Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 01-02-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Having said that, I think I gave the reasoning. Assuming P52 is more or less accurately dated, then it is more likely than not that p52 is not a holograph. That's because there is only one holograph and a lot of copies of John.

I have no particular bias either way here, but I think there's at least a handful of mistakes in your logic.

1. You cannot invoke probability here until you know when the other copies were made. You might very well have a piece of the autograph.

2. You also need to know how *many* copies were available at this point in time. If there were only two copies made and in circulation at that point in time, then the chance of P52 being part of the autograph are 1 in 3 - and that's assuming that you can date the copies to some time before P52's dating.

3. Assuming you clear the above two hurdles, you still have a problem. Even if P52 is a copy and not the autograph, that still doesn't get you to a 1st century autograph. The copy that P52 came from could have been made the same year as the autograph was penned down. You're assuming some amount of time elapsed. That may or may not be true.

No. That depends entirely upon when the total number of copies were made. Let's simplify this to show why you're wrong - assume a hypothetical document (not GJohn):

AD 100 - original
AD 105 - 30 copies
AD 120 - 5 copies

There are more copies floating around in AD 120 than there were in AD 105 or AD 110. But the average age of the copies is still older, not younger, than AD 120.

Quote:

Thus, if you have a copy, it is more likely to be younger than older.

No. That depends upon the age distribution of the copies.

Sorry, if these were requirements for dating texts we could never date any ancient texts. We know there is an original holograph that was copied (because we have copies) and we know that over time lots of copies were made (because we have them or references to them). The copies increase over time.

Based on this, for better or worse, and without more, it is more likely that any particular ms we happen to have isn't the holograph and is not among the earliest copies.

Added to the other factors I mentioned, and it's a pretty good conclusion that the gospels are probably first century. But if some evidence appeared tommorrow showing they were more likely 2nd century, I wouldn't be shocked.

spin · 01-02-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

List them. Thanks.

IF one accepts both a/ Markan priority (ie Luke and Matthew both used Mark) and b/ evidence for early 2nd century knowledge/usage of Matthew and Luke (eg Ignatius c 120 CE and probably Papias c 130 CE seem to know Matthew,

These dates seem to work on the willingness to accept a certain relationship between gospel materials and the authors mentioned. It also works on the willingness to accept the later traditions about the cited authors in order to date them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Marcion c 140 brings out drastically revised version of Luke,

This is going far beyond evidence, based on an interpretation by Irenaeus of evidence unavailable to us. The best that can be said from the data is that the gospel presented by Marcion resembled Lk to Irenaeus and that he assumed the priority of Lk. Nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Justin Martyr c 150 seems to use harmony of either Matthew and Luke or Matthew Mark and Luke) then a 2nd century date for Mark seems highly improbable.

We are left with reconstructions of supposed harmonies of gospels as one doesn't find traces of clear textual parallels of single gospels. But then we are in the middle of the second century (as in the case of Marcion), so there is nothing here to suggest a pre-2nd c. date for Mk.

spin

spin · 01-02-2008, 06:34 PM

The question of the questionable dating of p52 has been brought up here before. Here I cited an early review of the 125 CE +/- 25 years dating. There is the 170 +/- 25 years dating supplied by Andreas Schmidt that most people seem bent on ignoring. And there is Brent Nongbri's analysis, "What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries", cited from

Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52. Nongbri is essentially more cautious than the early reviewer I citied who said, "The wise reader will, therefore, hesitate to base any important argument on the exact decade in which this papyrus was written; he will even hesitate to close the door on the possibility that it may be later than AD 150."

Nongbri specifically tells people "As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel." This thread should take note.

spin

Gamera · 01-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Just out of curiosity, when would you date Beowulf? I am reading it right now to brush up on my anglo-saxon which has deteriorated to the point of uselessness, so I am trying to get some fluency back.

