Earlier dates for the Gospels?

[mercyalways]

excellent scholar,

You puzzle me. In an earlier topic, you suggested that people who wanted to understand early Christianity should read agnostic anti Christian Bart Ehrman, and now you call King an “excellent scholar”. Why are you on a Catholic forum?

 

[mercyalways]

Which makes you wonder if he had a liberal’s bias towards favoring King. Haven’t read the book.

No doubt about it, the Atlantic is liberal. And the book Veritas doesn’t attack King with any great anger, either.

If King was a devout Evangelical or Catholic who had discovered a papyrus from 40 AD in which the resurrection was mentioned, but which was later found to be a forgery, I would guess the Atlantic would utterly pillory her. Chase her from Harvard. Make her a laughingstock.

In fact, since she only tried to hurt Christianity, she is still happily at Harvard, receiving grants and highly regarded

 

[MNathaniel]

Your slanders against Dr. King are unbecoming of a Christian.

She is an excellent scholar

Lol. I had no idea who Dr. Karen King was before reading this thread, so I googled her. One of the first results to pop up was:

Karen King Says the ‘Jesus's Wife’ Papyrus Fragment Is Likely a Forgery - The Atlantic

Excerpt (emphases mine):

For four years, Karen L. King, a Harvard historian of Christianity, has defended the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” against scholars who argued it was a forgery. But Thursday, for the first time, King said the papyrus—which she introduced to the world in 2012—is a probable fake.

She reached this conclusion, she said, after reading The Atlantic ’s investigation into the papyrus’s origins, which appears in the magazine’s July/August issue and was posted to its website Wednesday night…

Although she had exchanged numerous emails with the owner and had met him in December 2011, she realized after reading the article that she knew next to nothing about him, she said. Walter Fritz had never mentioned his years at the Free University’s Egyptology institute, his formal study of Coptic, or his work as a pornographer whose star actress was his own wife—a woman who’d written a book of “universal truths” and claimed to channel the voices of angels. He had presented himself to her as a “family man” who enjoyed trips to Disney World and was independently wealthy.

“I had no idea about this guy, obviously,” she said. “He lied to me.”

I asked why she hadn’t undertaken an investigation of the papyrus’s origins and the owner’s background. “Your article has helped me see that provenance can be investigated,” she said.

I literally snorted with laughter after reading that final line.

A scholar who needs a literary and cultural commentary magazine to teach her that “provenance can be investigated”, is not an “excellent scholar”.

Without even looking up anything else about her, that much can be stated upfront.

 

[billsherman]

Why are you on a Catholic forum?

I don’t know anymore.

There was a time on this forum when there wasn’t a religious test for scholars.

 

[MNathaniel]

There was a time on this forum when there wasn’t a religious test for scholars.

There should always be a scholarly test for scholars though.

And a scholar who needs a popular magazine (not even a peer-reviewed academic journal) to teach her that “provenance can be investigated”, fails that test.

 

[billsherman]

And a scholar who needs a popular magazine (not even a peer-reviewed academic journal) to teach her that “provenance can be investigated”, fails that test.

You asked about me. I answered.

I can also say that Dr. King knows and understands provenance. She’s an excellent scholar, regardless of what “The Atlantic” says.

 

[MNathaniel]

You asked about me. I answered.

? I think you think I’m someone else. I didn’t ask you anything, I’m just commenting on the obvious scholarly failure of a scholar whose own words reveal that she doesn’t know how to investigate the provenance of an alleged ancient artifact, even to the degree of figuring out that the person who gave her the artifact is lying about publicly available information about himself that contradicts what he told her in private conversation.

 

[billsherman]

I think you think I’m someone else. I didn’t ask you anything

Ha. Yes, you’re right. Sorry about that.

I know the quote. I also know Dr. King. She knows what she’s doing, and she got seriously duped. She’s neither a bad person, nor a bad scholar.

 

[MNathaniel]

I know the quote. I also know Dr. King. She knows what she’s doing, and she got seriously duped. She’s neither a bad person, nor a bad scholar.

With respect, maybe there’s more to this story. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting Dr. King is a “bad person”. But regarding her scholarly credibility…

In her own words, she said “He lied to me.” That is a mind-bogglingly poor reason, in my view, to consider oneself duped. If one is a scholar. It’s one thing for a wife who believes a lying husband; there’s actually something appropriate about the habit of charity of mind, and default trust, within the context of interpersonal relationships.

But academic scholarship does not rely on the kind of blind trust and charitable assumptions of truthfulness, that interpersonal relationships do. A scholar is supposed to critically investigate claims and evidence, not just believe everything they’re told at a surface-level, without doing the legwork to investigate whether the claims are true.

Dr. King may, as you say, know what she’s doing on many fronts. And at the same time, I honestly cannot grasp how any academic – who holds themselves accountable to rigorously high standards – could be duped by the mere telling of a lie, that should have been immediately uncovered if any investigation had been done into the provenance of the artefact they were provided. Especially on what she should have known would be a highly-controversial topic: the more counter-arguments a scholar expects, the more they should research and critically investigate their own case, to be prepared to answer questions others will have. A mysterious stranger claiming to have an ancient artefact showing that Jesus was married? Come on. Surely the first assumption should have been fraud, and every avenue should have been exhausted exploring that possibility before bothering the public with it.

It honestly seems to me like it would cheapen the credibility of scholars everywhere, to fail to acknowledge that Dr. King made an avoidable error here that scholars should be expected to avoid. I have nothing against her personally (again, I know nothing about her except what I’ve read today). But regarding her conduct in this particular case… it seems fair to acknowledge that this was not an example of good scholarship.

 

[po18guy]

Date schmate.

Are they true?

Nothing else matters.

The Catholic Church dabbled in modernism and is paying for it. Instead of making the Gospels easier to believe, they have fashioned (hint: fashion) them into folklore that many have chosen not to believe.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The Catholic Church dabbled in modernism and is paying for it. Instead of making the Gospels easier to believe, they have fashioned (hint: fashion) them into folklore that many have chosen not to believe

To be fair, you have unbelievers before the historical critical method. It’s dishonest to imply otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholic scholars thing the same. In fact, the introduction to my Bible says exactly that.

Some do, some don’t.

The reasons for the dating go well beyond the destruction of Jerusalem.

However, “the destruction of Jerusalem” is the poster-child assertion that’s the “go-to” for these discussions. On the face of it, “he couldn’t have possibly said it before 70A.D.” is patently illogical. “He couldn’t possibly have made an accurate prophecy in advance”, however, isn’t a claim of ‘history’ or ‘science’, but of faith… so, if the assertion is “let the appropriate expert make claims in his own field”, then this is one for Scripture scholars, not historians.

Miracles are difficult for historians because there is no way to get historical evidence of the supernatural. At best, historians can prove that people believed a miracle occurred. But to actually prove a miracle occurred using the historical method is not possible (nor can it disprove one).

Precisely. So, just as biologists can’t talk about humans in terms of souls, neither can historians talk about miracles as such.

mercyalways:

Much of what he wrote has subsequently been overturned.

Not by historians.

Fr Longenecker – having just written a book – has been lamenting how scholarship works. Namely, that entrenched theories stay entrenched; that scholars who cut their teeth as grad students on particular theories, tend to defend those theories passionately in their professional life; that ‘conventional wisdom’ takes on a life of its own.

I’m with you, @billsherman: it’s no skin off my back if folks want to ignore more recent scholarship. That’s just the way it works. However, it’s kinda short-sighted, IMHO.

The basic presupposition of those who argue for later dating of the Gospels… is that God doesn’t exist, therefore prophecy which predicts future events can’t happen.

Right. And, hiding under the skirts of “scholarship” and “science”, they seem to be unaware that the argument they’re making is one about faith. But hey… that puts them square in my wheelhouse, so I’m willing to discuss faith all day long with them!

Bart Erhman… (M.Div.; Ph.D., Scripture Studies)
Elaine Pagels… (B.A., history; M.A., classics; Ph.D., Religious Studies)
Karen King… (B.A., religious studies; Ph.D., religious studies)
James Dunn… (BSc Econ and Stats; PhD, New Testament studies)

degrees in theology, not history.

Shh… you’re pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. That argument rarely prevails…


(To be fair, though, I’m sure that @billsherman will be able to cite for us a number of trained historians who work in the field.)

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not sure what you want from scholarship, but it appears to be confirmation of everything you already know to be true.

Oddly enough, that’s the complaint that is leveled against “late-Gospel” proponents, too…!

Why are you on a Catholic forum?

Because we want to dialogue with all voices, not just those with whom we happen to agree!

 

[Hodos]

Right. And, hiding under the skirts of “scholarship” and “science”, they seem to be unaware that the argument they’re making is one about faith . But hey… that puts them square in my wheelhouse, so I’m willing to discuss faith all day long with them!

Sounds reasonable to me.