Adam

Gordon Fee's 1966 doctoral dissertation on the earliest papyri underlying gJohn and gLuke is now
online.
This study is very important for the comparative study of the Western and Neutral texts, for these "Neutral" papyri date to 200 CE. Bodmer Papyri II and XIV-XV had only just become available. From the first Howard Teeple was utilizing and correcting the first editions and photographs, and I have relied on Teeple for the most detailed parts of my source-criticism of gJohn as in my threads here, Significance of John and Gospel Witnesses.

outhouse

fee is weell known for christian biased work, and in no way is followed in mainstream scholarships.

Adam

Yes, Fee is ultra-conservative, but that rarely affects detailed studies of textual variants. The dissertation was at University of Southern California.

The idea that omitting the article originated with the author of gJohn preceded Teeple:

From Pg. 150:
Fee agrees with Nevius:

aa5874

Before you get carried away please do NOT forget that Luke and John are FAKE authors.

It cannot be mere coincidence that 3rd century writings were Falsely Attributed to Luke and John who most likely did NOT ever exist in the 1st century.

We cannot ASSUME gLuke and gJohn are early when the authors are considered FAKE.

Adam

Fee supports the superiority of the Neutral text, as must be true for Teeple's source criticism to work. From pg. 261:
aa is correct to caution us that P75 and B do not necessarily get us back to authors named "Luke" and "John", nor even to the First Century. Fee argues that giving us what the text was in the Second Century proves only that it was not later processed by Origen, and may not have been subjected to an earlier rescension, either. Surprise! He thus refutes the KJV-only Fundamentalists who blame Origen as the heretic who corrupted the texts that scholars have used to overrule the Textus Receptus.

Nevertheless, Fee winds up preferring a reasoned eclecticism instead of just trusting Hort's Neutral text. Yet he finds it amazing that Hort was so often right in his judgments. (pg.261-271)

outhouse

anyone who states john wote or was responsible for the text does not have a credible place in modern scholarships


its well known it is a compilation of atleast 3 different sources from a johannine scribe or group of scribes over a long period of time.


nothing is known of a john to claim with any certainty he authored anything.


the authors are unknown at this time

Minimalist

Ehrman uses the phrase "false attribution" in Forged to describe these works.
By this he means that the authors (whoever they were) were long dead when the names were attached meaning they had no part in the fraud.

Contrast that with the Pastoral Epistles which were forged by someone who knew damn well that he was not "Paul."

aa5874

Fake people were long dead???? Fake people cannot die!!!

The Gospels were written in the 2nd century or later and the names of FAKE disciples and followers were falsely attributed to them.

Ehrman PRESUMES his own bogus history.

Who told Ehrman that any book of the Canon was composed in the 1st century??? The author of Acts, or Irenaeus or Eusebius???

If Ehrman is a SERIOUS Historian then he should know that there is NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING DATED by Paleography or C14 from the 1st century about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Ehrman may have been duped into thinking that ONLY their names are FAKE.

Minimalist

Don't be dense, aa. SOMEBODY wrote this stuff and they are anonymous OR the identities of the writers were eradicated from the documents in antiquity.

Later on in the 2d century names were attached to these writings to serve the needs of the church.

"False attribution" is a valid term.

aa5874

It is EHRMAN who is defensive. He presumes that the Gospels were written in the 1st century when as an Historian he very well knows he has ZERO actual dated evidence.

Please, the names of the Gospels may have been added in the 3rd century or later.

You ought to know that a minute fragment DATED to the 2nd century does NOT state any author so we cannot ASSUME names were added in the 2nd century if the TINY FRAGMENTS do not show any named author.

For example, P 52 is a tiny FRAGMENT dated to the 2nd century but it does NOT show that it has a NAMED author.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Erhman MUST have known that there was NEVER any Gospel that was DATED from the 1st century.