Vinnie

I find the late first century to be the most probable date though one should not be too dogmatic on this. I don't care when GJohn was written though so my knowledge is limited there. But Yuri is playing out on the moon as P52 doesn't even factor into my arguments for the dating of the synoptic Gospels.

I personally wouldn't go any later than the early second century for any of the synoptics.

Vinnie

CX

Absolutely, but so far no paleographers have come here making such claims. Further I am not making such a claim. I know very little about paleography. I am asking Yuri to support his claim which is only peripherally related to paleography.

The burden of proof lies exactly where it has throughout this thread. Namely, on Yuri and his claim that the gospels are dated solely based on P52. It's a nonsense claim which he has done nothing but tap dance around. Frankly I don't know what the validity of paleography is an have little interest in it to tell the truth. P52 is an historical curiousity of little text critical value so I don't really care when one chooses to date it. The NA27, as Yuri correctly, for once, pointed out earlier dates MSS mostly by century (sometimes giving a range of 2 centuries).

Yuri Kuchinsky

But do you, yourself, accept that +/-25 years is a valid margin of error in paleographic dating?

Quote:

The burden of proof lies exactly where it has throughout this thread. Namely, on Yuri and his claim that the gospels are dated solely based on P52. It's a nonsense claim which he has done nothing but tap dance around.

Since no other valid evidence for the early dating has been forthcoming, I then assume that the gospels are dated early solely based on P52.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Vinnie,

Can you please tell me why something like 99% of biblical scholars today date all 4 gospels in the first century? Is there any valid reason for such an early dating? If there isn't any such reason other than P52, then I guess P52 must be the only reason.

Yours,

Yuri.

CX

As I've stated several times I know very little about paleography. As such I am not qualified to comment on the validity of this generally accepted margin of error. I personally find it overly optimistic, but my personal opinion in the matter is essentially worthless given my lack of knowledge and expertise in the subject.

Let's look at this assertion as a syllogism.

P = "No other valid evidence for the early dating has been forthcoming"

Q = "The gospels are dated solely based on P52"

P ? Q
P
:. Q

This is a perfectly valid syllogism, but unless you can demonstrate the truth of P it is not a true argument. So far you have not demonstrated P you simply keep asserting it. Furthermore, the question is not whether other arguments for the early dating of the gospels are valid, but simply whether they exist. It is your claim that they do not. Thus it is incumbent upon you to prove that claim. I won't hold my breath.

Vinnie

I'll post an argument which whether valid or invalid refutes Yuri comment about p52.

Many scholars would argue that Ignatius writing ca 110 has redactional element about Jesus' baptism that is found twice in Matthew's gospel in a JBap context. There are no other clear indications that Ignatius read Matthew so it is best to see this as an indirect reference. Ignatius was using a creed or such that was influenced by Matthew's redaction of Mark's baptismal account.

Yuri may think Ignatius was forged or whatever but it is very clear that the scholars who do not use this as an argument for the upper limit of Matthew. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH P52 as far as I can see.

matthew dates before 110 ad and Mark predates Matthew (marcan priority).

Yuri thinks Ignatius' letters are later and were forged and he also calls the Two source theory nonsense. But scholars who accept the 2ST (most of them) and those who do not think Ignatius was forged have a valid argument here which is not dependent upon P52,

Vinnie

Merle

I have been reading Randel Helms' Who Wrote the Gospels?. He basically agrees with this view.

He sees Mark's reference to the abomination of desolation as referring to the desecration of the temple of Jerusalem in 70AD. Since Mark appears to refer to this as the abomination spoken of by Daniel, and since Daniel said the end would come 3 1/2 years after this, it appears that Mark thought the second coming would come in 74 AD. So that dates Mark between 70 and 74 AD. This makes sense to me. What do you think?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Seems like a very slender argument...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Vinnie, but I specifically said "Is there any valid reason" for an early dating? So if your argument is invalid, then it cannot refute what I said.

Quote:

Many scholars would argue that Ignatius writing ca 110 has redactional element about Jesus' baptism that is found twice in Matthew's gospel in a JBap context. There are no other clear indications that Ignatius read Matthew so it is best to see this as an indirect reference. Ignatius was using a creed or such that was influenced by Matthew's redaction of Mark's baptismal account. Yuri may think Ignatius was forged or whatever but it is very clear that the scholars who do not use this as an argument for the upper limit of Matthew. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH P52 as far as I can see. matthew dates before 110 ad and Mark predates Matthew (marcan priority). Yuri thinks Ignatius' letters are later and were forged and he also calls the Two source theory nonsense. But scholars who accept the 2ST (most of them) and those who do not think Ignatius was forged have a valid argument here which is not dependent upon P52, Vinnie.

Not only Yuri, but lots of other people think that Ignatius was forged. And also, lots of other people think that the 2 Source Theory is nonsense. So your arguments for the early dating of the gospels cannot be assumed as valid.

But let's try to look at the bigger picture now. What I'm objecting against is really this.

[quote]

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papy...nuscripts.html

For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus
fragment of the Gospel of John has been the
oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament.
This manuscript (P52) has generally been
dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved
that the original Gospel of John was written
earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had
always been upheld by conservative scholars.

[unquote]

So this quote comes from a "respectable" University website. The writer of this probably thinks about himself as some sort of an "objective liberal scholar", since he's talking about the "conservative scholars" without identifying with them.

And yet, what he says is just plain dishonest. He's saying that P52 "proved" the early dating of the Gospel of John!

So this is the sort of a deception that I'm objecting against. And you and CX, what are you objecting against? Would you rather that I just shut up, and stop exposing these professional frauds?

CX, for his own part, admits that he knows nothing about paleographic dating, and yet, for some reason, he insists on denouncing my arguments in this area with remarkable zeal. He wants me to "prove" that some bogus claims made by these professional tricksters are really bogus, while never making an effort to examine them for himself, as he should be doing... And when I tried to use some very plain, common sense arguments, in order to help him as a beginner in this area, he then denounced me for using common sense (!) -- as if this was some sort of a black mark against me.

If these are the sceptics, then perhaps I've stumbled into a wrong address...

Regards,

Yuri.