Derek said as close to the first century then he said earlier period.
He said “earlier period” referring to “third or fourth century,” not late fist century. Who is arguing that we have papyri that can be dated to an *earlier* period than the late first century?
I captured what he said.
No, you did not.
Steefen
We agree to disagree because you have your comprehension of what he said and I have my comprehension of what he said.
That’s not how this works. You don’t get to tell me what I agree to. Your paraphrase was not accurate; full stop.
You may choose to stop defending yourself against my accusations, but the fact you disengage because you know your position is untenable doesn’t mean I agree to anything.
Also, you haven’t answered my question: is anyone defending the assertion that we actually have one or more first century gospel manuscripts or not?
You don’t get to call a draw after you ridicule me and then find yourself cornered.
13:41
The screen shows “First Century” and the narration says
“And voila they move the gospel papyri as close to the late first century as they can.”
= = = = =
So here is the game that conservative scholars play with the papyri.
They know that the so-called original copies of the gospels [Mark, Matthew, Luke, 69 CE to 90 CE) have all perished.
So they need to get the Papyri as close to [the biblical] Jesus as they can [or as close to the first century dating of the gospels in Ehrman’s text book.
Thus they scour the other books of published Papyri for early and datable examples which they can then compare with gospel papyri. Then, they say that the handwriting of the early papyri [of other works] looks like the handwriting of the gospel papyri. And voila 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 resemble handwriting samples from the third, fourth, and later centuries making it impossible to place a papyrus in the early period [as close to Jesus as they can [or as close to the first century dating of the gospels in Ehrman’s text book] with any certainty.
My Paraphrase:
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 [early period] first century with any certainty where the majority of critical scholars agree.
People who watched the video know the narrator questioned how these scholars can be so sure of this first century dating.
Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century. (Source: Gospel of Luke – Wikipedia)
Most scholars pub Luke 80-90 AD.
Some suggest 90 to beyond the first century, 101-110.
Given conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript familes, Luke-Acts was stiil being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
Your paper will be marked in error if you write: Derek said earlier period referring to “third or fourth century (Reply #55 at top of reply) because that would mean:
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 gospel papyri in the early period (third, or fourth century).
As Porphyry has been instructed, that is nonsense.
Your paper will be marked in error if you write: Derek said earlier period referring to “third or fourth century (Reply #55 at top of reply)
What I meant is that it was earlier than the 3rd or 4th century. That is obvious if you read it in context.
Since you brought up deflection: I notice you still haven’t answered my repeated, simple, yes or no question: is anyone defending the assertion that we actually have one or more first century gospel manuscripts or not?
I don’t understand how it’s possible to prove one way or the other what century it was from based on handwriting styles.
What exactly stops a scribe from imitating the earlier styles of Greek handwriting?
Was punishment of death required for all scribes found guilty of improperly writing the current alpha style or sigma?
It would be like someone today trying to imitate the English cursive script styles of the 18th century like what’s found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It’s possible if you have the proper tools, it’s all in the pen.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert