J-D

In some senses but not in others. People might really hallucinate, but what they hallucinate is not real. Reports of hallucinations could be reports of real experiences but not reports of what was real.

spamandham

Yes, of course. The point is, that the upper bound does not prohibit a mid-2nd century origin for the NT texts.

Justin Martyr is late enough that he does not preclude a mid-2nd century origin. By mid-2nd century, I specifically mean around the time of the Bar Kochba revolt ~135CE or there abouts.

Regardless of the fact that many reasonable people already accept the idea that the early church fathers are *fictional* (not mythical), it's best just to stick to relevant points I suppose. The historicity of people such as Polycarp, et al., has no bearing on the traditional datings of the NT.

sschlichter

He hallucinated the guards then?

sschlichter

Yes, they do. When they quote from the book you are suggesting may be written after they existed.

J-D

I didn't say that, although I can't think of any reason why hallucinations shouldn't be of guards as easily as of anything else. What I do say is that if somebody did hallucinate guards, the hallucination would be real in one sense but the guards would not be.

sschlichter

I understand what you mean.

IamJoseph

No proof exists. 100s of 1000s were crucified and these are not recorded, including those who were far more prominent than Jesus in that time. The Gospels cannot be used to prove claims in the Gospels.

spamandham

Are you denying that it is possible for later pseudepigrapha to be attributed to earlier historical people?

Just because Irenaeus tells us Polycarp wrote something, does not mean Polycarp wrote it. In the same way, even most Christian theologians now accept that the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by men of those names. The canonical Gospels are themselves later pseudepigrapha! This was clearly a common and accepted practice 2000 years ago.

We have *ample* evidence of pseudepigrapha attributed to the early church fathers. Further, the late 2nd century saw a veritable cottage industry of such fraudulent works, as well as numerous Acts style works. It's naive beyond all reason to posit that although we've identified 90% of the writings to certainly be what we would call fraud (back then, it was clearly not considered disingenuous), nevertheless that last one must be genuine, simply because it has not been proven otherwise.

So, whether Polycarp is a historical person or not, has no bearing on the dating of the NT, if we approach such an endeavor as scientists rather than apologists.

sschlichter

It is likely possible for you that aliens wrote the NT. I am looking for what is probable.

I am talking about separating the late 2nd century (which is irrelevant) from the early. Irenaeus against heresies is possible 175. He is using a text to defend orthodoxy against those who are using the same text to attack orthodoxy. this implies they both have the text and his quotes are accurate or his argument would be illogical for him to present. this implication means that the text pre-dated the quotation. Ireneaus was also in the far west of the empire which also has implications assuming his fax machine was not working.

Toto

But we have no evidence of that sort of correction here. We have evidence of theological drift, and later revision of the details of the text to fit the theology.