No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

what are you doing???? making this stuff up as you go???? :slap:

Marcion had a nice little collection in 150AD that is not up for dispute and was laughed at for taking the other known gospels and not including them in his works.

I just assumed that he didn't know what the second century (= 100-199CE) was. And first century is 1-99CE.

Otherwise his post is like playing with a tickle-me-Elmo doll. Pull the string on this one and you just get a nonsensical jumble of words.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

fb



There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that the four gospel books were written in the first century. There is no evidence for their existence before the mid to late second century. Some Christians "believe" they were written in the first century simply because they WANT TO BELIEVE they were written then.

The first gospel we have for Isu Chrestos, aka Jesus Christ, was written about 140 CE , and it was called the Euangelion. The Euangelion was later modified by the Christians and renamed the gospel of Luke. The gospels called Mark and Matthew were copied from "Luke". Later, Irenaeus felt there were some errors in Luke, Mark, and Matthew so he wrote a new gospel which became known as John. All four biblical gospels were created in the later half on the second century, NOT the later half of the first century, so there was plenty of time to take information out of the works of Josephus to create the gospel stories.

As for not believing in the existence of the biblical Jesus, you seem to have forgotten what happened in the early 4th century when there were more than 50 different gospel stories about the biblical Jesus character, but those choosing which gospel stories were going to be included in their new testament went through the different gospel stories deciding, "Nope, that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist" until they decided all the Jesus characters did not exist except for the character created in the four gospel stories they decided to keep for their new testament.

While it's cute that you're parroting this stuff, may I ask who convinced you of this (and I mean all of it)?

It's more funny than irritating that people get their rocks off by inventing some alternative history of the church, thinking that they are rebelling against that evil machine. And then people come along and read that crap and get the same type of warm-fuzzies.

But if you're making this stuff up, kudos, I love it.

 

[Tellurian]

fb

So, even though we have a fragment of John dating to about 125 C.E., Irenaeus (which possibly predates his birth, or is right around that time) still wrote it? How is that logical at all?

You do not have "a fragment of John dating to about 125 CE". P52 is dated by Christians to that time period simply because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE it is that old. Unbiased, secular dating places it to a much later date.

From Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In recent years the early date for P52 favoured by many New Testament scholars has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 AD; on the basis of a comparison with Chester Beatty Papyrus X and with the redated Egerton Gospel.[8] Brent Nongbri[9] has criticized all attempts to establish a paleographic date for papyri like P52 within such narrow ranges. Nongbri collected and published a wide range of dated comparitor manuscripts; demonstrating that, although there are plentiful examples of hands similar to that of P52 in the early 2nd century, two later dated papyri also had similar hands (P. Mich. inv. 5336, dated to 152 CE; and P.Amh. 2.78, an example first suggested by E.G. Turner, that dates to 184 CE). Nongbri suggested that this implied that older styles of handwriting might persist much longer than some scholars had assumed, and that a prudent margin of error must allow a still wider range of possible dates for the papyrus:

What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Unbiased, secular dating places it to a much later date.

Boy that's naive. Is there a limit to your abysmal gullibility?

When you find an unbiased, secular scholar who studies this stuff (or anything), you'd better believe everything they say without question.

Seat Jeebus

 

[angellous_evangellous]

fb



You do not have "a fragment of John dating to about 125 CE". P52 is dated by Christians to that time period simply because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE it is that old. Unbiased, secular dating places it to a much later date.

From Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In recent years the early date for P52 favoured by many New Testament scholars has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 AD; on the basis of a comparison with Chester Beatty Papyrus X and with the redated Egerton Gospel.[8] Brent Nongbri[9] has criticized all attempts to establish a paleographic date for papyri like P52 within such narrow ranges. Nongbri collected and published a wide range of dated comparitor manuscripts; demonstrating that, although there are plentiful examples of hands similar to that of P52 in the early 2nd century, two later dated papyri also had similar hands (P. Mich. inv. 5336, dated to 152 CE; and P.Amh. 2.78, an example first suggested by E.G. Turner, that dates to 184 CE). Nongbri suggested that this implied that older styles of handwriting might persist much longer than some scholars had assumed, and that a prudent margin of error must allow a still wider range of possible dates for the papyrus:

What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel."

haha the date for P52 is given as 125 on another blessed wiki article:

List of New Testament papyri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol

 

[Tellurian]

There would be a Latin name for the military camp! :biglaugh:

You're the best

Several Roman legions were in that area during that time period, so the camp may have been named after the III Gallica, or the VI Ferrata, or the X Fretensis, or the XII Fulminata or perhaps some other.

 

[fallingblood]

Boy that's naive. Is there a limit to your abysmal gullibility?

When you find an unbiased, secular scholar who studies this stuff (or anything), you'd better believe everything they say without question.

Seat Jeebus

I think Ehrman kind of fits the bill. He is agnostic, and still accepts the dating.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Several Roman legions were in that area during that time period, so the camp may have been named after the III Gallica, or the VI Ferrata, or the X Fretensis, or the XII Fulminata or perhaps some other.

