ISVfan

No one places the date earlier than 120 now! But I have heard some even today who are ignorant of the papyri finds who have told me the Gospel of John was not written until 150-185. Somone told me that just recently.It takes a while before mss get copied. We found the papyri in the Eygptian desert John was originally written in Palestine so it would take a while for GoJohn to get to Nothern Africa. So considering the fragment is 125 the latest the GoJohn could have been written would have been 90 although it was more likely c.70.


Which might be from the GoJohn? It is clearly a copy of John and includes around 8 verses 4 on each side. Give or take 25 years so Christian apologists take 5 years and your accusing them of being false. The fact is this peice of John indicates the GoJohn very well could have been written 70 A.D.

Diogenes the Cynic

What are you talking about? Yes they do. Hardly anyone dates it later than that. C.100 CE is about the standard guess.
That "someone" was not representative of mainstream scholarship and is certainly not representive of this forum.
What is your evidence it was written in Palestine?
There is no hard evdience either that the fragment is from GJohn or that it could not date later than 125 CE.
Impossible. GJohn knows about the expulsion from the synagogues. That alone puts it into the mid 80's a dead minimum and most scholars put it at least a decade later.

Peter Watts

I believe Jesus was Who He claimed to be, for a number of reasons.
You don't believe.
All it will take for you and me to find out who's right is patience.

Iasion

Greetings ISVfan,

Pardon?
Peter Kirby gives 90-120 as accepted range of dates, citing scholars including Kysar, Helms, and Perrin.
90-120 is before 120.

Pardon?
You heard "some say"?
I thought we were discussing modern scholarship.


Hmmm,
P52 is NOT dated to 125.
The fragment can NOT be dated to a single year.
You seem to think the fragment is KNOWN to be written in the year 125 (or 120 as you said earlier.)

It simply is NOT correct to say "fragment is 125"
because that means the fragment was written PRECISELY in the year 125.

What IS correct is to say -
P52 is dated to :
* 2nd century by some (e.g. NA27)
* early 2nd century by some scholars
* late 2nd century by some scholars

That means P52 COULD have been written in
* 125CE
* or as early as ~100CE
* or as late as ~199CE

Do you see the point?

A MSS that COULD have been as late as 199CE or so does NOT prove the Gospel of John was written in about 70CE.


A tiny scrap with a few verses does NOT prove a book.
This could conceivably have been a small pericope (or story episode) about Jesus that was LATER included in the Gospel. But yes, it probably indicates the entire G.John existed.




Pardon?
You took much more than 5 years.
P52 could be as late as 150CE or even 199CE.

But first you said "dated to 120".
Now you say "fragment is 125".
And that dates G.John to c.70CE.

None of it true.

P52 indicates no more than that the G.John existed in 2nd century, perhaps early 2nd century.


Iasion

gregor

ISVFan

Not only were your past two post full of non sequiturs, they're first class strawmen. What the hell does the dating of p52 have to do with the date of 2 Peter.

Please review the collected scholarship on the dating of 2 Peter from Early Christian Writings and feel free to start a new thread with your rebuttal to the conclusion of a 150 CE date.

JPD

As you have mentioned previously - in another thread - it is not possible for an individual to change from being unelect to elect or from being elect to unelect regardless of their behaviour. If there is no way of verifying that one is one of the elect then there would appear to be no reason here to worship your god. Faith in such a God - who has his own private list (which itself raises some serious questions about the pointlesness of the whole exercise and the inadequacy of God) - is utterly pointless. Your belief that you are one of the elect is just that - belief. Even if you say that you know, you don't actually at all. Where is the list with your name on it? Your approach is one of cowardice.

JPD

Interesting. So being permitted to heaven is on the basis of your actions on earth and not on whether you are one of the elect. Is John telling "the truth" or are you? Remember that you claimed in a previous thread that the unelect cannot become elect and the elect cannot become unelect. So where exactly do you stand when you aren't dodging?

JPD

rhutchin, which way do you want to play it? If God keeps a private list of the "elect" which no-one can know 100% that they are on, but that being on this list is a guarantee of entry to heaven regardless of how the believer behaves, then what is there for Jesus to ask (particularly, if you think he is God, he will already know)?

If being one of the elect does not guarantee entry to heaven, and relies at least in part of the question and answer/review/demo session with Jesus, then what advantage does being one of the elect provide?

If a non-elect believer lives his or her life well, and the outcome with Jesus is favourable, and the non-elect believer enters heaven (I'm speaking to you here in terms familiar to you - I don't actually believe any of this utter garbage) does this mean that Jesus (God?) has over-ruled his own decision?

Steven Avery

Hi Diog, I am aware of the 19th benediction expulsion issues. However would you give the exact verse from John you are referencing? Since Josephus shows us the execution of James the brother of Jesus called the Christ three decades earlier than your date, I would like to understand what verse you think places John no earlier than the 90's. Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

First, I didn't say "no earlier than the 90's," I said it can't date before the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues in the mid 80's, but that most scholars date GJohn to at least a decade later if not two or three. GJohn references the expulsion several times, both directly and indirectly. On Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings page on The Gospel of John, he cites the following from Robert Kysar (The Anchor Bible Dictionary):
As to the Josephus passage on James- even if it is authentic (debatable but still accepted by a majority), it does not say why James was executed nor does it say anything about an expulsion from the synagogues before 85 CE (an action which wouldn't have even made sense before the destruction of the Temple). Thus the Josephan James passage is a non-sequitur when it comes to dating GJohn.