The earliest handwritten copy of a Gospel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2013
- To discuss these videos visit / godnewevidence . Skeptical scholars used to believe that the Bible's accounts of Jesus were written more than a hundred years after he lived, by people who didn't know anything about the historical Jesus. Professor Dan Wallace is one of the world's leading experts on the hand-written copies of the Bible's accounts. In this video he describes the discovery of the earliest copy of one of these accounts, the John Rylands Fragment of John's Gospel, known technically as P52. This discovery overturned the ideas of scholars, and showed that the accounts had been written much earlier than they thought. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus. With Professor Dan Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary
Modern scholarship has now established that the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew) were all written within 50 or so years of the crucifixion. John is more difficult to date, but likely not later than 100 - 125 A.D. Paul's first letters date to within 20 years of Jesus' execution. Of course, the revised dating of the New Testament documents is a great boon to historians, provided they apply the same methodologies to those documents that historians apply to all ancient works, including the various forms of textual analysis and literary assessment. It's surprising how many people choose to remain uninformed about the advances in recent scholarship rather than deal with its results.
Dallas McQuarrie People are hostile towards the bible. Always have been and until his return always will be.
I tend to agree, but there is a vast difference between people who simply refuse to believe no matter what, and people who are simply ignorant or misinformed about both history and the collection of books known as the "Bible." For example, those who think the Gospels were written a century or more after Christ's death, and/or are the product of generations of oral tradition, cannot begin to assess the Bible intelligibly because the assumptions with which they begin are mistaken and so any conclusions they reach on the basis of mistaken premises will also be wrong. Materialism - the belief that the physical world is all that is - is actually self-refuting, but people who 'refuse to believe no matter what' will cling to something that is self-contradictory rather than consider an alternative that, for some reason or other, frightens them.
Dallas McQuarrie No argument on that. Fear is a great driving force to unbelief. If they say it's true then they would need to obey it and no one wants to give up there pet sins or bad life style.
Ignorance is also a great stumbling block for many people. One constantly hears what may be the most popular delusion of our time, namely that science and faith are somehow in conflict, and people are also bombarded daily with a barrage of messages in all kinds of media promoting 'materialism' as the meaning of life. It's also difficult for people when they see scoundrels consumed by greed taking from the poor to give to the rich while proclaiming themselves to be 'Christian.'
Dallas McQuarrie
ruclips.net/video/HS0WSEuousE/видео.html
A generation ago, J A T Robinson's 'Redating The New Testamant' argued that the entire NT could have been completed by AD 70. Not what the critics wanted to hear. We can't have their precious theories undermined.
Agreed. The book of Revelation is the most descriptive prophetic account in the bible of the destruction of Jerusalem & the 2nd temple, one the most important events in the history of Christianity. And yet if we believe the post 70AD daters of Revelation, all we are left with is a handful of verses from the bible to prophesy of this event. "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus is a great witness to the book of Revelation being the prophetic fulfillment of this great event of 66-70AD.
@@paulthedisciple2792 : Although there are some who believe that the Book of Revelation was written before AD 70, I think the majority accept a date in the 90s. The book looks to the judgement day of the LORD and the accomplishment of his will.
None of the Gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem, all were written well before that
This is a point I've never considered. Is there more to this theory?
@@caseyjonas86 yes,. They would of surely mentioned as was a major thing to happen to Israel. I dont accept the standard dates given for all the books.
@@caseyjonas86 Casey,. Ive looked at many sources that discuss this and its been awhile so forgive me, I was trying to look up some good sources but this one isnt bad
ruclips.net/video/pBxoNiTyfHw/видео.html
I assure you were I Mark etc, I assure you I would not wait 5 years to start writing
@@caseyjonas86 : It goes to the presuppositions of the scholars. Critical scholars have an anti -supernatural world view and so do not believe in prohecy. Therefore, they rule out such things and must conclude that the gospels were written after AD 70.
Clearly, the idea that Jesus could male a prophecy or work iracles is something that must be explained away.
Really enjoyed this. Thank you
Wonderful!
If John was 20 when Jesus started his ministry in the year 30, that means he was born in the year 10. The year 100 would mean that he would have been 90. That tells me that his gospel was most likely finished before that.
"The disciple whom Jesus loved" tells me that John could have been 12. This was a normal age in a farmer or fisher family to start working. With 12 he was also of legal age to be part of a "synagogue". Jesus loved him because he was between child and adult. More spontaneous, sincere, no searching for "where is the trap?" Its generally said that Revelation was written around 95. If so, he would have needed papyrus and ink, which he had. It would be logical to continue his desk job in the same time. The topics in Revelation (Jesus is alive, he is in the sanctuary at God's right and he has the destiny of our world under control) are near to each other and complementary. Yeah no proof, just conjectures based on practical considerations.
@@francoisplaniol1489read the books that Tim LaHaye wrote as fiction where the Apostles were living their post Jesus lives. Really cool. Also Revelation was while he was exiled at Patmos. Shalom
Or, none of it actually happened at all.
@@Antiorganizer hope that helps you sleep at night
@@michaelbrickley2443 I sleep pretty decently, knowing that I do not lie, do not make things up, do not pretend that I am an ubermench. I also have the satisfaction that I do not indoctrinate and brainwash children.
I also know that morals are a normal natural human value and that humans need each other's protection, because we all depend on each other, and we ought to be one big extended family pack as a species.
I'm not good just to earn browny points from some "god".
I'm honest to the core in all these ways.
So yeah, I definitely sleep well at night.
And for Jesus, that has got to be one of the world's biggest bullshit stories with sugar on top. I mean, literally W T F ! HOW oh HOW do people swallow that garbage and how do people "teach" this with a straight face? Seriously WTF is WRONG with people at times??? Good grief.
But yeah, bring it on.
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever."
@Sierra Amén! Thank you for sharing ❤️🙏God is marvelous and loving 🙏God bless you
In fact, logic dictates that all manuscripts of the NT were written before 70 AD. At that date Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the Romans, and it is difficult to imagine that such a cataclysmic event would not be mentioned by any of the authors. Particularly when Jerusalem and Jewish leadership featured prominently not only in the NT documents, but also in the OT, practically throughout the history of the people of Israel.
