Michael Gray wrote:

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:07:20 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:54:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:37:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:52:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

Anything earlier is
Paul's spirit-Jesus. (The earliest ms that might be part of what
later became the NT is dated to around 120 AD.

Dated paleographically though.
I have been urging the curators to allow a fragment of it to be tested
by Nuclear activation analysis, but to no avail (yet).

Even if it *IS* from 120 AD, it has a few words that might be one part
of one page of an early book that later became part of the NT. Or
not. There's not enough of it to be sure. Just a few words in
sequence that later appear in the same sequence in the NT. Sort of
like "we hold these truths" in a handwritten scrap being part of the
US Declaration of Independence. They might be - or they might be part
of something else.

It is a little more than you describe, though.

The scrap has writing on both sides, and the words are entirely
consistent with it being a leaf with two pages of the Gospel of John.
(In fact, fairly convincingly so)
Were it only single sided, or if the two sides were way off
synchronization, I would agree with you.

I have inspected hi-res photos of both sides, and as skeptical as I
am, I think it has a reasonable probability of being an early version
of this gospel, which is why I am so interested in having it dated
using absolute physical methods.

First, the absolute physical dating will NEVER ever be done. It is too
important to the Christian myth and might start the whole house of cards
to
come tumbling down. Only someone who is not a True Believer and willing
to purchase the fragment and risk destroying a sizeable portion of it
would
even attempt to actually validate it. It would have to be someone which
such a tremendous disposable income that taking a loss on having purchased
something that is not what it is represented to be will not hurt that
person financially. [Setting the legal priorities to get compensation
from those who represent it as an early fragment would be a quagmire and
one would find that the present owners would no longer be so certain of
their dates.]

If I am thinking of the same fragment which you are then I have some
reservations that it is what they say. First it has been pointed out that
the number of characters per line vary far more in that fragment from one
line to the next than almost any other observed. Secondly the number of
lines per sheet widely varies and is different for each side, obverse and
reverse. And it well could be something that "John" used than actually
from the writer of the gospel.

Quite.
It is nonetheless a "reasonably" likely candidate, in my opinion.
In fact, the best that exists.

But all in all, I doubt any of those manuscripts will ever be radiocarbon
dated because it will show paleography for what it is, a convenient farce.
I think scribes of old were clever enough to use an "older hand" to lend
authority to a work and make it seem authentic from another earlier
period. The stakes were too high for them not to do otherwise especially
considering Christians were willing to torture and murder to come out on
top.

I cannot argue with most of that: It is the "feeling" that I have
attained during my research into the matter.
Almost exactly.

But I do have a dispute with your "sizable portion" being required.
Yes, that is the case with carbon dating, but not with Neutron
Activation Analysis, which is why I propose it as a semi-benign, and
PROVEN alternative to dating purported 1st/2nd century MSS.

Is anything destroyed in the process? If I recall some material must be.

To date the papyrus alone would still not answer the question because
someone might use "old paper" to make the document look, er, old and
authentic and authoritative (in an age where old = authoritative). The ink
itself must be tested too.

One I had the option of buying (with a partner) a suspected 13th century
painting on wood (to be had for $5,000). The owner at the time balked at
having the paint and wood tested because it would destroy part of the
painting but he did write some extensive articles in some prestigious art
magazine defending his view. My friend and I discussed the matter and
decided that if it was a forgery it was at least a 400 or 500 year old one
and thus worth at least the money the man wanted. We waited until the next
day and the man sold the painting (half for money and half for a time
share) already. Subsequently the painting was tested and proved to be
authentic. It was one of those works of art that you automatically knew
was special.

But I hear you.
Doubting Thomases, who's monetary and crowd-drawing value of their
acquisition rides on the issue, cannot afford to have their collection
dramatically devalued (for that is pretty much the only direction that
it can go).

Still, I should like it to occur, either way...

Actually I would too. It would actually make for a far more interesting
field of study if manuscripts could be dated to within a decade or two of
John's supposed writings. It would make looking for the historical John
much more important.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:49:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:07:20 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:54:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

[]

But all in all, I doubt any of those manuscripts will ever be radiocarbon
dated because it will show paleography for what it is, a convenient farce.
I think scribes of old were clever enough to use an "older hand" to lend
authority to a work and make it seem authentic from another earlier period.
The stakes were too high for them not to do otherwise especially
considering Christians were willing to torture and murder to come out on
top.

*Were?* When did they cease?

Fallujia?
Guantanamo Bay?