Archaeological "Evidence"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net> writes

<skip>


>TILL

>How would the discovery of a fragment of John in A. D. 125 prove that this

>gospel was written before the synoptics, which have been dated from A. D. 70

>to 90?  I know the usual argument, because the Ryland fragment has been

>discussed on this list before, but I'd like for Fuller to put his foot in

>his mouth before I make any more comments on this subject.


CARR (training to be a Christian apolgist.)
Because it would have taken at least 35 years for a copy of John's
Gospel to circulate and be widely available, so a copy found in AD 125
places the original in about AD 90. 

Just as it would have taken 35 years for Mark's Gospel (AD 70?) to
circulate and become widely available for Matthew to use. Oh dear.
Something seems to have gone wrong with my apologetic reasoning. I
didn't want to place Matthew's Gospel 35 or so years after Mark's was
written

Scrap what I said.


-- 
Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
 http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/

• Previous message: Archaeological "Evidence"
• Next message: Archaeological "Evidence"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]