aa5874

Again, YOU FUDGED the data and I corrected you.

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

Please, DO NOT FUDGE the data if you want to be taken seriously. You should no longer accept the MYOPIC and unsubstantiated claim that the Canonised Pauline letters are before the Canonised short gMark.

There is ZERO evidence that there were any Jesus cult of Christians and Churches when the short gMark was composed but there were ALREADY Churches in Christ BEFORE the Pauline letters.

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, why have so-called scholars FUDGED the data by about 100 years??? Please, if you want to be taken seriously you MUST, MUST, MUST address the Blatant Errors of so-called Scholars.

They have FUDGED.

Mankind DESERVE better.

I am just an AMATEUR and ORDINARY poster and I don't FUDGE the data..

The so-called EXPERTS have BLATANTLY FUDGED and everybody is SILENT.

Please, ask Doherty and Ehrman for their sources for their claim that the Pauline letters were written before gMark.

Mankind WANT answers.

Duvduv

So much for the "scientific" rigor of paleography in "laboratory conditions."
http://sententias.org/tag/paleography/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2852638/posts
http://ancientroadpublications.com/S...enturyMSS.html
And don't forget the dispute between Kim and Griffin over P46.
http://www.biblical-data.org/P-46%20Oct%201997.pdf

Grog

This confirms what I argued, actually:

"Griffin critiqued and disputed Kim's dating,[1] placing the 'most probable date' between 175-225, with a '95% confidence interval' for a date between 150-250."

So p46, containing Pauline writings has a range 150-250. If we assign equal weighting (as opposed to weighting more heavily the middle dates, which is probably more accurate), then we can say there is only a 50-50 chance that these writings are later than 200, and only a 25% chance that the date would be between 225 and 250. On the other end, gMark's earliest manuscript is dated (p45 to 250 ("probably").

If we take 250 as the mid-date and give this dating a similar 100 year range: 200-300, then we can weight it similarly. There is a 50-50 chance that p45's origin is between the dates 200-250. So for p46 to be later than p45, we are immediately down to a 25% statistical probability, and that puts them roughly the same time, any more distance between them lowers the probability according. I would say, based on this analysis, it is less likely than more that p45 is earlier than p46. So why should we accept the less likely position?

I don't think I did. Can you show me exactly where I fudged the data? I shouldn't have used the term "fudged" in my argument earlier. You aren't fudging the numbers, but you are arguing for less probable dates.

This is a different argument, not based on the paleographic data. I am not sure when gMark was first composed. I think around 100 CE. Pliny the Younger makes reference to a Jesus cult around this time. So I do think there was a Jesus cult, I do not think we have evidence that this Jesus cult worshipped Jesus of Nazareth.


I didn't mean that you fudge the data in that sense. You are staying within the limits that experts have defined. I meant "fudged" in the sense that you want to push the limits of the range, which I am arguing lessens the probability that your argument is correct. That's all. I do believe you raise some good points, I'm trying to explore those to the limits that I can accept.

aa5874

Your post is most remarkable. You present sources that do NOT help you at all. You have ZERO-NIL-NO support that the Jesus story were fabricated in the 4th century and NO credible source that show SOME Paleographers dated NT manuscripts to the 1st century.

Please name SOME Paleographers that date NT manuscripts to the 1st century.

Grog

I'm not sure what your point is here. The jury is out on the Mark fragment cited by Wallace, it hasn't even been published yet, as far as I know. Other than that, nothing here adds to the discussion of aa's contention that we accept gMark as earlier than Paul's writings. Specifically, I am using the paleographic data to question that. In that regard, I have acknowledged that it is not the only argument available to us, and probably not the best.

aa5874

What you argued is RECORDED. You FUDGED the data and I corrected you.

Examine your FUDGED data argument.

The dated Texts do NOT at all show that gMark is the latest gospels because the RANGE of dates OVERLAP.

Again, YOU have FUDGED---Sources that are COMPATIBLE with the dated sources can be used to make LOGICAL deductions and to re-construct the past.

It is UNHEARD of that one single parameter is utilised in any investigation.

The very contents of gMark and the Pauline writings MUST, MUST, MUST also be examined together with Sources that mentioned them in tandem with the DATED NT manuscripts.

Now, Pliny the younger did NOT even mention a character called Jesus and was NOT even aware of the Beliefs of those who were called Christians.

