Jayhawker Soule

I have two interrelated questions:<ol type="1">[*] What external evidence do we have suggesting that the the 1st-3rd century dates assigned to various manuscripts by paleography are credible and reasonably accurate?[*] What is the earliest reference to the NT "Jesus" confirmed by some method other than paleography?[/list=a]I realize that the first question is akward and, perhaps, naive. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know the extent to which paleographic estimates have been confirmed or overturned by other techniques. Thanks in advance for the input.

Bede

Reasonable,

Palaeography compares the hand writing of dated documents (like decrees, legal records etc) of which there are loads from many sources like the rubbish dumps of Oxyrynchus, with the handwriting of undated documents (like the NT). Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so.

The earliest non palaeographic evidence would be from epigraphy (inscriptions) but I'm not sure the earliest that states Jesus existed. Probable quite late...

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Skeptical

One point I would like to make regarding the Minnen quote, the date of 125 is, as bede points out + or - 25 years. While the fragment may be as early as about 100 CE, it is equally possible that the fragment is closer to about 150 CE. If it is the latter, one does not have to posit a first century date for John. I'm not even sure that a date of 125 CE _necessarily_ means that John is from the 1st century. It is disengenuous to claim that fragment P52 "proves" that John was written in the 1st century. I'm not familiar with Minnen's work, but this overstatement alone would make me question his scholarship.

I'm not a paleographer, but my layman's understanding is that its fairly accurate within the margin of error of + or - 25 years given sufficient documents of known dated material. I'm not really sure what you mean by your 2nd question. If your asking what documents of known date we have that mention Jesus outside of the NT or non-canonical gospels, it would probably be Josephus, unless one accepts that his references are complete interpolation.

You can find a lot of information regarding christian writings at <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com</a>

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks, I frequent Kirby's site often.

That paleography is "fairly accurate" is my understanding (and belief) as well, but I've yet to come across instances where an estimate was confirmed or consrained by non-paleographic evidence. For example, in dating *7Q5, it appears that the teminus ad quem is likely provided by the Roman conquest. In the absence of such independend 'markers' I'm unclear as to how a field arrives at and justifies an accuracy estimate of ±25 years.

As for the second question, I'm simply curious about the earliest reference to 'Jesus' dated or cross-dated by something other than paleography - maybe something like a portion of Matthew, paleographically dated to 150 CE, and found along with a scrap of parchment containg the date 163 and the words: "Stop by and pick up some eggs on your way home from the Senate."


* An interesting article on 7Q5 and P64 is foun <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/thiede.htm" target="_blank">Here</a>.

Vorkosigan

Assuming that the TF is truly attributable to Josephus, wouldn't that be the earliest securely datable reference to the Christian savior? After that, it would be either Tacitus or Pliny, no?

CX

Indeed. Udo Schnelle says, "A possible terminus ad quem for the dating of the Gospel of John is provided by the manuscript tradition (cf. P52, P90, P66), for P52 with John 18.31-33, 37-38 is generally dated around 125 CE. To be sure, this dating is no longer established beyond all doubt, but nonetheless both the history of the reception and the MS tradition of the Gospel of John suggest it originated between 100 and 110 CE." (HTNTW pp. 476-477)

An additional problem with P52 is that it is extremely small, as well as extremely fragmentary. While I think this is sometimes overstated (i.e. "no two consecutive words...") the fact is P52 contains only 14 complete words intact and 33 words if we reconstruct it from what we know of canonical John. So at best we have 33 words out of 15,635 words in the gospel or about 0.002%. It is simply too small a sample to say anything with respect to GJn.

As an interesting side note, prior to 200 CE (some 170 years after the events depicted) we have only 3 tiny fragments of NT MSS. Two of the MSS (P52 & P90) both potentially attest to GJn. Additionally P66 from around 200 CE contains about 94% (823 of 879 verses) of GJn. No other gospel is so well attested prior to the 4th century. This could imply that GJn was composed very late at a time when NT texts were already being widely preserved. Thus not as much time had passed for MSS to be lost, damaged or destroyed due the emerging widespread dissemination of Xianity.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I believe that:

• Josephus is dependent upon a 4th century CE Eusebius. The earliest Josephus MS is dated to the 10th century CE.
• Assuming authenticity, Tacitus speaks of 'Christus' rather than 'Jesus'. The earliest MS dating to the 9th century CE.
• As with Tacitus, Pliny makes no mention of 'Jesus'. Again, the earliest MS is dated to the 9th century CE.

I am still looking for a 'confirmed sighting' before Constantine.

Jayhawker Soule

What about P46, e.g., Palaeographical Dating of p46 to the Later First Century? See, also,

• Authorship and Composition of the New Testament, and
• New Testament Manuscripts

Does anyone know if current consensus remains ca 200 CE?

CX

P46 is an interesting case. Unfortunately I am not qualified to evaluate paleographic data. NA27, in the appendix, dates P46 to "ca. 200 CE". I certainly could be earlier, but it could also be later.

CX

I find this very curious:

Even if we accept a date for p46 around 175 CE, how is that earlier than p52? Furthermore p90 and possibly p98 both date to the 2nd century which makes them contemporary to p46.