Basic Methodology For Dating Ancient Documents

[Ravenstar]

The author of Luke didn't write on PAPER.. sheesh. Paper (invented by the Chinese in about the 2nd century AD) didn't reach Europe until the 13th century AD. Papyri? Maybe, doubtful… probably sheep vellum, or goatskin. Lots of goats around.

 

Stop yelling with the HUGE BOLD FONT. Thank you.

[♦ ficino ♦]

BTW, claims about paper being expensive (the old J.P. Holding bromide), don't hold much credibility in a "reality" where dead people are raised and miracles are performed on a regular basis.

God would have no problem making sure the writers had enough paper to write on.

That is, if all the hoopla about faith and the power of the Holy Spirit is genuine.

The Epistle to the Romans is enormously long, and papyrus needed for it would have been very expensive, by standards of length of ancient letters that were actually sent. It is much closer to the length of a pseudonymous "epistle." This is an argument used by some to urge that Romans is not authentic. (heh heh. Just an arg I heard someone make somewhere.)

[mymistake]

I consider the non-Mark passages common to both Luke and Matthew to belong to a different, lost source.  I consider Luke and Matthew to be competitors of each other.  Both were trying to capitalize upon the success of earlier works.

 

Edit:

But let me expand on something.  In Acts 1:1 the author tells us that Acts is the second book of two.  If Luke was the other book that means that Acts was written after Luke.  And we know from Luke 21:5-6 that Luke was written after 70 AD.  That would mean Acts has to be written after 70 AD and of course after the magic 64 AD.

[centauri]

 

Just to clear something up the quoting bug attributed those words at the top of the screen to me when they were from SB.

That quote error should be fixed now, I didn't erase the prior text fully. 

[mymistake]

 

That quote error should be fixed now, I didn't erase the prior text fully. 

 

 

Thank you.  Many people have been having trouble with quoting lately.  It seems to be a bug with certain types of operating systems.  I'm sure it wasn't your fault at all.

[centauri]

A futher problem with Luke, which pertains to the time of the writing, is that Galatians 1 and Acts 9 simply do not agree in regard to what happened to Paul after his conversion and where he went.

Galatians 1 and Acts 9 are also not harmonious with regard to which Apostles Paul saw when he arrived in Jerusalem.

If Paul's epistle to the Galatians was written before Acts, then I would not expect Luke to present a conflicting story concerning the activity of Paul.

Tradition holds that Luke was a companion of Paul, making it even more important that Luke provide information about Paul that doesn't conflict with what Paul wrote.

Luke has the same problems with Paul's writings that are exhibited to an even greater degree in Matthew.

The information provided in Luke and Acts is not consistent with Matthew and Paul.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I consider the non-Mark passages common to both Luke and Matthew to belong to a different, lost source.  I consider Luke and Matthew to be competitors of each other.  Both were trying to capitalize upon the success of earlier works.

 

Edit:

But let me expand on something.  In Acts 1:1 the author tells us that Acts is the second book of two.  If Luke was the other book that means that Acts was written after Luke.  And we know from Luke 21:5-6 that Luke was written after 70 AD.  That would mean Acts has to be written after 70 AD and of course after the magic 64 AD.

 

I think the idea of viewing Luke as a competitor of Mathew or Mark is untenable. The reason is because Luke explicitly states that he is going around pulling from all of the most credible sources that were available to him (Luke 1:1-4) -- by relying on Mathew and Mark as a sources, he is obviously showing us that he finds these sources to be basically credible accounts.

 

Furthermore, remember, Luke claims in Luke 21:5-6 that Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple.  Even if one is a naturalist, presupposing Jesus couldn't have done this-- one wouldn't, then, simply abandon internal and external dating methodology.

 

Instead one would just say that Jesus got lucky, or perhaps Jesus could see the geo-political forces at play and made an educated guess, or maybe there was a Christian interpolation after the fact.

 

The naturalist wouldn't abandon all other internal and external dating methods simply because Jesus guessed something right.

 

---

[falemon]

So SteveBennett, what it seems you're attempting to convey is this:

 

1: Books contain predictions of future events

2: If books were written before said events, then it means a future event was accurately predicted

3: An accurate prediction indicates supernatural power, or just a good prediction

 

May I point out to you that recently just this century the fall of the berlin wall and the end of communism was predicted with great accuracy by a man claiming to be the second coming of Jesus.

 

Think about that one for a minute

[Guest SteveBennett]

 An author of Luke who is trying to impress a specific audience does not make him first century.  Whenever the author was writing he would have simply relied on whatever records were available. 

 

Please recognize that the idea that some previous source would have recorded all of the minutia for Luke to draw from is simply ad hoc.

