judge

I imagine most don't really care about small differences. Particularly when no one can be sure which came first anyway.

the message comes through the same in any version.

WinAce

If true (as there's quite some doubt about the fate of several of the apostles), amazing, isn't it? One can hardly believe people can be that deceived. But when one reads about incidents like people continuing to believe a prophet after he admits to being a fake, and thinking he's testing their faith; or the Jehovah's Witnesses explaining away failed apocalyptic predictions about a dozen times, and still remaining a viable movement (or even gaining new members); or that "God will flood the world" cult that just inferred their beliefs impressed him into not carrying out his plan, when that didn't pan out, and became even more zealous; then it becomes alot easier to see how a few people who followed a charismatic teacher, who was crucified when they least expected (or something like that), couldn't accept that fact and became deluded into denying it through a reinterpretation of the event where he actually triumphed, and was in control the whole time.

Metacrock

No you have been decieved. You want to take small bs and blow it out of proportion. Ryands is either in a range of 123-150. that's not so huegley late. It's all pretty early.

you also inroge unciels and quotations in apostolic fathers.

Common sense tells us that an older ms is closer to the orignal, but that's not always right. By far it can be wrong. Textual cirtics have done a great job of working out a scienece.

Metacrock

<insult deleted>

Vorkosigan

Rylands has been redated, Meta and should now be seen as ~150 +/- 25 yrs. See the discussion of John in Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writing. As Yuri pointed out a long time ago, it can't be a coincidence that both of our earliest fragments are from the same part of a gospel that looks a lot like John. I personally believe that p52 is from the second half of the century.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

Vork, 150 is the date I've always assumed on Rylands.That doesn't change anything! It's still just as good as proof that the Gospel of John had to exist in late first century. Just travel time alone would be 20 years as standard rule of thumb. Then it also has to spread to the circles it showed up in in Egypt. and that's not the only dating method. Looka Gsopel quotations in 1 Clement.

Metacrock

what insult was deleted. I've never seen an atheist's inslut deleted. I bet if I said i was an atheist you'd let me inslut anyone I wanted to.,

Vorkosigan

Complaints about modding should be addressed in Problems & Complaints

Vorkosigan

Travel time is a few weeks, as that's what it takes to get from one end of the empire to the other. What evidence supports the claim of 20 years?

Can you give me 10 or so of these gospel quotations in 1 Clement?

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

No, Travel time doesnt' mean the time it takes to get on a horse and go over there. It means the time it takes for a text to be copied and spread by word of mouth and through one circle and another. Its' a long slow process. They didnt 'just dash it off then load it up and run it over to egypt and burry so Rylands could disover it. It filtered in over time.

20 years is standard assumption, rule of thumb, that all textual critics allow for travel time.

See the Text by Eguene R. Fairweather on 1 Clement. He shows in the fn's many quotations from Matt and Mark, maybe John.