sschlichter

Here is where my paranoia leads me. P52 is dated at the latest 150. I have read ranges from 100-150 to 125-150 to 125-160. (I added this last one because it is from wikipedia, and you seem to be a proponent). Since 50 + or - years in the 2nd century are critical, I suspect that you chose to represent them as '2nd cent.' as that would be less incriminating and raise fewer eyebrows among those casting a cursory glance while using the actual date range might be incriminating.

I am sure you know that this is not the original that was found and that the original must have been dated earlier. I am sure you also know the original was written (allegedly, if you like) 700 miles away. So, if this could be 100 or 125, then it is not hard to imagine that the original was 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or more before that. Of course, I would want to be honest and let you know that I am using the earliest date in the range in my example.

I just do not think rounding up is such a good idea.

~Steve

Iasion

Hiya,

Rubbish.

P52 has been variously dated :
* 2nd C. (100-199)
* late 2nd C. (150-199)
* early 2nd C. (100-149)
* 170 +/- 25 (145-195 by A. Schmidt)

Apologists ignore the late dates, and trumpet the earliest possible.


Iasion

Roger Pearse

Um, because the comment appealed to an authority rather than offering evidence? Come, you can't really expect other people to go off-site looking for some basis for your reply, can you!

Well, most ancient works do not contain such statements about themselves, you know. For instance, of the 31 works by Tertullian, only two mention his name, if I recall correctly. Picking some more examples as they come to mind, I seem to recall that few modern authors mention themselves in their own works; that Jane Austen does not tell us her name in Pride and Prejudice; and so on.

If we believe that whatever is commonly thought cannot be strange, not to say daft, some people might feel that was rather strange itself. :-)

Just so. But unless we're quibbling here, and ignoring the 'probably' with which we started, this sounds very like the same thing.

Do you have evidence for your comment that he would have named his sources. On what data is this based?

Interesting. Why is that?

No indeed. But then this isn't what we're doing here; we're not splitting the difference between two arbitrary earliest and latest possible dates (itself not a very sound method). The point about 61 AD is that it can't very well be either earlier (because Paul has to get arrested) or later (because he hasn't been released yet).

Where does 110 AD come from?

The 61 AD date falls fairly naturally out of the text. Acts finishes with Paul awaiting trial in 61 AD, and portrays a world which knew little about Christianity, but where the church was part of Judaism -- at least in official eyes -- and the Roman authorities were friendly. Paul was released from prison in 62 AD. He was rearrested, with Peter, and executed in 64 AD. Christianity became explicitly illegal in this period, probably in 64 AD. The temple and the Jewish system of worship was extirpated in the next few years. All of these events are things that a narrative such as Acts would naturally contain, if they had happened.

With most historical or biographical writings, where they stop tends to be suggestive as to when they were written. (Not absolutely so, of course). This silence, when the next few years were full of relevant events.

We could compare the tone of Revelation with that of Acts. Revelation is plainly written after Christianity has become a crime; look at the hostility to the Roman state, depicted as the whore of Babylon. Is that the atmosphere of Acts, we might ask? What happens, between the two, to make the change? Is it not the events of 64-70 AD?

Against this, we have to ask just what evidence demands a later date? The answer is fairly obvious; Luke uses chunks of Mark verbatim in his gospel. The slim evidence we have suggests that Mark may have been completed around 70 AD. How then can Luke be earlier than this? In truth we don't know; but it is fairly obvious that if Mark and Luke are both in Rome in 61 AD, then they could easily have met, and -- as I'm sure you know -- people have proposed some kind of ur-Mark as an explanation, that Luke saw Mark's early notes. I don't pretend to know, and I don't want speculation here, since it's not useful. The data is what it is, in both cases, and it gives us a problem because it points in two directions.

Sorry if I somehow suggested to you that I thought that my opinion constituted evidence. I don't, of course, hold any such view.

Yes, you pointed to a website. That won't do, you know.

You are certainly welcome to place your faith in the content of Wikipedia if you like! But to describe what some anonymous scribbler asserts as evidence is a rather curious position to take.

There's a general problem here. It looks as if the statements that are made here and above boil down to "proof of what I assert is to be found elsewhere." Obviously that ends discussion, since neither I nor anyone else is at all likely to research someone else's replies for them.

Now I have no special interest in all these issues, and I only came into this thread because you started making assertions, as from authority, on these matters. But we should always prefer evidence to assertion or speculation or claims of authority, surely?

I think that we are probably done with this. Certainly I think that I've said what I wanted to say, and I don't know that I have more to contribute.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

No he didn't.

Luke says :
OTHERS wrote narratives based on what was
HANDED DOWN from the eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word.

Then Luke goes on to say that HE has investigated carefully from the beginning.


He does NOT say he interviewed eye-witnesses at all. He does not name any eye-witnesses. He does not connect himself or his book with eye-witnesses in any way.