Yeah, NO. Wrong!
@@joshuarichard6827 your eloquent reply left me speechless.
@@alexmala6483 your lack of logic doesn’t astound me, religious people are dull
@@joshuarichard6827can you explain why none of they dont mention the Destruction of Jerusalem which was a major event at the time?
@@nothingnothing7958 ask God yourself since you think he’s real, you will NEVER get an answer. And Jesus (who is not God) was wrong anyway. He said not one stone would be left on another, there are several stones atop eachother where the temple once was
And if you are trying to place a story in a certain timeline you dont mention what happens after the story ends. The gospel authors were deceitful
'Within living memory'. What's that actually mean?
It means within the memory of a living person at the time. So (for example) for me, the fall of the Berlin Wall is within living memory, while the D-Day landings aren't.
@Cerebral Arsenal First up, it's a huge assertion that the Gospel writers wrote a hundred years or more after the events. I don't know *any* serious scholar who thinks that. It is quite credible that all the Gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. John A T Robinson was not by any means a conservative scholar, and he thought this was the case. See also: ruclips.net/video/0XHmjCWj0xw/видео.html
@Cerebral Arsenal "The Wall came down in '91. ... The internet wasn't even a thing back then." And here we have a prime example of how errors of recollection contribute to an environment of inaccuracies and unreliable claims (please don't think I'm getting at you personally, Cerebral Arsenal; your mistakes do in a fashion support your wider point). If the Internet wasn't a thing in 1991 then how come I've been sending email around the world since February 1989? The Internet was invented in 1969; it was the World Wide Web which wasn't invented until 1991, yet there were information distribution systems on the Internet (veronica, gopher, etc) before the WWW started to see widespread use after the public release of the first graphical browser in late 1994. Also, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989! It was the Soviet Union which finally fell in 1991.
Now here's something for everyone else to consider: Cerebral Arsenal's two claims have been sitting here unchallenged for at least one year. How many people in that time have read them and gone away believing them? Now imagine the sheer quantity of simple errors which would have been made by the retelling of stories from even eyewitnesses in a primarily non-literate society, errors readily compounded by an understandably human wish to support belief in a new religion. It's no wonder none of the gospels match up, especially upon key supernatural events such as the day of resurrection.
Even though I was an eyewitness to the expansion of the early WWW, being involved in it for development within my institution, I was careful to check my dates before writing my first paragraph above. I'm fortunate enough to be literate and to understand how to determine which sources for those events and dates can be relied upon and which cannot, and to have unambiguous access to them, and I have no reason to wish to present a false or biased account of such mundane things. Imagine the problems even a mid first century (let alone a late first century) author would have in compiling an accurate report of the events, natural and supernatural, of the life of Jesus which we could safely rely upon today.
About 400 BCE, we have a text about Bacchus that is relatively the same as the Gospel of John.
Historical credibility at 90 years after Jesus? That's a good one.
@Francis Motta - I think you're missing the point here. Prof. Wallace is saying that this *copy* dates to about 90 years after Jesus. The original would have been earlier, and probably much earlier.
Skeptics are going to believe from the sources of scholarly dating they want to believe but they have to ask themselves if the gospels were written late then why in the Book of Acts was there no mention of the destruction of the temple or the deaths of several diciples who's recorded deaths were between the 50s and 60s A.D. Then since the book of Acts was written by Luke it was written after the gospel of Luke so that makes the gospel written easily in the life time of many eyewitnesses to the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. People will believe what they want to believe but everyone will have to decide who Jesus is. Lord, liar or lunatic? Because if hes telling the truth(which I believe he is) then hes coming back this time to judge the world. Don't wait another second confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Repent of your sins, believe that that Jesus died on the cross for you sins and was resurrected 3 days later conquering death and sin and you will have the gift of eternal life that a loving God wants to give you.
"Lord, liar or lunatic?" Ah, the old false trilemma. Lewis should have had the sense to include a fourth option at least: legend. That would describe the possibility that the gospel stories are a mix of tales regarding a wandering rabbi (or possibly two), folded in with the desire to fulfil ancient prophecy, early misunderstanding and subsequent confabulation. As any police officer will tell you, eyewitnesses are not 100% reliable, and as any defence lawyer will tell you, police officers are not 100% reliable!
It's interesting how the gospels didn't even have name attached to them,until the middle of the first century,or the second century...and even at an earlier date, they're still written 50 to 100 years after the facts
Christians have been saying Jesus is 'coming back' since year dot. They said it soon after he was executed, even though he was probably promising a kingdom of god in his followers' lifetimes. Didn't happen. Christians say it every turn of the century, or when someone concocts another wacky theory involving supposed dates in the Bible. It's been twenty centuries - he's dead, he's not coming back.
What about the Washington Codex? Quite possibly a first century copy of all four gospels. Still under debate but all four gospels. And a dating system at the end of each book, when dates translated to our system, the dates come out Matthew 67, Mark 69, Luke 71, and John 96. Currently in the Smithsonian. Some believe that the first five copies of this copy of John were actually written by John himself.
Most scholars date the Washington codex to the fourth or fifth century.
“Written by John himself “ WRONG! Written in THIRD PERSON NOT FIRST. Written in GREEK not aramaic.
Wait a second... The conclusion 'were written within living memory of Jesus' makes no sense. The guy has just explained that this copy dates around 125, perhaps as early as 90 CE. So 60 or more years after His death. This fragment, by the way, is the ONLY survived copy of the first of second century... of Bart Ehrmann is right.
He's talking about a *copy* of an original document. For most ancient documents, we only have copies that are centuries later than the originals. If the copy is dated to around 100 AD, that suggests that the original was significantly earlier.
Thanks. I've always wondered how one can distinguish an original from a copy...
:-)
Look up "Cold-Case Christianity", J. Warner Wallace. 😍😍
Copies of copies of copies of copies of ect...ect...
i don’t understand. at 4:15 the narrator says that John’s gospel was written “within living memory of Jesus”...i only heard evidence that it was written by about the 100 to 125AD. Surely anyone who was around when Jesus was alive would be dead by then. How is that “within living memory”?
