maryhelena

I don't happen to think that dating documents is going to be very beneficial in tracing christian origins. I think those mythicists that seek to build up a christian origin scenario on dating Paul's writings, as the earliest of the christian writings, are driving themselves into a cul-de-sac. In other words; their not going anywhere...And what if a gospel manuscript that can be dated prior to Paul turns up tomorrow? All possibilities, all eventualities, need to be considered - and contingency plans in place.....

Its the JC storyline that is relevant - not on which dating is ascribed to any manuscripts that may be found. Yes Slavonic Josephus is dated very late - but I think I worded my point to indicate the wonder-worker story that is now preserved in Slavonic Josephus. The origin of that story is not dependent upon any dating ascribed to any manuscript it happens to be found in.

Its storyline and storyline developments that interests me - not dating of manuscripts.

aa5874

You must be interested in the dating of manuscripts of antiquity. One cannot really do History without DATES or ranges of dates. Unless, you are interested in Prophecies.

You should know that it is CRITICAL to find out the dates or range of dating of manuscripts to UNDERSTAND the development of the JC storyline.

mountainman

Including C14 dating. Chronology is critical.

Kapyong

Gday all,

Indeed - no-one claims "hoax", (nor a "conspiracy"),
but challenges to the Gospels' historicity seem all-too-often to elicit responses like this. As if the only kind of non-true claims are hoaxes (or conspiracies or lies.)

I reckon this particular strawman to be more common than nonsense like "evolution is just a theory", or even my ol' favourite about Nicea deciding the books of the Bible.

The argument seems to be :
1. well if the book isn't true, then you're saying it's hoax or conspiracy or lie.
2. there's no WAY it could be a hoax or conspiracy or lie
3. so therefore it's all TRVE !


K.

maryhelena

Well, I'll just beg to differ. Storyline is what it is - storyline. Dating the writing of that storyline adds nothing to the story. Storyline is not history. History deals with dating. Yes, storyline can include historical figures; historical figures to which history can contribute dating. And yes, that historical dating is vital for attempts to understand the storyline. The actual date, if ever such a date could be found, on which first the story was written down, adds nothing to the story. The story is not history.

Ascribed dates to manuscripts in which developments of the storyline can be observed do not, in and off themselves, add anything to the storyline. It's the storyline developments themselves, not when they were added to the storyline, that are important.

The gospel JC story is not history - thus, dating manuscripts in which that story can be found, will not produce anything of value in the search for early christian origins. It is history, first and foremost, that is important - not dating manuscripts.

All dating does is give one an idea that by such and such a date a story was known. Dating manuscripts does not give you the date of origin of the story. Its a shaky ground upon which to build a scenario re early christian origins - easily knocked down by any new manuscript dated earlier. Manuscript history is one thing - history of early christian origins something altogether different.
It is storyline, not dating manuscripts, that has a chance of leading one to the history of early christian origins.

avi

I tend to agree with both mountainman and aa5874, however, I would add this proviso:

The "dating" method is crucial. If by palaeography, I am very suspicious of the result.

If by 14Carbon, I am more reassured, that we know the date of the harvest of the papyrus, but not the date when that particular copy was written, other than, some time, (decades, centuries) after the harvest.

The best dating method would be a discovery in a tightly secured excavation, with constant 24 hour live video coverage over the internet (else, tapes can be edited....) uncovering a Nag Hammadi type jar, which is broken open, and examined, and photographed immediately, in situ, as witnessed by everyone.

Since that scenario is highly improbable, I think we need to accept then the possibility that Mary Helena has a valid point--use of story line may offer a clearer picture of the earliest traditions.

What I dislike about that method, apart from the guesswork, is the projection of our own prejudices onto a written landscape of nearly two millenia. A perfect illustration of this prejudice, is the insistence of some folks, that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, or another Semitic language, but not Greek.

avi

mountainman

Early Christian origins and the canonical books of the Greek New Testament are inseparable. The physical existence of Codex Vaticanus, etc presupposes an authorship and a manuscript tradition and a lineage of preservation that in theory can be placed somewhere on the chronological scale.

Can the same be said for example for storyline vs dating manuscripts of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" or "Lord of the Rings"?

maryhelena

I disagree. Manuscripts record a written tradition - and there is no way to determine that any one manuscript is ground zero for that written tradition, ie the first manuscript. There is always the possibility that some other manuscript, or fragment, can turn up and be dated earlier. It is the storyline, a puzzling storyline to be sure, that has to be dissected. When that is done, tracing the storyline developments that are found in all manuscript traditions, one can then place that storyline alongside historical realities. That way one would be able to discern whether or not specific historical realities have influenced the storyline creation. If it can be discerned that they have - then one is a step closer to understanding the historical genesis of early christian history. I've not made the effort to find out...

My interest is in the NT storyline - for pretty obvious reasons...it is that story that has resonance in the lives of millions of people. And as such, has implications for the social and political system under which we live. An un-authored storyline that places it's focus squarely on its story. It's the story that has the 'saving' power - not names of it's authors or the dating of any manuscript that contains that story. To get behind that storyline - to try to understand what generated that storyline - we first have to get all our ducks in a row; we have to get that storyline right way up - not back to front or starting from the middle and going back and forth or around in circles. It's storyline where its all at - that's my thinking anyway....grasp the storyline and maybe one can then move beyond it to early christian historical origins.

aa5874

Without reliable dates of manuscripts with the JC story then it is EXTREMELY difficult to establish a STORY LINE.

A STORY LINE NEEDS a reliable chronology so Mary Helena does NOT have a valid point.

For example, the problem of PRIORITY of the Gospels would have been EASILY resolved if the dating of the Gospels were reliable.

Mary Helena may have ASSUMED the JC story line without any reliable dating.

By the way, the earliest dating of FOUR Canonised Gospels is the 4th century.

And, if it can be shown that gMark and ALL the Pauline writings were NOT written in the 1st century then the JC storyline is of no real historical value.

TedM

It could contain some real history.

It could if the stories contain some actual history.


And that can be very important because if that story contains some history then dating can be used to give a chronology of that history.

Find an early manuscript of Gjohn that predates 33AD, or clues within it that do so, and you've found something very important. From that aspect dating of manuscripts are very meaningful at establishing dates the story either occurred, was originated, or was recorded or modified--even if they aren't the dates of origin.

Cannot continue to discuss-just some food for thought and if you want to discuss with others..