Furthermore - Luke says the authors of the prior Gospels did not interview any eye-witnesses either, they just repeated what they had heard passed down.


What Luke says amounts to :

Some un-named "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" passed on stories to others who passed them on to un-named authors who wrote some un-named books.

Later - Luke, aware of these earlier books, investigated carefully and wrote his own book.

There is no connection what-so-ever between Luke and any eye-witnesses.



Iasion

Iasion

Hiya,

Wrong.

Ignatius does not quote Mark,
does not mention Mark,
does not mention his Gospel,
does not give any sayings like anything in Mark.

In fact does Ignatius does not mention any Gospel or evangelist by name.

He does however give a tiny few sayings which are somewhat similar to sayings later found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke :
http://www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml#Gospel_of_Matthew
http://www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml#Gospel_of_Luke


Finally -
(the fragment we have of) Papias does not quote Mark.


Iasion

sschlichter

You just gave a range from 100 -199. Your compatriot gave a date no earlier than 150. Which is it?

If I trumpet the earlier date it is because I feel there is a reason. In this case, quotations of John by post-apostolic fathers and the varied fragments found very early.

Please be specific. Which date do you feel are rubbish when presented as a possibility and why? If they are rubbish, then why do include them in the range.

I am all ears.

~Steve

sschlichter

Luke 1:2 "like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses"

He says the exact opposite. What accounts, do you suppose were passed on to him by eyewitnesses? I think I know.

maybe I actually should rephrase. The author of Luke (and Acts) makes it quite evident that it is his desire to convince his original audience (Theophilus) that he is investigating from the beginning. I then gave 2 examples of facts that would require an interview.

In Acts, the intention is restated "I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven."

also, in Acts the author is using the plural personal pronoun 'we' to indicate that he is with Paul. This 'we' does not provide proof of interviewing but provides opportunity for personal encounters with the eye-witnesses.

Can you argue that this is not the impression that the author is trying to give?

Please proceed.

~Steve

sschlichter

Well, he is either quoting Mark or quoting the OT quote quoted by Mark. I expect you are right that he is quoting Duet.

Speaking of quotes. Here is a couple I found on the site you gave me.

"Ignatius quotes the Gospel according Matthew"

and

"Ignatius quotes Gospel according to Luke"

Equinox

Steve wrote (in response to Iason:

To estimate the dating of the earliest likely fragment, I looked at the range of 2nd century dates (some earlier, some later) and listening to their reasons, decided that it's hard to date P52 more precisely than "2nd century" sometime. When I wrote that, you objected. Now Iason supplied some of the ranges (all 2nd century), and you now say my number is too precise. It's really quite simple - the data says "sometime in the 2nd century", so that's what I went with. I should have said (~150) not (=150), because of course I don't know it's exactly 150 CE.

At the same time, we do have good reasons to exclude 1st century or dates 200 and later, hence my 50 year increments. If you have a problem with my choice of 50 year increments, please suggest something else, and explain why that would be better. Thanks!:wave:

I understand that you probably came to this discussion having been told over and over by fundy sources that P52 was solidly dated to something like 120 or before, and so I seemed biased calling it 2nd century. So I understand that and cut you some slack for assuming that 150 was "rounding up", which it wasn't.

This kind of thing happens over and over. We see good people come here who honestly think that, say, moon dust proves a young Earth, or Darwin recanted on his deathbed, or that there are no contradictions between the gospel accounts, or that Jesus wasn't Jewish, or that Christianity was outlawed in the whole first century Roman Empire, or that there is only one Bible, or whatever other obviously factually incorrect statement. I think it is important to first give them the benefit of the doubt that they are repeating what they've been told, instead of acting as would be natural for a human - pillorying them for such obviously silly stuff. It's not always their fault, though of course continuing in such a state instead of investigating on one's own is their fault.

I have no beef with Iason, but at the same time he's no more my "compatriot" than you, Steve. I like to think that we can all be friends here, that includes Steve, Iason, Roger, gamera, whoever - regardless of whether we agree on this or that point.

Take care-

Equinox

andrewcriddle

A Schmidt's date is based on comparing P52 to some other early Christian texts which are themselves not precisely dated (The Chester Beatty texts), it is a very short paper and not IMO particularly convincing.

Brent Nongbri wrote an article in HTR in 2005 "The Use and Abuse of P52" which while claiming that the dating of P52 is deeply uncertain, provides good photographs of P52 and various dated manuscripts with which it can be compared.

Dating P52 on paleographic grounds is difficult because it is so small a fragment that it does not have all the letters of the Greek alphabet. However IMHO based on Brent's photos the similar dated manuscripts come from the early and mid 2nd century, maybe even earlier but not later.

If I had to give a date range then IMVHO it would be 100-170 CE.

Andrew Criddle