Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Were not most of the 4th century emperors - including Constantine - Arians?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't what I know, but what you know.

Originally Posted by mountainman

I know that you do not have the C14 citations on your side of the argument. This should have been spelled out earlier, but I thought you would have recognised this fact. I need no additional conjectures for my chronology. I am happy to leave the chronology stand exactly as the C14 tells us things are. You and the mainstream however have to evoke all sorts of conjectures to have older texts from before year 312 CE.

Best wishes,



Pete

Originally Posted by avi

Let me be clear: I generally support the thrust of Pete's argument, particularly as this argument challenges orthodoxy. I agree with him about the bestiality of Constantine. I agree with him that Arius was a KEY figure in the fourth century.

However, much as I find Pete's argument intellectually satisfying, I believe it is complete fiction.

I think you are wrong, friend. I do not agree with your fundamental tenet: i.e. that the four "gospels" did not exist prior to Constantine, based upon radioactive 14C analysis (i.e. ratio of radioactive carbon fourteen to non-radioactive carbon twelve).
I do appreciate the novelty of your suggestion, and admire the tenacity of your convictions, however, 14C is the nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by No Robots

Thanks for the answer, Pete. I was curious how you would handle that. Eusebius a reluctant Ari Fleischer, eh? Not bad, not bad. I guess we're not too far apart on that score. However, in my view, it wasn't the mythical Jesus he was selling out, but rather the human Christ.

Originally Posted by J-D

Do you consider the statement 'parchment rots' to be conjectural?

Originally Posted by mountainman

However I remain convinced that there is sufficient evidence to support the thesis that the new testament was regarded as fiction by the greeks (who were in resistance mode to christianity) of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Originally Posted by mountainman

See Historical revisionism

Best wishes,


Pete

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
The process by which the pre-nicene chronology of all papyrii fragments have been dated is known by the technical term called paleography. This is a fancy name for handwriting analysis. Conjecture. And nothing but.
Added to this folly is the common knowledge that the rubbish dumps at which this so-called evidence was liberated are mostly at Oxyrhynchus. Nobody has questioned this early dating based on the known intense population activity in this city during the fourth century. It was staggering. The city may as well have had a gold strike. The population exploded. So the early fragments of the fictional new testament found there at Oxyrhynchus were most likely from the fourth century anyway. Notably, the C14 points at the fourth century as well...

Originally Posted by New revised estimates of 14C dating plus electron microscopy and infrared photography

After many of the greatest NT papryi were discovered and initially dated in the 1950's, it was assumed that the oldest NT papyrus, and therefore the oldest fragment of the NT in existence, was p52, which was dated to about 125 AD and which contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. A date of closer to 100 AD is today considered more accurate. p52 and p90 were considered the next oldest, dated to about 125-150 AD.

Today, however, papyrologists such as Philip Comfort, Herbert Hunger, Carsten Peter Thiede, and others have been painstakingly reevaluating the dates originally given these texts 40-70 years ago, which were dated without the benefit of modern equipment or hundreds of other papyri for comparison. For the most part, the reanalyses have produced earlier dates than were originally assigned. For example, p46 has been redated to c. 85 AD, changed from the date of 200 AD given it in the 1930's. p66 has been redated to c. 125 AD from its later date of 200 AD given it in the 1950's. p32 has been changed from 200 AD to 175 AD; p45 has been changed to 150 AD from the 3rd century AD; p77 has been changed to c. 150 AD from the 2nd/3rd century AD; p87 has been changed to c. 125 AD from the 3rd century AD; and p90 has been more precisely dated to c. 150 AD, changed from the original approximation given it of the 2nd century....
...{referring to a Qumran cave fragment, dating from no later than 68CE, by archaeological evidence} the fragment fit perfectly with Mark 6:52-53. A further analysis of the stichometry of the passage, that is, the number of letters on each line of the fragment as written, and use of a special computer program, Ibykus, revealed that Mark 6:52-53 was the only Greek passage known to exist that fit this fragment. ....