The earliest *copy* that we currently have is dated around 100-125 AD; the original must, of course, have been earlier.
@@godnewevidence why would it be much earlier instead of just earlier?
@@GaudioWind At a time when documents had to be copied by hand and physically distributed, there must be a higher probability that any given copy is, say, twenty years later than the original rather than two years after the original, just because there will be more (and more widespread) copies after twenty years than after two years.
@@godnewevidence yeah, that's a good point. But is that all they have to say that the originals must be much earlier than this copy? I mean, maybe it's naive, but I think it's even possible that the originals are even later than this copy. Maybe the "originals" are a compilation of some known stories that people used to talk about and some of them were written on papirus.
@@GaudioWind Someone can always come up with a theory that will explain away any combination of facts, but this doesn't mean that the theory is likely or realistic. I could put forward that the moon is made of cheese, and I could find a way to explain away any counter evidence you might offer - but that wouldn't make it likely that the moon really is made of cheese. In the same way, the simplest explanation is that the original document was earlier than any copies that we have today.
Here is a book that I recommend:
www.amazon.co.uk/Can-Trust-Gospels-Peter-Williams/dp/1433552957/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=48&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=8&__mk_en_GB=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&qid=1560168183&refinements=p_27%3AWilliams%2C+Peter%2Cp_28%3Acan+we+trust+the+Gospels&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1
All the copies are "handwritten". Have you found any that were Xeroxed?
Not yet, but I keep hoping :-)
I don’t understand why they say this is a copy of an earlier manuscript?
I'm not completely sure if I've understood your question. But - if I have understood it right - I think scholars would take the view that it is extremely unlikely that we have the *original* document. There was only one original, and thousands of copies, so statistically it must be more likely that what we have is a copy than the original. Also, if the document found is in a different part of the world from where they think it was originally written, this would support the belief that it is a copy, not the original. Not sure if this helps or not.
Why should we trust the 4 gospels if they werent written in the time of Jesus tho? I actually want to know why it is that we should read from these 4 unknowns rather than a scripture written by Jesus himself, pls🙏 god bless
Apply the exact criteria of your own question to all the writings of known historical figures of antiquity and you will find the answer for yourself. If someone had to answer you directly, you won't like the implications of that answer.
@@jdshl8423 oh i think you miss the best scriptures of all that is?*the quran*!no errors and is still in its original form.
'Do you hear 'the quran' boss music?"
😏😎✅
And what great works did Jesus, himself write?...other historical figures wrote stuff,and a lot of people wrote about them...who,besides those in the new testament wrote about Jesus?...and absolutely no one wrote anything about him in his lifetime... that's rather odd?even the so called outside soured didn't write anything until years after he was supposed to have died...and let's look at Paul... nothing about Nazareth... nothing about a virgin birth... and certainly not one quote from Jesus,as written in the gospels
@@lrcavalli290paul is the biggest impostor in history.. man did not even walk with jesus yet wrote and preached who the real jesus were.christians prefers to listen(follow) paul instead the real disciples who lived with jesus.#christians are so irrational & funny at the same time# 😭
@@lrcavalli290 Jesus isnt just a historical figure, he is a very special individual sent by God to preach proper montheism to the one creator, and during his prophet hood he was granted and soread the word of the gospel, a book/speech from God himself like how the Quran is the pure speech of God for our present time. God didnt send 4 gospels to Jesus, only one, but somehow people base their religion based on the accordance and understanding of a seemingly lost original gospel by 4 Greeks many years after the presence of Jesus🤔
I am not sure how this established when John was written. I am not disagreeing with the idea that John was written in the 90's but I do not see how this gets you there. They wrote Codex's long after late first century. The fact that this was from a Codex only proves it was written late first century of after. Really bad argument.
P52 is dated to early 2nd century for other reasons, not because it is a codex.
I don't get why biblical critics nowadays seem to think that the Bible that we had isn't reliable people the likes of Bart Ehrman and the others.... they seem to forget that the issue of Manuscript reliability wasn't even an issue during the first few centuries of the early church.. why? because people back then had sources that we didn't have today.... people back then had traditional canonical manuscripts already accepted. These people who critics the Bible and label it as unreliable are just making a fuss about it and making money out of it thats probably why every manuscript variation they see however insignificant are exaggerated to its extent just to have atheist and agnostics buy to their ideas.
Bart disagrees with you.
@A what a surprise
P52 was important in the re-dating of the Gospel of John but is not indicative of the volume or quality of early Christian manuscripts. The earliest gospel manuscripts that were in good enough condition to have a title on them were dated to not earlier than 175 AD and they were very rare.
Cambridge Divinity professor Simon J. Gathercole author of "The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts" writes "the quantity of Greek manuscripts varies from gospel to gospel: Matthew and John each have two early papyri with titles, Luke has one and Mark has none." That's a total of five times a title could be discerned from the manuscripts from three collections, all from Egypt, with the earliest date for a manuscript with a title being no earlier than 175-225 AD and one being as late as the fourth century.
Jimmy Watt
The text piece was written around a century after the alleged crucifixion.
Checkmate, Christians.
ruclips.net/video/8kPgACbtRRs/видео.html this is alot earlier-- and there are creedal passages less than 10 years from the Cross-- but even if your research is correct(which is sketchy at best, outdated -worstcase), its still very reliable when discussing historical narrative and the life of Jesus was the most Multiply attested person in antiquity---ruclips.net/video/ay_Db4RwZ_M/видео.html
Remember that there was Aramaic and old Latin which have great age also.
lt doesn't matter when or who wrote the bible stories, nothing in it was first hand, just a lot of reports by (todays standard) illiterate people,(we get fake news stories all the time), take magic shows for instant, we are fooled into thinking it's real, but it is all a trick.
You have to remember that the early Christians of the second century already talk about 4 gospels, Polycarp was a student of John many of his writings are dated before AD 125.
This credit card size piece was dated 100-150. Even if a copy, it still does not prove the original text was from the 1st century. So it is a tiny piece that is second century and does not support the gospel story being close to the timeline that Jesus was supposed to have lived, and even it if an earlier text was found, it doesn't prove it was a story based on fact, but could still be a fiction story based on the beliefs of a few Jews who took parts of the Old Testament and made the out as somehow fulfilled, without any evidence.
