"The earliest NT manuscript, P52, which is a tiny fragment of the Gospel of John, dates from circa 125 CE, nearly one hundred years after the 'events.' Most of the earliest NT manuscripts date from hundreds of years later."
That's irrelevant to SimpleChristian's claims, to which I was directly responding. SimpleChristian's post contained several completely bogus statements having to do with the quantity and dates of manuscripts, not the origin of the tales recorded on the manuscripts, which is an entirely separate issue.
I think it's evident that if a fragment of John is dated to 125 CE it's safe to say it was actually written around that time, since the methods of dating are based on elements of the handwriting style and not radiometric analysis of the papyrus.
Obviously prior to the discovery of P52 in 1920 the argument could be made that John dated from a later time. P52 suggests such arguments are incorrect. This glaringly obvious conclusion is the "context" you claim I've "neglected to mention."
You may also notice that in another post, in response to Louis Booth's bizarre non sequitur, I alluded to the scholarly consensus that Mark's Gospel originally appeared around 70 CE even though the earliest available manuscripts date from hundreds of years later. So clearly you have no grounds for suggesting that I am ignoring "context."
Anyway how could I have "neglected to mention" anything, since the quotation you've provided was taken from the same article to which I linked. It's there for anyone to read. That's why I put it there. In other words, rather than "neglecting to mention" it, I provided the context in its entirety.
What I also "neglected to mention" was the following, also taken from the same article at the Duke University website:
Note the broad irony here. In spite of SimpleChristian's wild exaggerations, the fact that there are so many more contemporary non-Christian sources enables scholars to date the NT manuscripts, which themselves make reference to neither dates nor authorship.
So you see, SimpleChristian's statements that "Well over 3,000 of the extant manuscripts date within 100 years of the events, most of these dated to within 50 years of the events," and "We even had extant documents that can be dated to within 10-20 years of the events," and "This is literally unheard of in ancient manuscripts and exists in no other book outside of the new testament" are pure unadulterated nonsense.
Why? There's nothing to retract. And I provided the evidence in the first place. If you have some evidence that supports SimpleChristian's ridiculous assertions, bring it forth.
Better yet, SimpleChristian should do so. However since SimpleChristian never supported any similarly absurd claims about a certain Supreme Court case made elsewhere, I won't be holding my breath. But, as they say, hope springs eternal.
That's irrelevant to SimpleChristian's claims, to which I was directly responding. SimpleChristian's post contained several completely bogus statements having to do with the quantity and dates of manuscripts, not the origin of the tales recorded on the manuscripts, which is an entirely separate issue.
I think it's evident that if a fragment of John is dated to 125 CE it's safe to say it was actually written around that time, since the methods of dating are based on elements of the handwriting style and not radiometric analysis of the papyrus.
Obviously prior to the discovery of P52 in 1920 the argument could be made that John dated from a later time. P52 suggests such arguments are incorrect. This glaringly obvious conclusion is the "context" you claim I've "neglected to mention."
You may also notice that in another post, in response to Louis Booth's bizarre non sequitur, I alluded to the scholarly consensus that Mark's Gospel originally appeared around 70 CE even though the earliest available manuscripts date from hundreds of years later. So clearly you have no grounds for suggesting that I am ignoring "context."
Anyway how could I have "neglected to mention" anything, since the quotation you've provided was taken from the same article to which I linked. It's there for anyone to read. That's why I put it there. In other words, rather than "neglecting to mention" it, I provided the context in its entirety.
What I also "neglected to mention" was the following, also taken from the same article at the Duke University website:
Note the broad irony here. In spite of SimpleChristian's wild exaggerations, the fact that there are so many more contemporary non-Christian sources enables scholars to date the NT manuscripts, which themselves make reference to neither dates nor authorship.
So you see, SimpleChristian's statements that "Well over 3,000 of the extant manuscripts date within 100 years of the events, most of these dated to within 50 years of the events," and "We even had extant documents that can be dated to within 10-20 years of the events," and "This is literally unheard of in ancient manuscripts and exists in no other book outside of the new testament" are pure unadulterated nonsense.
Why? There's nothing to retract. And I provided the evidence in the first place. If you have some evidence that supports SimpleChristian's ridiculous assertions, bring it forth.
Better yet, SimpleChristian should do so. However since SimpleChristian never supported any similarly absurd claims about a certain Supreme Court case made elsewhere, I won't be holding my breath. But, as they say, hope springs eternal.
Upvote
0
, whom I very much believe, is responsible for my being well today!
