Grog

Ok, AA...so, if you will bear with me, I am interested in what you argue. If we stick to your contention that we have to rely on the dated manuscripts, I have some observations:

1) gMark is our latest gospel, not the earliest. While our earliest manuscript of gMark is dated to about 250 CE we have dated manuscripts for all the gospels and many epistles, even pastorals, dated earlier than gMark. We can imagine arguments for why this might be the case, for example, we could surmise that gMark just wasn't much liked and didn't serve its purpose as well as the more popular gMatt, but that is, as you say, our imagination and speculation. We need to go by the evidence, which suggests that gMark is after the other Gospels.

Now, one problem could be the lack of precision in regard to dating these mss. But even allowing for that, we should not see the consistency of this observation. We have several manuscripts, (50, 92, 104, 75, 4, 66,77, 64, 67, 103) of gospels before we get to gMk at 250. Those are all Gospels, we also have Paul's letters: Ro, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Col, 1 Th (twice), Heb, as well as Revelation.

If we accept this observation, it turns everything we know on its head.

2) I am struck by the consistency of second century (really almost third century) origin of all these manuscripts. I do not accept the 125 date for John (p52), by the way, based on the fact that it is the earliest possible date in a range from 125 to 160. I would accept 150 or later for this manuscript. This suggests to me the emergence of this belief-system to 100 or later. This observation is consistent with what I observe in terms of the dependence of the Gospels and Acts on datable materials, such as Josephus, which are late first century.

I want to note: My point 1 is an attempt to explore AA's analysis of this evidence. I am arguing from within AA's approach, accepting his argument FTSOA.

aa5874

Please, ALL of us MUST, MUST, MUST rely on actual dated evidence NOT on the old archaic method of presumptions. We had been LED astray by presumptions and imagination.

My argument is EXTREMELY solid. I use HARD EVIDENCE not imagination and presumptions like so many so-called scholars.

It seems as though you do not understand how manuscripts are dated by Paleographers. You seem not to realize the dates are NOT fixed to a particular year but are within a range of years and that writings dated by Paleographers are NOT always within the same range of years.

Please see dating of P46 and P 45. The Pauline writings could have been written at around c 250 CE and gMark could have been written around c 225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46#Date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

Next, examine the analysis of Variants of Greek New Testament. It can CLEARLY be seen that gMark is the earliest Canonised Gospel and that the Pauline writings are the Latest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

The Gospels all show a large amout of variants and the Pauline letters show the very least and is virtually IDENTICAL to Pauline writings which are considered LATER forgeries.

An Apologetic source ALSO claimed the Pauline writings were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

My argument is well supported, not by presumptions and imagination but by HARD EVIDENCE. gMark was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters.

You appear to be terrified to even mention my name. Why is that???

Grog

I do understand the issue of ranges, but then you have to consistently place Paul's writings to the upper end of the range established by experts and writings, like the gospels, to the lower end of the range (and gJohn is entirely off the spectrum). So from a statistical point of view, you are pushing the limits of what you can do with this evidence and remain plausible. Now we have to argue to some extent, that science that established these ranges is consistently wrong. What then?

Wouldn't this just mean that there is less distance between our earliest copies of Paul and our latest than that available to us from the gospel manuscript evidence? We would have a question as to why that would be true, but then we'd be back to speculation, which we are trying to avoid.

It is interesting that the error rate is about the same as the later forgeries. Do you have a source for data on this? I am not questioning what you say, I am interested in looking at the data itself. Our earliest manuscript collections of Paul include forgeries, right? If so, then we have a start date that is the same and probably accounts for the error rate. This error rate is only applicable, it seems to me, from the earliest to the most recent manuscript. So, this becomes a problem for your theory. However, I do find it interesting to pursue.

Why should we think this source is authoritative on this point?

I am trying to determine that this contention is true, in fact.
I am not, I just didn't want to deal with arguments against me when I am interested in exploring an issue, which is what I see happening in this forum a lot.

aa5874

Please, I have just shown that your statement " gMark is our latest gospel, not the earliest" is NOT reflected by the dated NT manuscripts.

Once the LATEST date for the Pauline writings and the EARLIEST time for gMark are employed then gMark is still EARLIER.

Now, what statistics are so-called scholars using??? Where have so-called scholars DERIVED their dates for the Pauline writings and gMark?? What RANGE are they employing??

Their Range is NOT even on the MAP.

So-called scholars are CONSISTENTLY about 100 years OUTSIDE the lower limit and completely OUTSIDE the spectrum. There is NO hard evidence that is anywhere near 50-60 CE for the Pauline writings.

When I do my investigation I do not simplY rely on 1 SOURCE. I EMPLOY multiple sources. Please Examine the following:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46#Date

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

4. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

5. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

6. http://newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

7. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

8. http://newadvent.org/fathers/101601.htm


Please, when one uses DATA then it is NOT speculating. We have actual recovered DATED sources with the Pauline letters and gMark.

