Doug Shaver

That does seem to be the majority opinion from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other.

Have you any idea what evidence that opinion is based on?

J-D

I don't understand any of that.

(1) Apparently you're talking about somebody having been accused of terrible crimes, but I don't know which accusations you're talking about.
(2) Whatever it is you're talking about, I don't know what makes you think it never bothers Christians.
(3) I don't understand why you're now referring to Hindus, Buddhists, and Taoists, or what you think they have to do with this discussion.
(4) I don't know whether you're talking about all writings ever written or just religious ones.
(5) I just don't understand that at all.

spamandham

That isn't true. If you want to assign probabilities to various components, and compute a likelihood, I'll listen.

That may be typical. Nevertheless, E.G. Turner has identified a similar style extending to the late 2nd century, which means that the paleography of p52 is pretty much useless for the purpose of this discussion. It is not valid to use the mean or median for artifacts dated via paleography. We have to consider the full range, which means p52 could be anywhere from 100 to nearly 200 CE - which is already much later than the suggested time period of ~135.

Consider that Justin Martyr never quotes from John, even though Justin's own positions are more closely aligned with John than the synoptics, which he does quote. For this reason, and others, Volkmar concludes Justin could not have possibly been familiar with John. Does this seem reasonable if John was written in the 1st century? Yet, Tatian, who is supposedly the student of Justin, quotes heavily from John. This is weak evidence of a very late date for John - late 2nd century. If John had not yet been written (or was not yet popular), that would explain why Justin is unfamiliar with it, but his student is.

A large amount of time is not required. We see this in the late 2nd century, with the proliferation of Acts style texts in a very brief period of time. A few years is more than enough time for the authorship of all the canonical Gospels, and a couple of weeks is all that is required for a text to travel from any portion of the Mediterranean to any other portion. A manuscript that is read in a church regularly becomes revered very quickly. (travel was primarily by sail boat, and if we accept the claims in regard to the travels of Paul, travel between the various disparate churches was commonplace).

So if we are talking about 10 or 20 years from the authorship of Mark until copies of John are being produced, that's more than ample time.

Consider that the traditional datings usually allow about that same amount of time for the authorship of all 4 gospels. So if my timeline is implausible, the traditional timeline is just as implausible.

No, it doesn't. Irenaeus is an orthodox apologist writing *after* the beginning of the explosion of pseudepigrapha. Irenaeus would have us believe that Justin Martyr tutored under Polycarp. Yet Justin does not mention Polycarp, nor "To the Phillipians". This is not impossible, but it is unusual, and calls into question the claims of Irenaeus, which are suspect already simply from the time period and his role as an orthodox apologist who spins a highly implausible tale about succession from John (Jesus' disciple) to Polycarp to himself.

andrewcriddle

I would say that, at the very least, P52 is much better evidence for a date of John before 150 CE than the absence (or near absence) of allusions to John in Justin is evidence for a date of 150 CE or later.

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter

Yes, but I only allude to the later date it because I do not expect those more interested in higher criticism than me to object.

sschlichter

What is the meaning and relevance of this (you have repeated it 4 times now).

In the 20th century, there are all sorts of religions and cults that are based on Christianity but expand and supersede it's revelation with it's own. This has no bearing on what Irenaeus is writing either.

spamandham

The same style has been identified as late as 184 CE. Why then does p52 indicate a date earlier than 150? I suppose if we wanted to use a mean date of the currently allowable range (100 - 184) based on paleography (which is not valid), it would be 142 - a bit before 150, and sufficiently late to allow for the Gospels to all be post BK revolt.

spamandham

The meaning, I would think is rather obvious. Irenaeus has proven himself a propogandist rather than a historian with his absurd claims about Polycarp being appointed by Jesus' disciples, and that torch being passed on to Irenaeus. You are welcome to buy as much snake oil as you wish.

Certainly it does. We analyze a writer by trying to understand his culture, as well as the writer himself as best we can. We do not simply assume a writer is acting in the role of a modern journalist.

His was not a culture of dutifully recording historical facts. His was a culture of inventing facts, as aptly demonstrated by his own absurd claims.

andrewcriddle

I agree that is p52 is compatible with a slightly post BK revolt date for John.
However the 19th century supporters of a late date for John saw the origin of John as subsequent to the beginning of the Paschal controversies which started shortly after 150 CE.

I think this is difficult to reconcile with P52.

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter

I never really even imagined Irenaeus in the role of historian. what exactly is absurb about the claim regarding Polycarp?