The Trouble With Timelines

[Heimdall]

I see your obvious position here Heimdall, and I don't think anything would suggest otherwise unless Christ himself appeared before you and handed you a personal copy of the events.

Well, I’m not afraid of that happening…after all he promised to return before “those standing there” had died, and that was around 2000 years ago and he still hasn’t returned, nor have I seen any 2000 year old disciples running around…lol

 

For me, I see it as much to see. Christians were being hunted? Killed?

Didn’t happen until 193 CE under Emperor Septimius Severus, this is after a date that the gospels would have been written…there is no evidence of any presecution before the end of the 2nd century CE…

Why on God's beautiful green Earth would there BE any writings about the man?

Probably because the Ebionites (the Jerusalm church) scriptures said the Jesus was just a man and a prophet, and the next oldest Chrisitians the Gnostics said that Jesus was a man adopted at the time of his baptism and then the spirit of God left him just before he died (because God cannot die). Your version of Jesus was an adoption of elements of several older resurrected (many crucified) savior gods, a fact that the early Church Fathers were very aware of and made such flimsy excuses such a Satan foresaw (which assigns Satan similar powers as Jehovah) the coming of Jesus and set up the other savior gods to discredit Christianity…wow, some of these religions were thousands of years before Jesus!!!! Satan must really be powerful, just as powerful as your made up god!.

 

Why did Jesus thank the Father for giving His testimony to the 'babes'?

Well the 3rd century pagan philosopher Celsus said it was because Christianity wanted to keep it’s members ignorant, because were they to start thinking they would see the stupidity of what they had been taught and leave the religion, taking their money with them…LOL - Heimdall

[Ouroboros]

Well the 3rd century pagan philosopher Celsus said it was because Christianity wanted to keep it’s members ignorant, because were they to start thinking they would see the stupidity of what they had been taught and leave the religion, taking their money with them…LOL - Heimdall

Sounds very similar to Scientology... *oops* (I hope we won't be attacked by Scientofascists now)

[Abiyoyo]

Didn’t happen until 193 CE under Emperor Septimius Severus, this is after a date that the gospels would have been written…there is no evidence of any presecution before the end of the 2nd century CE…

 

So, let me understand this....you propose that Tacitus Annals are forgeries? Additions by early Christians? This goes way back to that reference you gave about the study of the 'i' being subbed for the 'e'. I thought it was already established in this thread that this claim is bogus, and has no ground to stand. I see Wikipedia has a reference for that now. It gives a summary at the end of the study, that it makes no difference in context, and... 'if' ...it was a latter correction, it would have been for readability. They said at the end of the study, that it was 'determined' to have come from the author, not a latter correction.

 

Tacitus is not a forgery And it places Christian persecution at Nero. I am going to sign up for wiki's editing and clarify that statement of discredit to a historical piece of writing being degraded for religious disputes. It refers to the same study that you referenced me earlier in this thread!? That study did not conclude that it was 'forgery' Did you edit wiki Heimdall?

[Heimdall]

It refers to the same study that you referenced me earlier in this thread!? That study did not conclude that it was 'forgery'

Right, it concluded that the valid passage in Tacitus was “doctored” not forged, that the original word Chrestianos was changed to Christianos, which changed the group being referenced – If you will look at the ultraviolet photo shown on the website, it reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.

The truth may be that there was an original gnostic cult following a personified virtue, "Jesus Chrestos" (Jesus the Good). Consequently, they were called Chrestians, an appellation which seems to have attached itself at an early date to the sectarians of the "heretic" Marcion. Support for this possibility comes from the earliest known "Christian" inscription, found in the 19th century on a Marcionite church at Deir Ali, three miles south of Damascus. Dated to 318-9, the inscription reads "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good", using the word Chrestos, not Christos.

As a flesh-and-blood, "historical" Jesus gradually eclipsed the allegorical Jesus so, too, did "goodness" get eclipsed by "Messiahship". Justin, in his First Apology (4), about thirty years after the death of Tacitus, plays on the similarity in sound of the two words Χριστὸς (Christ) and χρηστὸς (good, excellent) to argue for the wholesome, commendable character of Jesus followers.

