Subject: Re: Different dating systems

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 01:03:49 -0500

>>>In fact, there is remarkable agreement among conservatives and
liberals over dating John to c.90-100.   J.A.T.Robinson is the major
exception.<<<

This is true- most of the material I read up on places John around 90-100
C.E. Perhaps my intial comment (after 95) was a bit too hasty-more of an
average I should say....

In any case, back to my original question-what do folks who tend to date
materials late, do in light of parylogical and (in some cases) strong
internal evidence toward the contrary?

Kerry Gilliard
http://member.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:43:11 -0500 (EST)

>internal evidence toward the contrary?

First, the papyrological evidence does not help to inform us whether
John was written 30 years earlier (c.95) or 80 years earlier (c.45)
than the earliest extant MS.

Second, although some parts of John seem very early, other parts, esp.
ch. 21 appear to be written (shortly) after the death of the beloved
disciple.  Perhaps John was originally published in two versions, a
twenty chapter and a twenty-one chapter version, but the evidence of P5
and P75 for this is unclear.  I'd be interested in hearing other's
opinions on whether P5 and P75 reflect a twenty-chapter version of
John.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
[email-masked]              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35