Sweeeet

 

[fallingblood]

Several Roman legions were in that area during that time period, so the camp may have been named after the III Gallica, or the VI Ferrata, or the X Fretensis, or the XII Fulminata or perhaps some other.

And the Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker were also in Nazareth. Maybe that is where the holy Grail is buried? And the holy grail really is the beard of Dumbledore glued to Yoda's skull. It all makes sense now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think Ehrman kind of fits the bill. He is agnostic, and still accepts the dating.

Yes, he's agnostic. But is he unbiased and secular?

The man looks like a turtle and talks like a frog. I'm not sure that he is qualified...

On a different note, I wonder if Ehrman still accepts the early date. He could have initially accepted the earlier date and then switched to the later one. Just a thought - I don't know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And the Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker were also in Nazareth. Maybe that is where the holy Grail is buried? And the holy grail really is the beard of Dumbledore glued to Yoda's skull. It all makes sense now.

There ya go :clap

 

[Tellurian]

haha the date for P52 is given as 125 on another blessed wiki article:

List of New Testament papyri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol

Probably written by someone pushing a Christian agenda, or else by someone unfamiliar with the results obtained from the latest research.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I shall name it Camp Angelus

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Probably written by someone pushing a Christian agenda, or else by someone unfamiliar with the results obtained from the latest research.

I think that it was written by the Cookie Monster. He had to give it that date because he wanted 125 cookies.

Or some moron Christian sympathizer.

 

[fallingblood]

fb



You do not have "a fragment of John dating to about 125 CE". P52 is dated by Christians to that time period simply because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE it is that old. Unbiased, secular dating places it to a much later date.

From Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In recent years the early date for P52 favoured by many New Testament scholars has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 AD; on the basis of a comparison with Chester Beatty Papyrus X and with the redated Egerton Gospel.[8] Brent Nongbri[9] has criticized all attempts to establish a paleographic date for papyri like P52 within such narrow ranges. Nongbri collected and published a wide range of dated comparitor manuscripts; demonstrating that, although there are plentiful examples of hands similar to that of P52 in the early 2nd century, two later dated papyri also had similar hands (P. Mich. inv. 5336, dated to 152 CE; and P.Amh. 2.78, an example first suggested by E.G. Turner, that dates to 184 CE). Nongbri suggested that this implied that older styles of handwriting might persist much longer than some scholars had assumed, and that a prudent margin of error must allow a still wider range of possible dates for the papyrus:

What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel."

So, by your logic, agnostics and Jewish scholars shouldn't be placing this fragment at 125 C.E. then, since they are not Christian? Yet, the general consensus (and that includes non-Christian scholars), place the fragment at 125 C.E. It is not just Christians who claim the date. Thus, your argument goes down the toilet.

More so, the dating of John is not based just on a fragment. It is based on the geographical area in which we can find mentioning of the Gospels, internal context clues (which is something we do for many ancient manuscripts) etc. The only difference between dating the NT documents and many other ancient manuscripts (in many cases) is that the NT documents are part of the Bible. If they weren't part of the Bible, I hardly believe you would have such a problem with them.

But as the Bible is the enemy, you have to make up ridiculous stories about this and that in order to justify a willing ignorance. Instead of wasting your time being an internet scholar, you may want to pick up a credible book on the subject.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Probably written by someone pushing a Christian agenda, or else by someone unfamiliar with the results obtained from the latest research.

On that note, are you familiar with recent research?

All those people who think that Nazareth was a military camp? Or that a Jewish city never existed there? Or that the Gospels are dated in the second century?

Your posts do not indicate ANY familiarity with any kind of research related to this stuff and I know that because I've read a good deal of it.

I do like the military camp idea - it truly is a cool interpretation of the place of the bathhouse in its location and time period. But unfortunately there's no other evidence for that theory, and it raises many more problems than it solves. If you came up with that theory on your own, that's pretty cool. But it's like inventing a square wheel -- it may have been a good idea in the mind of the man that made it, but it's truly useless as a wheel.

Go on believing all this stuff, I don't care. I actually really like it for some reason. But pretending like it comes from "research" is a disservice to yourself and demonstrates contempt for your subject.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But pretending like it comes from "research" is a disservice to yourself and demonstrates contempt for your subject.

There's a lot of that going around.

Just wait for our next Qumran-was-an-Essene-site or Isaiah-7:14-was-misinterpreted thread. You know it's coming. The Illiterati rediscover this stuff almost annually. :yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's a lot of that going around.

Just wait for our next Qumran-was-an-Essene-site or Isaiah-7:14-was-misinterpreted thread. You know it's coming. The Illiterati rediscover this stuff almost annually. :yes:

Haha, yes. You'll be happy to know, I think, that other RF members have referred such folks to your thread(s) on this issue when folks like that show up. So your threads on the topic are memorable and useful.

 

[outhouse]

Probably written by someone pushing a Christian agenda, or else by someone unfamiliar with the results obtained from the latest research.

completely off base and in no way reflects modern scholarships on the subject

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

completely off base and in no way reflects modern scholarships ...

(there he goes again)