Then there is the question of Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE), how would the Roman’s been able to make such a distinction between Jews and Christians? At this point the large majority of Christians were Jews by birth and merely followed a sub sect of Judaism, a sub sect that we now call Christianity. The early Christians did not call themselves that, but rather ”Saints”, “Brethren” or “Brothers of the Lord” and the Romans were so ignorant of Christians that as late as 90 CE, Dio Cassius referred to them as atheists and “those affecting Jewish manners” . Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch'. it is only in the last third of the 1st century AD, that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. The irritation they caused to their more orthodox brethren meant nothing to the pagan magistrates. Says Gibbon:

‘The innocence of the first Christians was protected by ignorance and contempt; and the tribunal of the Pagan magistrate often proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue.

So, Tacitus is not a forgery, but instead a doctoring and there is still no evidence of Christian persecution prior to the 3rd century - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

It refers to the same study that you referenced me earlier in this thread!? That study did not conclude that it was 'forgery'

Right, it concluded that the valid passage in Tacitus was “doctored” not forged, that the original word Chrestianos was changed to Christianos, which changed the group being referenced – If you will look at the ultraviolet photo shown on the website, it reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.

 

Heimdall, maybe I am seeking in ignorance, but I have not run across any other studies other than this claim.

 

Is Tacitus a forgery?4

 

The modern editions of Tacitus that I have seen do not refer to the allegations of forgery that have been made at various times. The following account is summarised from Mendell4, who gives the same data at more length. If anyone has more data or more recent bibliographic references on this, so that this story can be put to bed, I would be grateful to receive it.

 

According to Mendell, since 1775 there have been at least 6 attempts to discredit the works of Tacitus as either forgeries or fiction:

 

* The allegation originated with Voltaire, and his claims were elaborated by a lawyer named Linguet. However the position was only taken seriously with Napoleon. The French Revolutionaries had found "tremendous comfort in Tacitus' republicanism. The modern successor to the Caesars" had therefore a strong political motive to discredit him. But these efforts ceased with the collapse of the First Empire.

* John Wilson ROSS published (anonymously!) a book entitled Tacitus and Bracciolini:: the Annals forged in the XVth century, London (1878) intended to prove that Poggio had forged the works of Tacitus. (It would be interesting to know how Ross believed Poggio could forge 9th century MSS.) This work has now been added to Project Gutenberg and is online.

* In 1890 P. HOCHART, De l'Authenticite des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite, maintained the same idea "with a much greater show of learning, and followed up with a supplementary volume". Apparently neither Ross or Hochart was able to convince scholarly opinion at the time.

* In 1920 Leo WEINER, Tacitus' Germania and other forgeries, "attempted in vain to prove by a bewildering display of linguistic fireworks that the Germania and, by implication, other works of Tacitus were forgeries made after Arabic influence had extended into Europe".

* "After Gaston Boissier's brilliant book (Tacite, 1903) had roused new enthusiasm for the historian, Eugene Bacha (Le Genie de Tacite, 1906) attempted to prove Tacitus was a master of Romantic fiction... Bacha's book does have some value for his comments on stylistic matters."

* T.S.Jerome, Aspects of the Study of History, 1923, presented Tacitus as "a consistent liar by nature and deliberate choice. The book has no value because of its overall inaccuracy, the confusion of narratio in a legal speech with narratio in history, and its wholly unconvincing method".

 

According to Mendell, none of these writers have won general acceptance of their estimates of Tacitus, the extreme positions have been abandoned, and the general integrity of Tacitus vindicated. However as with all history, the personal element of selection and interpretation means that scholars do not necessarily accept Tacitus' view as the final and just interpretation of first-century Roman history.

 

It would seem that the arguments for forgery have failed to find acceptance.

 

Mendell also gives an extensive list of people who mention Tacitus or any of his works from the 1st century onwards. From this we can see that Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in every century down to and including the Sixth. The Seventh and Eighth centuries are the only ones that have left no trace of knowledge of our author4. The Dialogus is not mentioned at all, however.1 Without quoting every reference, here are some which I found of interest.

