Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday John T and all :) As a judge I would find it very troubling if a woman suing for child support refuses to have a DNA test on her child. You keep mentioning "DNA testing" for Sinaiticus. How do you think DNA testing applies to dating of ancient MSS ? Kapyong PS : You can buy your own f...

Gday all,

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:44 am Then he certainly belongs at this forum. It should be renamed "The Center for Imaginative Adoption of Historical Facts and Anomalies to Suit Pre-Existent Assumptions Forum"

Then why are you here ?

Kapyong

Gday Beverley

Looks interesting, will read.

Have you seen the work of Michael Turton ?
He covers some similar ground on G.Mark :

"Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark"
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

Kapyong

Wow !
About time

I'm sure many of us have dreamed of the day when the VSA is accessible online.
Probably many years until it's done but - if it works.

And 53 miles of books !
I barely have 12 m.

Kapyong
(metres i.e.)

Gday all :) C.W. Leadbeater was an unusual and controversial character. He died here in Perth, the funeral was at our local Liberal Catholic Church. His source for 'pontus piletos' was apparently his occult vision of the ancient manuscripts (vision which he also used to investigate atomic structure ...

Gday all, Heracleon has this interesting comment : Fragment 40, on John 4:46-53 (In John 4:46, “So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official whose child was ill.) The official was the Craftsman, for he himself ruled like a king over th...

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...

Gday Charles Wilson,

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:44 pm So: In the popular view, the John Fragment is around 125. That's OK with me.

Well,
I prefer to go with the scholarly view - that P52 is more likely late 2nd, or possibly even early third C.

Kapyong

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

Gday Michael BG :) When we discuss when a particular book in the New Testament was written we don’t have evidence we have to present an argument and each person can be persuaded or not persuaded by the argument and their conclusion is a belief but not a fact. Well, that seems a little strong - we DO...