If you are at all serious about looking at the evidence, I recommend this short book: www.amazon.co.uk/Can-Trust-Gospels-Peter-Williams/dp/1433552957/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3G7SWA0LQNRP4&keywords=can+we+trust+the+gospels+peter+williams&qid=1637749491&qsid=257-4583787-2031424&sprefix=can+we+trust+th%2Caps%2C185&sr=8-1&sres=1433552957%2C0802874312%2C1985794470%2C1581348665&srpt=ABIS_BOOK
@@godnewevidence Thank you for your work. God bless you.
The Jordan Codices book that was discovered and confirmed to be written in the 1st century confirms the authors of the gospel. The book goes into detail the life of Christ and his disciples. There’s no doubt who wrote the NT.
If you look at the book of Acts, its starts of with a note saying that's its second in a 2 part series with preceding being Luke. Which implies Acts predates Luke and it widely agreed that Luke borrows from Mark.
The narrative ends in Acts while Paul is still under house arrest awaiting trial which was in the early 60s. The author of Acts has no issues describing how some of the early church died yet it misses out Paul's death as well as other key apostles. Also the siege of Jerusalem which happened in the 70s and destruction of the temple were probably the biggest historic events of century yet not narrated in Acts. Which would make it seem odd if Acts was written post 70s maybe in 2nd century that these events are missing as they had great significance. Also adding the destruction of temple would be beneficial to Acts as it was an event that was supposed to have been prophecied by Jesus.
There is a lot of bias when it comes to the dating and authenticity of writers of the new testament. The Christians want it to be true and secular historians will discount any claims that bring the new testament closer to the life of Jesus.
you “show me the evidence” types always answer with “that’s not good enough” anyway. Your forgone conclusion is that it’s fiction anyhow. Why waste your time? Just go for a walk mate.
I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that John's gospel has not only credibility but is the word of God. It was the first book I read after I was born again in 1977 and God's Holy Spirit CLEARLY spoke to my heart from it. Only someone who has been born again can understand what I'm saying and say amen to it. Historically I believe it was written in the last decade of the first century and was the last of the 4 gospels and one of the last books or epistles of the New Testament to be inspired. I don't believe for one second that any of the New Testament was written after 100 AD and probably a few years earlier than that.
...so only decades and not centuries after the events described. None of which find any correlation in other historical documents of the period.
And yet there are other historical documents from the period that support the Bible's accounts -- as I am sure you are well aware.
Great video. Basically... this small fragment of one of the Gospels is now believed to be written around 90AD instead of 150AD. Hold on though...... does that Gospel even claim to be an eyewitness account of anything at all??? Also, it's one fragment of one Gospel. There's then nothing for another century. Why?
1905 Charles Huleatt M. A.
Luxor, Book of Matthew discovery ,
Carson Teaday 2018 confirms written by eye witnesses
The most myths about Jesus are collected in a book better known as "New Testament".
Actually, the first gospel, Mark, mentions the destruction of the temple. That occurred in the year A.D. 70.
Actually, no it doesn't.
Mark 13
@@billlawrence1899 That's a prediction, not a mention. Wether faked or not.
It’s easy to “predict” something after it happened. Jean Dixon did it all the time. The writer of Luke put those words in his mouth after it had happened, so it looks like a “prediction”.
@@billlawrence1899 Indeed, it may have been like that. Although, there are other accounts in the new testament of predicted events with their correspondent fulfillment (specifically the OT prophecies regarding the Messiah, and Jesus' prediction of his own resurrection), making this one, the destruction of the temple, the only one without its future outcome.
The scholars that incorrectly dated the gospels, why did they do that? Were these secular scholars, with a bias to discredit the gospels in the first place?
First this video does in no way discredit those scholars, Just because Codex's started to be written in the late first century, does no mean this Codex was written at that time. I have several printed bibles, it does not mean it was the first printed book. But this is how scholarship works, you never assume an older date for anything till you have evidence.
No, they just worked with the evidence they had. When new evidence was uncovered the rational thing to do was to reassess the dates. You should also remember that in the 1840s and 1850s many European scholars (primarily German) went to the Holy Land full expecting to discover solid evidence for biblical events. Those antiquarians and early archaeologists were heavily disappointed.
The gospels discredit themselves
I totally agree with you. However. What about the men who copied these scrolls amd early writings. I was told as an young adult that the bible is the inspired word of God. But 2000 yrs of copyong politics and power grabs within the early church are facts of history. How much of a possibility is it that some hateful or just plain wrong things were added to grant diff people more power. Wars and billions have suffered because of these words or the wrong interpretations thereof. Just asking. I wrestle with this everyday and pray about it often
Do you think for a second, the eternal one, who wanted and desired to get a message to us, in our realm of time, space, and matter, would slap himself on the forehead because of mans politics somehow messed up an overall message from heaven?
It is this that made me realize, that no matter what, man cannot interfere with the Almighty, to any degree. He is King over all of this. Every detail of it all.
Nothing in the oldest copies negates anything in our modern copies. The Bible is incredibly well-preserved. Thanks be to God!
Is it the same gospel as today?
Yup! P66 appears to be very complete, all the way up to John 21. There are parts in the narrative that are not included but it is expected since it is an early manuscript (the completeness of today's biblical canon was a gradual process that took time to finalize). If you want to do further research, a good place to start looking is how the church went about the canonization process. The most intriguing part for me is that almost the entire first page of p66 is intact and accurate: "In the beginning was the word..." Very fascinating stuff!
Actually no ... there have been changes,additions,and errors
@@lrcavalli290 Factually incorrect.
@@spazomaz not according to scholars
@@lrcavalli290 Name me 1 scholar that agrees that Codex Sinaiticus isn't the same as the bible nowadays.
There are a number of fragments that some have claimed are before AD 70. But scholars are not keen to embrace these as it undermines their expert opinion that the synoptic gospels were written 70 (Mark) to 90AD (Luke). But why let "facts" get in the way of a good theory.