 

Around 400:

 

* Ammianus Marcellinus publishes his history, starting where Tacitus left off.

* Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine, Chronicorum Libri II, 29, uses Annals 15.37 and 15.44 as his source, for the marriage of Nero to Pythagoras and the punishment of the Christians. (I should add I don't know exactly what ties to what). English in ANF; Latin text is Sulpicius Severus. Sulpicii Severi libri qui supersunt. Ed. C. Halm. CSEL 1, Wien (1866). See also E.Laupot, Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000) 233-47

* Jerome in his Commentary on Zacchariah 14.1, 2 cites Tacitus as the author of a history from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, in 30 volumes:

 

"Haec omnia plenissime Josephus, qui Judaicam scripsit historiam, et multo majora quam legimus in prophetis, eos sustinuisse commemorat. Cornelius quoque Tacitus, qui post Augustum usque ad mortem Domitiani Vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit." (from the Patrologia Latina text here)

 

"All these things [about the destruction of Jerusalem] Josephus records very fully, who wrote a Jewish History, and supports them with many things at greater length than we read in the prophets [i.e. in the bible]. Also Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote the lives of the Caesars in 30 volumes from Augustus down to the death of Domitian." (Tr. RP)

 

Around 500:

 

* Servius quotes a lost portion of the text in his commentary on the Aeneid 3.399.

* Orosius used Tacitus, and quotes from now lost portions of the text. Cassiodorus quotes from the Germania 45. Jordanes quotes from the Agricola 10, and is the last author of antiquity to do so.

 

Other than this, I am having a hard time finding any creditable references or studies. Do you know of any other references that I can research?

This one from above was someone named Mendell?

[Heimdall]

Heimdall, maybe I am seeking in ignorance, but I have not run across any other studies other than this claim.

I found this little tidbit: In the earliest extant manuscript, the second Medicean, the e in "Chrestianos", Chrestians, has been changed into an i; cf. Augustsson, Oskar (2008). "The Quest for Chrest – an e-llumination". Institute for Higher Critical Studies. http://chrestianos.jesuspusslet.se/. Retrieved on Jan 2, 2009. and Gerd Theißen, Annette Merz, Der historische Jesus: ein Lehrbuch, 2001, p. 89. Also in the Wolfenbüttel manuscript Cod. Guelf. 118 Gud. lat., folio 51r, the word is Chrestianos. The reading Christianos, Christians, is therefor doubtful.

Otherwise, have patience youngling, the reference study is fairly recent, it normally takes rebuttal or affirmation studies a time to be completed and published. I expect within the next year we will see them. However, I have pointed out that the passage is accepted as a typical Tacitus passage and probably authentic, however there is question as to whether it has been doctored, as the studies I referenced seem to indicate.

There is more than one reason for my contention other than this, starting with the reasons I stated yesterday and adding these further tidbits:

Suetonius reports that Nero levied vast sums from private individuals, whole communities including a capitation tax levied on the Jews throughout the empire, requiring them to pay for the city’s rebuilding. Something that helped radicalize many Jew in the late 60s and helped lay the groundwork for the great Jewish Revolt, the capture of Jerusalem and the subsequent destruction of the temple.

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

Other historians who lived during the period were: Pliny the elder who only mentioned the fire in passing and nothing about punishing Christians, whereas Josephus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch and Epictetus all of whom make no mention of the fire or the punishment of Christians at all, it would be certain that Josephus would have made mention of it since Christians of that period were predominately Jews and all Christians were still considered a sub sect of Judaism. Cassisus Dio writing only a couple of decades later makes no mention of Christians being punished…as I pointed out before, he either called them atheists or “those affecting Jewish manners”, but even then he makes no mention of punishment.

Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

I found this little tidbit: In the earliest extant manuscript, the second Medicean, the e in "Chrestianos", Chrestians, has been changed into an i; cf. Augustsson, Oskar (2008). "The Quest for Chrest – an e-llumination". Institute for Higher Critical Studies. http://chrestianos.jesuspusslet.se/. Retrieved on Jan 2, 2009. and Gerd Theißen, Annette Merz, Der historische Jesus: ein Lehrbuch, 2001, p. 89. Also in the Wolfenbüttel manuscript Cod. Guelf. 118 Gud. lat., folio 51r, the word is Chrestianos. The reading Christianos, Christians, is therefor doubtful.

Otherwise, have patience youngling, the reference study is fairly recent, it normally takes rebuttal or affirmation studies a time to be completed and published. I expect within the next year we will see them. However, I have pointed out that the passage is accepted as a typical Tacitus passage and probably authentic, however there is question as to whether it has been doctored, as the studies I referenced seem to indicate.

 

[Heimdall]

Okay Yoyo, I found a reference that shows we both might be right and we both might be wrong…This is from Tertullian’s Apologica writing around 197 CE…”They (the pagans)think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine and pestilence – straight away the cry is “Away with the Christians to the lion! So this is earlier than I said and later than you said…so sort of a draw…LOL…the writer that referenced this commented that Tertullian was referring to a local persecution, but it probably was echoed over the empire prior to Caesar Septimius’ early 3rd century empire-wide persecutions (which actually didn’t last long). He also brought up why Christians were persecuted in this manner...the ancient pagan relgions were very tolerant of other religions and recognized that all gods wanted to be sacrificed to, so "when in Rome, they did as the Romans" (to quote an old saw) and sacrificed to the local gods and the state gods...Christians were inflexible about sacrificing to other gods - as were the Jews, but the Jews had antiquity on their side (in other words they had been worshipping their god under their customs since antiquity) and were thus not required to go against their religion, but the Christians were considered a new religion and even though they followed the Jewish god, they did not follow the Jewish customs and instead with their new customs did not qualify for the antiquity clause...if you know what I mean. Therefore the gods would be angered by this and would visit disasters unto all the peoples of the empire becuase this group refused them their sacrifices....hence the Christians were to be punished for their crimes... - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

Okay Yoyo, I found a reference that shows we both might be right and we both might be wrong…

 

Agreed Thank you for the information. I have spent tireless days and nights researching on some discussions. This has been one of those. Thanks again.

[Heimdall]

Yeah, I know what you mean…I prefer to use books as opposed to the internet (especially Wiki), I don’t always quote my sources, but at least if I get my information from books, I can come back later and give the source that it came from. I have a bit of a leg up on these such debates since I wrote most of my research for my masters on Romano-British history and if you are cognizant with one province of the empire, you are fairly well versed in most of the empire. What I have to sweat is the literature of the pagan and Christians of the period 1st century BCE to about 5th century CE. A lot of it is beyond my ken and I have to scramble for it. This is the few times I will willingly use the internet, there are many university level websites with very good translations and there are a few amature sites too…I recommend both of these sites:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/home.html

http://www.livius.org/index.html

the first has many very well translated ancient Roman/Greek documents (my favorite is Res Gestae, but then Augustus is one of my heroes) and the second is a very eclectic site for various aspects of ancient cultures…I think you will find both helpful. - Heimdall

[Badger]

Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates.

The above statement is simply big fat lie. The overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars today stick to the 1st Century dates. There are only few who favor later dates; it is a small group, really. So: "If you are going to debate someone, have at least basic knowledge of your subject."

[bdp]

Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates.

The overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars today stick to the 1st Century dates.

 

...isn't that exactly what heimdall is saying?

[Badger]

Well, I'm not sure what he meant by orthodox. Anyway, only a small group prefer 2nd Century dates among the scholars (conservative and non-conservative alike). It is exaggerating to say they "still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates."

[mwc]

Well, I'm not sure what he meant by orthodox. Anyway, only a small group prefer 2nd Century dates among the scholars (conservative and non-conservative alike). It is exaggerating to say they "still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates."

Well, I don't know. He says (in part): "Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (some citations)."

 

So I would probably take orthodox to have this, or similar, dictionary meaning "customary or conventional, as a means or method; established." I would also probably take "stubbornly" to mean something like "fixed or set in purpose or opinion; resolute."