What DATA did so-called scholars use to claim the Pauline writings are EARLY and BEFORE gMark??

This is the HEART of the problem. So called Scholars are Speculating. Why???

The earliest actual recovered Pauline writings are from sometime around the mid 2nd -3rd century.

No, No, No!!! My argument has NO problems because it is WELL WITHIN that UPPER and LOWER limits of the ACTUAL recovered DATED sources as you have NOTED

Please, you very well KNOW that it is the theory of so-called scholars that is WAY OUTSIDE the scope of the Dated sources.

So-called scholars are about 100 years OUTSIDE of the Lower limit for the Pauline writings.

Why, Why, Why????

Please, name the AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES of antiquity for the Pauline writings. The author of Acts?? Eusebius?? Tertullian??? Irenaeus???

Now, tell me. Have YOU ever tried to DETERMINE the TRUTH of the contention of so-called Scholars that the Pauline writings are EARLY and Before gMark??

Please, I have presented sources with the DATED evidence.

Please, ASK so-called scholars to do the same or else I will consider that you are NOT serious.

Please also try to DETERMINE what DATED sources were employed Doherty and Ehrman for their theories of an EARLY Paul.

I employed HARD EVIDENCE FOR MY argument--DATED sources--

Ehrman's and Doherty's sources are NOT DATED.

I am an AMATEUR, just an ORDINARY Poster and I made SURE I employed actual recovered DATED sources

Can you determine why scholars SPECULATE???


Your explanation is extremely odd. Please, you seem to expect some kind of argument against you just for exploring what I write.

This is quite remarkable.

Duvduv

The same old story about "dating" papyrus scraps based on non-scientific methods in a laboratory in controlled conditions where it can be reproduced.

It's just approximation based on analysis by individuals, with or without certain agendas for creating whole scenarios of history.

aa5874

Please, you display a lack of knowledge that Paleography is used on ANCIENT writings NOT just NT manuscripts.

Please, if what you said was true then we would expect Paleographers to have DATED NT writings to the 1st century.

Duvduv

Well, some do date them to the 1st century, so what?

aa5874

Please name SOME of the Paleographers who have dated NT manuscripts to the 1st century.

Grog

There are none. That is a good point.

Grog

This is true, but doesn't address my point. If we have to consistently take the latest date for the Pauline writings and the earliest date for gMark, then we are fudging the data.

If we accept the range determined by experts in the field, we also have to accept that the chances of the "actual date" of the manuscript's creation being on the outer limits of that range are low. So, even if we assume (unlike a normal distribution curve), that each year of a range has exactly the same probability of being the "actual date" of the manuscript, then as we near the upper or lower limits of the range, the chances of that "actual date" falling on in these extreme limits is low. For example, there is a 25% chance that the "actual date" will be in the upper quartile. So that certainly could be true, it doesn't make it wrong to speculate that it is.

However, for every manuscript that we want to fudge up or down in that same consistent manner, we are adding to the probability against that being the case. So if we have two Pauline writings that we are edging toward the upward limit, then the chances of both falling in that range are multiplied together. So where we had a 25% chance of being correct, now we have a 6.25% chance of being correct. The same goes for gMark. We only need one gMark to fall earlier than our Pauline evidence for this evidence to back up our theory. But now we are taking 1/4 times 1/4 times 1/4. So, on probability alone, if we accept the range of dates established by the experts, we are down to 1.5% chance of being correct.

Now none of this means that the theory that Paul's writings are later than gMark. It only means that paleographic evidence doesn't support that. We can speculate about the reasons why the theory is still valid, but we don't speculate. I think based on this, it is unlikely that gMark was written before Paul, based on paleographic evidence. However, I do agree that we have a curious problem that there are no Christian writings from the first century or really before the first half of the second century (p52 being a disputed outlier).

I agree with this. Their argument, of course, is that we only have copies of copies which is true of ancient manuscripts, in general. The argument that we don't see the emergence of Christian writings until the mid-second century is due to the time it takes for the belief system to gain traction and spread to areas conducive to preservation (such as the desert in Egypt) is persuasive. Isn't it just logical that distribution of this material just took some time.

You aren't accepting that data though. That data consistently shows an earlier range for Paul than for Mark.

They aren't using data from paleography for that.

I think there is a paradigm issue here to resolve.

Yes, but see above.

I agree, but can only speculate as to why. I have noted a reason above, one that I think is fairly persuasive. I do see problems with it, though. How were the Pauline writings collected? Who knew where to go to find them? Who knew were to even go in Galatia to retrieve the letter to the Galatians?

gMark is thought to have not been the most popular Gospel so was not distributed as widely as soon as, for example, gMatt.

I think most of your questions pertain to the inferred time it would take for these writings to be distributed widely enough to have left some traces in the record.

Ok. But that doesn't answer my question.

I am interested more in determining, to my satisfaction, how to place this evidence in the historical record. For now, I can only say that we have upper limits on when these writings could have come into being. I do have questions about dating any of this material to the first century...as having originated in the first century.


I do expect that actually.