The original copies of the gospels have perished.
They need to get the Papyri as close to Jesus as they can.
They scour the other books of published papyri for datable examples which they can then compare with gospel papyri.
Then they say that the handwriting of the early papyri looks like the handwriting of the gospel papyri.
They move the gospel papyri as close to the late first century as they can.
What they don’t tell you:
is that gospel papyri better resembles handwriting samples from the third, fourth, and later centuries
making it impossible to place papyri in the first century with any certainty.
nongwadbniah2262
7 days ago
I am always wondering who saw Jesus and satan in the wilderness and record each conversation during the temptations in the wilderness.
wordscapes5690
7 days ago
You really should tell your audience that this is an advertisement.
craigdouglas9979
7 days ago (edited)
Well, it’s an ad, but it’s a bloody good ad.
martinlag1
7 days ago
There is enough interesting content to forgive the commercial.
Steefen
I stated the interesting content for me.
I was mostly annoyed by the video.
STOPTheocracy
7 days ago (edited)
Bart Ehrman indoctrinated me into thinking that the gospels were originally composed in the first century. This new information is gonna take some getting used to.
AldousHuxleysCat
7 days ago (edited)
Rather than giving you the information promised in the title, this is just clickbait trying to sell something. I had a lot of issues with this channel over the last year or so with their content and this is the last straw goodbye Myth vision
And I’ll save you a click folks, the cost of the course is $39.95
jimoliver2163
7 days ago
How did Jesus find apostles in the middle east with Anglo-Saxon sounding names?
dwsmyyth3480
7 days ago
The real dates of fiction is irrelevant.
What they don’t tell you: is that gospel papyri better resembles handwriting samples from the third, fourth, and later centuries making it impossible to place papyri in the first century with any certainty.
I haven’t watched the video, but is anyone arguing that we have a first century copy of a gospel? Because that pretty much immediately makes them a loon.
Your right, you haven’t watched the video.
No need to be a smart-ass.
See this link: ** you do not have permission to see this link **..nuscripts/ John, Matthew, Revelation, and John again.
I read the article you linked. It never claimed that we have a first-century manuscript of the gospels.
If you are talking about the mention of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345, aka, “First century Mark”, the page you linked mentions it, but also says it not from the first century. Neither does anyone else so far as I am aware. Even Dave Wallace had to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on that front.
And for the record, all that eposide demonstrated is Wallace’s gullibility. His excuse for his conduct was that he was under an NDA, but that doesn’t explain why he put credence in (and set forth as fact in public debate) claims he now admits he could not personally verify.
Earth to Porphyry,
The video was about the earliest new testament manuscripts.
You didn’t watch the video.
To back up the video I provided an article from Bible Archaeology Report.
Still you ask something not found in the four papyri of the link.
The link goes on about six other manuscripts that date to the 2nd or 3rd centuries.
So you write:
If you are talking about the mention of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345,
That was not in the manuscript list.
1 No one is arguing we have a first century copy of a gospel. No one is a loon.
2 If you are talking about the mention of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345, the article already says it was dated from AD 150-250. Amd the heading of the paragraph where it is mentioned is entitled “Other Possible Second Century Manuscripts” not First Century manuscripts.
Look. In the line from your second post, the line that I quoted when I first responded, you seemed to imply that there were some people who were misleadingly suggesting we have first century copies of the gospels:
What they don’t tell you: is that gospel papyri better resembles handwriting samples from the third, fourth, and later centuries making it impossible to place papyri in the first century with any certainty.
My response was in agreement that if there is a “they” who are suggesting that we have first-century copies of the gospels, “they” are loons. Here are my words:
is anyone arguing that we have a first century copy of a gospel? Because that pretty much immediately makes them a loon.
I don’t understand your hostility to me in this exchange. I realize that you don’t think we have first-century copies of the gospels, and I have been lending my voice in agreement with you on that point from the start. I’m obviously not calling you a loon in this exchange.
What continues to baffle me is who the “they” is that you first said were hiding the fact that most of our earliest and most complete MSS are paleographically dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries, and who you seemed to imply were trying to insinuate that we have first century copies of the gospels.
The only reason I brought P.Oxy 5345 up was that it was mentioned in the article you curtly directed me to, and that was the only place I could find anything that could possibly be construed as suggesting a first-century copy of any gospel.
I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to expect to find in that article some mention of someone suggesting a first-century copy of a gospel, given that immediately before you directed me to the article, I had asked, “is anyone arguing that we have a first century copy of a gospel?” I naturally assumed you gave me that article as an answer to my question.
But as you and I both seem to realize, no one (including the author of that article) is actually defending “first century Mark” as being from the first century any longer.
So who is the “they” you were referring to who don’t tell you that we don’t have first century manuscripts of the gospels?
