mountainman

I have not seen any evidence that any of the christian books were in fact "early", have you? These are asserted as being "early" by Eusebius, and this assertion appears to be supported by the assertions of paleographers and handwriting analysts who have examined a very small number of undated papyrii fragments, and based on their opinion that the handwriting looks alot like that which was common in an earlier the epoch, assert these fragments "early". However this is certain NOT what any reasonable skeptical questioner would treat and accept as hard evidence -- nothing is dated --- nothing!!!

The same criteria that those who are skeptical of "Arch's" position demand of Arch can be --- and should be -- applied to the commonly accepted mainstream position.

To restate this with respect to the OP, we have no eyewitness accounts, and we have no evidence that the books of the new testament were in fact any "earlier" than the 4th century. We certainly have C14 citations with respect to thebooks related to the NT body of literature, but these are very very very late. How do "mainstreamers" respond to their own demands for evidence for their own position?

archaeologist

This is just not true. You cannot prove that the Godpels and other Biblical books were not written by eye-witnesses. You cannot even prove that they were written for the first time in the 4th century AD.

If yuo dismiss Eusebiius and all other writers then why should we accept those you advocate for evidence of a 4th century origin?

This also is not true as the author of this post ignores the early fragments that are dated and other works which attest to an early writing of the Bible. Like the early church fathers who referred to scripture and called them such long before the 4th century AD

Johnny Skeptic

Better stated, since you are the claimant, you cannot prove that the Gospels and other Biblical books were written by eyewitnesses.

It is important to note that for the most part, even the Gospel writers themselves did not claim to be eyewitnesses, and they seldom reveal who their sources were.

Johnny Skeptic

Which fragments, and which other works?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to archaeologist: What specific evidence convinced you to become an inerrantist?

mountainman

Yet this is precisely what the earliest C14 citations themselves suggest.



C14 citations are objective.
C14 citations do not read the Bible.
C14 citations are generally accepted as unbiased.

The reality is that there are no early dated fragments.
None of the fragments contain a date.
None of the earliest Greek NT codices contain a date.
(The earliest Greek NT codices are presumed to be late 4th century)

But it is only Eusebius who asserts this to be the case.
Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous.
Constantine apparently paid him alot of gold for his services.
This suggests that Eusebius was not hopelessly credulous.
This suggests that Eusebius was just another Constantinian mercanery.
And the world of Christendom has followed Eusebius to this very day.
In Eusebius's account We Trust!

Time to wake up diggers! (To quote an Ozzie politician ... ) ... "The dogs have been pissing on your swag"

archaeologist

C14 are subject to the opinions,beliefs,preferences, manipulations, altertions et al by those who conduct the tests as well as those who do the calibrations.

Plus it is difficult to get a sample for testing due to the lack of perfect condition of said samples. To rely on C14 is foolish.

Completely absurd and spinning the word 'dated' to fit one's theories. The last sentence is easily challenged:

and

Taken from: Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
by Peter van Minnen

I can't provide a link due to the functions of this computer

p.s. not one reference to Eusebius either.

mountainman

What education do you rely upon Arch?


As a more specific rule there is absolutely no New Testament manuscripts on papyrus which is exactly dated by a date appearing on the document. None. Nothing. Zero. Vacuum. Void. Not one. F**K ALL.

The phrase "established beyond doubt" is being used here by christian scholars and christian apologists conversing with each other outside of the expert reservations held by ancient historians. Handwriting analysis cannot be used to "establish beyond doubt" --- ask any good common forger.

And for good reason. Eusebius is kept in the "back office", as the "One who is trusted implicitly with the integrity of Christian origins". The entire Christian Origins database (and all those who hesitate to depend upon it) relies implicitly upon Eusebius, and no christian scholar in their right mind is going to compromise the integrity of this database by mentioning the common fact of such implicit reliance upon Mr. Eusebius of the Caesars.

Toto

Dating the Oldest Manuscripts by Peter Van Minnen. I think that this article, while generally credible, overstates the accuracy of paleographic dating. The wikipedia entry on P52 gives more of an idea of the range of opinion.

mountainman

The WIKI article points out that all of the NT papyri fragments appear to be sourced not from scrolls but from codices. This fact does not aid the argument that these fragments are early -- in fact it opposes it. This to me at least suggest that we are looking at a much later date, when the codex was in full swing, such as the known use of the codex in the 4th century.

Of course the common argument is that "early christians were very smart and invented (or at least exploted the invention of) the codex. This is highly tenditious in my (non holy) book.

A second question in my mind is the use of "comparanda". If scholars are using other fragments of writings from the early centuries to serve as benchmarks for the dating of the handwriting, is not the assumption that the collection of scribes; handwriting were somehow all representative of their century and milieu. The comparanda are all sorts of common documents, prepared by common people who were scribes of the commin and everyday empire. In contrast, the "christian" people who were supposedly copying the new testament texts were some form of secret society, underground and out of sight - to all intents and purposes some form of insular group and separated group. We might assume they did not "subcontract" their NT copying to the common scribes of the empire. This suggests that the principles of comparanda (used to date the fragments by comparing scribal handwriting) might be stretched to the limit.

A final and third point (IMO) against the early dating of the NT papyri in general is the known population demographics of the city of Oxyrhynchus where most of the fragments are sourced. This city was essentially a "ghost town" until the mid 4th century, when its population totally exploded, and the city became tremendously over-crowded, with a city forming outside the walls of the old city. All or most of the inhabitants at that time were monks of various forms -- according to the sources. Logically this MUST HAVE BEEN THE EPOCH at which time the Oxyrynchus rubbish tips would have been in full swing. One therefore would have to be extremely lucky (statistically) to actually find rubbish from the Oxy tips, dating before this known 4th century population explosion.

I have not seen these issues addressed. The reason (IMO) that these issues are not addressed is because every man and his dog is following the "early christian bandwaggon" and thus nobody feels inclined to stand up and argue against the generally accepted conjecture that the papyri finds are not early at all. After all, the papyri finds represent the ONLY substantial evidential citations (other than Eusebian history) for the existence of "early christians" and "early new testament authorship".