Pliny the younger, even though a lawyer or magistrate in Rome, had to TORTURE people to find out what they BELIEVED which is a CLEAR indication that Pliny had very very little knowledge of people called Christians.

You have FUDGED again and I have corrected you.

Please Examine sources that are COMPATIBLE with the dated Texts.

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, again, Why have you NOT addressed the FACT that so-called Experts have FUDGED the evidence??? They are about 100 YEARS outside the low limit and YOU ARE SILENT.

Please, I am beginning to think that you are NOT serious.

I am an AMATEUR, an ordinary poster and I made sure that I am within the limits.

Please, stop FUDGING. Again, where did Doherty and Ehrman get their DATA for early Pauline writings c 50-60 CE???

How long can they continue to FUDGE the data and everybody remain SILENT??

Duvduv

All I am pointing out is that paleography is not laboratory science, so if people can disagree on the strength of paleography to determine a particular century, then it's of quite limited benefit. Kim and Griffin disagree over a century or more. And this Mark fragment can be paleographically discussed for 100 years, but it wasn't produced in the first century or the second century.

Grog

I do acknowledge your observation that the dates overlap...I'm not fudging them.

I agree completely. And it can be argued based on the contents of the writings themselves, that the dates established by paleography be adjusted upward or downward. That could narrow the range in your favor. However, I think there is content in each of the writings (or if you will accept an argument from silence, then lack of content) that could work against your contention. For example, as I believe is often argued, Paul's writings at least appear to be written before 70 AD due to Paul's apparent ignorance of that cataclysmic event. That seems to argue for an earlier Paul, which, while not necessarily weighting the particular manuscript evidence downward, does allow one to question your contention that Paul was written after Mark. Also, gMark's Olivet Discourse seems to place Paul after 70 AD. Again, this doesn't necessarily affect the range of dating our extant manuscripts, but it does work against the contention that gMark was written before Paul's writings.

It is from the content of Paul's writings that he is placed in the first century. You claim that this is fictive though and we cannot accept this for dating Paul. I know you have more than this...it seems you have made an analysis of content from the Pauline writings that demonstrates knowledge of gMark. That could clinch this discussion. Could you summarize it? I know you've put in previous posts, but if you have a comprehensive list or something, that could be useful.

You are correct. I should have said a Christ cult. There is nothing here that indicates these people worshipped someone named Jesus or called Jesus Christ.

I don't think I have fudged any data. If I have, it was not deliberate.

I can't really answer these questions. I think Doherty and Ehrman rely on the content in Paul's letters to date them to the mid-first century. I more or less agree with that contention, but acknowledge it is pretty tenuous.

aa5874

You really can't be serious!!! Do you NOT understand that the DATED Texts is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I predicted??

There was NO 1st century Pauline writings so NONE will be recovered and dated to the 1st century.

I have RESOLVED the HJ/MJ argument. Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century--EXACTLY and PRECISELY as the dated Texts show.

Let it be noted that YOU FUDGED.

What???? You just said you could NOT answer the questions but IMMEDIATELY answered them. And, you More or less AGREE with their reliance on the contents of the Pauline letters.

You have FUDGED the data and is relying on the same source that is questioned.

You are NOT serious. You very well know that Doherty and Ehrman are about 100 years OUTSIDE the lower limit and you more or less AGREE with that.

I am an AMATEUR, an ordinary poster, and WITHIN the limits yet you argue with me and let the Experts off the hook.

You are NOT serious. Mankind deserve better from so-called Experts.

There are people here who argue that there was no Jesus cult of Christians until the 4th century which is OUTSIDE the Upper limit yet those about 100 YEARS outside the low limits ridicule them.

Please, your position is unacceptable and a double standard.

aa5874

The absurdity of so-called scholars position is extremely laughable. They PRESUME Pauline writings are early even though:
1. Their presumptions are OUTSIDE the scope of the DATED evidence by about 100 years.

2. The Pauline writings do NOT even state when any writings were composed.

3. Acts of the Apostles does NOT state that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches.

4. Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Saul/Paul as a 1st century evangelist.

5. Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Saul/Paul as a letter writer.

This is the very worst.

What sources are scholars using for an early Paul??

Their imagination--The time of authorship of the Pauline letters are NOT corroborated in the very Canon.