I assure you , were i Mark etc, i assure you i would not wait 5 years to start writing
They were Oracle society. They wrote because they thought jesus would come again in their lifetime
Ha!!!...he waited more than five years
@@lrcavalli290 I take it you were there?
@@marcosponce960 probably more than anyone who wrote the gospel of Mark...read it sometime... it's like he never stepped foot in Palestine...he makes up places,and has Jesus travel way out of his way to go anywhere...and somehow avoiding all the bigger towns
@@lrcavalli290 smh I'm in Kings I'll read it again when I get there, wow yep sounds like we're right with him
The title of this video misleads. The narration reveals that what was found was a rather small fragment; not a gospel. Scholarship dates the fragment to 125-175 C.E. That's not within living memory of the Jesus crucifixion.
Can't help wondering if you have actually watched the video, because it deals in specific detail with both of the points you make here.
@@godnewevidence The title of the video is still misleading. Such is the description: "Skeptical scholars used to believe that the Bible's accounts of Jesus were written hundreds of years after he lived". Nobody said "hundreds of years".
@@lauterunvollkommenheit4344 Yes, they did!
@@godnewevidence OK, which skeptical scholar said it?
@@lauterunvollkommenheit4344 You have convinced me! I have changed the wording to say 'more than a hundred years...' - which I think is correct.
This change does not alter the point that professor Wallace is making in the video.
At least 70 years after the supposed crucifixion isn't really withing living memory in an era where most people were dead before turning 70.
@Miranda Hotspring - what you say is fair enough, but it isn't the whole story... This is talking about a *copy,* not the original - and a copy that is found in a different part of the world from where the Gospel was most likely originally written. So you need to allow a reasonable amount of time for the original to be accepted, copied, and distributed.
@@godnewevidence There is no original. All that exist are copies, so it is impossible to say what was in the original because we don't even know exactly what generation copy we have or even who copied or or exactly when. Bit of a problem isn't it? What is more most of the story told in the New Testament is a retelling of a much older myth. There are 161 documented similarities between the Jesus story and the Horus story. Hmmm...
@@mirandahotspring4019 Ah, yes! The Horus myth! ruclips.net/video/s0-EgjUhRqA/видео.html
@@mirandahotspring4019 False
@@FriendwithNoName7 No, you saying 'false' doesn't change anything.
No.
Wait.... am I only the one who sees the circular reasoning here? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say yeah, the front/back style of writing was around 100 CE.... but why are you giving this fragment the earliest date possible? That’s like me saying, oh I found a fragment of a news paper, news paper were invented in the 1500s therefore this fragment of paper was invented in the 1500s?
It is not circular reasoning: there are other reasons for dating this document to when it is dated, e.g. the nature of the writing. Prof. Wallace alludes to this in the video, when he says:
'But then when Roberts discovers this small fragment, he gets it published in 1935 after he had sent photographs of it to the three leading papyrologists in Europe at the time. Each one of them wrote back to him and said this manuscript cannot be dated any later than AD150 and should be dated closer to AD100. A fourth demurred; he said, no I think this should be dated in the 90s of the first century. So you have these scholars who are saying the copy of John’s Gospel can’t be dated later than 150, it’s probably closer to 100. Typical we date that at about 125 now but really it’s a date between 100 and 150.'
@@godnewevidence
nature of writing is too ambiguous, what does this nature of writing consists of?
@@biggerpicture4090 Yes, I'm sorry. I was trying to keep my reply brief, and because of that, what I said wasn't clear. 'Nature of writing' refers specifically to how individual letters and words are written. This changed over time, and because of this, experts can date a particular document by the way the letters are written. As a rough analogy (going back to your earlier example) if someone gave you a sheet from a newspaper, you could probably make a very good guess at how old it was, just by looking at the layout, the font used, and so on.
godnewevidence
Were the three scholars he sent it to Christians? And while the nature of writing does tell us it was on a codex he didn’t identify the methodology these three scholars used to determine the dates.
@@biggerpicture4090 (1) The fact that it was written on both sides tells us that it was a page from a codex (book form).
(2) The nature of the writing tells us when it was written. This is what he consulted the experts for. I am not an expert, so I do not know the details of the methodology that they used. Whatever it was, it was a publicly available methodology (which I am sure you can find out more about if you are interested). I have no idea whether they were Christians or not, and I do not think this would have been relevant to their views as experts on ancient writing.
Modern scholars believe the earliest gospel is Mark 70 AD. They are still no eyewitnesses to he existence.
The dating narrative is fine but to then state without further elaboration that John has historical credibility is not based on anything other than a wish that it were so.
Yeah... this video is one of a series. It's making a single point. There is more in the other videos in the series :-)
A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was buried along with St. Barnabas
......
How did everyone 'forget' that???
@Randy Reneau been edited. barnabus was a blatent fabrication lol. its ridiculous to assime anyrhing different. re read
@Randy Reneau St. Barnabas was not a Gnostic. G Wilson is referring to the alleged "Gospel of Barnabas", which is a gnostic forgery.
@Randy Reneau Not sure what you're rambling about.
@Randy Reneau They're considered forgeries mostly because they were written much later than the four Gospels/the 1st century. The gospel of Barnabas for example has only two known existing manuscripts, both dating to later than the 15th century, and written in Italian and Spanish. That makes it obvious that Barnabas could not have been written by St. Barnabas, who lived in the 1st century. Furthermore, these "gospels" contain teachings that go against what has been taught by Christians from the very beginning. The Gospel of Barnabas for example is very obviously some kind of Muslim forgery, teaching heretical things like that Jesus was not crucified, and that Muhammad was the Messiah.
@Randy Reneau They're considered forgeries mostly because they were written much later than the four Gospels/the 1st century. The gospel of Barnabas for example has only two known existing manuscripts, both dating to later than the 15th century, and written in Italian and Spanish. That makes it obvious that Barnabas could not have been written by St. Barnabas, who lived in the 1st century. Furthermore, these "gospels" contain teachings that go against what has been taught by Christians from the very beginning. The Gospel of Barnabas for example is very obviously some kind of Muslim forgery, teaching heretical things like that Jesus was not crucified, and that Muhammad was the Messiah.
