Vorkosigan

With a title like that, I can guess what here position is. Shouldn't it be a companion to her work on Greek Religion: "The Christians Myths?"

BTW, you can logic out earliest possible and latest possible dates, but beyond that, it becomes difficult to give exact dates, and by who. Most people give conjectures and ranges, as CowboyX did.

Michael

Panta Pei

Which Version?

Vorkosigan

Of what?

CX

I think links to Josephus are tenuos at best, but that is purely conjecture. Not being a bona-fide biblical scholar working with primary sources (I have rudimentary understanding of Koine Greek, but that's it) I base it on the work of others. If we suppose that GJn is written by the same author as the Johannine letters (and there are many strong arguments for that link) I don't see how it can be dated in the 2nd century. Couple that with the controversial theory that AJn was actually the Presbyter John named by Papias and the late 90's dating seems the most parsimonious, to me anyway. Who knows? Without autographs all of these are best guesses.

Plus if I'm not mistaken, even Burton Mack, who dates GLk later than any other scholar I'm aware of, puts GJn at the end of the 1st century. I'll have to check references to be sure of that though. I recall there being text and form critical reasons for dating GJn in the latter half of the 90's

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Hmmmm....in the case of John, the number of redactions complicates dating. Are you saying the final redaction of John dates from so early? But some of the much later church fathers, toward the end of the second century, knew a John that ended at John 20. And the version in p52, assuming it is a complete gospel of John, is different from the one we have. So what do you mean when you say "John dates from the 90s?"

Michael

CX

When I give dates I am invariably talking about the autographs. Dating redactions gets tricky. I is certainly possible that none of our canonical versions of the gospels date before the 2nd century. Without manuscript evidence or citations in the Church fathers it is impossible to say.

CX

By the way do you have a reference for that claim that p52 is non-canonical. The earlychristianwritings website says, "The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John
and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE."

Do you know where we can find an english reconstruction of p52. My Koine is not nearly good enough for me to reconstruct the text on my own (I don't think. Maybe I should give it a try.)

Also what do you mean by assuming it is a complete gospel of John? p52 is a tiny fragment comprised of only a few verses recto and verso.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

CX

I orginally wrote in this thread:

By the way do you have a reference for that claim that p52 is non-canonical. The
earlychristianwritings website says, "The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as
p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John
and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE."

I am still looking for references on this. As to my original dating of GJn in the end of the first century, I think I'll revise my position slightly after reading Udo Schnelle's entry on GJn in History and Theology of the New Testament Writings

He states the current scholarly concensus as being, "...both the history of the reception and the MS tradition of the Gospel of John suggest it originated between 100 and 110 C.E." (ibid. p. 477) In a footnote to this he states, "In recent research the Gospel of John is mostly dated in the last decade of the first century or around 100 C.E." Given that I'll adjust my own dating from 90-95 to 95-105.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

NOGO

What about the prophecy about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys. Matthew is quoting the OT and makes a mistake only a person unfamiliar with hebrew could have made.

Do you suppose this text was added later?

Vorkosigan

Hi CowboyX.

All my sources indicate that the wording of p52 is slightly different than the gospel we have. This is not really surprising considering the number of redactions John is alleged to have undergone.

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm</a>

by "assuming that p52 is a complete gospel of John" I meant that, assuming it is actually a fragment from a complete gospel we would recognize as John, and not a piece of a letter with language that was incorporated into John, or a cite of different gospel that was later incorporated into John, etc. Odds are low, certainly, but they exist.

Michael