Roger Pearse

For those who do not know, the dating of P52 to 100-150, most likely around 125, probably earlier rather than later -- this comes from the original publication of P52 by Colin Roberts. Since he wisely sought the backing of all the most eminent paleographers of the day before publishing something so certain to upset the theological apple-cart, it reflects the consensus at that time.

The photographs are certainly good.

Nongbri wrote with an agenda which fairly enough, he states; to allow scholars who want to try to redate John late to do so. At the moment the date of P52 prevents such theories.

Unfortunately the approach taken seemed to me to be to try to suggest that we couldn't reliably date any second century papyri using paleography.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sschlichter

I did not mean anything personal about this term. I was referring to you as a compatriot because you were both arguing similar points.

I apologize if it was taken any other way.

~steve

sschlichter

I really expect this line of defense will be inevitable. For those (since 1820's) that would have dated the NT much later, it has been a tragedy that these fragments have been found. Had they not been found, I am fairly certain that the whole of NT scholarship referred to in this thread would have had them all in the 3rd century or later.

Saying that they cannot be reliably dated is all that is really left.

~Steve

Roger Pearse

It feels nasty, doesn't it? I don't *care* about the religious issues. What I want to see is people trying to get the raw facts right, without which any religious discussion is merely a collection of prejudices pro and anti.

Incidentally I think I recall someone saying that there is a genuine reason to date P52 a little later, in that the dates assigned paleographically to papyrus fragments have generally shifted by about 25 years in the last half-century. That could well be so -- I wouldn't know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Hiya,

Mate -
we don't know for sure.
That's the point.


Quotations of John have no direct bearing on the date of P52. What "varied fragments found very early"? How do they help date P52?


Your claim that P52 is 150 at "the latest" is rubbish.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Luke means "us" Christians.

The full passage reads :

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


He does NOT say he spoke to eye-witnesses.
He does NOT connect himself or his work to eye-witnesses.
He does not name or identify any eye-witness in any way.

His only mention of eye-witnesses is un-named OTHERS who wrote based on what was handed down from eye-witnesses.

The phrase "handed down to us" is connected to the un-named OTHERS who wrote un-named narratives. No connection to Luke at all.


They do not require an interview at all. All they require is for Luke to pass on stories he has heard.


Yup. So what?
Luke wrote about Jesus based on other stories about Jesus. Not the slightest sign here of any eye-witness.


Only IF you assume he was there, then you can assume he was there. This use of "we" could be a literary convention for sea journeys. It proves nothing.


Iasion

Iasion

Hiya,

Like I said -
Ignatius does not quote Mark.


Well,
does he?

Does he say anything like : "according to the Gospel of Matthew (or Luke)"?
No.

Does he mention Luke or Matthew by name?
No.

Does he mention the word "Gospel" ?
No.

Does he indicate he is quoting a phrase from a another book?
No.

What he gives is 4 small phrases which are later found in the Gospels :

"The tree is known by its fruit"
"Let him accept it who can"
"wise as a serpent" and "harmless as a dove".
"Take hold of me, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost."

These phrases could simply be Jesus stories which were incorporated into both Ignatius, and later the Gospels.


Iasion

Iasion

Hiya

Thanks Andrew,
that seems quite reasonable.

Iasion

P.S.
Equinox - please note name "Iasion" :-)
I get Iason all the time .. weird.

sschlichter

This is good to hear. Earlier in this thread I got '= 150', as in could not before 150. This was later ammended to be an approximation of 150.

We are in agreement now, we do not know. It could be 100 or could be 170. I am not knowledgable enough myself to understand how it is dated and have no choice be to trust the range of dates that are given to me.

They do not. I am sure you will agree that they are all means to an end. A book is quoted in Lyons in ~180 and in Rome in ~150 and pieces are also found in Egypt from (~100 to ~170) and the book in question is largely beleived to be the last gospel written. It follows that most reasonable people will avoid claiming that book was forged 200 years later than that.

Doesn't this seem like a reasonable line of thought to you?

~Steve

sschlichter

the eyewitnesses (a very clear greek word used here (autoptai) (plural), same word where we get autopsy - to see for oneself) from the first (beginning). The 'us' can be whomever you like. It is the 'those eyewitnesses' that drew up accounts that I was referring to.

It seems there are a few possibilities. 1) The author spoke with the apostles and Mary in order to find out those things that only he wrote about. 2) The author made them up to deceive his audience.

Perhaps there are other options. I feel #1 is most likely since the book in question is quoted early enough to make me think the author was an actual disciple of the apostles. Being this early, deception seems hard to pull off. I.e. Why would Polycarp quote Luke, being John's disciple he could have been let in on the fact it was a deception. (unless you argue that John and/or Polycarp were in on the deception.

no, not an assumption at all. If you read Luke carefully, you can see he is claiming to be present. Since he is claiming to be then I want to get as much evidence as I can to determine the veracity of the claim. I would recommend you do the same. The claims of the first ~100 years of christianity seem more like a web than a chain to me. there is just enough witnesses to not need any specific one so if you know alternate meanings of sea-faring personal pronouns, then please let me in on it and perhaps we can scratch Luke off the list of credible testimony.

~Steve