keyser_soze

I think see where Yuri is coming from here, and I think it is just a misunderstanding between you two. Yuri is using FOUNDATION, when he should probably use LODGE PIN. And, in agreement, there is a lot of material where they use P52 as the lodge pin to hold up their early formation argument. No, it's not the foundation of anything, but yes, they do use it to support the argument.

You two kids play nice, you're closer to the same view than apart.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks, Fred!

Quote:

How do you see Constantines role in this ? Due to Christianity then becoming religion # 1 within the empire, the Emperor could no longer be deified.

Well, actually, Christianity didn't become religion #1 within the empire until well after the time of Constantine...

Quote:

Therefore Constantine had to elevate himself to a higher plain than the average man. His own mother was able to do this for him. As I said above, I am curious to see people quoting various writers when mentioning the tomb and the legend surrounding it, and not including the Emperor. I' d love to read your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, Fred.

All these stories about Constantine's mother, and her voyages in the Holy Land are kind of interesting, but I'm afraid they add absolutely nothing to the early Christian traditions about Jesus' burial.

The key to the whole problem is the question of quartodecimanism, i.e. early Jewish-Christianity. The Quartodecimans were the early Christians who insisted on always observing the Passover at the same time as Jews. They were also Adoptionist in their beliefs, and they believed that Jesus was adopted by God as his son only at the time of his death (not before that). Thus, Quartodeciman faith could not fit in with the later concept of Sunday Easter, and with the Physical Resurrection.

To make the long story short, it's quite clear that the "3 Days in the Tomb" tradition was a later innovation. The Tomb was simply not a part of the earliest tradition -- since it cannot be made to agree with early quartodecimanism. But in order to argue all that properly one pretty well needs to write a whole book on the subject.

In any case, here's what Loisy said on the subject,

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/1m4.htm

I'd say that the Tomb Burial was added sometime ca 140 CE, when the original Jewish-Christianity was hijacked by the Gentile Christians. It's possible that some sort of a location for "Jesus' Tomb" was "remembered" soon after... So if there had ever been any such tradition in Jerusalem of a "Jesus' Tomb", this is how far back it would go. It must have been imagined some time in mid-second century.

There's quite a bit more on this subject on my webpage, but it's rather disorganised, sorry.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

CX,

Even if he was typical, which I doubt (since the other treatments I've read seem to be a lot more gung-ho about P52), still he's a bit too optimistic re P52 for my liking. In real terms, this bit of evidence for the early dating of the gospels is entirely worthless IMO.

Quote:

YURI: >>What would be your own personal reaction if some dude claimed to be able to date such a note as having been written "ca 1825"? Don't you think that he would look like a bit of a con man?<< It doesn't matter what I think. A personal feeling about paleography does not constitute a cogent argument. Rather I'm asking you to demonstrate that the +/-25 year margin most scholars give to paleographic dating is invalid. "Common sense" is extremely subjective.

I see... so you don't like "common sense"? Well, myself, I kind of like it a lot.

If you wish to see a demonstration that the +/-25 year margin for paleographic dating is invalid, I suggest you look into the list of MSS as provided for example in your NA Greek edition. In almost every case, a MS is dated only as belonging to the "5th century", or "6th century", or "7th century", etc. So this means a dating of +/- 50 years.

Hardly ever the date is given with more precision than that (unless a MS actually has a date written on it). Often, the date is given even more loosely, i.e. within two centuries, which means a dating of +/- 100 years.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

You're right, keyser_soze!

I meant it more like a lodge-pin...

But one can also say that P52 serves as the main -- if not the only -- justification for this sorry delusion on the part of our NT scholarly mainstream that all 4 gospels are essentially 1c documents.

This early dating of the gospels is entirely fraudulent. Other than P52, there's absolutely nothing to demonstrate early dating -- and there's much evidence to the contrary.

As to "playing nice", I _always_ play nice! That's why I'm the most popular participant in every "scholarly" NT discussion group today...

Cheers,

Yuri.

CX

Well, his intro text is almost consider the de facto replacement for Raymond Brown's landmark work and generally represents the current state of mainstream scholarship on the NT.

"Common sense" is great for buying a car or picking produce, but it is totally useless for academic inquiry because it is entirely subjective. Usually when someone appeals to "common sense" in a discussion it's because they don't have an actual argument. You've done nothing so far to dissuade me that that isn't the case here.

And how exactly does that demonstrate that paleography is invalid? All that shows is that the NA27 editors were only concerned with a certain level of precision. The NA27 has no need for more precise dates for cited witnesses. Understand that I'm not arguing for the precision of paleography, but I've seen a lot of people blast it as inaccurate to the point of being useless on more than one occaision and never provide a cogent argument for why that is so. You've done pretty much the same thing in this discussion.

Furthermore, you're whole discussion seems predicated on the idea that P52 is crucial to the dating of the gospels. It isn't. Mostly the gospels are dated based on internal considerations and external citation (like the patristics). If P52 had never been found it would not significantly change the dating accepted by modern scholars for the gospels.

CX

So your argument is that the currently accepted dates for the gospels are based solely on P52?

GMk

Generally dated around 70 C.E. (either shortly before or after) -

Rationale: Based on interpretation of GMk 13:2, 14; P52 is never mentioned in connection to date of GMk

GMt

Generally dated around 90 C.E.

Rationale: Usage of GMk means it must be later than that gospel; Knowledge of it by Ignatius (ca. 110) sets terminus ad quem; Again P52 is not mentioned.

GLk

Generally dated around 90 C.E.

Rationale: Usage of GMk; Internally "Luke writes from the perspective of the 3rd Christian generation, which is already interested in a presentation of epochs of salvation history" (Udo Schnelle HTNTW p. 243 with footnotes). So once again no mention of GJn or the Rylands fragment.

Peter Kirby

Who said that Schnelle is the replacement for Raymond Brown's intro? The dear late Dr. Brown has had his introduction in use for only a couple of years when Schnelle published. I think you mean that Schnelle replaces Kummel, whose intro was written in the 60s, and which was also originally in German.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

No, my friend, common sense is not subjective. Common sense is something that everyone should have and use.

Quote:

And how exactly does that demonstrate that paleography is invalid?

And who said that paleography is invalid?

Quote:

All that shows is that the NA27 editors were only concerned with a certain level of precision. The NA27 has no need for more precise dates for cited witnesses. Understand that I'm not arguing for the precision of paleography, but I've seen a lot of people blast it as inaccurate to the point of being useless on more than one occaision and never provide a cogent argument for why that is so. You've done pretty much the same thing in this discussion.

This means that you misunderstood what I was saying.

Quote:

Furthermore, you're whole discussion seems predicated on the idea that P52 is crucial to the dating of the gospels. It isn't. Mostly the gospels are dated based on internal considerations and external citation (like the patristics). If P52 had never been found it would not significantly change the dating accepted by modern scholars for the gospels.

What I'm saying is that there's not enough scepticism about P52 among NT scholars, which betrays their apologetic bias.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes.

Quote:

GMk Generally dated around 70 C.E. (either shortly before or after) - Rationale: Based on interpretation of GMk 13:2, 14; P52 is never mentioned in connection to date of GMk GMt Generally dated around 90 C.E. Rationale: Usage of GMk means it must be later than that gospel; Knowledge of it by Ignatius (ca. 110) sets terminus ad quem; Again P52 is not mentioned. GLk Generally dated around 90 C.E. Rationale: Usage of GMk; Internally "Luke writes from the perspective of the 3rd Christian generation, which is already interested in a presentation of epochs of salvation history" (Udo Schnelle HTNTW p. 243 with footnotes). So once again no mention of GJn or the Rylands fragment.

And I'm saying that all these arguments, every single one, is entirely phoney. In actual fact, there are no _real_ arguments for the early dating of the gospels. P52 is the only argument that might look like it's a real argument, and yet I'm saying that even this is entirely phoney.

Regards,

Yuri.

CX

You're right, of course. It was Kummel. Not Brown.