Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: most excellent Theophilus

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:30 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:10 am
Most definitely. Considering the magnitude of what had occurred, that would definitely be the case.
So you argue that such a momentous event was ignored or overlooked by reputable historians and writers extent at the time, only to be written about by essentially nobodies?
The standard chronology is circular to other late dating errors. For 1 and 2, you are simply making a fiat claim.
I notice you have a habit of calling other arguments circular, when your arguments are themselves circular.

If such an early date for these texts is self evident then why do we not get any concrete mention of them or Christians until a hundred years later?
He was no longer high priest after 41 AD, and lived into the 60s. His son (or maybe nephew, I could check) was high priest in the later period.
Every date for his death I have seen at 41 ad, with one exception that has it at 43 ad.
This is circular to late dating unbeliever paradigms that Luke was simply a liar/forger in the late 2nd century.
No, it is consistent with when Luke comes into history. Even with the standard model of Gospel dates, Luke is the very last Gospel named. Papias doesn't know of him; Justin doesn't know of it; Polycarp doesn't know of it. But lo and behold, Irenaeus names it.
As you can see above, in that paradigm you can come up with all sorts of competitive theories.
Indeed. Such as Codex Sinaiticus being a forgery. But no one is stupid enough to think that.

Oh, wait...
However, the high priest Theophilus fits superbly with the events of 30-45 AD and Luke's excellent knowledge of the Temple. Plus, he may well have been one of the great company of priests who came to faith in Jesus in Acts 6.
Hollow rhetoric signifying nothing.

You're a putz.

User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Kapyong » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:40 pm

Gday Michael BG and all :)

Have you seen René Salm's recent article on Dr Hermann Detering's take on the Gnostic meaning of the Exodus, and it's relation to the NT ?

He has just started a series on it, part 2 covers :

• the New Testament must be dated to the second century CE
• Epiphanius identifies the pre-Christian Jessaeans with Philo’s Therapeutae, and the Therapeutae with early Christians
• According to Epiphanius, some Jewish pre-Christians “set themselves ablaze”
• Epiphanius shows that the Nazoraeans were in some way related to Indian monks


H. Detering, “The Gnostic Meaning of the Exodus”—A commentary (Pt. 2)

Kapyong

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Brent Nongbri on P52 dating

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:53 pm

Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:16 pm
Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:39 am
3. For my part, the fragment of John, dated to around 125-ish *may* show that some finished form may have been around then.
125-ish ?
P52 has been variously dated :
  • 100-199
  • 100-150
  • 125-175
  • c.200
But somehow ~125 has stuck in the popular imagination.
Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:01 pm
Well, I prefer to go with the scholarly view - that P52 is more likely late 2nd, or possibly even early third C.
Kapyong
If I remember right, Brent Nongbri quite properly allows a much later terminus ante que. The major weakness in dating by the script is generally the terminus ante quem, since scripts can be maintained a long time, for a variety of reasons. However, a future script cannot be anticipated.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Maestroh » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:16 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:53 pm
Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:16 pm
Gday Charles Wilson :)
Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:39 am
3. For my part, the fragment of John, dated to around 125-ish *may* show that some finished form may have been around then.
125-ish ?
P52 has been variously dated :
  • 100-199
  • 100-150
  • 125-175
  • c.200
But somehow ~125 has stuck in the popular imagination.
Kapyong
Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:01 pm
Well, I prefer to go with the scholarly view - that P52 is more likely late 2nd, or possibly even early third C.
Kapyong
If I remember right, Brent Nongbri quite properly allows a much later terminus ante que. The major weakness in dating by the script is generally the terminus ante quem, since scripts can be maintained a long time, for a variety of reasons. However, a future script cannot be anticipated.
Appeals to Brent Nongbri because he doesn’t like the papyri pointing away from his KJV....Now quick....what date does Nomgbri give Sinaiticus and why do you suddenly abandon his argument there?

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Brent Nongbri's superb papyri dating articles

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 pm

I like Brent Nonbri's papers because they are sensible and logical. Far more so than those who try to put an ultra-tight restriction of 50 to 100 years on the papyri. Bremt understamds that such tight dates are really only possible when there are compelling external evidences outside the script. Which is rare with the papyri.

Do you have an argument from Brent Nongbri about Sinaiticus?

On CARM I shared this,
Steven Avery wrote:Thus, to simplify things, here is his comment to date, from 2014. It is quite innocuous, and I have not placed it on any of our material. And I do not think he will mind a simple and helpful quote being shared:
About what Brent shared with me:
Steven Avery quoting Brent Nongbri wrote:"That's interesting about Sinaiticus. I don't know a great deal about Sinaiticus (just the usual stories from the introductory books). So, I'm glad that there's someone out there studying this stuff. It's always good to scrutinize these well-known "discovery stories."
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theol ... ost3578898
Bill Brown's response is there as well.

Some discussion here on BCHF in 2014 began with this comment.
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:49 pm
More on the papyri, a side-note, a simple example of disciplines clashing. Brent Nongbri, currently Australian, formerly Yale, has been rather successfully showing that early dates assigned for the Rylands papyri (P52) and the Bodmer (P66, P75 is likely a future study) are possible, yet not justified by the palaeographical facts on the ground. For the Bodmer, the dates could easily be later, 4th century or possibly even later. New Testament dating, pushed by textual critics, can at times take a myopic approach.
viewtopic.php?p=21551#p21551
Steven

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

what year did Theophilus the high priest pass?

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:52 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:30 am
Every date for his death I have seen at 41 ad, with one exception that has it at 43 ad.
A bit of a surprise. Can you share some of these references?

THanks!

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Brent Nongbri's superb papyri dating articles

Post by Maestroh » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:41 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 pm
I like Brent Nonbri's papers because they are sensible and logical.
Far more so than those who try to put an ultra-tight restriction of 50 to 100 years on the papyri. Bremt understamds that such tight dates are really only possible when there are compelling external evidences outside the script. Which is rare with the papyri.
Says a person who cannot even read one.
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 pm
Do you have an argument from Brent Nongbri about Sinaiticus?
I know FULL well you asked him about it. I also know full well that the ONLY reason you're not mentioning it is because it contradicts what you want to believe.

Truth is, you don't give a rat's behind about it. Nongbri enables you as a KJVOist to appeal ti authority to get rid of evidence you don't like. But since the method is the same, you abandon him because you don't like the fact he has no reason to question a fourth century date.

(Also - you need to just get over the notion of these folks writing you with platitudes that nobody but you takes seriously. A LOT of the scholars you've written who have been nice to you consider you little more than a crackpot along the lines of a Flat Earther, a fake moon landing advocate, or a guy who told everyone he has a pet Velociraptor. Quit confusing common professional courtesy with the notion anyone is praising you for your snipe hunting.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:38 pm

Bill Brown, I asked Brent Nongbri about Sinaiticus, and his answer is above. Read again, I specifically did mention asking Brent, and gave his response
Brenr wrote:“That's interesting about Sinaiticus. I don't know a great deal about Sinaiticus (just the usual stories from the introductory books). So, I'm glad that there's someone out there studying this stuff. It's always good to scrutinize these well-known "discovery stories."
If he has said or written anything else, I would be most interested in knowing.

One scholar said he wondered about the normally given Sinaiticus date, but the “deeply entrenched scholarship” makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. A truly spot-on observation.

My experience with friends and scholars down under has often been pleasant and iron sharpeneth. Brent Nongbri is clearly a sharp cookie.

Steven

Post Reply