mike_decock

I didn't think you assumed that. You seem to be a little more scholarly than the average fundy.

Which one of these would you choose:

1) Mark must have been written before 70CE because it predicts the destruction of the temple.
2) Mark must have been written after 70CE because it mentions the destruction of the temple.

-Mike...

CX

How so? The John Rylands Fragment (P52) is a tiny scrap that may or may not contain a portion of canonical GJn. It is too small to be useful. Furthermore it only attests GJn (if that) so how does that prove that all the gospels existed and were being circulated by then? Understand I don't disagree that they were, but P52 does nothing whatever to establish that fact.

Vinnie

I believe the assumption is that GJohn is the latest of the four probably based on it having the most advanced theological developments. I leave the accuracy of this assumption to the rest of you to discuss.

As far as the Gospels go:

Assumning Ignatius was not forged we see an indirect dependence upon a Matthean redaction of Mark concerning JBap that occurs twicce in GMatt.

Extrnall, this would place Gmatt no later than 110 ad and mark sometime before GMatthew (Marcan priority).

I think Ignatius is our earliest external attestation. To be more precise we would have to move to the contents of the Gospels.

Vinnie

Vinnie

That or maybe Meta sees Johnannine dependence upon the synoptics in parts.

Vinnie

Vinnie

one problem with P52 that I've seen deals with the datin. Meta dats it 120-130 ad but what is the error bar? Not all scholars accept that such an exact dating is possible but the general favor seems to be that time period.

Vinnie

CX

I don't have a reference handy, but most scholars I've read assert (and I'd like to see evidence for the assertion) that paleography is acurate to within +-25 years. I've seen date ranges for P52 from 110 to 175 to early 2nd century. The concensus seems to be between 125 and 150, but it's an extremely unstable concensus at best. IN the end it really doesn't matter because, as I've repeatedly said, P52 is too small to be terribly useful for text critical issues.

Metacrock

No that's not true. It's exagerated. It's small but very definately contains a portion of John. Almost universally recongized by scholars of all stripes, it revolutionized the dating of the gospels. 100 years ago some scholars did try to argue the John was written over 100 years after the events, and they tried to put the gospels all in the second century. No serious group of scholars have agreed with that since p52 was disovered.

I don't know who told you it is quesitonable, but they are wrong. I know a scholar who saw it in person.

Metacrock

Koester shows that all fur Gospels are dependent upon the same orignal source of the Passion narrative and empty tomb, and that comes from AD50. But the I didn't mean to imply that p52 proves the synoptics dates in 1st cent. I said they are dated by the bit about the fall of the temple. Because scholars assume they didn't know in advance, and that 100 or so years after it would not have been a big enough deal to talk about it. So putting that in Jesus' mouth as a prophesy fulfilled would make more sense around the time it happened (70-80)


Besides that 1 Clement quotes from Matt, and most date that about AD95

CX

Is that substantially more reliable than seeing pictures of it? You are missing my point entirely. P52 contains a handful of partial verses which ARE definitely found in canonical GJn, but that does not dictate that P52 therefore was originally part of canonical GJn, only that it doesn't contradict the canonical text. It's fragmentary nature and tiny size make it little more than an historical curiousity albeit a fascinating and exciting one. For that matter it also attests to the text of a few unexciting variants. The point is it is too small to tell us much of anything. Those who assert that P52 PROVES anything about the development of the NT texts are drastically overstating the case. Understand that I don't put much stock in arguments that date the entire gospel corpus in the 2nd century. Tehre are any number of reasons to accept the scholarly concensus. My point is P52 is not one of them and it contributes little or nothing to discussions of early MSS attestation of the NT.

CX

Are you so sure? Have you read 1 Clement and compared it to the gospels? By my tally there are perhaps 5 or 6 references in 1 Clement which could be construed as gospel references, however one of them is a direct quote of Isaiah and cannot constitute therefore clemtine attestation to the gospels. Of the remaining 4 all are drawn from sayings material and none is a verbatim quotation. All 1 Clement really proves is that there were common traditions related to Jesus' sayings. 1 Clement in no way attests to the canonical gospels. None of the narrative material is attested at all. Attached are comparison verses readers can decide for themselves the significance of these allusions: