quote:

---

In response to" (2) Can you suggest any scholarship that would date these to the 4th century or later?

Slater writes:

If you mean somebody you approve of….

---

quote:

---

Tokyodreamer wrote:

Slater's claim is that the fragments that have been dated using methods other than an "informed estimate" method (paleographology?) are dated (or can be easily dated, given the old methods used gave pretty broad min and max) to the 4th century. The only fragments that are claimed to be from before that are dated using the "informed estimate" method, and therefore are unreliable estimates.

---

quote:

---

ruins and examining artifacts, are with increasing success confirming the accuracy of the Biblical texts. Sir William Ramsey's vindication of Luke's writings is a classic example.[2] The findings of archaeology have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics. Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:


"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."[3]

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.
Also, the recent recovery of a Roman census similar to the one in Luke 2:1f, and the historical confirmation of his "synchronism"[5] in Luke 3:1f, underscores the care Luke took in writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4).

[

quote:

---

THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED
Some express concern that the Bible may have been altered down through the centuries. It is to this matter that Textual Critics address themselves. They have discovered entire manuscripts and parts of others, one portion dating to the beginning of the 2nd Century. The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus,[10] whose contents no one seriously questions. In addition, the New Testament documents have always been both public, and widely-disseminated. Thus it would be impossible for any party to have materially changed their contents, just as the Declaration of Independence, for example, as a public document, could not have been privately altered without raising notice and creating public furor. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the British Museum, comments:


"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."[11]

---

[quote]Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House reprint; 1949 from 1894 lectures). Intent on discrediting Luke's writings, in the last century this hostile scholar traveled across the Mediterranean to that end. But he was astonished to discover that his archaeological findings confirmed the full accuracy of the customs, locations, and the governing titles (e.g. "magistrates" Acts 16:35; "proconsul" Acts 18:12) Luke had mentioned. These varied widely from region to region. Ramsey concluded, "Great historians are the rarest of writers...[I regard Luke] among the historians of the first rank" (pp. 3-4). [up]

W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (Revell, 1935), p. 127. [up]

Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York: Doubleday, 1966), p. XLII. [up]

6. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963). Sherwin-White is a renowned Oxford historian who writes, "It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the 20th century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no-less-promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the developments of form criticism... That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for [The Book of] Acts is due... to the differences in their regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit in Jerusalem [e.g., Herod and Pontius Pilate] confirmation begins. For Acts [authored by Luke], the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming." (p. 107f) ]The closest we get to the original documents of each of the mentioned secular Classical writers is between 900 and 1300 years. By contrast, the "John Rylands Fragment" of the New Testament, containing John 18:31-33, has been dated as early as 115 A.D. Entire manuscripts of the New Testament can be dated to within 300 years of its completion. Virtually complete New Testament books as well as extensive fragments, can be dated to within 100 years of its close. Nearly the entire New Testament can be found in quotations by the early Christian writers. See Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 14f. [up]

Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 20. [up]

Military historian C. Sanders lists three tests in his Introduction to Research in English Literary History (New York: Macmillan, 1952), p. 143f. And seven factors are cited by Behan McCullagh as criteria for valid analysis of historical documents.[a] Using these sets of standards, John Warwick Montgomery[b] and William Lane Craig[c] respectively, roundly vindicate the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Renowned Oxford Classical historian Michael Grant, writes, "If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."[d] And Paul Meier writes, "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that [Jesus' tomb] was actually empty... And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."[e] [up]
[Also read the facts about "The Jesus Seminar" criticisms.]


a. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifyi

• Mk 16:05 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
• Mt 28:02 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
• Lk 24:04 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
• Jn 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.