No worries, barney.  You would disagree with me if I were to claim the sky is blue.  Your information is quite out of date and seems to be in error.


From a book on my bookshelf called "Eyewitness to Jesus" by Dr. Carsten Thiede

Rejected by a majority?  Are you sure?  What is your definition of a biblical scholar and how are these scholars qualified to date fragments of ancient papyrus?  How can you prove this statement is true?

How can you show (prove, substantiate) that the dates proposed by Theide are in error?  Have you read is analysis and the basis for his datings?  If you have reviewed his analysis, how has he erred?  What improved analysis substantiates your proposed dates?

Thiede makes his case quite plainly and provides the supporting analysis in his writings.  He provides samples of the texts, describes the papyrus material, the writing style and layout for each and compares it to the styles in use through the ages.  For each date, he provides more than ample support for the date he gives for it and also shows clearly in most examples why the previous dates are in error when he is in disagreement with other scholars.  For the record he is in agreement most of the time.

Now you have not shown that his view is the minority.  I will continue to presume that Thiede has good support in the group of experts who are versed in dating ancient writings until you show otherwise.

At this point we have only you (but possibly your like minded critics who are fewer than 7% in the US) in disagreement with Thiede. By this measure, you seem clearly to be the minority.

For someone who claims to do careful research you do a poor job of reading my words.  I did not say I assume Theide is in the majority of bible critics you call scholars.  I said I presume he has good support amongst those who are expert in dating ancient writings.

Meanwhile none of your critical reviews offers the same kind on analysis Thiede offers for his dating.  They don't show how the writing style is misidentified or that the word usage and selection is out of place for the social context of the first century.  They don't provide any information that the papyrus or codex styles should result the later dates.  They simply attack Thiede as a person in an attempt to discredit him.  Typical of the kind of scholarship that seems to appeal to you.

I did read them and they provided only opinion.  No examples, no evidence, no diagrams, no sketches of the style of writing one should expect.  The arguments might satisfy people who have a prior commitment to late dates (like you) but they were utterly absent the kind of scholarship required to make an effective argument.


No, I presume that since only bible critics who are generally atheistic have weighed in against him and no expert in ancient dating of papyri has weighed in against Thiede (as far as I can see) that these experts likely do not take exception to his work.

I suppose it is pointless to compare the actual text for differences since as I predicted you would disagree just to disagree (not because you have any solid dating evidence against Thiede).

Schmidt is hardly a conservative Christian.  His viewpoint is far closer to yours than mine and his bias permeates his work.  I note again that he stays far away from the merits of Thiede's analysis.

As far as Dr. Peter Head, he does appear to have good qualifications to address this topic.

When one looks hard enough one can always find a variety of opinions.  No surprise.  In reviewing the analysis here (finally one that actually focuses on the merits of Thiede's analysis)  we find that in the end the the range of acceptable dates for this scrap is from 50 AD through the early 3rd century to perhaps 250 AD.  This range is consistent with the 200 AD date and Thiede's date of 70 AD.  The writer clearly favors the 200 AD date and makes good arguments for it, but the writer is unable to properly rule out Thiede's arguments and likewise ignores his stronger arguments.  This writer does a rather poor job of accurately describing Thiede's work and puts it in worse light than it deserves thus making his case for the later date seem stronger than it is.

Barney have you read Thiede's analysis?  No you have not.  Your view is one sided.

When I said "good support" I was not expecting everyone to agree with Thiede.  We now have one expert claiming 70 AD and another in disagreement.  Though he acknowledges the possibility of overlap in the dates he prefers the newer date of 200 for reasons he explains.

Strange.  I read your critics.  I guess we are done here then.

No, I accept we call the sky blue. You can point to it a show me. (Though, right now the sky is gray in NYC...)
Plus, there is a scientific reason for the sky looking blue, though of course we both know the atmosphere is a collection of colorless gases and that the light waves are affected, thus making the "air" look blue. This, we call the sky, so it is correct to say the sky is blue.

Unlike you, RF, I believe we agree on many things. You accept Material and Material mechanisms exist and explain many things in our universe. You accept that we are human beings, mortal and that we are a collection of our physical properties and the physical properties around us (culture, other people, environment, etc.).  We both agree the BB is the best explanation, and concerning this topic, that the shreds of the early Xian writings are few and far between.

You may disagree with the date, and without an objective measure, we both rely on experts in the field.  If you feel your expert is right, fine, build your case based on that.  For the record - I whole heartedly disagree with you accepting Thiede.

However, for arguments sake, lets say you have your few lines of Matthew from about 66 CE. What do then do with that?  Do you agree that Matthew was not written by Matthew, but anonymously.  Or that those few lines don't prove that the later writings are accurate?

What hard evidence can you offer to suggest that I should accept your line of reasoning?