Roger Pearse

What appalling manners.

People interested should read the publication. It isn't lengthy, and Roberts makes the backing he had assembled prior to publication very evident (so long as we know who the people to whom he refers are, of course...). This is why something that demolished the consensus of NT scholarship at the time remained unchallenged for so long.

You doubtless believe that Colwell was a leading paleographer of the day. Had you looked him up, you might have found otherwise.

I seem to recall from Metzger's "Text of the NT" (3rd ed) that Schmidt's view was an isolated one.

The Nongbri article is curious. He attempts to get rid of the dating of p.52, specifically because he finds it inconvenient to NT studies (he says so). His method is to debunk all papyrus datings from the 2nd century. I don't know how it has been received -- not that well, I believe --, but the weaknesses of such an approach must be evident to all.

That said I believe that generally a later dating than that of Roberts -- ca. 125, plus or minus 25 years, and earlier rather than later -- IS generally held, because some of the papyri used as reference are now generally dated somewhat later. I have not followed that debate, tho. But not nearly as late as 200!

I am happy to be abused for presuming that someone who asks questions does so in good faith. It would be a presumption rare among those acting in bad faith, I admit.

Nasty.

If anyone else wants to discuss this, by all means let us do so, and learn together. But only a jerk introduces personalities into what should be rational discussion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to reach your level.

Rubbish. The reason why this tiny fragment has been so abused is because it provides such a hopeful dating. There are so few characters on the fragment that it is at best a sketchy dating. That's why there are conservative voices of caution. You cannot hope to be so accurate, especially at the time when Roberts proposed his range. Scholars have analyzed more fragments since then and generally got more familiarity with what is now available.

He was doubtlessly a well-reputed though conservative scholar.

Had you gone a little deeper, you'd get off your charger.


It's always a case of don't look so close: ignore it and it will go away.

Palaeography gives ballpark figures. Schmidt specifically refers to early 3rd century texts that bear certain similarities to P52. I haven't found even one commentator who has acknowledged looking at those texts to see what Schmidt was on about.



It's not a matter of good or bad faith. You have been here long enough to know that one does not necessarily accept facile datings. Your brushing aside those questions with a flippant comment regarding google seems more to have been a rush of blood than clear thinking.

Another response worthy of

Nobody discusses Schmidt and Nongbri only gets a rare nod. I'm all for learning together, but not for tendentious presentation of only favorable analyses. The treatment of the dating for P52 seems to have been a holy cow issue. A first edition has the honor of breaking a text to the world; it rarely has the last say. New things are always being uncovered, new understandings and analyses, new contexts. These shape what was once reality. There is no living in the past for scholarship.



So the mirror reveals the truth.

I do await your rational discussion.

:eating_popcorn:


spin

mountainman

I reckon that's fair enough, but on one issue in this thread raised by the OP I am very happy to allow you to tell me the theory of your own choosing for the evolution of the NT canon to the year 324/325 CE. That is, I am happy to consider that it existed in the 3rd, 2nd and/or even on the 1st century. My position on the origin and evolution of the non canonical "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" does not really depend upon nything before the years in which COnstantine implemented the new state religion at the council of nicaea.

The OP wrote:

And you responded ...

My position is that I think that there is evidence to suggest that in fact did happen. The appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" at the precise political time when Constantine was promoting Christianity needs to be addressed. The facts are that the consensus of scholars and academics currently propose that these books were authored perhaps as early as the 1st century, certainly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and also certainly during the 4th and possibly even as late as the 5th century.

The "Acts of Pilate" is dated to the 4th century. It describes exactly what the OP writes:

Why would a 4th century author write this? Even allowing for the NT canon to be genuine and having an authenticity before the 4th century (which I freely allow when discussing the NT apocyrpha) what is the message contained in the Acts of Pilate, if not anachronistic.

Even allowing for the prior existence of a christian presence in the eastern empire, the dominant "pagan populace" could not have taken the imposition of christianity without some form of resistance. It is politically impossible in my opinion that there was no resistance to Constantine's agenda from the Alexandrian Greek academics and the Greek priesthood, all of whom had just been suddenly made redundant by Constantine's prohibition of the use of the use of the temples c.324/325 CE.

The Acts of Pilate represents a microcosm within the macrocosm of "the evolution of christianities" but I am willing to attempt to argue that it is far more political than it is religious, because --- like the rest of the non canonical texts --- it downplays the story of Jesus as it occurs in the canon - in Constantine's bible.

The author(s) of the 4th century "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" -- such as the Acts of Pilate -- has studiously studied the texts and books of the Constantine Bible and has extracted bits and pieces and recombined them with novelties and various permutations of the events of the canon.

The non canonical texts were translated from greek into Syriac and Coptic in order that they may have a chance of being preserved. They were found preserved (perhaps in Babylon) by Photius in a huge compendium of books entitled "The Travels (or the Circuits) of the Apostles", with the author's name given as one "Leucius Charinus". These things were thus preserved internationally.

When looking at them today we think they are christian.

If were to look at them given the political context of c.324/325 CE my argument is that they represent a literary reaction to Constantine's Canon by the Greek academics of the east. Just as the bible became international news so did the "Hidden Books" aka "The NT Apocyrpha" aka "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts" aka "The Non Canonical texts".

But their "news" and import requires us to understand when and why they were written. This is a separate (but related) question as to the origin and evolution of the canon, and in answering the question about the "Gnostic Gospels" I am happy to allow that Constantine did NOT invent christianity - that it existed before he rose to power.

Toto

[staffwarn]The management requests that personal comments be toned down. Please avoid "fighting words." Thanks for your attention to this. [/staffwarn]

ApostateAbe

Thank you for putting so much thought into your criticism and analysis of what I am saying, show_no_mercy. I really do appreciate it.I would say that is a good point. Maybe you don't see any defensiveness in Mark's account, but I have a different take. Here is the relevant passage from Mark 1:

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’

In Sunday school, I thought of this as boring. The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. Yeah, that is what I have heard all of my life, and nobody measures up to Jesus, yeah, I get it. With a new critical vantage point, I can now, more interestingly, explain why this gushingly humble quote from John the baptizer was included. At the time this was written, the Jewish cult of John the baptizer was a competitor on the same level as the Jewish cult of Jesus, maybe smaller, but I am guessing bigger. This is reflected in Josephus spending twice as much text space on John the baptizer than Jesus. John's cult would have an effective line of attack--John baptized Jesus, and everyone knows that, so who is greater? Mark's answer? John actually claimed that he was unworthy to be even Jesus' dressing room attendant. Whammo. This would be a slap in the faces of John the baptizer's cult. Mark goes on to spin the baptism into what seems to be a rite of passage, of God accepting Jesus as his son. No such thing for John the baptizer.

Each gospel belonged to a different sect of Christians, and each sect seemed to have its own way of dealing with it. But, they all seemed to color their accounts according to their competition with this other cult and the seeming embarrassment of Jesus being baptized by John for the cleansing of sin.
Variations in spelling of "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" are found variously throughout the gospels to refer to a town in Galilee where Jesus was from. The variations of spelling seem best explained as "Nazareth" or "Nazarene" having an unknown spelling in the spoken myths of a tiny unknown foreign town. Your point about Matthew 3:13 excluding "Nazareth" from its copying of Mark 1:9 seems to be a good one, and, if you wish, then we can settle on what is corroborated between those two passages--that Jesus was from Galilee. If Jesus was from Galilee, then he was not from Bethlehem of Judea near Jerusalem, the town where he would need to be from if the perceived messianic prophecy is to apply to Jesus. There is another town named Bethlehem of Galilee that is near Nazareth, but it wouldn't be Bethlehem of Judea, the town that is needed.

I didn't know that. Do you know where that information comes from? Thanks.
Do you take Mark 14 as interpolation as something? Or, is the gospel of Mark not early enough? Sure, the writings of Paul are earliest, but we don't really expect him to mention Judas given that he says hardly anything about the human life of Jesus. The gospels mention plenty about the human life of Jesus, and they seem to be in agreement about Judas (roughly). If you explain the story of Judas as an invention motivated by anti-Judaic prejudice given the similarity of his name (not an exact match) to the word "Jew," then I figure you should also explain the "Judas" who is a brother of Jesus and the "Judas" who is a leader and an apostle in the book of Acts. "Judas" was apparently a common name.
Well, yes, it is Mark speaking through the mouth of Jesus to communicate to Mark's audience, but Mark's Jesus is speaking to Jesus' immediate audience. Examine Mark 9:1 (my emphasis):

And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’