Lame, she came to the wrong conclusion even after listening to what he said, all we know is that the fragment was written around 125 ad. And people who knew Jesus were not alive at that time. So sad blind faith
This is talking about a *copy* dated to about 125 AD - so the original was *earlier* than that. OK, we can't prove from this how much earlier it was, but most scholars (whatever their beliefs) think that John's Gospel was written around 90 AD. This is within one person's lifetime of the events it is about. There is a lot more that could be said about this - for example, the other Gospels can all reasonably be dated earlier than John's Gospel. If you are serious about investigating this, I recommend Peter Williams' book "Can we Trust the Gospels?" www.amazon.co.uk/Can-Trust-Gospels-Peter-Williams/dp/1433552957/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2OO9M6LDSOPX9&dchild=1&keywords=can+we+trust+the+gospels+peter+williams&qid=1626184481&sprefix=can+we+trust%2Caps%2C201&sr=8-1
There is so much evidence of historical credibility of the New Testament that the only reason a person would try to question it is to willfully want to evade/deny the Source--and thereby try to avoid accountability to that Source.
That's a very biased perspective. Lots of people study and research the bible solely for historic purposes. It is a fascinating book regardless of any personal beliefs.
what circluar bullshit
SNORKYMEDIA bro would shut up. If u don’t believe cool. But keep your petty comments to yourself. No one wants to see that shit
Truly amazing
it's still, written 100 years after Jesus already DEAD !! It doesn't change much!
This is about a *copy* made around 80 years after Jesus died, of an *original* document which most scholars think was written about 60 years after he died, either by one of the eyewitnesses (most likely), or by someone who had been in direct contact with eyewitnesses (just possible).
@@godnewevidence THANKS :)
Hallelujah ✝️🇮🇳✝️
thank you LORD....
P52 is not a copy of the gospel, is a small fragment of it ! The title is misleading
There are many ways to know if it is a copy or an original, these mostly show it is a copy.
@@philipfletcher4867 So, I'm honestly curious about the ways they know it's a copy or not. Would you mind giving me a hint?
@@GaudioWind There are severals ways to tell, but one is the style of writing when compared to the time period of writing. Usually physical events that are written about tell us the actual time period of the writing such as eclipse. This coupled with the style of the way letters are produced can help us to know if they are copies or not. There are other ways. There is the practice of Nomina Sacra a time period where the copies of the originals are abbreviating important names and titles. We won't find those among the originals. But it is an early practice perhaps to the 2nd century for the Christian Bible.
The entire NT was written before AD 70.
Rev. J. Roger Allen please provide your sources.
That is mostly accurate, many ( but not all)of the ancients writers feel that all of John writings took place between AD 90 and 100, but definitely that side of AD 100. John is a long lived apostle.
@@jasonhoseney3313
“The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered… We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40-50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.”
F.F. Bruce, “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?,” (Sixth edition, 1981, pp. 42-43)
please explain in more depth ....i am trying to show proof of this to a atheist
@@robertocosimini3545
What is it that you're trying to demonstrate, and I'll see how I can help.
I don't know how the gospel writers exactly produce their manuscript. However I strongly suspect that after jesus's death the gospel writers got together and created the deity form of Jesus. I believe that Jesus was motivated by fame, and I believe the disciples were similar to him and created the synoptic Gospels this to gain fame and to continue the fame that they were already getting through jesus's life
'Fame' as in losing their families, jobs, freedom, and in many cases their lives. This just isn't convincing as a likely motivation for them. Whatever we may think about whether they were right or wrong, it makes most sense to think that Jesus's followers actually believed their own message.
@@godnewevidence yes Fame such as losing those things, as those things were
@@godnewevidence as though since we're less important to them than Fame in my opinion. Are you saying that it is impossible for my idea to be true?
@@boejiden6587 I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
@@boejiden6587 The reality of history is that you can hardly ever say something is completely impossible. You have to look at whether it is *probable* or *plausible.* That's just the way history works. It is not specifically about the truth or otherwise of the Christian message. And I don't think the idea that the gospel writers made up their story in search of fame is at all probable.
So how is it that manuscript dated by scholars? Paleography???? That is totally subjective. Written in papyrus in Mediterranenan? Papyrus in wet conditions can hardly survive longer than 300 years (say 500). Romans used parchment for official documents, but it would have been too expensive for normal people. And it should have been difficult to gather so many papyri too. The most common medium should have been leather.
"And it should have been difficult to gather so many papyri too. The most common medium should have been leather."
- Difficult to gather, but it seems to suggest that this was done. Leather may have been common, but it was not the only medium. Your argument reeks of "this is not possible", and I assume you know which fallacy that is. And yet this fragment exists, contrary to all the conditions you present for its existence. You would think that the scholars who dated it would know all of this too. If I take your argument at face value, I suppose you would date this fragment to around 1520AD at the earliest? You might think this sounds dumb, but "Written in papyrus in Mediterranenan? Papyrus in wet conditions can hardly survive longer than 300 years (say 500).", according to you.
@@jdshl8423 The only extant papyrus came from Egyptian desert and their actual dating is quite dubious.
@@theelectricorigins846 , so explain to me what is it about the information presented in the video that makes it dubious? Convince me that the dating is fundamentally wrong from the evidence the fragment presents, that it is papyrus written on both sides.
@@jdshl8423 I dont pretend to convince anyone. Simply paleography is subjective and not scientific in anyway. If you really want to know whats going on research on the lasting. making and duration of writting support (papyri, parchement and vellum and cellulose paper). If you need help just contact me.
@@theelectricorigins846 , so your objection to the dating is a subjective viewpoint with no actual substance or reasoning to it? It's just dubious. C'mon man, what are you? An expert or a troll?
What is unscientific about it? We know it's double-sided writing on papyrus, we know who usually does that kind of writing, we know around when that was done. It is deduced to be around 100-125AD. It's not an exact science, I understand that, but neither is the dating of the universe.
There is absolutely no way I will contact you for anything if you can't even explain your objection simply to a layman who just came across this today for the first time.
The greatest evidence of the legitimacy and truthfulness of the Bible in today time are the numerous miracles and healings taking place in Jesus name as the Bible has authorized in the scripture....
