The Illusive Search for Truth...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

The Illusive Search for Truth...

Post by Peter Kirby »

Interesting post, though it seems to lose steam in its argument when getting to the part where it lists everything. (It leaves the implications, if any, to the reader.)

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... th-in.html

The author is, naturally, dependent on the standard reference works but (seemingly!) independent of EJW/ECW, so you might like to check for any discrepancies that might prove interesting when it comes to the dating game.

http://earlyjewishwritings.com/
http://earlychristianwritings.com/
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: The Illusive Search for Truth...

Post by Blood »

Secondly, of the 7,958 verses that compose the New Testament, there is no papyrus or vellum manuscript to support a historical origin for one single verse written before 180 CE. The claim that five verses from the Gospel of John (John Ryland’s Papyrus P 52) dates to 125 CE has been recently rightly contested. (3) Thus, while the Gospels have popular scholarly support for a pre 180 CE date, there is no textual evidence to back up this claim! Like the Hebrew Bible, the claim for a 65 -70 CE Gospel of Mark all the way though the Synoptic Gospels to a 90 CE date for the Gospel of John is done just like the dating of the Documentary Hypothesis or what is known as a “guess” based on Form Criticism and NOT textual data.

Finally, even though the Gospel of Thomas (one source used to construct Q) was translated into Coptic around 350 CE, its Greek base can NOT be textually located earlier than papyrus fragments dating from the first half of the 3rd century CE!
I didn't see any point in reading beyond that nonsense. "We don't have any texts that can be carbon dated before 180, therefore there is no support for a date of composition before 180" is childish error. Then the guy goes on to say matter-of-factly that the Gospel of Thomas was used to construct Q! So he completely accepts Q. This is the kind of dreadful inconsistency that ensures "mythicism" will not be taken seriously.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: The Illusive Search for Truth...

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Blood,

Yes, saying that we don't have anything carbon dated before 180 shows no support for a date of composition before 180 is childish error. However, saying that we have no text that can be securely dated before 180 that quotes any of the gospels and there is no carbon dating of any gospel fragment that can be placed before 180 gives us the latest in scientific knowledge about the composition of the gospels. We simply cannot say for sure that any of them, including the Gospel of Thomas was written before 180. This is simply the facts of the case.
As Humanists with a scientific bias, we should be arguing based on the facts of the case and not on the pious wishes of Christian fantasists.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
Post Reply