 

One has to imagine that you are Luke, trying to go around drawing from all of these sources, recording all of the details that Luke is recording.  Yes, Luke records the same events as Mathew and Mark do . . . but then Luke adds to these events all of the additional specifics that Mathew and Mark leave out.  Things like people, places, events.  And he always gets it right.

 

To say that Luke drew from some earlier source would mean that only Luke had any use for those sources-- but no one else did.  Historians don't do that.  Tacitus, Josephus, Philo, historians in general make sure that sources are preserved.  So now, not only do you have to say  "an earlier source was lost" you would also have to present some plausible mechanism as to why it was lost.

 

Don't you see where this is going?  All of these ad hoc hypotheses are merely multiplying the number of things one has to explain.  That's what happens when we violate lex parsimoniae.

 

As one small example of yet another detail, we can know that Paul would have rubbed shoulder's with Philo of Alexandria's second niece Berenice:

 

1)  Philo of Alexandria had a brother-- Alexander the Alibarch

2)  Alexander the Alibarch had a son-- Marcus Julius Alexander

3)  Marcus Julius Alexander Married Berenice-- The Herodian princess 

4)  Berenice was the daughter of Herod Agrippa

 

Then

 

-- In Acts 12:21-23, we see Herod Agrippa killed in front of everyone. 

 

-- We know from Josephus that Bernice then married her uncle -- King Herod of Chalcis.

 

-- After King Herod of Chalcis died in 40 A.D. Berenice then married her brother-- King Agrippa II.

 

-- Then we see Berenice in Acts 25:13, accompanied by King Agrippa.

 

------

 

So whats the point?  Look at how many connections we have to make between Josephus, Philo, and Luke just to arrive at the conclusion that this Berenice in Acts 25:13 was the second niece of Philo of Alexandria.

 

We have to follow Berenice's personal history through all of these various sources just so that we can know that this is the same Berenice present when Paul stood before Festus.

 

How on earth could Luke have gotten this right?  What source would have possibly told Luke that this Berenice was present while Paul stood before Festus?  

 

What source would have possibly recorded such a trivial detail for Luke to then copy for himself decades after the fact?

 

This whole half-baked business of saying that Luke was writing after 64 A.D. is ludicrous.  It's simply, mind bogglingly, ludicrous. Anyone with any respect to attention to detail and a systematic approach to testing the trustworthiness of documents purporting to be historical knows just how ludicrous it is.

 

I'm not attacking any person, mind you, I'm just saying the idea itself is ludicrous.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I'm basically saying this:

 

The naturalist is asking us to summarily dismiss basic internal and external dating methods for sake of some philosophical assumptions with regard to God's ability to make a prophecy of the temple's destruction.

 

One would have to address that assumption, rather than just accept it and allow it to be integrated into one's analysis.

 

And even if one accepted that assumption, one wouldn't merely focus their ad hoc hypothes in a manner of attempting to dating Luke later than 64 A.D., instead they would target their ad hoc hypothese toward the prophecy itself-- since that would result in less of a violation of lex parsimonia (explaining away one single piece of data rather than several).

[falemon]

"God's ability" is an assumption, you do know this, right?

 

 

The naturalist is asking us to summarily dismiss basic internal and external dating methods for sake of some philosophical assumptions with regard to God's ability to make a prophecy of the temple's destruction.

False, he's questioning the honesty of the source.

 

Are you suggesting it is not possible that human beings would deliberately falsify a religion? If not, you must give the Qu'ran equal reverence, more so because it was not distorted and cherry picked by an empire that wanted to control its population.

 

SteveBennett: are you aware of all of your assumptions?

 

---

 

SteveBennett: I have to ask, what is your background and training in logic and reasoning?

 

---

 

Now I will dispel your use of the word, assumption.

 

1: it is possible the book was fabricated

2: it is possible the book was written by multiple authors

3: it is possible the book was written at multiple times

4: it is possible data was added and removed

5: it is understandable that this would outlive its own sources due to it being duplicated more as a result of its religious attachment

 

Examine those premises, until you can disprove all of them you cannot prove your claim of an assumption.

[Guest SteveBennett]

"God's ability to make a prophecy of the temple's destruction" is an assumption, you do know this, right?

 

 

The point is we don't know one way or another.  So we shouldn't let any philosophical presuppositions one way or another affect a normal, systematic analysis.

[falemon]

 

"God's ability to make a prophecy of the temple's destruction" is an assumption, you do know this, right?

 

 

The point is we don't know one way or another.  So we shouldn't let any philosophical presuppositions one way or another affect a normal, systematic analysis.

 

That's a step in the right direction.

 

Do you know what circular reasoning is? I'm sure you do, but I just want you to hold that thought in your mind.

 

Do you know what a directed graph is and how it relates to reasoning? If not please do a little research (only a few minutes) and then proceed to my next question.

 

Do you know what happens when the graph of ones reasoning does not connect with the provable world?