I reviewed the transcript of the video. It appears the line I was questioning is a poor paraphrase of what he says at 13:36:
“And voila, they [conservative Christian scholars, by scouring papyri for examples that have similar handwriting to the gospel fragments] move the gospel papyri as close to the late first century as they can. What they don’t tell you is that gospel papyri better resemble handwriting samples from the 3rd, 4th, and later centuries, making it impossible to place a papyrus in the early period with any certainty.“
Derick–even in his baldly polemical video–isn’t saying that conservative scholars place gospel MSS in the first century. He says they place them as close to the late first century as they can.
So just to summarize the outcome of this exchange, lest it be lost on anyone:
You, Stefeen, inaccurately transcribed a line from the video, such that it implies that some people hold that we have first century MSS of the gospels. You also didn’t indicate whether that was your own commentary on the subject or a quotation or a paraphrase of the video.
I asked who the line was talking about, and said that anyone who held what the line implies someone holds is a loon.
You made a smart-ass response and gave me, without commentary, a link to an irrelevant article that didn’t answer the question.
I looked at the article and tried to figure out why you thought it answered my question. I tentatively located something that perhaps you had in mind as an example of what I had asked about, but then pointed out why, if that is what you had it mind, it didn’t answer the question.
You came back with more unwarranted condescension (“Earth to Porphyry”), and you said, “No one is arguing we have a first century copy of a gospel. No one is a loon.”
Well, if no one is arguing that we have a first-century copy of a gospel, why the hell did you imply it in your second post, in the line that I first quoted? That is what this has explicitly been about from the beginning of my engagement: “is anyone arguing that we have a first century copy of a gospel?”
You could have just answered the question I asked and said “no” right then and there, instead of taking gratuitous and unhelpful digs at me.
Basically, you have been a jackass, and I’m not sorry to say so.
I’ll let you go back to using the forum as your personal note-taking system, where you keep your incoherent comments on things no one else cares about. I resolve, at least for the moment, to leave you no further molested in your state of clueless obliviousness.
Pophyry:
I haven’t watched the video.
Steefen:
I am happy to take time to discuss the video.
I also share some of what is in the video.
We were wrong because there is a groundbreaking discovery on the real dates of the gospels.
The beginning of the video speaks about the scholarly consensus of the dates of the gospels.
Therefore, the video is talking about the scholarly consensus is teh “we were wrong” part.
I haven’t watched the video.
Is anyone arguing that we have a first century copy of a gospel?
I want to call them an insulting name if they are.
This thread does not need your contribution of insults.
You are asking a question that proves you haven’t honored the sharing of this video.
You are just interjecting your rudeness to this discussion.
You want to interject rudeness AND DEMAND people respond to you as if you have at the very least checked the agenda for discussion.
I quickly shared with you that no, your put-down is out of order. This video is of a higher quality than your disparaging assumption.
I sent you an article which the source of this video, a PhD is firmly aware of, so your entry into this discussion room with your gun ablazing that this is a loon video is not welcomed.
Then you come into this room using foul language.
For polite society, you are out of your mind.
I have cleaned this room for discussion.
I have bought very expensive furniture for participant’s comfort.
Who are you coming into this court/salon discussion as if you are drunk looking for trouble?
Judith
Steefen, it would be helpful to me if you would summarize in your own words the point you are making for the Forum topic and then add
the link for those who have the time to read further.
Steefen
Summary: Let’s explore this video together.
This YouTube channel is known for interviewing critical scholars. Dr. Ehrman has been interviewed on this channel.
I am not being interviewed in this video. I do not have a formulated point.
Maybe you haven’t been part of a book club: let’s read this book and discuss it.
Stefeen. You still haven’t read what I actually wrote, and you apparently haven’t understood my clarifications.
I won’t enumerate all your bizarre misconceptions, but I will note I never called it or implied it was a “loon video”.
Also, “smart-ass” and “jackass” are hardly “foul”, both are references to donkeys, which are notoriously dumb and pig-headed. “Loon” also isn’t foul. If I’d call someone an “arse,” an “asshole,” or a “piece of shit” you could accuse me of being foul. But I restrained myself. Was I insulting? Surely, but it was and remains, I’d contend, warranted and perfectly accurate.
As the video puts forward:
Scholars will tell you, the four gospels were written before the end of the first century-approximately 70 years from 30 C.E.
People do not go beyond that conclusion. They do not challenge it.
There are no copies from the first century.
Nevermind that, Bart Ehrman wrote a New Testament text book, that settles it.
Dr. Litwa says, that does not settle the dating of the gospels. Let’s look into this further, says Litwa.
Litwa says there was a naturalizing the number of “according to” gospels to the number of four. When people are consulting sources to determine historicity, naturalizing to four is not critical.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert