to act as a secondary and supportive corroboration
to other chronological dating techniques (such as the author's name
and a date written on the fragment), are being used as the primary
dating methodology. As a skeptic of the history of the new
testament as asserted by the Constantinian propagandists in the
fourth century, I refuse to accept a "Paleographers Certfication"
as primary evidence for the existence of "early christianity".

There are other problems as well in addition to the fact that
paleographic assessment was never intended as a primary tool
for dating "christian origins" or any other issue in the field of
ancient history.

Perhaps the greatest of these "other problems" is the history of the
Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus itself, where the bulk of these
"new testament papyri fragments" have been sourced from the rubbish tip.
The history of Oxyrhynchus is that is was essentially very very low
population figures until the mid-fourth century at which time the city
expanded to extreme proportions. A further city comprised of structures
outside the walls of the original town was jam packed with inhabitants.
People for some reason at that time were fleeing the major cities of
the Roman empire and seeking refuge in the deserts and remote cities.

The Oxyrhynchus rubbish tip obviously was thus bloated with the dominant
statistical growth of papyri after the early fourth century.. It is thus
quite reasonable to believe that despite the paleohraphic assertions, in fact
to the contrary of these, that the fragments were sourced to that epoch
at which time the rubbish tips were chronologicially experienced the heaviest
useage, and at which time the new testament had been published and then
distributed for study among the greek academics by the state religion.

aChristian

You're close. However, some people are not passionate about it; they just tend not to think about it so that they won't have to face the logical conclusions they will arrive at. Different people have different ways to avoid confronting the truth. We do not like to admit our sin.

Roger Pearse

Or indeed the papyrus codices?

spin

Because they falsify his theory (for want of a better word).

So, mountainmaid has to say that palaeography is not reliable to within 150 years (despite the fact that there are dated exemplars of Greek scripts to compare early nt material with), because a text dated to the end of the second century can't have been written until Eusebius invented the religion.


spin

ripley

And the exemplars are dated by means other than paleography? Is that right?

Doug Shaver

I used to think that way myself, so I know how it works.