 

 

 

I ask this because you mention systemic analysis, but even if you could iron out the logic within the bible and verify that it references some true events, it still requires a presumption in order to accept its unverified claims. You have to in essence treat it as a primary unmodified source in order to accept its claims, though if any of those points I raised are true then it has a problem.

 

--

 

Now I will make one statement that cannot be disproved: there is not enough data to prove the date is what you claim it is.

 

Again, I will ask my question: what is your background and training in logic and reasoning?

[falemon]

And another point, when examining a 'historical document' we also examine how well the account corresponds with reality.

 

So if Herodotus had claimed that one man had slayed one million soldiers we'd probably hold his account in question unless we had archeological data to back it up. The NT makes many unrealistic claims, and each one of them must be examined.

 

Herodotus also makes some unusual claims:

 

http://www.parsaworld.com/bastan/achaemenid/refute.html

 

One such is example is the tale of Kuroush and Croesus. Kuroush of Persia was persuing a campaign against Croesus of Lydia in Asia Minor. In short Kuroush won a decisive victory. When he captured Sardis he had set Croesus to be burned alive at his funeral. However, according to Herodotus, Apollo sent a massive storm, and Kuroush realized that the gods had offered Croesus divine protection and pardoned him. Kuroush is also reputed to have given Croesus an administrative post. Logically it is easy to find this story most likely false. Why would Kuroush, a Persian Zoroastrian who did not believe in gods, find cause in Apollo sending a storm? And even if a storm had happened, and Kuroush had set him free, why then did he give his enemy an administrative post? In this case Herodotus' account appears completely illogical. Luckily for committed historians, on this occasion there happens to be other sources. The Nabonidus Chronicles completely contradict this by claiming that in the year 547BC Kuroush defeated the Lydians and killed their king.

Now think about that for a minute. We don't take every account from Herodotus as the gospel truth. That is illogical.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

Now think about that for a minute. We don't take every account from Herodotus as the gospel truth. That is illogical.

 

Well I've conceded, many times, that no matter what we do there is no way to directly test the underlying narrative.  We can only focus on the testable facts.

 

However, any scientist knows to look for falsifying mechanisms of any posited answer.  In the absence of such falsifying mechanisms, anyone can claim anything whatsoever.

 

Christianity bases itself in the fact that ample opportunity for falsification was present during the life times of those who knew Jesus.  "Present the body" as I'm sure you've heard the challenge go.

 

The issue is that "present the body" is only a legitimate challenge if it was made during the lifetimes of those who would have had access to Jesus' body.

 

Thus accurately dating the gospel's has a domino effect into everything else.

 

The same is true of Exodus.

 

In fact, I'd argue that the entire bible is a tenuous house of cards such that if one falsifies one critical thing then the entire thing falls flat on its face.

 

Now Exodus is unique, in that the text (as we will see) actually leads us to a location where the underlying narrative itself actually can be directly tested.  The falsifying mechanisms present in the Exodus account are, actually, far greater than the first century charge to "present the corpse."

 

But, from the Exodus' credibility, one can then turn to prophecies which predict the exact point in time that the Messiah will come on the scene (adjusting calculations according to a Jewish calendar).

[Guest SteveBennett]

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

[falemon]

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

 

No that is wrong, which is easy to disprove:

 

1. compile 1000 true statements

2. add seven false statements

 

By your logic, highlighted in red by me, those seven false statements then become true.

 

 

 

Which is why I've asked you so many questions that you've ignored / evaded. Maybe you don't see the importance of them.

 

It's as simple as this, if you lack the ability to model complex systems in your mind, no amount of logical terminology will help you in your study, not least if you are attempting to create a process, which requires an even more intimate intuition of side effects, ramifications and flaws.

[bornagainathiest]

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

 

Steve,

 

What you mean by the words, "the Big Bang" may not be what I understand them to mean.

Which is why you need my input, cooperation and agreement that those words are being used properly, in their proper context.  In case, you think I'm being awkward, please look here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

If you read the Inflationary Epoch section, the second paragraph reads like this...

 

"Inflation ends when the inflaton field decays into ordinary particles in a process called "reheating", at which point ordinary Big Bang expansion begins. The time of reheating is usually quoted as a time "after the Big Bang". This refers to the time that would have passed in traditional (non-inflationary) cosmology between the Big Bang singularity and the universe dropping to the same temperature that was produced by reheating, even though, in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur."

 

So you could have been talking about the... traditional Big Bang ...which is not my understanding of those words and you and I would have been talking at cross-purposes.

 

Which is why these threads can only proceed by common consent.

 

Do I have your agreement on that?

 

BAA

[Ravenstar]

Even Bill Nye made a mistake explaining the "Big Bang" as an explosion in his debate with Ken Ham. Matter did not 'explode'... 

