Huon

So, christianity could have begun before 300 CE "with some reasonable probability" ?

Why not ~150 CE ?

I don't know if somebody has ever formulated the hypothesis that gJohn could have been the oldest gospel, less adapted to the structure of an organised church waiting quietly for the end of the world...

spamandham

I almost took exception to this as well, but then I reread it. The author has cleverly stated the state of affairs in such a way that he can distance himself from it. It is true that the manuscript has been generally dated to ~125 for about 60 years now. Of course, that's completely different from saying " I, Peter van Minnen, date P52 to 125 CE". It's weasally, but I believe technically accurate.

spamandham

Unless of course Eusebius intentionally reproduced the style of an earlier century, as I've seen Pete argue before. Eusebius is perhaps the most clever and ingenious forger to ever exist, so it's said.

mountainman

Cleverness and ingenuity take second place to common sense. Eusebius is asserting he has in his possession documents authored in the 1st century. Any proficient 4th century scribe would identify the Hadrian script as a distinctive script from centuries passed. And any 4th century forger is simply going to use it in preference to a more modern script.

For example, are you old enough to remember the copies of DESIDERATA which appeared in an ancient script in the 1960's and 1970's along with the assertion that the writing was found in Old St. Paul's Church, dated 1692?

My objection to an early date for P52 etc are summarised here. The late dating of P52 cannot be ruled out categorically - there is still a non zero probability it is "late".

Imagine digging for papyri fragments at the rubbish tips of Oxyrynchus. We know that the city underwent a population explostion during the mid fourth century, and we can safely say that the rubbish tips reflect this. How unlikely would it be to find some ribbish from the 1st or 2nd centuries underneath an overwhealming mass of mid 4th century rubbish. One does not need to have seen "Steptoe and Son" to understand that this represents something which is highly unlikely.

The apologists and their academic counterparts continue to grasp at straws because there is a massive lack of objective evidence.

Petergdi

Um, there is a big difference between popular confusion apparently from an innocent mistake and forgery that fools writing experts. It appears that the mistake was caused by copies bearing the name of the church and the date of its founding at the top, and had not been intended to indicate that the poem was that old or came originally from the church. It was in "old fashioned" looking writing - not a accurate copy of 1692 style script.

Peter.

mountainman

How facts are PROVED BEYOND DOUBT by 20th century CHRISTIANS

I, Ogden Higgenbottom, being a senior quailified and duly certified paleographer, do hereby swear that it is my opinion that the Greek handwriting on this fragment was written in the early second century.

Voila!

spamandham

I agree that a much later date than is usually assigned is supportable even without invoking the idea that a later writer used archaic style for whatever purpose (whether for fraud or for tradition). I think an early 3rd century date is within the normal error range of of paleography for P52.