rlogan

Interesting stuff in there, Bernard.

P52. Yes. I must have forgotten that.

Hmph! I see anything from 110-150 on that scrap. Peter Kirby has it at 120-130. But since it's John then the last gospel is somewhere in there.

Don't know much about paleographic dating. But that scrap is just real juicy stuff.

I wonder about the possibility of dating it with carbon 14 or whatever...

WinAce

Your site is fine. As is Vinnie's and that of several other posters here. However, there's no really big resource like the TO "Index to Creationist Claims" that just systematically presents all kinds of claims related to the New Testament and provides background for it with voluminous analysis and scholarly quotes/references.

Peter's website, ECW, comes within shooting range, but ultimately no single person can possibly analyze *pretty much everything* about the NT. And when there's a sea of nonsense and apologetics out there instead of real scholarship, this makes it hard to find anything without really extensive knowledge of the field.

Perhaps we need to start something like the EvoWiki that everyone here could contribute to? That would kick some major rear, assuming it wasn't dominated by either conservative fundie inerrantist kooks or Jesus-mythers, and had at least 50% as many references.

P.S. The website link from your profile, http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/ , appears to be dead. You might want to change that to your new Geo$hitties address.

spin

I have talked about P52 (= Pap. Ryl. 457) before, noting that a much more recent analysis had been done on the fragment using a better knowledge of the scripts than was available seventy years ago and this dating is given as 170 CE +/- 25 years. (A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457, APF 35, 1989)

Naturally this study is of interest to no-one wanting to date P52 early, so you won't find it easily on the net.


spin

Underseer

Oooh, I would love a resource to use on those who insist the Bible is 100% literal and contains no allegory. I've gotten into scraps with them, but having never read the whole Bible, I'm a bit poorly armed.

spin

All you need to do is go back through the archives here looking for the various contradiction threads and you might find quite a few ready-made barbs for the true fundamentalist.


spin

rlogan

Thank you Spin. Yes, I didn't see this referenced anywhere. Gosh, that study has only been out now for fifteen years.

So we roll out Papias now, and duck at the same time in anticipation of incoming artillery from the spin arsenal...

spin

I do wonder of the value and relevance of Papias, who we are told was "a friend of Polycarp", a martyr from the middle of the 2nd c., though, we are told, lived a long life and knew Ignatius at the beginning of the 2nd c. Well, you might not be surprised that I don't go along with these hopeful dating indications. I don't find the dating of Ignatius convincing and I do find that a dating locus around the middle of the century is more credible for Polycarp.

Anyway, here's what Papias said which is relevant here (in italics in its setting in Eusebius):

Eusebius H.E. III.39.14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John.
For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

[This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

[The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make of it what you will. What is said about Matthew clearly bears no relation to our Matt, and what is said about Mark doesn't seem to be reflective of a gospel which seems oriented to Greek speaking dwellers in a Roman world. Both texts lean toward the use of LXX citations rather than from Hebrew texts. So, what can one say about the veracity of Papias?


spin

Sven

Just curious: Does he have any evidence that the Gospels were written by them? After all, he is the one making a positive claim...

The Evil One

Well, we don't know anything about the four guys who wrote them except the various legends that attached themselves to their names after the Gospels were given those names, e.g. that Matthew and John were disciples, that Luke was Paul's companion, blah blah. Basically these men are just names and we know nothing about them.... we don't even know wheter they were one person, or a team, or a community...

Sven

Yes, I know this. That's the reason why I asked if the guy Underseer is discussing with has given any evidence for his opinion - instead of asking to substantiate the negative statement that we don't know who wrote the gospels.