 

Space-time expanded exponentially, and then the energy coalesced into matter. (my VERY uneducated explanation)

 

And a HUGE thank you to BAA for helping me with that concept!

 

Don't mean to derail - but thought other readers might benefit.

[bornagainathiest]

Even Bill Nye made a mistake explaining the "Big Bang" as an explosion in his debate with Ken Ham. Matter did not 'explode'... 

 

Space-time expanded exponentially, and then the energy coalesced into matter. (my VERY uneducated explanation)

 

And a HUGE thank you to BAA for helping me with that concept!

 

Don't mean to derail - but thought other readers might benefit.

 

Right on the money, R!

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

 

Steve,

 

What you mean by the words, "the Big Bang" may not be what I understand them to mean.

Which is why you need my input, cooperation and agreement that those words are being used properly, in their proper context.  In case, you think I'm being awkward, please look here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

If you read the Inflationary Epoch section, the second paragraph reads like this...

 

"Inflation ends when the inflaton field decays into ordinary particles in a process called "reheating", at which point ordinary Big Bang expansion begins. The time of reheating is usually quoted as a time "after the Big Bang". This refers to the time that would have passed in traditional (non-inflationary) cosmology between the Big Bang singularity and the universe dropping to the same temperature that was produced by reheating, even though, in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur."

 

So you could have been talking about the... traditional Big Bang ...which is not my understanding of those words and you and I would have been talking at cross-purposes.

 

Which is why these threads can only proceed by common consent.

 

Do I have your agreement on that?

 

BAA

 

The simple point is that the Big Bang is easily falsifiable in any different number of ways.

 

But it has never been falsified--  despite the innumerable number of legitimate falsifying mechanisms present throughout its history.  At first people just mocked it because it didn't fit in with their paradigms, but then it passed experiment after experiment after experiment.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

 

Steve,

 

What you mean by the words, "the Big Bang" may not be what I understand them to mean.

Which is why you need my input, cooperation and agreement that those words are being used properly, in their proper context.  In case, you think I'm being awkward, please look here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

If you read the Inflationary Epoch section, the second paragraph reads like this...

 

"Inflation ends when the inflaton field decays into ordinary particles in a process called "reheating", at which point ordinary Big Bang expansion begins. The time of reheating is usually quoted as a time "after the Big Bang". This refers to the time that would have passed in traditional (non-inflationary) cosmology between the Big Bang singularity and the universe dropping to the same temperature that was produced by reheating, even though, in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur."

 

So you could have been talking about the... traditional Big Bang ...which is not my understanding of those words and you and I would have been talking at cross-purposes.

 

Which is why these threads can only proceed by common consent.

 

Do I have your agreement on that?

 

BAA

 

The simple point is that the Big Bang is easily falsifiable in any different number of ways.

 

But it has never been falsified--  despite the innumerable number of legitimate falsifying mechanisms present throughout its history.  At first people just mocked it because it didn't fit in with their paradigms, but then it passed experiment after experiment after experiment.

 

 

Which Big Bang do you mean, Steve?

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

 

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

 

Steve,

 

What you mean by the words, "the Big Bang" may not be what I understand them to mean.

Which is why you need my input, cooperation and agreement that those words are being used properly, in their proper context.  In case, you think I'm being awkward, please look here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

If you read the Inflationary Epoch section, the second paragraph reads like this...

 

"Inflation ends when the inflaton field decays into ordinary particles in a process called "reheating", at which point ordinary Big Bang expansion begins. The time of reheating is usually quoted as a time "after the Big Bang". This refers to the time that would have passed in traditional (non-inflationary) cosmology between the Big Bang singularity and the universe dropping to the same temperature that was produced by reheating, even though, in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur."

 

So you could have been talking about the... traditional Big Bang ...which is not my understanding of those words and you and I would have been talking at cross-purposes.

 

Which is why these threads can only proceed by common consent.

 

Do I have your agreement on that?

 

BAA

 

The simple point is that the Big Bang is easily falsifiable in any different number of ways.

 

But it has never been falsified--  despite the innumerable number of legitimate falsifying mechanisms present throughout its history.  At first people just mocked it because it didn't fit in with their paradigms, but then it passed experiment after experiment after experiment.

 

 

Which Big Bang do you mean, Steve?

 

 

Red shift, background radiation, triangulation.  Those were the ones that sold me.

[Guest SteveBennett]

(as points of evidence for the Big Bang I mean)  But I know there are many others.  Those were just the ones I could understand.

 

And since the conversation with regards to internal and external dating methods seems to have run its course.  Are you familiar with Drakes Equation?

[Guest SteveBennett]

Edit:

 

(as points of evidence for the Big Bang I mean)  But I know there are many others.  Those were just the ones I could understand as the most compelling.

 

And since the conversation with regards to internal and external dating methods of ancient documents seems to have run its course.  Are you familiar with Drakes Equation?