 

mwc

[Badger]

Are, say, Bart Ehrman and George Wells orthodox scholars?

[Ouroboros]

How are these fragments dated?

[Abiyoyo]

How are these fragments dated?

 

I think they mostly were dated by normal literary dating methods. Time, places, people, things, wording, etc.

[mwc]

Are, say, Bart Ehrman and George Wells orthodox scholars?

The issue is with time line. To my knowledge they appear to accept the traditional time line. So I would say they are "orthodox" in this respect, yes. If the issue was with something else then, on that issue, they may fall into the fringe (as an extreme...these are not considered "fringe" scholars). But that is not the issue at hand. If you wish for me to conflate "orthodox" with something like "conservative" then I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you.

 

mwc

[Badger]

I read Heimdall's claim in the light what he had said in 2nd page: "Christian scholars like to say that the Gospels were written during the 1st century CE." So I take "orthodox" to mean "Christian."

[Ouroboros]

How are these fragments dated?

 

I think they mostly were dated by normal literary dating methods. Time, places, people, things, wording, etc.

So doesn't it mean that it to some extent it is a guessing game? For instance, how much of place, people, and things can you really tie in to history in the gospels or the epistles? If it was easy and accurate, there wouldn't be a debate. The only method that might work best is probably the use of language, but then again, it depends on what we can confirm and know from other sources from that time, and how it was used. But even if we have enough material to do so, unfortunately then it comes to fine tuned skills in linguistics to really be able to pin-point the small differences in grammar, word use, and sound-shifts. I could be writing English in a style that is more fitting for someone from 1990's, but these posts here are not from 1990's, so when someone find my posts 500 years from now, will they say I wrote them in the 90's or in 00's?

[Abiyoyo]

How are these fragments dated?

 

I think they mostly were dated by normal literary dating methods. Time, places, people, things, wording, etc.

So doesn't it mean that it to some extent it is a guessing game? For instance, how much of place, people, and things can you really tie in to history in the gospels or the epistles? If it was easy and accurate, there wouldn't be a debate. The only method that might work best is probably the use of language, but then again, it depends on what we can confirm and know from other sources from that time, and how it was used. But even if we have enough material to do so, unfortunately then it comes to fine tuned skills in linguistics to really be able to pin-point the small differences in grammar, word use, and sound-shifts. I could be writing English in a style that is more fitting for someone from 1990's, but these posts here are not from 1990's, so when someone find my posts 500 years from now, will they say I wrote them in the 90's or in 00's?

 

Not really Hans. It just is a matter of what side of the fence a person's on. For me, I find the history and dating from the ''majority'' as enough to make it historical acceptable to the same degree as any other History book written about that era. I am glad as a believer in Christ that there is this much documentation. If the fence is down, the writings would be what they are and hold just as much ground as any other historical writing of that era, right? If dogma was absent, it would stand as historical mythology at the least. Another 'God' , another 'Apollo' in a sense, right?

 

Just as Greek mythology and Apollo were instituted by Rome and is historical, so was Christ and Christianity. Don't you agree that is is equal or not more in ancient writing, than compared to Greek mythology? Which is taught in schools. Maybe Christianity should be taught at schools?

[Badger]

How are these fragments dated?

I guess you mean manuscripts.

 

Palaeography uses many tools to make its judgements (far too many to be covered here!); of these, shapes of the letters is perhaps the most important (for examples of the evolution of uncial letterforms, see the article on and examples of Uncial Script). However, a paleographer will also examine the way the manuscript is prepared -- both the material (papyrus, parchment, paper; scroll or codex) and the method of writing (reed, quill, metal pen; ink type), plus the way the lines are ruled (sharp or blunt point, etc.) Word forms as well as letter forms must be examined, as well as the shape of the page and the arrangement of the columns, plus any marginalia or artwork or even unrelated scribbles. Care must be taken with the results of paleography, however. It is not an exact science, and all its judgments are approximate.