The "them" would be "the crowd with his disciples" per Mark 8:34, in the previous passage. Mark's audience would understand Jesus speaking to Jesus' immediate vocal audience. Mark is only relaying that information to a new audience, or at least that seems to be Mark's intention.
Sort of. I am using the gospel of John to clarify the identity of "Cephas." We do not have to trust the gospels, but we ought to take them as reflecting "common knowledge" among Christians, and the "common knowledge" should absolutely be used to clarify what Paul meant, if there is any doubt. If not, then you must provide an alternative explanation that has greater explanatory power, scope, etc. in light of the evidence.
I am sorry, you may have gone over this again and again, but this particular argument seems somewhat new to me, so my apologies. The writing of Josephus, as I read them, claim that James was "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," not the prophesied king of the Jews predicted in scripture. You might be interpreting that passage about James according to the interpolated Testimonium Flavianum, but it seems more likely to me that Josephus wrote something negative about Jesus in the TF (as reflected in the writing of Origen) and the report of James wasn't touched by interpolators since it wasn't blasphemous. You said that Josephus nowhere else uses the word "christ" except when talking about the Jesus of Christianity. In fact, he does use the word "Christ" at least one other time, in Section 6 of An Extract Out Of Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades.

For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ. For Minos and Rhadamanthus are not the judges, as you Greeks do suppose, but he whom God and the Father hath glorified: CONCERNING WHOM WE HAVE ELSEWHERE GIVEN A MORE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT, FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE WHO SEEK AFTER TRUTH. This person, exercising the righteous judgment of the Father towards all men, hath prepared a just sentence for every one, according to his works...

I have all the works of Josephus saved in a text file, so it easy to do a word search. I don't have access to the original Greek, though.

aa5874

You cannot just "GUESS" your own history.

No non-apologetic source of antiquity mentioned a Jesus cult at the same time as John the Baptist. Even in the forgery in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 there is NO claim that a Messiah with the name of Jesus was baptised by John.

And in Antiquities of the Jews 18.5 where Josephus mentioned John the Baptist he did not mention that a Messiah was baptised by John the baptist.

Your "GUESS" is not history, it is not an explanation, it is mere speculation from your imagination.

You produce imagination history.


You are a story teller. You make stuff up and then believe them.

Imagination history 101.

How do you KNOW it was a tiny unknown foreign town, storyteller?

Jesus was from an unknown tiny town known as Nazareth?

What????

I think something is wrong with your story.

Doug Shaver

Somebody wrote some stories about it happening. Yes, that is evidence. But in my book, it is not good enough evidence for believing that several people got up out of their graves and walked around for a while.

I cannot address that. I have done no research into the probable date of their composition.

OK, so that's the consensus. Maybe it's well founded, maybe it's not.

I have not read the Acts of Pilate, so I have no opinion as to what its message is.

The last time I read anything on the subject, the only thing Constantine did respecting religion was to legalize Christianity. I am not aware of his having prohibited the practice of any other religion. It's my understanding that one of his successors did that.

But whoever it was, I expect that there would have been some resistance. What that might have to do with the question of when Christianity got started, and who started it, is beyond my comprehension.

As I said, I haven't read it. For all I know, it could be chock full of political content, but whether it is or isn't would have no bearing on how I interpret the rest of the evidence pertaining to Christianity's origins.

OK.

Preservation could have been the translators' motive. Other motives are at least as plausible.

That is not an argument. If you have any argument, that would be its conclusion.

mountainman

For sure - I am not suggesting we believe that. I am pointing out that we have a state of affairs where an author writing in the 4th century produces yet another anachronistic account of the events described in the canon. And it is written in such as way as to defy belief. The tales are impossibly fictional, not just suggestive as in the canon. The "Gnostic Gospels, etc" have often been described as "wildly romantic fiction". I think this is the precise [political] reason that they were prohibited by Constantine.


You are correct Doug - thanks.

I know you mentioned you had not researched these texts (ie: the "Gnostic Gospels etc") so therefore we cannot really discuss the contents unless we find a representative example. (Even then it might go into the too hard basket). Such an example is in the "Acts of Pilate". Pilate presents Jesus to the Jews ....

We have the 4th century author of this "Gospel of Nicodemus" (containing these "Acts of Pilate") reporting that Pilate tells the Jews that Jesus heals by the Graeco-Roman healing god Asclepius. This is extremely political in the 4th century when Constantine destroyed the temples of Asclepius before he started constructing the christian basilicas.

I am suggesting that the author of this was making a political statement in the 4th century context.

Doug Shaver

What it takes to defy your belief is not what it takes to defy mine.

mountainman

My comment in context relates to common sense belief. Common sense belief suggests Aesop did not write tales about history. A story about Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle is hardy history. Common sense can usually distinguish between the genre of historical accounts and outrageous fictional romance.

You may not be aware of this but the world of academics and scholarship in their wisdom have classified the genre of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" as the latter - outrageous fictional romance. It defied belief as being considered as history. The stuff was intended for the masses and to amuse them with a different perspective and new startling information about jesus and the twelve apostles and paul and his buddy pseudo paul.