I don't purport to have an expertise in biblical paleography, but I do have some paleographic expertise in the Beowulf mss (since I am published in the field). The Cotton-Vitellius A.xv is probably 11th century, maybe as late as the 12th. The earliest (nostalgically Germanic, i.e. Thorkelin) scholars placed the text itself as ridiculously early as the 5th century. They longed for some proto-Germanic text unsullied by later Christian ideas and so saw the Christian "elements" of Beowulf as an "overlay" to an "authentic" Germanic worldview. Modern scholarship rejects all this nostalgia. Subsequent scholarship placed it later and later, and the modern trend is to see Beowulf as a late Anglo Saxon poem, perhaps even 11th century, written by a very literate Christian poet who knew exactly what he was doing with the Germanic/oral/forkloric elements. It isn't a oral poem at all, and never was; there is no Beowulf in legend --it's invented whole cloth by a very sophisticated writer interested in very sophisticated ideas.

I could go on and on about how the recent film botched it, but I'll spare you my enthusiasm.

By the way, as you probably know, the Cotton Vitellius MS was literally plucked from the flames -- there was a fire at Cotton's library in 1731 that destroyed unknown literary treasures and reached the very edges of the Beowulf ms, singing it. Some unknown hand snatched it from the verge of destruction. If it had burned, we would know nothing of this brilliant narrative. It is sui generis. A masterpiece not mentioned anywhere else. A work of pure genius.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-02-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Thanks.

But is it the case that Kloner's claim that after 70 CE round blocking stones became "much more common" than they were prior to that date justifies, as RC seems to think it does, his absolute denial that would have been any round tomb blocking stones on tombs in the time of Jesus? After all, that there were no round tomb blocking stones used prior to 70 CE is not what Kloner says.

Jeffrey

Don't jump the gun and assume Carrier's thinking.

I'm assumming nothing. I'm taking him at his word. Or did he not say: "the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus"

Jeffrey

Gamera · 01-02-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I agree with all this although P52 could be reasonably dated with a wide range. Putting it at 125 seems to indicate a bias similar to that affecting MS dating. Anyways, a google search turns up many views.

Look at it this way, hypothetically. If you have 100 copies of something in the year 1000, 50 copies in 950, 25 in 900, 12 in 850, 6 in 800, and 1 in 750, then it wouldn't be reasonable to date the autograph to, say, 600. More reasonable would be between 700 and 750. If you look at our christian MSS then you land somewhere in the 2nd century, although I haven't worked out the specific math due to extreme laziness. Putting them in the second century also helps contextualize writings such as the Didache and GThomas.

Quote:

Add this to other factors, such as textual criticism, the fact that the synoptic gospels appear to be related (and hence had some common source prior to their creation), and church tradition, and a first century dating of the gospels seems pretty likely. That's the best we can do in this case (as with most ancient mss)

You will note that when I talked about the gospels, I looked at them as a unit because they are related. In other words, whichever shows up first would establish a date. If it wasn't Mark then we could step back a bit. However, the fact that they are related does not in anyway require them to be moved to a time significantly earlier. Church tradition counts for nothing in this case since it is obviously so corrupt, incoherent, and falsified (or, at least, gullible) so as to be completely unreliable. I will tentatively accept Papias as a reference to gospels, so don't think that I discard everything. I accept the Papias reference because it is a reference to a plausible text. What the text implies would fall somewhat out of this scope, so no implied comment should be inferred. I am not sure about Ignatius yet, I suspect that the dating is too early.

I find a first century date for the gospels more and more unlikely, the more I think about it.

Julian

There are a number of NT papyruses from the late 2nd century. So we have a pretty good terminus ad quem, even leaving P52 out of it.

I guess the issue then turns on the likelihood that we would have early copies of these disperate, yet related texts. I don't think it's likely for the reasons I've cited, which are compounded the more examples of related NT texts we have. The more examples of related, yet disperate texts you, the less likely any particular ms you have of them is an early copy.

But like I say, I'm sympathetic with your position as I think a bias for early dating is the bane of scholarship and plays into a certain nostalgic bent that we should all resist.

Toto · 01-02-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Don't jump the gun and assume Carrier's thinking.

I'm assumming nothing. I'm taking him at his word. Or did he not say: "the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus"

Jeffrey

And your problem with this is exactly what?

Yes, there were round tomb blocking stones at the time of Jesus, but they were not used on the sort of tomb described in the gospels. Read the rest of the section for all of the nuances and qualifications that you need.

Sheshonq · 01-02-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

I have no particular bias either way here, but I think there's at least a handful of mistakes in your logic.

1. You cannot invoke probability here until you know when the other copies were made. You might very well have a piece of the autograph.