 

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Sh...efs.html#paleog

[Ouroboros]

How are these fragments dated?

I guess you mean manuscripts.

Some fragments are only fragments.

 

Take Ryland's Fragment: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/rylands.php

 

Considered one of the earliest/oldest "fragments" (= part of manuscript), dated to after 100 CE. Not sure why, if the dating somehow places them all before 100 CE?

 

Isn't a fragment just a meaning of: a part, or piece, of a larger material.

 

While manuscript means: written by hand.

 

So, perhaps the correct phrase is manuscript fragment?

 

 

Palaeography uses many tools to make its judgements (far too many to be covered here!); of these, shapes of the letters is perhaps the most important (for examples of the evolution of uncial letterforms, see the article on and examples of Uncial Script). However, a paleographer will also examine the way the manuscript is prepared -- both the material (papyrus, parchment, paper; scroll or codex) and the method of writing (reed, quill, metal pen; ink type), plus the way the lines are ruled (sharp or blunt point, etc.) Word forms as well as letter forms must be examined, as well as the shape of the page and the arrangement of the columns, plus any marginalia or artwork or even unrelated scribbles. Care must be taken with the results of paleography, however. It is not an exact science, and all its judgments are approximate.

 

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Sh...efs.html#paleog

Ah. That's some good stuff. That's more science to me.

 

So this is the method used for dating a manuscript fragment like Ryland's? Does a copy of some previous, and older material, dated to the second century, prove somehow that the original was written in the first century?

 

The Rylands fragment - the earliest known New Testament document

 

The Rylands fragment

 

This small papyrus fragment is the oldest known copy of any part of the New Testament.

 

The fragment, found in Egypt in 1920, is just 9 cm x 6 cm, and is written on both sides. It has been identified as part of John's Gospel - John chapter 18 verses 31-33 on the front, and verses 37-38 on the back. The whole page would have been about 21 cm high by 20 cm wide, and the entire Gospel would have taken about 130 pages.

 

Experts have dated this fragment to between AD 125 and AD 150. Scholars believe that John's Gospel was written late in the first century, perhaps around 90 AD. So this fragment may come from a copy as little as 35 years or so after the Gospel was first written. In the 19th century, skeptical German scholars argued that John's Gospel was written late in the second century. But Alan Millard, Rankin Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, says:

Echoes of that view can still be heard in some anti-Christian circles today. The Rylands papyrus puts that case out of court.

 

Lets put the question a little different: how can the dating of this piece of paper prove the other date of the original which we don't have?

 

But you know, it's kind of funny to look in to these things, because the next thing I find is the Magdalena Papyrus (P64), which some dates to 60 CE, and then I find this article: http://www.tyndalehouse.com/staff/Head/P64TB.htm, which say the date is more likely 200 CE, and it's based on of the above stated methods you mentioned.

 

VII. Conclusion

 

We agree with Thiede when he wrote ‘Caution is always the best approach in the dating of manuscripts’.[97] In this article an attempt has been made both to hear and to critically investigate his claims regarding the date of P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64. Although we recognise the service that he has performed in facilitating a reexamination of methodological presuppositions, our verdict on his claims is a negative one. The very early manuscripts to which Thiede appealed for close parallels to P64 turned out to be not as close as the somewhat later ones which he had overlooked. Although there is no absolutely definite evidence by which P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P 64 can be dated with certainty, the available evidence points to a date around AD 200. To be on the safe side I would suggest plus or minus fifty years as the possible range.

So which one is the oldest fragment/manuscript/papyrus/artifact/writing? And why does the "evidence" point so strongly and "absolutely" and "undeniable" to such a range of dates? And how come Christian's doing the research gets the dates the fits their belief, while the non-Christians get much older? Is it believe vs unbelief the underlying method here? Maybe it is so. So then, the method used today to date these fragments/manuscripts/papyri/artifacts isn't good enough, so to claim that "they are early, because we say so, and we believe so, so it must be a fact," isn't any better or any more proof than if I would say the opposite. In the end if you believe these texts to be true and early dated, then they are so to you, but we have the same right to our opinion to the opposite. Just because the current method and evidence allows this discrepancy.

