Eyewitness to Jesus

Rating:
Summary: Documentary Witness to Controversy
Review: A few of scraps of papyrus seemingly stand the world of New Testament scholarship on its head. The scraps are believed to be from the Gospel of Matthew. When they were discovered, they were dated to the time period 80-100 A.D. Thiede re-examines the scraps and finds them to date from around 60 A.D. Such a dating would mean that Matthew's Gospel most likely was written by an eyewitness. It would also mean that the four document hypothesis, that well-respected mainstay of Gospel scholarship, is dead wrong. Thiede tries manfully to explain how he came to the dating. In so doing, he must explain the arcane, esoteric, and almost impenetrable world of papyrology. It makes for slow, painful reading, and students who are not familiar with the science of the study of papyrus scraps will have to take much of what Thiede says on faith. Those of a conservative bent will readily embrace Thiede's findings; the more liberal Bible students will not. Whichever side you take, or even if you fall somewhere in the middle, you should find it worth your effort to read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Documentary Witness to Controversy
Review: A few of scraps of papyrus seemingly stand the world of New Testament scholarship on its head. The scraps are believed to be from the Gospel of Matthew. When they were discovered, they were dated to the time period 80-100 A.D. Thiede re-examines the scraps and finds them to date from around 60 A.D. Such a dating would mean that Matthew's Gospel most likely was written by an eyewitness. It would also mean that the four document hypothesis, that well-respected mainstay of Gospel scholarship, is dead wrong. Thiede tries manfully to explain how he came to the dating. In so doing, he must explain the arcane, esoteric, and almost impenetrable world of papyrology. It makes for slow, painful reading, and students who are not familiar with the science of the study of papyrus scraps will have to take much of what Thiede says on faith. Those of a conservative bent will readily embrace Thiede's findings; the more liberal Bible students will not. Whichever side you take, or even if you fall somewhere in the middle, you should find it worth your effort to read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Confirmation of the Gospels literal historicity
Review: I am amazed that this book has not received more attention. The cynicism and skepticism of the Booklist reviewer seen above is evident.

This book provides more evidence that the gospels were written as eyewitness accounts. This is no surprise to evangelical scholars, but it is more vindication nonetheless.

The most amazing fact to me continues to be the lack of attention to this amazing find by the theological, cultural and media establishments. It should rightly turn Biblical scholarship on its head, but this age's disdain for truth in the face of comfortable old paradigns (e.g. holding to the theory of evolution despite mounting evidence that it is impossible in a thousand different ways) is exasperating!!

Rating:
Summary: Slow and allegedly filled with faulty data
Review: I found the book to be rather dreary and sleepy in it's presentation and stucture. Though for a 'papyrologist' it may be an action filled, sweaty-palmed book, so I guess it's all perspective. That is my major complaint. Though I picked up the basic arguments of Thiede's thesis, it could have been a 10 page essay for all that I needed (as in detail level).

I've heard from at least two sources that his thesis has been shot down and debunked by recent discoveries (The book came out in 1994). I am very interested in if this book still has strong arguments and thesis' presented. If someone knows where I can find info about the alleged debunking of Thiede's thesis please email me ([e-mail]). I wouldn't say this book warrent's a purchase, but it's worth a read if it can be found for free (i.e. library).

Rating:
Summary: Clears the fog
Review: I have read, and re-read this book. The most interesting concept here! Explains just WHY Jesus would pick certain men to follow Him. A must read for the serious scriptual scholar.

Rating:
Summary: Did Not Peak My Interest!!
Review: I tried several times to "get into this book" and it just did not hold my attention or give me any specifics about Jesus...all I kept seeing were dates/places/and sources.....and mombo jombo on things that do not interest me (such as buying this book to know MOre about Jesus)....not dates....and it is still on the kitchen table and I am so sorry I bought it!
If anyone would like it....I will see if a buyer is wanted and I will put up for sale!

Rating:
Summary: Solid and provocative arguments
Review: Not only does the book present convincing analysis, it prompts us to look for the re-evaluation of manuscript fragments in other collections using the techniques described so well by Thiede. The book really should receive more serious consideration from scholars. It's been sadly neglected. Thiede is obviously something of a radical, but Biblical scholarship needs men who are willing to explore completely new avenues, particularly when they are as skilled as Thiede is. The question of when and how the gospels were written is really wide open. We have a monumental heap of investigation and speculation proving very little or nothing. We need new approaches. Those who don't seek can't find. Anne Rice, New Orleans, La.

Rating:
Summary: Makes Papyrus Interesting!
Review: Thiede makes a potentially dry subject interesting. His discussion of ancient writing scripts is reserved but forceful. In short a must read for those interested in the New Testament.

My favorite chapter was the fourth. Its summary of Huleatt, the Victorian missionary and scholar, gives us a small window of life in the last half of the 19th century.

This book is a good counterpoint for those who claim that the Gospels were written long after Christ died.

Rating:
Summary: Solid and provocative arguments
Review: This book is the work of a news reporter who researched the work of Carston Thiede, a German paleographist, and bought into Thiede's theory that two papyri of the Gospel of Matthew should be redated from the end of the 2nd century to the mid 1st century.

Concerning the substance of d'Ancona's story, Thiede's theory that P64 and 67 are not connected to P4 is given some credence by other scholars such as Comfort. However Thiede's paleographical dating methods are found to be selective; certain letters are compared and certain other letters which would contradict Thiede's theory are not compared. (Klaus Wachtel wrote about this is in a German publication in 1995.)

D'Ancona's book rates three stars because of the depth of information he includes on paleography and ancient writing practices. However it should be noted that few scholars accept
Thiede's theory.