2. You also need to know how *many* copies were available at this point in time. If there were only two copies made and in circulation at that point in time, then the chance of P52 being part of the autograph are 1 in 3 - and that's assuming that you can date the copies to some time before P52's dating.

3. Assuming you clear the above two hurdles, you still have a problem. Even if P52 is a copy and not the autograph, that still doesn't get you to a 1st century autograph. The copy that P52 came from could have been made the same year as the autograph was penned down. You're assuming some amount of time elapsed. That may or may not be true.

No. That depends entirely upon when the total number of copies were made. Let's simplify this to show why you're wrong - assume a hypothetical document (not GJohn):

AD 100 - original
AD 105 - 30 copies
AD 120 - 5 copies

There are more copies floating around in AD 120 than there were in AD 105 or AD 110. But the average age of the copies is still older, not younger, than AD 120.

No. That depends upon the age distribution of the copies.

Sorry, if these were requirements for dating texts we could never date any ancient texts.

Be sorry for yourself, not for me. These are not requirements for dating; they are requirements for invoking probability into this discussion, as you have tried to do.

Quote:

We know there is an original holograph that was copied (because we have copies)

That is circular. You don't know that all the ones you have are copies; you actually might have an original among the documents you are calling 'copies'.

Quote:

and we know that over time lots of copies were made (because we have them or references to them). The copies increase over time.

Restating your position may make you feel better, but it doesn't remove the objections I posted. If you don't know how many copies, or when they were made, then you can't use probabilistic arguments here.

Quote:

Added to the other factors I mentioned, and it's a pretty good conclusion that the gospels are probably first century.

But I didn't comment on the other factors you listed, did I? My response was focused only on the attempt to invoke probability. As I said, I don't have an agenda either way here; I just saw some logical flaws in the way you framed your argument around probability.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-02-2008, 07:33 PM

[QUOTE=Toto;5067994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'm assumming nothing. I'm taking him at his word. Or did he not say: "the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus"

Jeffrey

Quote:

And your problem with this is exactly what?

Umm, that he uses Kloner's claim that before 70 CE round blocking stone tombs were fewer in number than after 70 CE as support for his assertion claim that there were no tombs with round blocking stones in Jesus time.

Quote:

Yes, there were round tomb blocking stones at the time of Jesus,

Is that what Carrier says?

Quote:

but they were not used on the sort of tomb described in the gospels

.

And what sort of tomb was the one described in the Gospels?

Jeffrey

Julian · 01-02-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Why do you think this?

Because there is no reason to think that the growth rate would be any different a century earlier. If we start a growth progression at A and check it at B then we could apply that rate to another period, i.e. we could set A to 70 CE just as well as 120 CE. There is no reason to think that the rate would change that I know of. The technology for transmission and the culture through which it flowed would have been the same.

Quote:

Attestation is capricious.

But grows less so as the number of copies increase.

Quote:

How would your expectations work for the epistle to Diognetus? It is obviously ancient, yet no author at all refers to it until nearly modern times.

I have not studied it enough to have an opinion of value.

Quote:

IOW, why is it so improbable that the gospels went through a period of relative quiet before catching on?

Considering their importance in and absolute dominance of the christian writings since they became mentioned, I can see no reason why they would have been languishing for decades on end. I mean, why go about writing gospel after gospel, copying from this guy or that, if nobody seems to care about them? I think that as the movement grew there arose a need to answer the questions of the newly converted as well as potential converts. In short, the need for gospels came about. Considering their success I would think that it would be up to you to explain why nobody seemed to care until many, many years later. And as a corollary, why so many were written if it was an uninteresting genre.

Julian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2008, 06:34 PM	#23
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The question of the questionable dating of p52 has been brought up here before. Here I cited an early review of the 125 CE +/- 25 years dating. There is the 170 +/- 25 years dating supplied by Andreas Schmidt that most people seem bent on ignoring. And there is Brent Nongbri's analysis, "What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries", cited from Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52. Nongbri is essentially more cautious than the early reviewer I citied who said, "The wise reader will, therefore, hesitate to base any important argument on the exact decade in which this papyrus was written; he will even hesitate to close the door on the possibility that it may be later than AD 150." Nongbri specifically tells people "As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel." This thread should take note. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.