 

 

From Wiki about the dating of the Magdalena Papyrus (and is only a fragment of the original manuscript):

\mathfrak{P}64 was originally given a third century date by Charles Huleatt, the one who donated the Manuscript to Magdalen College, and then papyrologist A. S. Hunt studied the manuscript and dated it to the early fourth century. But in reaction to what he thought was far too late a dating for the manuscript, Colin Roberts published the manuscript and gave it a dating of ca. 200, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner [1], and this has been the general accepted date of \mathfrak{P}64 since.

 

But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded Carsten Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the last third of the 1st century, optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten with Matthew d'Ancona and presented as The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. Thiede's re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars.

 

Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts argue for a more general date of 150-175 for the manuscript, and also for \mathfrak{P}4 and \mathfrak{P}67, which they argue came from the same codex. \mathfrak{P}4 was used as stuffing for the binding of “a codex of Philo, written in the later third century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250].”[2]. If \mathfrak{P}4 was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 year's prior or earlier.[3] Comfort and Barret also show that \mathfrak{P}4/64/67 has affinities with a number of the late second century papyri.[4]

 

Comfort and Barret "tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers."[5] The Novum Testamentum Graece, a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists \mathfrak{P}4 and \mathfrak{P}64/67 separately giving the former a date of the 3rd century, while the latter is assigned ca. 200.[6] Most recently Charlesworth has concluded 'that \mathfrak{P}64+67 and \mathfrak{P}4, though written by the same scribe, are not from the same ... codex.'[7]

Basically, this is one of the oldest pieces of manuscripts we have. And "established Biblical scholars" agree that the date is about 200 CE.

[Badger]

And how come Christian's doing the research gets the dates the fits their belief, while the non-Christians get much older?

Really? Can you prove this somehow?

 

In the end if you believe these texts to be true and early dated, then they are so to you, but we have the same right to our opinion to the opposite. Just because the current method and evidence allows this discrepancy.

Are you talking about the dating of manuscripts or the New Testament documents? I'm not sure.

[Ouroboros]

And how come Christian's doing the research gets the dates the fits their belief, while the non-Christians get much older?

Really? Can you prove this somehow?

Isn't that exactly what you were referring to earlier when you claimed that "orthodox" or "christian" scholars put the date earlier than the ones who are not?

 

In the end if you believe these texts to be true and early dated, then they are so to you, but we have the same right to our opinion to the opposite. Just because the current method and evidence allows this discrepancy.

Are you talking about the dating of manuscripts or the New Testament documents? I'm not sure.

When you are talking about "manuscript", are you talking about the original or the copy?

 

The fragments (which is an accepted term in this field) is a fragment of a manuscript. Sometimes the word "papyrus" is used. Sometimes "fragment of a papyrus". All of them are references to the pieces they have found. No one has found the originals. So we can't date the originals, because we don't have them. We do however have fragments of copies.

 

So when you are talking about manuscripts, do you talk about the fragments of the manuscripts we have, or are you talking about the original works we do not have?

 

---

 

When I look the terms up, here are the definitions I can find:

 

Manuscript: A Biblical manuscript is any handwritten copy of a portion of the text of the Bible.

 

Fragment:

# a piece broken off or cut off of something else; "a fragment of rock"

# shard: a broken piece of a brittle artifact

# break up: break or cause to break into pieces; "The plate fragmented"

# an incomplete piece; "fragments of a play

 

And unfortunately, pretty much most of the artifacts we have are only fragments of manuscripts. So the term "fragment" is a shorthand for "fragment of manuscript."

 

Papyrus:

# paper made from the papyrus plant by cutting it in strips and pressing it flat; used by ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans

# tall sedge of the Nile valley yielding fiber that served many purposes in historic times

# a document written on papyrus

 

Meaning the actual physical "paper" (or medium) where the letters/words/text were written on.

 

So, the full expression would be: "fragments of a manuscripts written on a papyrus." But it's too frigging long, so the community is happy to say "fragment," and mean the same thing.