Vinnie

http://www.vincentsapone.com/writing...emination.html

Vinnie

RED DAVE

Thank you for this research. It's very interesting.

RED DAVE

No Robots

Seconded.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vinnie,

Most writers on Eusebius when he wrote his Church History in Caesarea claim that he had virtually no text from the West, although Western Christians had been producing works for over 100 years at that point.

The examples you give of rapid transmission at the beginning are quite suspect. Paleographists generally can give a range of 50-100 for the time of writing of a text based on the handwriting. Also, the dates for many texts cannot be varified from internal or significant external evidence. So for example, the alleged text by Irenaeus that you say reached Alexandria in the last years of the Second century could easily be a text from 200 that reached Alexandria in 275.

I do not recall anything to suggest that Paul's letters were known in Alexandria before the time of Clement of Alexandria, circa 200. So they could well have been written in 150 and taken 50 years to reach Alexandria.
I fail to see any real evidence of rapid transmission of Christian Texts in the First two Centuries. All the evidence I have seen contradicts it directly or indirectly.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Gamera

Very nice work, Vinnie. And useful for some research I'm doing. Thanks.

andrewcriddle

Origen in his commentary on Romans claims that Basilides (based in Egypt c 130 CE) interpreted Romans 7.7 to refer to reincarnation. This implies early 2nd century knowledge of Paul in Egypt.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

More specifically Romans 7:9 -

Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once:
but when the commandment came,
sin revived, and I died.

As Andrew shared here.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...22#post2744022
How do we date the Pauline corpus from scratch?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

You should know better than this simplistic dating, Vinnie. 125 CE is the bottom end of the range given by an early dating of the fragment. Another dating which I'm sure you know about places the fragment at least a half century later. You're cooking the books on this one.


spin

Vinnie

As you well know, Spin, "ca." = circa and that means "about this time". It carries the uncertainty with it and I can't help it if people latch on to a mere number.

Some listings say 125-150 (or 160) and I have seen others attempt to place it upper at 138 A.D. All of this is still early enough to drive home the point. The basic paleographic uncertainty for 125 A.D. goes both ways (75 A.D. -175 A.D) and only at its furthest extreme would this instance no longer show a rapid dissemination as John was written roughly 80 years prior. My case does not rest on any single instance. I listed four specifically in this regard and the more examples cited, the more probable my argument becomes. If you date all the texts I referenced on the lower end and date the manuscripts all at the upper end of the sprectrum you can be suspect of them. This is cooking the books. Stacking the deck like this leaves the critical arenea and enters the dream world of Descartes. For the record, I certainly doubt anyone here is prone to an early dating of all the texts. Some probably date John to 125 or later.....(aka light speed dissemination...). Don't dump the baby with the bathwater...



Vinnie

Steven Avery

Hi Vinnie,

You can discard the doubts .
My view is all the NT texts date before 70 AD
while acknowledging that Revelation has various
unique issues in its dating.

Shalom,
Steven Avery