Please provide 1 provable instance of an amputated appendage being re-grown. I'm sure God knows everything else can be faked. Thanks
Bruce Mayberry you beat me to it! Good job! 👍
@A A if that is right - god must be even more complex -so who made him?
Hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah.
@A so god made himself - and how can you possibly know that? answer you dont.
A 10th of a page is not and never will be a gospel. It's a scrap of paper? Grasping at clouds as always.
Agreed."John" is a Gnostic text from the end of the 1st cent.
Not what the video says, is it?
l don't think any man at that time in eastern countries was every called " Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", they seem like western names to me, and how did he work out that the writings were copies, l'm sure there were books as well as scrolls then.
Hello Brian - I don't think anyone thinks people were called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - surely everyone knows that these are anglicised versions of their names? Mark and Luke were Greek names; Matthew (Mattathias) and John (Yohanan) were Hebrew names.
ln that case, if your correct, the bible has been altered by man, who's to say other parts weren't changed, so why believe in anything in it?. l thought it was the catholic church that put the names to them as no-one knew who wrote them.
That's a fairly silly argument, and I think you know it. The Bible has been *translated.* So what? This does not mean it has been changed.
As to the names of the Gospels, they were circulated right from the start with these names attached. There is *never* any example of one of these Gospels being circulated without a name, or with a different name.
lf it hasn't been changed, then beating your slaves so long as they don't die, stoning children and women to death, punishing your wives if they don't keep quiet and not be allowed to teach, stone gays, are still alright, and not classed as a sin?, there are others but these will do for a start.
I don't remember that I've stoned anyone lately :-) You are muddling up two different questions, aren't you? (1) whether what the Bible said has been changed, and (2) whether what it said in an ancient middle-eastern culture is still meant to be applied in the same way today.
Even so- there's still two strong cases against this videos claim- that's still 2 generations of mixed communication or second hand info that was written in Greek (Jesus spoke Aramaic) and none knows who the author of John was or any of the New Testament gospels were. The Bible is corrupted in its contents which whether intentionally or not happened at the time the copies in Latin were stolen by Tinsdale or someone affiliated with Tinsdale and King James. I'm the re write, is this where the 'english' names were placed over the original names of the characters in the bible? Or did the Catholic Church do this in the dark ages? Either way, this is solid evidence of tampering or censorship with interest of authorive power and the legitimacy of the bible wouldn't hold up in a court of law with and without the evidence in hand.
The claim that the Bible was corrupted at the time of William Tyndale (I assume that is who you mean), in the 16th century, has to be one of the daftest, and most ill-informed claims I have ever heard. We have literally tens of thousands of manuscript copies of the New Testament going back many centuries before Tyndale.
Tony V The new testament has been translated in over 1,000 different languages , the septuigant is the Greek translation of the Old testament and scholars believe that the New Testament was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek from Greek to Latin to English etc. Those names you're talking about derive from the Hebrew language HRNT is the new testament Hebrew translation . The counsel of Nicea left books out of our modern bible but those books called the dead sea scrolls were discovered and now you can read them for yourself if you want ...They also have been translated into English
l understand that the catholic church put the names to the 4 books as no one knew who wrote them.
He just glossed over it but none of the gospels have any eye witness credibility.
I'm sorry, but your information is out of date. Massive book 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,' by professor Richard Bauckham (who features in some of the videos in this series). Unless you have read and interacted with his work, your information is old.
ruclips.net/p/PLegZ3cdgTQ8zmHbv48sdWU_MNqLoTlRBH
I don't have a problem with John's Gospel, but I do have a problem with how it has been translated to English. John's prologue does not even come close to teaching us what the modern English suggests. The English interpretation has been influenced by the writings of all kinds of heretics going back to the first century beginning with Philo. I have news for everyone. John 1:14(a) does not say the word became flesh and dwelt among is. That is a flat out false translation. John 1:1 is not about Jesus either.
I'll leave anyone interested in the truth hanging in suspense. Ask me nicely and I will enlighten you.
You are wrong.
@@beldengi No, I am not wrong. The traditional Greek to English translation of John 1:14 is incompatible with OT prophecy and NT scriptures. It has been interpreted to mislead people into believing the God of John 1:1 and His word are the begotten and born Jesus which makes God become a false begotten and born god. God is not begotten. Think about it. Consider the following:
JOHN 1:14
A typical English translation reads like this:
*"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us....."* John 1:14
For the reasons below I have translated the Greek text of John 1:14 as follows:
*_"And the word(ho logos) came to(egeneto) humanity(sarx) and dwelt in(en) us(autos)....."_*
1. Strong's 1096 Greek "egeneto" has a broad array of uses in the Greek and is rendered using many English words. It is a verb: aorist indicative middle-third person. There is no specific reason to translated egeneto as "became" in John 1:14.
"egeneto" is translated as "came to" in Luke 3:2
*_"The word of God came to John the Baptist....."_*
In the O.T. the same phrase "came to" is translated from the Hebrew "way hi" (see Strong's 1961) which has the same meaning as the Greek "egeneto."
*_"Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite:..."_*
1 Kings 21:17
*_"The word of the LORD came to me, saying,..."_* Jeremiah 1:4
*_"The word of Yahweh that came to Hosea the son of Beeri..."_*
Hosea 1:1
There are no prophecies that state God will make his word become the flesh of anyone. What we find is numerous statements describing the word of God being placed into people, coming to people, and coming to dwell in people. Paul refers to the word of God being IN the believers mouth and heart:
*_"But what does it say? "The word (logos) is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the MESSAGE concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."_* Romans 10:8-9
Paul tells us to let the word of God dwell in us. Colossians 3:16
*_“Behold, I have put my words in your mouth”_* (Jer. 1:9).
This was spoken directly to Jeremiah. Similar language is used where God says he would place his own words into His Messiah's mouth.
(Deuteronomy 18:18)
2. Strong's 4561 Greek "sarx" can be translated "humanity" which is a "kind" of flesh. Birds would be another kind of flesh. Nothing in the context indicates "flesh" refers to one person's body. The next part of the verse supports sarx being translated as humanity by referring to "us"(plural). More than 80 percent of the time "sarx" is translated "flesh" it is associated with the sinful nature of man, so it makes no sense to say the word became the flesh of Jesus. There are no OT prophecies that support the word of God becoming the flesh of Jesus.
3. Strong's 1722 Greek "en" means: in, on, or among. "in" makes more sense because the word of God was placed into Jesus and it dwells in all believers. (Colossians 3:16)
4. Strong's 846 Greek "autos" is accurately translated as "it" (not him or he) when referring to the logos. The only reason a translator would choose the word "he" is to lead the reader to believe the logos of God is the person of Jesus. However, Jesus never refers to himself as the "Word" and neither do any of the Apostles. No Greek Lexicon defines the word as Jesus either.
The way John 1:14 reads when the corrections are made is like this:
*_"The word came to humanity and dwelt in us, and we witnessed its glory, glory as like the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."_*
Notice the glory they witnessed is "as like" that of the only begotten of the Father? There is no doubt the 12 disciples witnessed Jesus. They would have felt the effects of the word of God coming into them and enlightening them with the same light Jesus had in him. They would have felt the effects of being full of grace and truth from receiving the Good News Jesus preached.
As further proof to support my corrections from Greek to English I rely on Deuteronomy 18:18 which is fulfilled in John 1:14
*_"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him."_* Deuteronomy 18:18
Is God a liar? God never states that he will make his word become the flesh of His prophet. There is a big difference between the word becoming flesh and God placing his word into his messiah and the word coming dwelling in us. Not one OT prophecy states that God's word will become the flesh of Jesus or anyone else. This is 100 percent proof that the translation I propose above is more accurate.
If Jesus is the word, then these scriptures are in conflict: John 7:15-18; John 8:28; John 12:49-50; John 14:10; John 14:24, because Jesus spoke his Father's words, not his own words.
CONCLUSION: John 1:14 is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:18. The word of God did not become Jesus' flesh. The word becoming flesh is incompatible with the Bible. Jesus never refers to himself as the word. The Apostles never refer to Jesus as the word. The word of God came to humanity. God placed his word (good news Gospel) into Jesus. Jesus preached the word of God which is the Gospel. The word of God enters into all who received it and believed it.
johnspartan98 ER..so what or who is John 1:1 in relation to...thank you.
@@user-kq5qp6dh8l John 1:1-5 is the antecedent to John 1:6. It helps to study 1 John 1:1-6 along with John 1:1-6. So what happens in John 1:6? John the Baptist is introduced. He brought a message (logos) from God and prepared the way for God's Messiah.....that's what happened. Look at Luke 3:2 and what does it say? It says "The word CAME TO John the Baptist...."
Why did I emphasize the words 'came to?"
Because the Greek word translated "came to" in Luke 3:2 is "egeneto" which is the SAME Greek word in the same Greek sentence structure as John 1:14 but the trinitarian translators decided to translate it "became" to mislead people into believing in Philo's logos theory which is that the logos of God became flesh....which is absurd.
John 1:1 is about the Gospel which came from God. Logos can be considered the entire sphere of YHWH's thoughts and the expression of them, but what John has in mind is the Gospel message given to John the Baptist followed by the Gospel message given to Jesus, not the Genesis creation.
What was the purpose of God giving the Gospel to John the Baptist and Jesus? To bring His message to mankind!
Nowhere in the Bible does God say his word will become the flesh of anyone. The word always "came to" his prophets and was "placed in them." I can provide several scriptures from the OT to prove the Luke 3:2 translation "came to" is correct, and "became" in John 1:14 is an error that causes conflict with the Bible.
For example: If Jesus is the word that became flesh, then why did he speak his Father's words and not his own?
John 14:24; John 14:10; John 12:49-50; John 7:15; John 8:28
There isn't enough Room here to show you how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together but what does fit is this:
*_"and the word (the Gospel message from God) came to humanity (through John the Baptist's and Jesus' preaching it) and it dwelt "in" us._*
The followers of Jesus experienced the word of God in them, it enlightened them, it regenerated them, and John describes it as being "glory, a glory "as like" that which he witnessed at work in Jesus, (the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth").
The first meaning you will find for the Greek word "en" is "in" and there are plenty of verses that use the same sentence and word structure where "en hemin" is translated as "in us" or "within us" while "among us" doesn't convey the thought of the gospel coming to dwell in people. Paul mentions the word of God dwelling in people.
Also, the word of God should be translated as "it" not as 'he" or 'him" such as some translations do in error from verse 2 onward though John's prologue.
@@johnspartan98 As someone else said above, you're wrong. English is not the only language in which the Bible was translated. The verse you're referring to was translated the same in other languages, by scholars translating from original languages. In fact why don't you check with a Greek and ask them how that reads in their Bible?
The dating presented seems well within the range as judged by most scholars; the consensus, outside of fundamentalists, is that Mark was written first, most likely around 65 CE, followed by Matthew and Luke, in the 80s, then John, likely sometime around the mid-90s CE. These dates seem consistent both with the content and with the style of the books.
That means that the earliest account is from at least 30 years after jesus's alleged death. There are no contemporaneous writings whatsoever, and no contemporaneous evidence whatsoever. This long time between the alleged events and the writing does not lend credibility to these writings at all - if anything, it puts their accuracy and reliability seriously in doubt.
And there is scholarly consensus, again outside arch fundamentalist, that none of the authors were as now named. In fact, these gospels were all anonymous, written in excellent classical Greek. There is no rational possibility to believe that any of the named authors were even literate. let alone with great facility in advanced Greek composition. And the books contain no eyewitness testimony whatsoever. A reasonable appraisal finds that these books were compilations, by anonymous authors, 30 to 60 years after the events, created from the oral tradition. The degree of contradiction among them add to the judgement of unreliability. Even the most important story in the religion - the death and resurrection of jesus - is told in widely divergent versions in the 4 books. Even if you claim that one version is true, the rest must necessarily be false and inaccurate.
I don't fault the factual scholarship here - it seems to be well within the bounds of the mainstream, and presented fairly. The conclusion - that these books were written soon after, and reflect accurately, the life and works of jesus is not supported by this evdence, however.