Duvduv

Shesh, why do you need to use such terminology?
But if you insist, at least acknowledge that those who see Christianity in the second century do so without a shred of evidence, and rely with faith on the unproven claims of church spokesmen.

Sheshbazzar

Professional scholars that deal with the dating of early manuscripts, have dated manuscripts P5, P6, P22, P28, P39, P45, P52, P66, P75, P80, P90, P95, P106 to c. 125-160, as well many others to as early as c. 200 CE.

And if you are familiar with Justin's writings, it is evident that he quoted none of these Johanine texts, which tends to strongly indicate that Justin's writings date even earlier than these recovered texts.

I have no reason to believe these scholars are taking part in any ongoing church orchestrated conspiracy.

Sorry if you don't like the terminology, but it seems the most appropriate terms in view of the claims being made.

Duvduv

Well, theur opinions of the pages could be questioned, especially since that type of analysis ignores content and context. I have discussed this issue before.

Sheshbazzar

Your posts display a consistent bias and agenda, one that does not seem the least bit concerned with the finding out of the facts, but solely concerned with discrediting the existence of 2nd century Christianity in spite of any evidences to the contrary.
My view, which you may be aware of, is that Christianity and its gospels are 2nd century CE gentile fabrications, and thus is no threat to the Jewish view of their not being authentic.
All I am defending is that they are authentic 2nd century gentile produced religious writings, not before, not in Israel, and definately not accurate historical accounts.

Certainly you may question the expert opinions of the professional Paleographers, but in that you hold no position in the field, and display little knowledge of their methodology, and that wide range of early documents at their disposal by which they are able make such comparisions, your doubts do not constitute a very impressive presentation, much less a cogent rebuttal of the datings that they have arrived at.

Duvduv

I think you are giving paleography an inordinate degree of status as an exact science which it is not. It too contains it's biases, and does not consider issues of context and content.

Duvduv

Let's take an extreme example to make the point. Let's say someone analyzed a fragment of parchment that they were absolutely certain dated from the 2nd century CE. Everything matched the usual analyses EXCEPT the content and context, because that parchment described the life of George Washington. Now the paleographers would say they made no mistake at all and they cannot explain why the fragment discusses George Washington.

Alternatively the paleographer would say that it was an absolute forgery by an outstanding forgerer. The third possibility is that the paleographer would say that he made a mistake, and the fragment was not from the 2nd century.

In the cases at hand people are decidedly not interested in discussing anything other than the alleged match between a fragment and the claims of the Church. Content and context are of no importance probably because the cause is not as extreme as the example I suggested.

And yet if one makes an argument based on a discussion of content and context then it is immediately dismissed because it is outside of the conventional wisdom citing Christianity back to the second century DESPITE the lack of contextual and content evidence for any Christian communities, leaders, centers, outside corroboration, etc, in the 2nd century at all.

Only two things count: the claims of the Church, which are accepted BY FAITH (since there is no way of empirically proving the claims), AND some claims related to paleography.

Sheshbazzar

Now do you care to follow up your generalized objections, with explicitly pointing out what it is that you find within the P5, P6, P22, P28, P39, P45, P52, P66, P75, P80, P90, P95, P106 manuscripts 'content and context' that makes it impossible for them to have been composed by gentiles, outside of Judea, and in the 2nd century?

Duvduv

Yes, when I get some time I will.

Huon

A parchment dated from the 2nd century CE had at that time a great value. It was certainly used before the 18th century CE, and it is a palimpsest, easily recognizable as such.

The storage medium and the content can have two dates. The content is necessarily of the same age, or younger than the medium.

mountainman

Consider the 1970's poster entitled "DESIDERATA" claimed to have been found in Old St. Paul's Church, dated 1692, but was originally authored in 1927 by Max Ehrmann. These posters exhibited some "OLDE ENGLISH SCRIPT" which enhanced the claim that people were looking at wisdom literature from almost 300 years in the past.

Suppose those who published the books of the new testament also selected to manufacture their codices using a recognised "OLDE GREEK SCRIPT" from centuries earlier - for the same reason - it enhanced the perceived antiquity of the production.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia